Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on September 13, 2017, 07:08:00 am
-
The quick read gave me the impression that this new sensor only offers a modified color filter.
Is there more to it than that?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
New base ISO of 35 compared to 50 in the older 100mp back.
-
I assume lens cast is still at the same level as before too?
-
Cast may be less but a good question.
By creation of this back P1 has admitted to the issue of crosstalk and seems to feel this back addresses that issue. But no mention of the magenta color cast on shifting.
Paul Caldwell
-
The quick read gave me the impression that this new sensor only offers a modified color filter.
Is there more to it than that?
Cheers,
Bernard
"new CMOS sensor designed to capture color as perceived by the human eye."
so did they make CFA w/ Luther-Ives like SSF
-
"new CMOS sensor designed to capture color as perceived by the human eye."
so did they make CFA w/ Luther-Ives like SSF
There is just one small problem, men and women mostly don't have the same red pigment.
Other than doing things multispectrally you will always make a large segment of viewers unhappy with the reproduced color.
Edmund
-
As i understand they also copied the hasselblad focus and recompose idea.
Good color on a $$$ ( most expensive?) back seems not to much asked- but to make it a selling point now- what do old costumers think about that?
and what is perfect colour in the desert just before sunset shooting models with extravagant coloured clothing and makup?
marketing.... ugh
-
As i understand they also copied the hasselblad focus and recompose idea.
Good color on a $$$ ( most expensive?) back seems not to much asked- but to make it a selling point now- what do old costumers think about that?
and what is perfect colour in the desert just before sunset shooting models with extravagant coloured clothing and makup?
marketing.... ugh
This is not the case. I believe Phase One's implementation is quite different:
What has not yet been detailed in our blog post is the way that the Phase One AFr works - which could be quite different than how Hasselblad's True Focus works - (as alluded to by JDuncan in a post on another thread).
Essentially, the AFr mode is employing predictive intelligence based on learned behavior from how the user moves. Your first shot, you may hear a "meh" audible feedback from the XF. What it is saying, that one is maybe not so on target. But the second and successive shots will learn how you're moving and adjust and dial in based on that learned intelligence.
It sounds improbable, but so far in our testing, seems to work extremely well. So, for a given set of shots, you'd drop a first shot to let the camera know the general way you're moving. When you would change your movement or angle dramatically to another set of shots, the same thing, you'd inform the AFr what you're doing (roughly) with the first shot, and it will get the hang if it quite quickly.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Cast may be less but a good question.
By creation of this back P1 has admitted to the issue of crosstalk and seems to feel this back addresses that issue. But no mention of the magenta color cast on shifting.
Paul Caldwell
I wonder if P1's use of "crosstalk" is referring to Bayer filter passband overlap, as opposed to well-well contamination happening within the sensor structure?
-
I wonder if P1's use of "crosstalk" is referring to Bayer filter passband overlap, as opposed to well-well contamination happening within the sensor structure?
That is exactly what they are referring to.
-
That is exactly what they are referring to.
If spectral overlap of the passbands is what they mean, it's confusing, since you will have immense capture metameric error if there is no such overlap; spectral stimuli will excite only one set of receptors.
Jim
-
So I understand the rationale for this back, and that these high cut color filters mean a tighter colour to the photosites, and consequently less light, hence the base iso of 35. So what happens if you use a higher iso like simply 50 or 100?
Reminds me of the old IQ180, with it's 35iso base, though that meant you could work at 50 with little cost. At 100asa it began to degrade and be borderline. Anything above that was terrible.
Is this the same?
I've gotten used to the IQ100 and being able to work with 200 as an everyday default, would be very sad to sacrifice that!
-
So I understand the rationale for this back, and that these high cut color filters mean a tighter colour to the photosites, and consequently less light, hence the base iso of 35. So what happens if you use a higher iso like simply 50 or 100?
Reminds me of the old IQ180, with its 35iso base, though that meant you could work at 50 with little cost. At 100asa it began to degrade and be borderline. Anything above that was terrible.
Is this the same?
Shouldn't be. CMOS sensor.
-
Shouldn't be. CMOS sensor.
can someone post a link to tech details that arent marketingoink?
Edmund
-
At the risk of coming accross a bit cynical, I guess that what this really means is that the 150mp sensor based backs won't be available early enough to maintain P1's revenue on target? ;)
But hey, great if this really results in significantly better images. It just sounds like a pretty shy annoucement by P1 standards.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At the risk of coming accross a bit cynical, I guess that what this really means is that the 150mp sensor based backs won't be available early enough to maintain P1's revenue on target? ;)
But hey, great if this really results in significantly better images. It just sounds like a pretty shy annoucement by P1 standards.
Cheers,
Bernard
No, it means Sony have just patented a new stacked sensor tech and are preparing to throw away Bayer forever.
http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/09/13/sony-go-organic-with-a-new-vertical-colour-separation-sensor/
Edmund
-
No, it means Sony have just patented a new stacked sensor tech and are preparing to throw away Bayer forever.
http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/09/13/sony-go-organic-with-a-new-vertical-colour-separation-sensor/
Edmund
Sony and Canon have been releasing for several years now patents of Foveon-like designs... it does not mean a product is being prepared to be released soon...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Shouldn't be. CMOS sensor.
So it's the same 100mp IQ sensor but with tighter filters, that drop sensitivity by 2/3 of a stop? (The IQ100 has a base iso of 50 or... 100?)
If it can work well at 100 it's usable to me, maybe just so at 50, but if to get the benefits of this super-color, you must be at 35asa, then you're chained to a tripod for absolutely everything, which is no good for me, but ymmv.
I'll try one out once my dealer has a sample, but in all likelihood will wait for the coming 150 back.
-
Sony and Canon have been releasing for several years now patents of Foveon-like designs... it does not mean a product is being prepared to be released soon...
http://dgpfotografia.com
everyone is looking for a drop-in solution. Foveon needs an ugly amount of processing to recover the channel data
-
I am sure the "old" IQ3100 back is good enough. These cameras are so darn heavy that it should be on tripod anyway.
-
So it's the same 100mp IQ sensor but with tighter filters, that drop sensitivity by 2/3 of a stop? (The IQ100 has a base iso of 50 or... 100?)
From Phase One’s site
“Using a new CMOS sensor and Bayer Filter color technology,”
https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/IQ-Digital-Backs/IQ3-100MP-Trichromatic.aspx
-
I am sure the "old" IQ3100 back is good enough. These cameras are so darn heavy that it should be on tripod anyway.
For a five year warranty, it damn better not be obsolete anytime soon...
-
Just spent time in Denmark. It is very good. Color and definition is amazing. Its definitely a break through technology and is good. It also will help with the black and white conversion for far more dramatic densities and control of the colors within the black and white conversion software. The real nice thing is the skies don't have that slight purple magenta cast to them. colors are bright and real with no degradation. Tim
-
Just spent time in Denmark. It is very good. Color and definition is amazing. Its definitely a break through technology and is good. It also will help with the black and white conversion for far more dramatic densities and control of the colors within the black and white conversion software. The real nice thing is the skies don't have that slight purple magenta cast to them. colors are bright and real with no degradation. Tim
Good to hear. I plan on trying one out soon.
Realised a way of looking at this is:
You now have a choice - CMOS has given us 2+ stops extra sensitivity over older CCD sensors, and you can take that and get a great 200asa image to freeze action, handhold, work in lower light, greater DoF, etc, etc. Or you can give up those 2 stops, for a tight band on-chip filter array, that will take you back to 50iso, but with world class color rendition. The choice is yours.
Phase obviously recognised this development option, and hence we have the Trichromatic back. Its up to you which of these 2 choices suits your work. I suspect I'll be staying with the IQ3100, but respect people who feel otherwise.
-
The real nice thing is the skies don't have that slight purple magenta cast to them. colors are bright and real with no degradation. Tim
Oh this is something that has me bothering me forever. I've never had a CCD back, did this also happen on these?
-
You still have to ask yourself, is it worth 20K or so to get a slightly better blue?
Are other areas being impacted? You get slightly better color (degree of which is still not really quantified by P1) do you loose dynamic range since possibly less light is being captured by the new design. Noting lower base ISO of 35. It will be interesting to see some side by side shots, in raw that can be compared.
For me WB on a P1 back CCD or CMOS has always been a total crap shoot, unlike the WB from a DSLR style camera.
Shoot a P1 into the sun and the scene is pretty much always way too yellow. It can be totally corrected in post with C1 or LR.
As for the blue skies, I have heard this comment a few times now. And I agree at times the capture from the IQ3100 can give a slight magenta/red cast to the sky, however in post I mostly find I am adding a slight amount of red to my skies (hue) which will effect the blue more to my liking. The Color editor in C1 is vastly superior to LR's at least to me, and allows for a huge amount of recovery. I guess if the cost to upgrade was less I would consider it, as the thought of 150MP coming next year, I know I am out of that, as I just don't need the additional overhead. My point being if you use C1 the slight color cast in the sky is an easy fix. May still be an issue for a art repro shooter however.
It's actually too bad P1 won't spend a bit of time on their auto mask tool, and allow it to have the same degree of accuracy that the LR version has. Working a blue sky around tree limbs in C1 is not anywhere as easy as in LR with it's auto mask. C1's just can't handle irregular edges.
Paul Caldwell
-
I'm with you Paul as I see no need to move beyond IQ3100 unless there are significant other improvements. For me, the biggest improvement would be a better AWB to save me post processing time.
-
You now have a choice - CMOS has given us 2+ stops extra sensitivity over older CCD sensors, and you can take that and get a great 200asa image to freeze action, handhold, work in lower light, greater DoF, etc, etc. Or you can give up those 2 stops, for a tight band on-chip filter array, that will take you back to 50iso, but with world class color rendition. The choice is yours.
I don't understand why tight CFAs yield better color for P1. I haven't been paid to do color science for many years, but in the 90s the conventional wisdom was the opposite: the way to get closer to Luther-Ives was to make the filters broader, but that had the unfortunate side effect of reducing the SNR because of increased cross terms in the compromise matrix.
In one respect, it's clear that peaky CFA responses are going to be problematic for accurate color with small cross terms: the red channel needs a peak in near the UV cutoff to "see" spectral violet.
It sure would be nice to see the spectral response of the three channels of the new P1 camera. The posted responses in the promotional material are obviously horribly inaccurate.
Jim
-
It will be interesting to see if any small-format specialty cameras try this route.
-
It will be interesting to see if any small-format specialty cameras try this route.
My thought is perhaps that is what Canon did with their 5Ds/r line with its "improved color" CFA and sacrificing higher ISOs above 6400.
-
Maybe multispectral capture is an idea whose time has come.
Edmund
I don't understand why tight CFAs yield better color for P1. I haven't been paid to do color science for many years, but in the 90s the conventional wisdom was the opposite: the way to get closer to Luther-Ives was to make the filters broader, but that had the unfortunate side effect of reducing the SNR because of increased cross terms in the compromise matrix.
In one respect, it's clear that peaky CFA responses are going to be problematic for accurate color with small cross terms: the red channel needs a peak in near the UV cutoff to "see" spectral violet.
It sure would be nice to see the spectral response of the three channels of the new P1 camera. The posted responses in the promotional material are obviously horribly inaccurate.
Jim
-
Here is shot from the new Trichromatic. Didn't have much time in between all the rain but I wanted raindrop for this one. Tim
-
I had a loaner last weekend too, for comparison to my IQ100.
A bit underwhelmed, have to say. Probably my fault - had naively high expectations of what the super-color back would amount to.
Yes it is a more color-accurate, but it is very fine where you notice the differences. Blue skies for sure, and some better differentiation in greens, and less color cast in shadows were what I noticed. But even if you were a landscape photographer who worked with green rain forests under blue skies, don't think people are going to be stopped in their tracks by your images vs those on a regular IQ100. They're not. A good number may even prefer the regular backs 'look'.
It's really for technical work, art repro etc, where its accuracy is a true achievement, and to be applauded. It is a definite step in photographic verisimilitude, but not a quantum leap for photography, at least not to my eyes. Last one that gave me that jolt was the Foveon Sigma sensors, which shows it is possible, just very very rare.
-
Totally disagree with the idea some would want the old 100MP back. If your going to buy one you buy the one with the more accurate color. You would have to be a fool to buy the other. I wish I had the new one, The colors are far more accurate, the yellow are amazing as well as the other colors you mentioned. It also would be great for BW conversion images. I will get it. I was in Denmark meeting everyone there and I had to shoot it. Tim
-
I'm in Copenhagen and will spend the next 2 days with Phase One. They have me on a jammed schedule but I'll be doing videos and will be able to come back with some more information on the new features. Kind of like old home week for me. Drew tells me the color is pretty astounding. Cross my fingers for some good weather and I'll try to some shooting with it on Tuesday.
-
Totally disagree with the idea some would want the old 100MP back. If your going to buy one you buy the one with the more accurate color. You would have to be a fool to buy the other. I wish I had the new one, The colors are far more accurate, the yellow are amazing as well as the other colors you mentioned. It also would be great for BW conversion images. I will get it. I was in Denmark meeting everyone there and I had to shoot it. Tim
Tim, well we must be weighing up different things.
A vital factor for me is the ISO speed sacrifice involved in the trichromatic back. Close to 2 stops.
For some people (like myself) it was a huge step from the IQ180 with its 35/50 best quality to the IQ100 with 100/200 best quality. It meant I could freeze action (1/1000 at f5.6 in sunlight) it meant I could still shoot handheld in lower light, it meant more depth of field (f11 instead of 5.6), it meant more freedom photographically. The trichro I agree gives better color, but the speed drop for this fine quality gain makes it too big a cost for me.
We are all different in our photo needs, and mine are doubtless not yours. If I was on a tripod all the time or in a studio with flash, I would feel the same as you!
Thanks.
-
So I guess the previous backs by P1 are all "inaccurate", in regards to color? Do you feel that the cost of 35 to 45K for such backs is now a waste, unless you have the most current version?
This whole issue of "more accurate color" really amazes me.
How much more accurate, 1% 2%, 10% 50%, ?? I can't see this amount of inaccuracy being more than 5%, and if it's greater then shame on P1. Other companies with much less expensive cameras (Hasselblad, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji) all are claiming "great color accuracy"
Looking at images I have been able to download I can't really see a great deal of difference. No more than could be corrected in post processing.
Now bring into the fact that for the ability to gain this great amount of color accuracy, you will loose 1 stop, 1/2 stop? (it's still not quantified).
Which do you feel is harder to fix in post, excessive noise? or slightly inaccurate color (blue with a red tint) or slight difference in greens. BTW I believe that pretty much everyone has a different view of the same scene in regards to color anyway. Back to my question. The IQ3100 (mine) still has noise issues at base ISO of 50, and if this back is now moving down to 35 for the new base, I would feel it's safe to assume that your higher ISO ranges are now going to be compromised to some degree.
Maybe if P1 had added a few other things:
tilting screen (huge benefit for me)
better 100% review with Capture Pilot (you still can't get a clean 100% review on the iPhone with Capture Pilot from any P1 back)
Focus peaking (should not be that hard to incorporate)
100% coordination between back and camera (even with the XF last time I checked you still need the camera top LCD for many setup scenarios)
More weather sealing (not sure if this can be done to current back designed but long overdue for field work)
The cost might be worth the consideration, but to say "more accurate color" and that is worth the cost of 45K for me is bit of a stretch.
You can also expect no LR/ Adobe support on this New more accurate back for at least 1 year, same as with the IQ3100. I realize that this statement to purists is shocking (the use of other raw converter than C1 on P1 raw) but C1 is long lacking in many areas that Adobe has long since improved on.
Things like HDR exposure blending, pano creation, Auto mask (C1's is pretty much worthless in outdoor scenes and has been since inception).
I am sure for those that can own it, it will be the best there ever was. But to spend such on outlay just based in "improved color accuracy"? To me is excessive.
Paul Caldwell
-
You can also expect no LR/ Adobe support on this New more accurate back for at least 1 year, same as with the IQ3100.
I believe the issue with the IQ3 100 was the raw file format which Adobe had a hard time reverse engineering, perhaps with the new back all that will be required is new profiles. Also curious about the noise issues. I’m really not seeing it with my IQ3 100.I”ve been pretty happy with shadow noise performance ... compared to the CCD backs especially.
As far as “more” accurate color, some need it. I suppose it depends on what you shoot as to how much more accurate it is. To be honest getting purer blues in sky would be nice. Not nice enough to entice me, but perhaps when the IQ4 150 comes out the added color accuracy will be included. Phase’s relentless pursuit of color purity has been something they’ve always stated was their number one priority.
This sounds to me like Phases standard upgrade cycle. IQ280 wasn’t a big jump from the 180, the 380 not much of a jump from the 280. I’m not planning on upgrading now, but it has been nearly 2 years since the IQ3 100 came out, this is the “new” version of the back. I don’t believe the IQ3 100 is being discontinued, but it is 6k less than the new back.
-
Innovation is always great, but it really feels like P1 had to release something to make the news and generate much needed revenue.
Odds are the IQ4-150 is taking longer than expected which drove the current release.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Innovation is always great, but it really feels like P1 had to release something to make the news and generate much needed revenue.
Odds are the IQ4-150 is taking longer than expected which drove the current release.
Cheers,
Bernard
Granted P1 will have to milk the more colour accurate photographers first, then further milk those who realise their 100MP backs are too low in resolution.
-
I guess I don’t see the camera manufactures milking anybody. I for one, love all the progress Phase One is making even if the trichromatic is arguably a minor change for most of us. At the end of the day, it’s my choice as to whether I want to lay out the money for the next upgrade. I like having choices. I can always so no or try to :)
-
Granted P1 will have to milk the more colour accurate photographers first, then further milk those who realise their 100MP backs are too low in resolution.
How are they "milking" anyone? They engineer an improvement, offer it in a back, cut the price of the current back. They're not making anyone buy it. It's not like they design their backs so they die and force you to upgrade each year. No different than most electronic companies ... they sell something, incrementally improve it over time and introduce new models with those improvements. Some people want the improvements, others are fine using the one that's 3 years old.
What are they supposed to do? Because it's not enough of a upgrade in some peoples mind are they supposed to just put it on the shelf and forget about it?
As far as MP, no 100mp isn't enough. It only prints at 129dpi on a 90" print. So I stitch with a 100mp frequently. But even 150mp isn't enough. What I want is a 400mp sensor that uses pixel binning to give me a 100mp file. then we might have accurate color and cleaner detail. or a 100mp sensor where each sensel records the color and no more bayer demosaicing artifacts.
-
I admit that I am curious - who uses a 90" print and expects that the print be viewed from 18" away?. I get that increased resolution looks better, but past a certain point, people at conventional viewing distances can't see the improved resolution.
-
Nancy
I believe your question has been discussed numerous times in different posts so I don't want to repeat it all here. There are many other benefits to XF100 file size other than just resolution. For me, in addition to more resolution, it's primarily the increased dynamic range and the work-ability of the files.
-
I admit that I am curious - who uses a 90" print and expects that the print be viewed from 18" away?. I get that increased resolution looks better, but past a certain point, people at conventional viewing distances can't see the improved resolution.
I certainly do. I shoot mostly landscape-abstracts, generally printed wide and big. Part of the attraction of these images, for me at least, is the ability to see a big concept at a normal distance and then lots of detail at another.
To pull off the effect, I find > 200ppi necessary, or something like 150m to 200m high quality pixels. If multishot resolution still delivers the same improvement at 100MP sensor densities as it does on the older CCD backs, I think a single frame from a 100MP MS setup would also work, excepting aspect ratio.
So I'm with Wayne.
When we move to electronic display one day, densities will easily exceed 500ppi, and that will offer a whole new experience.
-
Your right everyone needs a camera for different reasons. I have the IQ3 100 and love it. It really helped being able to push it 3 stops especially when shooting trees and things that move with little wind. The 3 stops make a ton of difference and was a game changer. The trip back does have great color. If you can afford the new one then get it. But if you can't get the older backs, they are great and the tonal transitions and dynamic range are amazing. And they are cheaper a lot cheaper than the new ones and you can still use those amazing blue ring lenses. All the backs are great but you have to be able to afford what ever you can get. Tim
-
So right about dynamic range. That is one of the strongest benefits for the 3100. I have yet to have to shoot multiple exposures to gain the dynamic range that I need. As far as printing is concerned I normally print to 48 inches on the long side and always upsize prior to sending the file to the printer unless I'm using Qimage. For my eyes and my uses that is the limit for a single shot 3100 file and most of the time my 48 inch images are 2 shot pano's. I see post after post about printing to some outrageous size at 150ppi or less and that they think the image looks great. My visual benchmarks are very different and more demanding than that.
Victor
-
I admit that I am curious - who uses a 90" print and expects that the print be viewed from 18" away?. I get that increased resolution looks better, but past a certain point, people at conventional viewing distances can't see the improved resolution.
What’s a conventional viewing distance?
Someone buys a 90” print to put in the 5 or 6 foot wide hall in their office. People will see it up close. Salt Lake airport has prints on display and when you are on the moving walkway it puts you as close as 24” from the print. There are some that look quite bad. So should I use a lower resolution camera and just not sell to people who can’t restrict it from being viewed up close? Of course if its too low of resolution and looks bad up close (I print hundreds of images a year at my camera store which fall into this category), doesn’t that reflect on me as the artist as the quality of my work?
And who’s to say because a print is 90” that the only thing interesting to look at is the entire print? What if there are portions that draw you in and you want to get closer to see that section better?
I watch people walk through my gallery. For years the “conventional” wisdom is only photographers look at the work up close. absolutely not true, several of my pieces are often viewed, then examined more closely, usually followed up by them stepping back to take in the entire image again. Very common.
Obviously if the image up close is poor, there is nothing to enjoy.
-
From the time we were designing the pigment printing process of Evercolor and the when we designed pigment inkjet the viewing distance was always 2 feet. Thats how all processes were compared to each other. WE all prints to look great from the distance you can see the whole print at its closest point. But yes a lot of people will more as close as 2 feet to the prints to see close up detail.
Whats funny before Evercolor and then inkjet, Iris and then Lightjet is there was no good processes except for Silver, platinum. But they were never really as sharp as what we are looking at today.
"Apparent Resolution" is what we called it in the old days 1991-2000.
-
Whats funny before Evercolor and then inkjet, Iris and then Lightjet is there was no good processes except for Silver, platinum. But they were never really as sharp as what we are looking at today.
By my lights, we don't have any print media as sharp as a good silver (say, Azo) contact print as were commonly made from 8x10 negs. I have several, as well as one Michael Smith 8x20 contact print.
As those weren't as sharp as first gen 8x10 'chromes. I still have some of those.
Jim
-
Sorry for bringing up the topic. I visit this subforum to look at other people's images in the personal works and professional works threads. 99.9% of digital medium format is for pros, anyway, although I suppose a few amateurs go for the under-10K set-ups. I admit to a bit of eyeballing the Pentax 645Z and a few lenses - those can be rented for less than an arm and a leg.
-
Nancy,
I would counter that 90% of MF shooters are well heeled amateurs who want the best and can afford it. True pros, on the whole, use far less esoteric equipment unless it's rented. The pro's using the best equipment boat sailed long ago IMHO.
With respect to the Trichromatic, it's very interesting to me but to be honest I'm on a 2-3 version cycle upgrade model with Phase One. I love my IQ3100 but I'll wait for a while until they come out with their new technology integrated into EVERY back they sell. Why wouldn't they do that eventually? Being the first early adopters is a very expensive experience with Phase One as eventually that tech ripples down.
-
What’s a conventional viewing distance?
Someone buys a 90” print to put in the 5 or 6 foot wide hall in their office. People will see it up close. Salt Lake airport has prints on display and when you are on the moving walkway it puts you as close as 24” from the print. There are some that look quite bad. So should I use a lower resolution camera and just not sell to people who can’t restrict it from being viewed up close? Of course if its too low of resolution and looks bad up close (I print hundreds of images a year at my camera store which fall into this category), doesn’t that reflect on me as the artist as the quality of my work?
And who’s to say because a print is 90” that the only thing interesting to look at is the entire print? What if there are portions that draw you in and you want to get closer to see that section better?
I watch people walk through my gallery. For years the “conventional” wisdom is only photographers look at the work up close. absolutely not true, several of my pieces are often viewed, then examined more closely, usually followed up by them stepping back to take in the entire image again. Very common.
Obviously if the image up close is poor, there is nothing to enjoy.
LIKE
-
Can someone please move this topic onto a new thread - or can contributors keep it on topic?
this is about the new Phase Trichromatic back, not about printing sizes/ viewing distances.
thanks