Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Steve Hendrix on March 03, 2020, 07:13:59 am
-
Today, Phase One released a new firmware for the IQ4 150 that provides multiple benefits. The first is the new feature and re-introduction of Phase One Labs, Dual Exposure +, the second is a number of long overdue improvements and bug fixes.
There are two articles covering this on Capture Integration's website linked below.
https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-labs-dual-exposure/ (https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-labs-dual-exposure/)
https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-system-firmware-7-for-iq4/ (https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-system-firmware-7-for-iq4/)
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Steve, I'm getting 404 errors on those links.
Thanks, Christopher
cbcampbell.com
Instagram: @studiocampbell
Vimeo: /studiocampbell
-
Steve, I'm getting 404 errors on those links.
Thanks, Christopher
cbcampbell.com
Instagram: @studiocampbell
Vimeo: /studiocampbell
Thanks Christopher, resolved now.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
For the IQ4, Dual exposure is a huge feature advantage, and something that I have hoped for years from a digital camera. Frame Averaging got close but was troubled by movement of subject matter.
Dual exposure can handle minor wind and gives you a wonderful final output.
The fix for Live View, (bringing it Level of the 3100), long overdue, but also greatly appreciated. It's now the same easy process that all previous Phase CMOS backs had.
Paul C
-
Thank you, Steve, for your post.
I must say it's puzzling that PhaseOne seems to have done its best to hide information about the new features on its website. Its "Camera Updates" page only goes up to the IQ4 Creative Control Package which was released last year.
Although PhaseOne did send me an email about the update with links, people not registered with PhaseOne would be totally ignorant of the new features.
Roger
-
How about the power consumption issues that there reported these past months by IQ4-150 users?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How about the power consumption issues that there reported these past months by IQ4-150 users?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, there's been no change in power consumption, nor any enhancement to the Power Sharing feature, which so far only seems to allow enough power for the IQ4 digital back to stay powered while changing a battery (when connected to an XF camera), versus extending the amount of charge time.
-
I understand that C1 controls the combining of the Dual Exposure+ captures but does the sensor unit's screen show the effect of using the new feature?
Seeing C1 is loaded into the sensor unit, I expect the sensor unit will show the combined files. Can anyone confirm this, please.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to use my gear at present.
Roger
-
I understand that C1 controls the combining of the Dual Exposure+ captures but does the sensor unit's screen show the effect of using the new feature?
Seeing C1 is loaded into the sensor unit, I expect the sensor unit will show the combined files. Can anyone confirm this, please.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to use my gear at present.
Roger
The resulting file looks pretty underexposed in the IQ4 screen as you need to take it to C1 and push exposure + blacks to achieve the desired results.
-
The resulting file looks pretty underexposed in the IQ4 screen as you need to take it to C1 and push exposure + blacks to achieve the desired results.
Yes, given the nature of the tool, and one of the primary benefits being the ability to expose for the highlights properly and then push the shadows to your hearts delight, without pushing the shadows, you won't see much of a difference.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Thank you, Mexecutioner and Steve
I have since tried the feature and I now understand why the effect can only be brought out by making adjustments in C1 on the desktop.
My Dual Exposure+ images exhibit a very marked green cast until adjusted in C1. I see from Steve's article that the cast is due to AWB not working (yet?) with Dual Exposure+.
Is this a concern with RAW images? In other words, is it important to select a suitable WB before using Dual Exposure+?
Roger
Yes, given the nature of the tool, and one of the primary benefits being the ability to expose for the highlights properly and then push the shadows to your hearts delight, without pushing the shadows, you won't see much of a difference.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
White balance is very simple and there is no need to make it harder than necessary. To make it really simple why not take a 'Regular' exposure along with the DE+ and then copy the white balance over......
Victor B
Edit: The green cast only occurs when the white balance is set to 'Auto'. Set it to Daylight and all is well....
-
Dual Exposure+ is a massive game-changer in my opinion. I am no technical expert but it seems to me that it does not do much in the highlights, which is fair because you set the first exposure which is for the highlights, but the detail and absence of noise in the shadows and blacks is just amazing. You can now shoot under bright sunlight for later in the morning and earlier in the afternoon and still avoid featureless and noisy shadows.
The attached image may have some faults but it was shot about 20 minutes before sunset in very dim conditions. I find the colour, atmosphere and detail very appealing. Exposure is 0.8 sec, f11 at 200 ISO. The image has not been sharpened.
Roger
-
Dual Exposure+ is a massive game-changer in my opinion. I am no technical expert but it seems to me that it does not do much in the highlights, which is fair because you set the first exposure which is for the highlights, but the detail and absence of noise in the shadows and blacks is just amazing. You can now shoot under bright sunlight for later in the morning and earlier in the afternoon and still avoid featureless and noisy shadows.
The attached image may have some faults but it was shot about 20 minutes before sunset in very dim conditions. I find the colour, atmosphere and detail very appealing. Exposure is 0.8 sec, f11 at 200 ISO. The image has not been sharpened.
Roger
I'll take noise any day instead of visible horizontal lines in the shadows, like in that picture.
-
There are what appear to be quite significant HDR-type artifacts around the tree leaves against the sky and the edges of the tree. This is the bane of all exposure blending techniques.
Dual Exposure+ is a massive game-changer in my opinion. I am no technical expert but it seems to me that it does not do much in the highlights, which is fair because you set the first exposure which is for the highlights, but the detail and absence of noise in the shadows and blacks is just amazing. You can now shoot under bright sunlight for later in the morning and earlier in the afternoon and still avoid featureless and noisy shadows.
The attached image may have some faults but it was shot about 20 minutes before sunset in very dim conditions. I find the colour, atmosphere and detail very appealing. Exposure is 0.8 sec, f11 at 200 ISO. The image has not been sharpened.
Roger
-
Folks need to look beyond a few minor issues in post processing, please...
The Dual Exposure feature in the IQ4150 is impressive, to say the least. I have never found any exposure tool that allows the ease at which you can now work a single file. Where as before you needed to combine multiple exposures in post with different types of software to get somewhat the same level of response.
Sure this file has some processing issues to many folks, to the poster maybe not.
C1 has a basic tendency to create a highlight halo effect on sky silhouetted subject matter, it's something that I have pointed out to C1 developers and my dealers for years. As pointed out the trees show it quite a bit and that is very easy to control in C1 once it's noticed. I personally don't find the issue of the horizon line that big a deal, don't even notice it for the entire horizon. Again something that can be easily fixed. The Dual Exposure raw, doesn't look like this, and doesn't create these highlight over processed issues, these were created in post.
Neither of these issue take away from the fact that you now can expose for a sunset by checking exposure on the sun and then shooting the image, never working about a bracketing sequence, and vastly removing the issue of movement artifacts. You still can see some of them in this image on the right side, but with any exposure at a certain speed movement is just going to happen.
The fact that you have over a 3 stop push in the foreground is what impresses me, and that this same 3 stop push works at base ISO or ISO 400, extremely clean details that would have other wise been effected by noise. The only real issue I see that was created by the dual exposure was the areas in the sky mainly on the right side where the tool did not get a clean blend. I have seen this with my images, more so where you are really pushing the tool, but they are easy enough to correct in CC with content aware and only seems to show up in the sky or other solid areas.
Phase One again, missed an opportunity to showcase this feature as it was again left up to local dealers to take images and then show them to the public. But after using this feature now, I can strongly state that it's a major advantage to standard bracketing, much less work, and for my style of work addressed what frame averaging missed, (motion issues creating artifacts), not to be confused with normal motion blur.
Take it for what you wish, but the feature offers some major positive advantages, especially for a landscape photographer.
Hopefully other companies with BSI chips/Sony et all can add a similar feature to their cameras.
Paul C
-
Folks need to look beyond a few minor issues in post processing, please...
C1 has a basic tendency to create a highlight halo effect on sky silhouetted subject matter, it's something that I have pointed out to C1 developers and my dealers for years. As pointed out the trees show it quite a bit and that is very easy to control in C1 once it's noticed. I personally don't find the issue of the horizon line that big a deal, don't even notice it for the entire horizon. Again something that can be easily fixed. The Dual Exposure raw, doesn't look like this, and doesn't create these highlight over processed issues, these were created in post.
Hi,
Not sure if you were referring to what I said, I have no issue with the horizon. I was looking at the horizontal lines / pattern in the shadow areas
-
Hi, I did miss your point, and it's a very good one. Sorry for the confusion.
I am glad you pointed that out, as areas that are close to black, or pure black in the original, will tend to show this type of banding.
I have seen it with a lot of images where I basically had no details and the starting image was pure black. You can pull up these areas as shown, but you need add a noise reduction afterwards. I am hoping that since the dual exposure is currently a "beta" feature that in time Phase will find a way to resolve this.
Good catch, and again sorry for my initial miss.
Paul C
-
Hi, I did miss your point, and it's a very good one. Sorry for the confusion.
I am glad you pointed that out, as areas that are close to black, or pure black in the original, will tend to show this type of banding.
I have seen it with a lot of images where I basically had no details and the starting image was pure black. You can pull up these areas as shown, but you need add a noise reduction afterwards. I am hoping that since the dual exposure is currently a "beta" feature that in time Phase will find a way to resolve this.
Good catch, and again sorry for my initial miss.
Paul C
No worries,
I used to own a Leaf back ages ago and noticed this type of banding happening sometimes. I wonder why it shows in this way instead of simply noise like a Canon sensor would make. Not sure if a standard noise reduction tool is equipped to deal with this type of stuff.
-
No worries,
I used to own a Leaf back ages ago and noticed this type of banding happening sometimes. I wonder why it shows in this way instead of simply noise like a Canon sensor would make. Not sure if a standard noise reduction tool is equipped to deal with this type of stuff.
I did not see any banding in some of the sample raws that we were producing at CI, but I think the issue is that Dual Exposure + basically gives you a 3 stop head start on noise. And if you are starting well beyond that, then yes, you can possibly expect to see some artifacting (banding, for example). We've made Phase One aware of this, and perhaps they can make an adjustment so that the result is some visible noise (expected when you're pushing 5-7 stops), rather than a banding effect.
Paul has said he has seen some of this as well. I'm not sure what ISO and how far the file example posted here was pushed. Or what file format (16 bit EX?) it was captured at.
But everything has limitations. Duel Exposure + produces an easy workflow that results in files with less noise as shadows are pushed, but there will be a limit to how much.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Perhaps I am missing what is happening with this new “feature”, but is it not an in camera version of the exposure fusion algorithm that HDR programs like Photomatix use to combine two separate files?
-
Perhaps I am missing what is happening with this new “feature”, but is it not an in camera version of the exposure fusion algorithm that HDR programs like Photomatix use to combine two separate files?
Howard, why are you putting quotes around the word feature?
https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-labs-dual-exposure/ (https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-labs-dual-exposure/)
It's explained in further detail above.
An exposure starts at your set shutter speed and your primary exposure reads out of the sensor at the end of that setting.
A secondary exposure continues until a total of 3 stop exposure gain has been achieved and then the 2nd exposure is read.
This exposure is combined with the first within the IQ4, in the same sort of way that a Frame Average combines exposures.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Sounds like auto HDR to me. I guess some will find it useful.
-
Sounds like auto HDR to me. I guess some will find it useful.
Auto HDR has a very bad connotation.
I would think of it more as starting out 3 stops ahead in the shadows.
Being able to set the proper exposure for highlights without a shadow push penalty.
And be able to do that with one press of the button (in the field, in front of the subject).
And without an obviously artificial HDR look.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Sounds like auto HDR to me. I guess some will find it useful.
Nothing like any auto HDR tool.
It’s a very well balanced tool when used with reasonable exposure ranges.
Paul C
-
I understand that "Auto HDR" has a bad connotation, but that's because it is typically implemented poorly. However, the basic premise of what Photomatix does with 2 files through post processing software is presumably the same as what Phase is doing in combining two separate exposures into one file in camera. Instead of post processing software determining how to blend the two exposures, Phase is using the back's firmware to blend the exposures. Is the Phase firmware doing it better than HDR programs like Photomatix? Perhaps, but before any conclusions are reached, I would expect a lot of work to be done to compare the approaches.
Auto HDR has a very bad connotation.
I would think of it more as starting out 3 stops ahead in the shadows.
Being able to set the proper exposure for highlights without a shadow push penalty.
And be able to do that with one press of the button (in the field, in front of the subject).
And without an obviously artificial HDR look.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
I understand that "Auto HDR" has a bad connotation, but that's because it is typically implemented poorly. However, the basic premise of what Photomatix does with 2 files through post processing software is presumably the same as what Phase is doing in combining two separate exposures into one file in camera. Instead of post processing software determining how to blend the two exposures, Phase is using the back's firmware to blend the exposures. Is the Phase firmware doing it better than HDR programs like Photomatix? Perhaps, but before any conclusions are reached, I would expect a lot of work to be done to compare the approaches.
Yes, this is true. Good HDR programs, utilized properly, can be very effective. And so is the Dual Exposure + process that happens in the IQ4 150. As for comparisons, you're welcome to compare. Those who own IQ4 150 backs seem pleased so far.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
.... Those who own IQ4 150 backs seem pleased so far.
Steve Hendrix/CI
+1.
The benefits of Dual Exposure + is real. But the best part is how easy it is to use.
And I expect further refinement/improvements from Phase One once out of lab beta mode. A great firmware update to coincide with previously promised standard features ;D
Ken