Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: woof75 on February 06, 2008, 10:45:14 am

Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 06, 2008, 10:45:14 am
Michael, I strongly disagree with your assessment that lower pixel count digital backs are becoming irrelevant because the pixel count increases of digital SLR's. As you say earlier in your article, it's about time people stop worrying about pixel counts and start thinking about quality and in that regard digital backs give a very different look than a DSLR. A 22 MP DSLR is about as different from a 22MP digital back as a 16MP DSLR is from a back, it's not the pixel count that you get a back for (though it can be useful) it's the different look. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: CatOne on February 06, 2008, 03:39:06 pm
Quote
Michael, I strongly disagree with your assessment that lower pixel count digital backs are becoming irrelevant because the pixel count increases of digital SLR's. As you say earlier in your article, it's about time people stop worrying about pixel counts and start thinking about quality and in that regard digital backs give a very different look than a DSLR. A 22 MP DSLR is about as different from a 22MP digital back as a 16MP DSLR is from a back, it's not the pixel count that you get a back for (though it can be useful) it's the different look. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What's different about the "look" other than the digital back is sharper due to the lack of an AA filter?

With digital, images are extremely malleable, so other than resolving power I can't see how you can't adjust the tone curves and other settings to get them to match.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 06, 2008, 03:56:33 pm
Quote
What's different about the "look" other than the digital back is sharper due to the lack of an AA filter?

With digital, images are extremely malleable, so other than resolving power I can't see how you can't adjust the tone curves and other settings to get them to match.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try, everything's different. Color, tonality, gradations, dynamic range, noise, sharpness, amount you can push colors, contrast, tones etc.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: bob mccarthy on February 06, 2008, 04:00:36 pm
I thought his point was the advancement of IQ in 35mm full frame sensors, namely narrowing of the quality gap to the point where economics take over.

Bob
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 06, 2008, 05:06:12 pm
Quote
I thought his point was the advancement of IQ in 35mm full frame sensors, namely narrowing of the quality gap to the point where economics take over.

Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yes, they may be getting better but my point is that Michael was suggesting that the lower pixel count backs are becoming irrelevant because the number of pixels in the DSLR's were catching up which misses the point of backs, it's not the pixel count that counts it's the quality. He went on to admit this himself.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: astanley on February 06, 2008, 05:23:49 pm
Quote
I thought his point was the advancement of IQ in 35mm full frame sensors, namely narrowing of the quality gap to the point where economics take over.

Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bob, that's how I interpreted it as well.  The MF edge has been, IMO, in glass.  Contax / Zeiss / Mamiya have been (again, my opinion) consistently better than any 35mm glass.  In fact, that's exactly why I invested in a MF system for film a few years back.

Overall, right now for critical quality, MF lenses and high-end backs still possess an edge.  The dSLR's are approaching it but, without strong innovations (like the new Nikon WA zoom), sensors will out-perform the lens, leading to quality issues.  Reading between the lines, if Moore's law takes hold on sensors, will the manufacturers return to lens innovation?  Nikon has shown this; the new Sony could drive some new Zeiss glass... what about Canon?

At some point the resolution curve will catch up with MF and we may very well see backs that can outresolve the kings of MF.  Then... who knows?  And, at some point, at all but the most obtuse (read, rare) enlargements, we'll reach a point at which mere mortals (normal humans) and semi-immortals (us photographers) can perceive difference.  This doesn't even take into account gamut, inkheads, droplet size, pigment types, papers, coatings, and the like...

I'll say this, it is an exciting time to be a photographer.  Once I got over my film zealotry, I realized that I have creative control like I never, ever had with chem based work.  

Cheers,

-Andrew
Title: PMA round up
Post by: astanley on February 06, 2008, 05:39:55 pm
Quote
yes, they may be getting better but my point is that Michael was suggesting that the lower pixel count backs are becoming irrelevant because the number of pixels in the DSLR's were catching up which misses the point of backs, it's not the pixel count that counts it's the quality. He went on to admit this himself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think he's saying with the appropriate glass on the 1Ds Mk III, it's a wash comparing a 21mp back with a 21mp SLR, given the post processing tools.  However, go like-for-like (Canon L Glass / 1 Ds versus H1 with Zeiss), and MF has a slight edge, only due to glass, not the sensor itself.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 07, 2008, 08:13:33 am
Quote
I think he's saying with the appropriate glass on the 1Ds Mk III, it's a wash comparing a 21mp back with a 21mp SLR, given the post processing tools.  However, go like-for-like (Canon L Glass / 1 Ds versus H1 with Zeiss), and MF has a slight edge, only due to glass, not the sensor itself.

Cheers,

-Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have owned both and your absolutely incorrect. It's not about sheer resolution, there 2 completely different looks. Have you shot with both extensively?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: astanley on February 07, 2008, 09:04:16 am
Quote
I have owned both and your absolutely incorrect. It's not about sheer resolution, there 2 completely different looks. Have you shot with both extensively?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172975\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm (currently) a Contax 645 film guy converting to Canon dSLR -- I've never "done" the digital workflow, and I'm not going to spend $30+ on a Phase One back until I have the workflow down.  However, I'm not selling one drop of my Contax gear.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 07, 2008, 12:35:50 pm
Quote
I'm (currently) a Contax 645 film guy converting to Canon dSLR -- I've never "done" the digital workflow, and I'm not going to spend $30+ on a Phase One back until I have the workflow down.  However, I'm not selling one drop of my Contax gear.

Cheers,

-Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To be honest one of the big things that film is so great at is that "sparkle" that comes from it's granuality and it's this that is totally missing with the slightly soft DSLR look from the anti alias filter, you can sharpen edges up but you can't put that sparkle back. Backs are much better in this regard. Also you can get a great second hand P25 for 12 grand ish.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Christopher on February 07, 2008, 03:19:13 pm
Quote
To be honest one of the big things that film is so great at is that "sparkle" that comes from it's granuality and it's this that is totally missing with the slightly soft DSLR look from the anti alias filter, you can sharpen edges up but you can't put that sparkle back. Backs are much better in this regard. Also you can get a great second hand P25 for 12 grand ish.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well some prefer one tool other another. If you spend so much money on something it must be special or good ^^. I really don't care when finalle printed most of the time you don't see the difference. A very important aspact is the digital workflow. Spending 12k on a second hand P25 ? If I can get a new 1DsMk3 for 7? sorry but not gonna happen. I don't say you don't need MFDB, ( I use them from time to time) but I also don't believe in that MFDP with 16-22MP is so much more better than a Canon 1DsMk2 or 3. That is just not really the case. Put the right glass in front of a Mark 3 and you will love what you get.

Oh and on your film notice, yes film has a sparkle, but sorry I haven't seen a lot of digital photographs which really can show that. ( No canon and no P45... )
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 08, 2008, 08:17:18 am
Quote
Well some prefer one tool other another. If you spend so much money on something it must be special or good ^^. I really don't care when finalle printed most of the time you don't see the difference. A very important aspact is the digital workflow. Spending 12k on a second hand P25 ? If I can get a new 1DsMk3 for 7? sorry but not gonna happen. I don't say you don't need MFDB, ( I use them from time to time) but I also don't believe in that MFDP with 16-22MP is so much more better than a Canon 1DsMk2 or 3. That is just not really the case. Put the right glass in front of a Mark 3 and you will love what you get.

Oh and on your film notice, yes film has a sparkle, but sorry I haven't seen a lot of digital photographs which really can show that. ( No canon and no P45... )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, I've used a 1ds mark 2 with a 50mm 1.4 shot at 5.6 is some pretty good glass but it's still a canon. Some people see the difference and some people don't some people see it but dont mind the difference or even prefer the canon, it's all fine.  The other aspect to consider is how much you want to change color and tonality after the fact, the ability to do this is markedly different between the 2 systems. I would also prefer if you didn't accuse me of justifying my choice because I spent a lot of money on it. The difference between the cost of MF and a DSLR is about 5 grand and in my world that isn't even enough to even come into the decision making process. Though I understand that for some it may be an issue.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: pss on February 09, 2008, 02:41:34 am
i have owned and used digital systems for 15 years, every brand and format....i mostly agree with michael's assessment of the future of MF....i also agree with a lot that has been said here....i know that there is a difference between a 16bit DMF back and a DSLR and resolution is the least important factor or difference....
i think the problem wit MF is that instead of pulling ahead with quality, the manufacturers tried to compete with DSLRs...hey now they are even called full frame DSLRs (H3D)....the survivors have the smallest image capture area that MF has ever seen, provide a difference in quality that most people either don't see or most importantly don't care about becuase on a 11x14 a lot looks great.....but they suck when it comes to portablity, AF, handling, speed,....which is exactly why 99.9% of all people want DSLR and could not care less about MF....
DSLRs provide MF resolution but MF does not provide DSLR handling and probably even worse, does not provide a real step up....why no 4x5 sensor (no scanning backs please)? because the sales would not justify the R&D....kodak is working on tiny chips that produce better results so we can use them in our cell phones....where is the future? look at your cell phone.....
the development of the new sony sensor goes in the same direction....24mpix, 12bit....yawn...numbers for marketing purposes....a good retoucher/printer can blow up a good 16bit 10mpix to almost any size (i know, i know, landscapes need more detail, but ansel adams never printed 20x30)....
i think it is interesting that nikon chose to make the D3 "only" 12mpix....and it still goes head to head with the 1dsmkIII...both are 14bit, a step in the right direction....
the question is :who will make hasselblads(phase, leaf, sinar) next sensor? everybody pretty much agrees that the DSLR has hit the ceiling in resolution...now it will get faster, better, cleaner....where will MF go? no company has even been able to come up with a decend AF system? F&H, rollei, sinar seems to be the only company even contemplating a larger sensor in the future and even 6x6 will not provide the separation when the new canon (nikon, sony,...) shoots a clean 22mpix at 16bit file at 1600iso 3 times per second.....
i hope that there will be enough people who are passionate about photography, enough gearheads and geeks, because it will get harder and harder to justify spending the extra money and TIME (when it comes to processing, storing,....) and the differences getting smaller and smaller.....
with film it was easy to just make the sheet larger and charge more money....sensors are a different thing entirely.....
Title: PMA round up
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 09, 2008, 04:11:04 am
Hi,

To judge from history I would say it's pretty certain that we will have a Nikon 3DX based on the the Sony 24.6 MPix sensor. Nikon wanted a camera for high iso and sports, essentially a match for Canon D1III. Nikon used to have a high res studio/landscape version of their cameras, and they cooperate with Sony. So I think the writing is on the wall.  I actually think there is a lot to high res:

- Obviously more resolution as far as the lens can keep up
- Much less risk for moiré, can have weaker AA-filter

I can actually dream up some advantages, but they are less obvious.

One area where DSLRs and MF-backs differ are the lenses. On a DSLR you would essentially put either:

A high aperture zoom (16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8. 70-200/2.8)
A high aperture fixed focal like 300/2.8
A medium aperture superzoom like 24-105/4
Possibly a macro lens
Possibly a fixed aperture ultra wide angle

On medium format most of these lenses simply do not exist. A typical medium format lens is:

- Fixed focal
- Medium aperture
- Not extreme wide angle

These lenses can be optimized for a narrower task so they should give better quality, not least because they can use less glass. They can also have conservative designs, like double gauss, which may help in achieving good bookeh. I am aware that there are some very good zoom lenses for MF but they are still very limited compared to their DSLR counterparts.

In addition you can put an MFDB on any camera, monorail or wide angle. For "large format type of cameras" there are special "digital lenses" with extremely high specifications.

As I said I'm pretty confident that we are going to see a Nikon 3DX in the autumn. You can combine this new Nikon 3DX with the Carl-Zeiss ZF lenses which are this far quite conservative signge focals. That camera, or class of cameras will be a valid competition for MF-backs on MF-cameras.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that from a manufacturing perspective surface is expensive while pixels are essentially free. A 39 MPixel chip is probably no more expensive to make than a 25 MPixel chip, the market situation is that you can get more paid for a 39 MPixel chip. Which one would you sell?

Best regards
Erik

Quote
i have owned and used digital systems for 15 years, every brand and format....i mostly agree with michael's assessment of the future of MF....i also agree with a lot that has been said here....i know that there is a difference between a 16bit DMF back and a DSLR and resolution is the least important factor or difference....
i think the problem wit MF is that instead of pulling ahead with quality, the manufacturers tried to compete with DSLRs...hey now they are even called full frame DSLRs (H3D)....the survivors have the smallest image capture area that MF has ever seen, provide a difference in quality that most people either don't see or most importantly don't care about becuase on a 11x14 a lot looks great.....but they suck when it comes to portablity, AF, handling, speed,....which is exactly why 99.9% of all people want DSLR and could not care less about MF....
DSLRs provide MF resolution but MF does not provide DSLR handling and probably even worse, does not provide a real step up....why no 4x5 sensor (no scanning backs please)? because the sales would not justify the R&D....kodak is working on tiny chips that produce better results so we can use them in our cell phones....where is the future? look at your cell phone.....
the development of the new sony sensor goes in the same direction....24mpix, 12bit....yawn...numbers for marketing purposes....a good retoucher/printer can blow up a good 16bit 10mpix to almost any size (i know, i know, landscapes need more detail, but ansel adams never printed 20x30)....
i think it is interesting that nikon chose to make the D3 "only" 12mpix....and it still goes head to head with the 1dsmkIII...both are 14bit, a step in the right direction....
the question is :who will make hasselblads(phase, leaf, sinar) next sensor? everybody pretty much agrees that the DSLR has hit the ceiling in resolution...now it will get faster, better, cleaner....where will MF go? no company has even been able to come up with a decend AF system? F&H, rollei, sinar seems to be the only company even contemplating a larger sensor in the future and even 6x6 will not provide the separation when the new canon (nikon, sony,...) shoots a clean 22mpix at 16bit file at 1600iso 3 times per second.....
i hope that there will be enough people who are passionate about photography, enough gearheads and geeks, because it will get harder and harder to justify spending the extra money and TIME (when it comes to processing, storing,....) and the differences getting smaller and smaller.....
with film it was easy to just make the sheet larger and charge more money....sensors are a different thing entirely.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 09, 2008, 11:02:19 pm
Quote
Try, everything's different. Color, tonality, gradations, dynamic range, noise, sharpness, amount you can push colors, contrast, tones etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Aren't you perhaps mixing up the differences in the way different converters handle RAW images here, such as the differences between C1 and ACR?

The only fundamental differences that theoretically should exist between a larger format and a smaller format are dynamic range and potential shallowness of DoF. All else being equal, the larger sensor can accept a greater exposure for the same scene, lighting conditions and FoV. The dynamic range is therefore (potentially) greater.

All the other differences you refer to are peculiariities of design which are not directly dependent upon sensor size; such as choice of CCD instead of CMOS; lack of an AA filter and microlenses; differences in the quality of lenses (some of those MF lenses are terribly expensive. They should be good.); differences in RAW converters etc etc.

Many fans of the Olympus 4/3rds format like to claim that the new E-3 produces better images (read sharper, more colorful, more 3-dimensional, more 'pop') than the 5D FF 35mm which sensor has 4x the area. But even such ardent admirers of this miniature format concede that dynamic range is a bit lacking compared with FF 35mm.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 10, 2008, 08:03:11 am
Quote
Aren't you perhaps mixing up the differences in the way different converters handle RAW images here, such as the differences between C1 and ACR?

The only fundamental differences that theoretically should exist between a larger format and a smaller format are dynamic range and potential shallowness of DoF. All else being equal, the larger sensor can accept a greater exposure for the same scene, lighting conditions and FoV. The dynamic range is therefore (potentially) greater.

All the other differences you refer to are peculiariities of design which are not directly dependent upon sensor size; such as choice of CCD instead of CMOS; lack of an AA filter and microlenses; differences in the quality of lenses (some of those MF lenses are terribly expensive. They should be good.); differences in RAW converters etc etc.

Many fans of the Olympus 4/3rds format like to claim that the new E-3 produces better images (read sharper, more colorful, more 3-dimensional, more 'pop') than the 5D FF 35mm which sensor has 4x the area. But even such ardent admirers of this miniature format concede that dynamic range is a bit lacking compared with FF 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, it's not different converters, try opening a phase file and a canon file in Lightroom, very different. With regard to sensor size, I didn't mention anything about any theoretical differences. On a practical level the differences to me are big enough to justify the added pain, I don't need to talk about the technologies such as AA filters because it doesnt matter, what matters is image quality and it doesnt matter whats improving it, I dont care how big a sensor is whether it has an aa filter etc, it's the quality that results that matters. And for me that means Medium format backs.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 10, 2008, 09:45:56 am
Quote
try opening a phase file and a canon file in Lightroom, very different. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't use Lightroom but I have tried opening a P30 file in ACR 4.3 and comparing the same scene with a 5D shot. (There's a thread here somewhere comparing the P30, 5D and G9. I'll see if I can locate it)

After adjusting the WB of both files (same temperature and tint) and adjusting EC, both images look very similar to me, the main difference simply being one of resolution. You'd expect a 30MP P30 image to have significantly greater resolution than a 12MP image, and so it does. At a pixel level, the dynamic range is very similar but the P30 image shows less shadow noise when downsampled to the same size as the 5D image.

It is true, however, that both images look different when first opening in ACR at the default ACR settings using WB 'as shot'. I don't think MFDBs are any different from other cameras in this respect. WB, ISO sensitivity and color accuracy vary amongst all models of cameras, but I would have thought that the whole idea of having such sophisticated editing software as Photoshop is to enable you to get whatever effect you want.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 10, 2008, 09:59:23 am
Quote
I don't use Lightroom but I have tried opening a P30 file in ACR 4.3 and comparing the same scene with a 5D shot. (There's a thread here somewhere comparing the P30, 5D and G9. I'll see if I can locate it)

After adjusting the WB of both files (same temperature and tint) and adjusting EC, both images look very similar to me, the main difference simply being one of resolution. You'd expect a 30MP P30 image to have significantly greater resolution than a 12MP image, and so it does. At a pixel level, the dynamic range is very similar but the P30 image shows less shadow noise when downsampled to the same size as the 5D image.

It is true, however, that both images look different when first opening in ACR at the default ACR settings using WB 'as shot'. I don't think MFDBs are any different from other cameras in this respect. WB, ISO sensitivity and color accuracy vary amongst all models of cameras, but I would have thought that the whole idea of having such sophisticated editing software as Photoshop is to enable you to get whatever effect you want.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You say both images look very similar therefore you are admitting they are different, in my eyes this difference counts for a lot, simple as that. I actually use a P21 which is very similar resolution to my old 1ds mark 2 and the difference is still there.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 10, 2008, 10:54:56 am
Quote
You say both images look very similar therefore you are admitting they are different, in my eyes this difference counts for a lot, simple as that. I actually use a P21 which is very similar resolution to my old 1ds mark 2 and the difference is still there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173709\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm saying the main difference between the images is one of resolution. All images from different cameras can look different 'out of the box' or at the default settings of one particular converter as opposed to another. Some people claim that Canon's own converter, DPP, produces better results than ACR. Others say that whatever the 'look' that DPP produces, you can get the same effect in ACR. It just takes more time and a bit of practice.

I myself used to prefer RAW Shooter Premium (RSP) to ACR. I felt it somehow produced more solid colors with a very slight painterly effect that I found hard to mimic in ACR. I imagine that Phase One's own software also produces an effect that is perhaps hard to emulate in ACR or at least takes a bit of practice.

I sympathise with that. If one particular converter produces results you like, why make things difficult for yourself and try to get the same results with other software.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 10, 2008, 02:24:04 pm
Quote
I'm saying the main difference between the images is one of resolution. All images from different cameras can look different 'out of the box' or at the default settings of one particular converter as opposed to another. Some people claim that Canon's own converter, DPP, produces better results than ACR. Others say that whatever the 'look' that DPP produces, you can get the same effect in ACR. It just takes more time and a bit of practice.

I myself used to prefer RAW Shooter Premium (RSP) to ACR. I felt it somehow produced more solid colors with a very slight painterly effect that I found hard to mimic in ACR. I imagine that Phase One's own software also produces an effect that is perhaps hard to emulate in ACR or at least takes a bit of practice.

I sympathise with that. If one particular converter produces results you like, why make things difficult for yourself and try to get the same results with other software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173720\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Please re-read my post, you haven't addressed my points at all.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: DavidB on February 10, 2008, 05:12:06 pm
Quote
Michael, I strongly disagree with your assessment that lower pixel count digital backs are becoming irrelevant because the pixel count increases of digital SLR's. As you say earlier in your article, it's about time people stop worrying about pixel counts and start thinking about quality and in that regard digital backs give a very different look than a DSLR. A 22 MP DSLR is about as different from a 22MP digital back as a 16MP DSLR is from a back, it's not the pixel count that you get a back for (though it can be useful) it's the different look. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The way I read Michael's article was simply that the digital back market is likely to concentrate on 30+ Mp models.  I read the comment that "the 16 – 21 MP medium format back's raison-d'etre is no longer" from the p.o.v. of manufacturers, not the photographers.
You can argue back and forth as to the virtues of a 16 Mp back, but to me the point of the article was simply that we're not likely to see any new ones of these introduced!
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 10, 2008, 06:02:17 pm
Quote
Please re-read my post, you haven't addressed my points at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which post are you requesting that I re-read? This one?

Quote
You say both images look very similar therefore you are admitting they are different, in my eyes this difference counts for a lot, simple as that. I actually use a P21 which is very similar resolution to my old 1ds mark 2 and the difference is still there.

I'll try re-phrasing my answer. No two cameras or two lenses or two RAW converters produce exactly the same result. If you happen to prefer the subtle differences you see in images from one particular model of camera with a particular choice of lens using a particular converter, compared to images of the same scene from another model of camera using a different lens and different converter, then that's understandable.

Apparently some professionals who do a lot of model shooting prefer the skin tones that the 5D produces to the more expensive 1Ds2. Why should this be? Would you suggest that this is evidence that fewer pixels are always better on the same size sensor?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 11, 2008, 07:33:34 am
Quote
Which post are you requesting that I re-read? This one?
I'll try re-phrasing my answer. No two cameras or two lenses or two RAW converters produce exactly the same result. If you happen to prefer the subtle differences you see in images from one particular model of camera with a particular choice of lens using a particular converter, compared to images of the same scene from another model of camera using a different lens and different converter, then that's understandable.

Apparently some professionals who do a lot of model shooting prefer the skin tones that the 5D produces to the more expensive 1Ds2. Why should this be? Would you suggest that this is evidence that fewer pixels are always better on the same size sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What I'm saying is it's not about the number of pixels. Db's and Dslrs are totally different technologies and of course they look different.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: pss on February 11, 2008, 03:08:24 pm
if someone compares a 5D file to a P30 file and sees to difference other then added resolution, the question which tool to use should be answered! and i think this is where michael is absolutely correct...this is not about what i or someone else thinks provides 5-10% better quality at 5-10 times the price....canon/nikon will provide more quality and more resolution and the same or lower price much faster then the MF crowd can charge ahead....so the already very small difference (which already comes at a premium) is getting smaller....

and this is where the problem lies for DMF IMO: instead of trying to clearly separate themselves from the DSLR crowd, they are trying to steal the top few customers to come into their camp....i don't see that playing out to well for them....

factor in future software development (lens correction, noise removal,....) and it is clear to see that 99% of all customers (most of them can't see the difference now!) won't be buying!....

fact is that the new rebel combined with software solutions blows away any top end digital solution from 10 years ago....and i am not even going into speed or high iso....base iso file quality.....
so if the MF manufacturers cannot pull away in terms of clearly visible file quality, where are they in 5 years from today?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 12, 2008, 12:28:14 am
Quote
What I'm saying is it's not about the number of pixels. Db's and Dslrs are totally different technologies and of course they look different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They are not totally different technologies. They are similar technologies with differences. The differences include CCD with a greater fill factor as opposed to CMOS with on-board processing of individual pixels; a larger sensor with usually a greater number of pixels and availability of professional lenses which are also usually more expensive than their 35mm counterparts and simply better in relation to the wider pixel spacing of many MFDBs.

There's no doubt that the latest MFDBs can produce a better quality image than the latest 35mm offering, such as the Canon 1Ds3. Let's face it. If this wasn't true, you'd feel a right chump, wouldn't you, and it's not my intention to make you feel like a chump.

As the previous poster stated, it's really all about economics and handling ease versus image quality improvement. With film, there was a clear distinction between 35mm and MF. No-one could pretend that 35mm film was almost as good. You paid a substantial premium for MF equipment and in return you got something that was definitely heavier, more cumbersome to handle and very much lacking in the automatic features which were a standard feature of 35mm. But you also got a significant jump in image quality.

Despite botched attempts by MFDB supporters to demonstrate image quality improvements of a P21 image compared to a 1Ds3 shot of the same scene, it's clear to me that any such improvements are marginal at best. But the price difference is not marginal and the disadvantages regarding weight and convenience of handling are not marginal.

Am I right or am I right?  
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 12, 2008, 08:36:06 am
Ray,

You haven't said anything that I disagree with at all. If you actually bother to read what I say, understand it and then reply you would realise that. Now concentrate and I'll try my best to make it as clear as possible for you, here goes:
You say with regard to the image quality of a P21 as compared to a 1ds 3 that: "improvements are marginal".
I agree with that and to me that marginal improvement means a lot too me, I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal. Also at risk of confusing you I will add that when you start pushing contrast, colour and tone the differences actually become quite easy to see, the MF files are far more malleable.  
As they say, seek first to understand then to be understood.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Christopher on February 12, 2008, 11:12:29 am
Quote
Ray,

You haven't said anything that I disagree with at all. If you actually bother to read what I say, understand it and then reply you would realise that. Now concentrate and I'll try my best to make it as clear as possible for you, here goes:
You say with regard to the image quality of a P21 as compared to a 1ds 3 that: "improvements are marginal".
I agree with that and to me that marginal improvement means a lot too me, I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal. Also at risk of confusing you I will add that when you start pushing contrast, colour and tone the differences actually become quite easy to see, the MF files are far more malleable. 
As they say, seek first to understand then to be understood.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I still haven't seen a review which shows these marginal improvement you are talking about.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 12, 2008, 11:50:38 am
Quote
I still haven't seen a review which shows these marginal improvement you are talking about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
me neither, I've seen it for my own eye's.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 12, 2008, 12:18:40 pm
Quote
You say with regard to the image quality of a P21 as compared to a 1ds 3 that: "improvements are marginal".
I agree with that and to me that marginal improvement means a lot too me, I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I still don't understand, woof75. Are you saying that the P21 is the best? Doesn't the P45+ deliver better results? If this is so, then shouldn't you be using the P45+ if you can't live with the second best?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 12, 2008, 12:25:16 pm
Quote
I still don't understand, woof75. Are you saying that the P21 is the best? Doesn't the P45+ deliver better results? If this is so, then shouldn't you be using the P45+ if you can't live with the second best?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, no P45 is only best if you are doing big prints, if you are printing around 11 *14 you just throw the extra resolution away. As I keep saying, it's not about resolution.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 12, 2008, 12:51:24 pm
Quote
Actually, no P45 is only best if you are doing big prints, if you are printing around 11 *14 you just throw the extra resolution away. As I keep saying, it's not about resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So I take it these differences are so subtle that they cannot be revealed on a monitor with maximum quality jpeg compression of 100% crops?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 12, 2008, 01:50:14 pm
Quote
So I take it these differences are so subtle that they cannot be revealed on a monitor with maximum quality jpeg compression of 100% crops?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Who said anything about differences? I didn't, yet again, seek first to understand and then to be understood.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 12, 2008, 03:35:02 pm
Quote
You say with regard to the image quality of a P21 as compared to a 1ds 3 that: "improvements are marginal".
I agree with that and to me that marginal improvement means a lot too me, I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quote
Who said anything about differences? I didn't, yet again, seek first to understand and then to be understood.
It seems to me you did. You seemed to me to say "I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal." I am seeking to understand, but you are confusing me. "No difference" is certainly not the same as "marginally different". What are you trying to say?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 12, 2008, 04:10:10 pm
Quote
It seems to me you did. You seemed to me to say "I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal." I am seeking to understand, but you are confusing me. "No difference" is certainly not the same as "marginally different". What are you trying to say?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is getting confusing Eric, Ray was pointing out that I should really be using a P45 if I really cared about image quality in the absolute which I replied that the P21 was just as good when using smaller print sizes to which he replied with this:

So I take it these differences are so subtle that they cannot be revealed on a monitor with maximum quality jpeg compression of 100% crops?


To which I replied:

Who said anything about differences? I didn't, yet again, seek first to understand and then to be understood.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 12, 2008, 04:13:54 pm
I think we are getting a little of track, what I am saying is that the small image quality improvements of a DB are worth the pain of shooting MF. Also that the MF files stand up to more rigorous tonal and color manipulation than DSLR's. Is this so hard to understand and is it so controversial, do all the people who use DB's (including most of the very top pros's) just use MF to inconvenience themselves. I promise you I'd much rather shoot a canon.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: pss on February 12, 2008, 05:17:21 pm
Quote
I still haven't seen a review which shows these marginal improvement you are talking about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

maybe it is time you actually trusted your own eyes!
IMO a P21 is better then any canon or nikon at base iso...i am talking about file quality, clarity, color, ability to be enlarged (rez'd up)...this is not even a question to me....
the question is if the difference in quality makes up all the deficiencies in handling, price, storage, speed, high iso shooting,.....this is something everybody has to find out for themselves and i owuld say that for 95% of all photographic application the choice is very clear...in favor of DSLR, regardless of the ultimate file quality....
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 12, 2008, 05:20:51 pm
Quote
maybe it is time you actually trusted your own eyes!
IMO a P21 is better then any canon or nikon at base iso...i am talking about file quality, clarity, color, ability to be enlarged (rez'd up)...this is not even a question to me....
the question is if the difference in quality makes up all the deficiencies in handling, price, storage, speed, high iso shooting,.....this is something everybody has to find out for themselves and i owuld say that for 95% of all photographic application the choice is very clear...in favor of DSLR, regardless of the ultimate file quality....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I totally agree.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 12, 2008, 09:22:35 pm
Quote
maybe it is time you actually trusted your own eyes!
IMO a P21 is better then any canon or nikon at base iso...i am talking about file quality, clarity, color, ability to be enlarged (rez'd up)...this is not even a question to me....
the question is if the difference in quality makes up all the deficiencies in handling, price, storage, speed, high iso shooting,.....this is something everybody has to find out for themselves and i owuld say that for 95% of all photographic application the choice is very clear...in favor of DSLR, regardless of the ultimate file quality....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think everyone who might question the significance of the image quality differences between a DB and a 35mm DSLR of similar pixel count, is a person who really does trust his own eyes. It's because he trusts his own eyes and hasn't seen a demonstration of such differences that he becomes a bit skeptical of claims of quality differences.

There seems to be a dilemma here. People go to a lot of trouble comparing lens resolution. For example, should I get the Canon 17-40 or the Canon 16-35? The performance of different format cameras is scrutinised in great detail on review sites such as dpreview and compared. People often make all sorts of claims for the equipment they have just bought which on close examination prove to be either exaggerated or non-existent.

The new Canon 40D is a good example of what I'm referring to. It has lots of new and attractive features that don't exist on previous models, yet fundamental image quality is basically the same as the models it replaced. Despite 14 bit processing, shadow noise improvement is so marginal it needs to be viewed at 400% on the monitor to be seen. Resolution improvement is similarly marginal, yet some people like to kid themselves there is a definite an obvious image quality improvement.

When it is pointed out to such people that careful and thorough reviews have not discovered any significant image quality improvement, such people then resort to the 'color' defense argument. The 40D produces more natural and more accurate colors. The colors from the 30D really suck... and so on.

Now you don't need to convince me that a larger sensor will have a dynamic range advantage. That is the one quality factor which I wouldn't argue against because I've seen the difference. If I'm shooting a contrasty scene with some subject movement, when bracketing of exposures is not practical, I might prefer to use a 20mp DB rather than a 1Ds3. However, for scenes that are well within the DR capabilities of both cameras, I would expect any image quality differences to be either lens dependent or processing dependent.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: pss on February 13, 2008, 01:11:00 am
Quote
Now you don't need to convince me that a larger sensor will have a dynamic range advantage. That is the one quality factor which I wouldn't argue against because I've seen the difference. If I'm shooting a contrasty scene with some subject movement, when bracketing of exposures is not practical, I might prefer to use a 20mp DB rather than a 1Ds3. However, for scenes that are well within the DR capabilities of both cameras, I would expect any image quality differences to be either lens dependent or processing dependent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

you are absolutely correct...the "better" the light, the less visible will the difference be....
i can tell you that the last DSLR i owened was the canon 1dsII and the reason i sold it was when, during a catalog shoot (very well lit), my rollei 6008 died and i had to finish the shoot with the canon...the direct comaprison between a rollei/phase P20/80mm schneider at 16mpix (cropped from square really only about 12-13mpix) and the canon/85 1.2 (not a bad lens at all) was eye opening....on the P20 file you could count the eyelashes, on the canon oyu could not see them....without sharpening on either....both files blown up to 20x30 made matters worse for the canon...eventhough the P20 ended up being a lower mpix count....
of course lenses matter...C1 was used on both....
ask anyone with a 5D and they will tell you that shooting full lenght is a pain, becuase it is really hard to focus manually and even if you are on, the microdetail just isn't there when you look at the eyes....on DMF back it's all there.....but you are right: canon lenses pretty much suck compared to most MF prime....
Title: PMA round up
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 13, 2008, 01:42:15 am
Hi,

The 5D would require significant sharpening due to the antialiasing filter. Comparing digital images with correct input sharpening seems to me like comparing apples and oranges.

Best regards

Erik

Quote
you are absolutely correct...the "better" the light, the less visible will the difference be....
i can tell you that the last DSLR i owened was the canon 1dsII and the reason i sold it was when, during a catalog shoot (very well lit), my rollei 6008 died and i had to finish the shoot with the canon...the direct comaprison between a rollei/phase P20/80mm schneider at 16mpix (cropped from square really only about 12-13mpix) and the canon/85 1.2 (not a bad lens at all) was eye opening....on the P20 file you could count the eyelashes, on the canon oyu could not see them....without sharpening on either....both files blown up to 20x30 made matters worse for the canon...eventhough the P20 ended up being a lower mpix count....
of course lenses matter...C1 was used on both....
ask anyone with a 5D and they will tell you that shooting full lenght is a pain, becuase it is really hard to focus manually and even if you are on, the microdetail just isn't there when you look at the eyes....on DMF back it's all there.....but you are right: canon lenses pretty much suck compared to most MF prime....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: PMA round up
Post by: samuel_js on February 13, 2008, 02:12:47 am
Quote
Despite botched attempts by MFDB supporters to demonstrate image quality improvements of a P21 image compared to a 1Ds3 shot of the same scene, it's clear to me that any such improvements are marginal at best. But the price difference is not marginal and the disadvantages regarding weight and convenience of handling are not marginal.
Am I right or am I right? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, as always in this MFDB matter, you are totally wrong!
We are no MFDB supporters, we are USERS. That's the big difference. You're only speculating and has never been able to show any real experience with MF. Actually most of the 35mm defenders like you here has never touched a MFDB. But there's people (like me) that can clearly see the quality improvement with a DB and that has a lot of experience with both systems.
Two more things:
1.- the price of a p21 is now lower than a 1dsMIII.
2.- there's never been botched attempts here, it's only a lot of blind guys around.

From a past botched attempt:
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/p21_1DsIII.jpg)
Title: PMA round up
Post by: samuel_js on February 13, 2008, 02:23:02 am
Quote
I still don't understand, woof75. Are you saying that the P21 is the best? Doesn't the P45+ deliver better results? If this is so, then shouldn't you be using the P45+ if you can't live with the second best?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,I have a mixed feeling about who you are. Some times I think you 're retired and your goal is to brake the posters record of this forum. But with post like this, I believe you're a 6 years old child who put a chair in front of the computer and and managed to use dad's logging to post in the forum.....
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 13, 2008, 07:28:17 am
Quote
Ray,I have a mixed feeling about who you are. Some times I think you 're retired and your goal is to brake the posters record of this forum. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have no specific intention of breaking the posters record. I have a large number of posts because I've been here a long time. But you are right. I am retired. I have the freedom to do more or less what I want, within certain financial constraints. I have no barrow to push, no shares in any camera company and no allegiance to any particular brand of equipment.

But I do have an enquiring mind and I'm very suspicious of claims that cannot be (or are not) demonstrated.

I remember well the above botched comparison you've posted. No attempt was made to get the 1Ds3 image right with respect to levels, tonality and sharpening. Also, the same f stops were used with each camera. One really has to wonder if people know what they are doing when they compare different format cameras setting the lenses on the same f stop.

I mean, if you were on a job with the P21 using a 120mm lens at f11 and the camera malfunctioned so you had to start using the 1Ds3 with 85mm lens from the same position, would you continue using f11? If you were to, it's not surprising you would get the impression the P21 is marginally sharper with a slightly greater 3-D effect due to a noticeably shallower DoF.

Quote
But with post like this, I believe you're a 6 years old child who put a chair in front of the computer and and managed to use dad's logging to post in the forum.....

And I believe with a response like this, you've descended to a level of complete irrationality. Woof75 made the point that the reason he prefers a P21 over a 1Ds3 is because he can't live with the second best. I would that every 6 year old child knows the difference between better and best.

Here are the same P21 & 1Ds3 crops after a levels adjustment and a bit of contrast enhancement to the 1Ds3 image. Hmm! I think the 1Ds3 image really does have more 'pop'. The P21 image looks a bit bland by comparison   .

[attachment=5118:attachment]
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on February 13, 2008, 08:47:44 am
Quote
2.- there's never been botched attempts here, it's only a lot of blind guys around.

From a past botched attempt:

Yes, that comparison was botched badly. With just a little bit of tweaking, the differences become minuscule, and mostly due to the fact that I only had a JPEG to work with instead of the original RAWs:

[attachment=5119:attachment]

Of course there are differences between camera systems. But that means that the optimal processing parameters for one camera are not the same as the optimum settings for another camera. As a result, any comparison using exactly the same processing parameters (sharpening settings, etc) is inherently flawed. Yes a MFDB is somewhat sharper straight out of the RAW converter. But when you process both the MFDB and the DSLR RAWs with settings optimized for each camera, the differences between the systems shink quite a bit.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 13, 2008, 09:04:39 am
Can I ask you MF doubters a question, why do you think people like me put up with the daily extra hassle of shooting MF if there really isn't a difference that counts for something for us?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: DarkPenguin on February 13, 2008, 09:35:42 am
Quote
Can I ask you MF doubters a question, why do you think people like me put up with the daily extra hassle of shooting MF if there really isn't a difference that counts for something for us?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's great.  I don't think the "just trust us" argument works with Ray.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: samuel_js on February 13, 2008, 10:18:02 am
Quote
Yes, that comparison was botched badly. With just a little bit of tweaking, the differences become minuscule, and mostly due to the fact that I only had a JPEG to work with instead of the original RAWs:

[attachment=5119:attachment]

Of course there are differences between camera systems. But that means that the optimal processing parameters for one camera are not the same as the optimum settings for another camera. As a result, any comparison using exactly the same processing parameters (sharpening settings, etc) is inherently flawed. Yes a MFDB is somewhat sharper straight out of the RAW converter. But when you process both the MFDB and the DSLR RAWs with settings optimized for each camera, the differences between the systems shink quite a bit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The only reason I posted here today is because I don't want you guys just to go away posting such a pile of false and unfounded information about what MF is. Just try for yourself first. That's the only thing you need to do before I take seriously any of your comments about this matter. And each time you spread this BS here I'll jump in to defend my medium because I use it and I know what it can deliver.
Done here with you.  
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on February 13, 2008, 10:39:45 am
Quote
posting such a pile of false and unfounded information about what MF is.

Exactly what is false and unfounded about what I posted? I never said MFDB wasn't better than DSLR, just that when both are processed in such a way that they are the best they can be, the difference isn't as dramatic as some of the "comparisons" might lead one to believe. The reworked image I posted proves that. Are there still differences? Yes. Are the differences significant enough that they would be visible in the final print? That's another question entirely.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 13, 2008, 10:44:22 am
Quote
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The only reason I posted here today is because I don't want you guys just to go away posting such a pile of false and unfounded information about what MF is. Just try for yourself first. That's the only thing you need to do before I take seriously any of your comments about this matter. And each time you spread this BS here I'll jump in to defend my medium because I use it and I know what it can deliver.
Done here with you. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Samual,
So why did you post a botched comparison to combat what you describe as a pile of false and unfounded information?

As I recall, in the thread that comparison first appeared, there were many DB users who agreed it was a seriously flawed comparison. Is this the best you can do?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 13, 2008, 10:58:43 am
Quote
Can I ask you MF doubters a question, why do you think people like me put up with the daily extra hassle of shooting MF if there really isn't a difference that counts for something for us?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you already have a pile of good MF lenses, that would be a good reason. When MFDBs not only have bigger sensors than 35mm but more pixels, that's a good reason. If you have clients who are impressed with really expensive gear or who are willing to pay higher prices because they know you are using very expensive gear, then that might be good reason. If the work flow using C1 appeals to you and is bettered designed for DBs than is ACR, that might be another reason. If you are used to using MFs rather than 35mm, that mght also be a contributing factor. To some extent we are all creatures of habit and might have difficulty getting the best results with a different format.

The issue here is about quality differences between 2 formats that differ in size by a degree which is significantly less than the size difference between the Olympus 4/3rds and 35mm.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: samuel_js on February 13, 2008, 10:59:16 am
Quote
Samual,
So why did you post a botched comparison to combat what you describe as a pile of false and unfounded information?

As I recall, in the thread that comparison first appeared, there were many DB users who agreed it was a seriously flawed comparison. Is this the best you can do?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think I'm convinced about the fidelity of your vision now...
My name is Samuel not Samual. OK?
Have fun with your theories.  
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 13, 2008, 11:09:06 am
Quote
I think I'm convinced about the fidelity of your vision now...
My name is Samuel not Samual. OK?
Have fun with your theories. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm also convinced that you have no spirit of enquiry or desire to share knowledge. Most of us are here to learn something.

Are you seriously suggesting that a spelling mistake or the hitting of a wrong key by someone who is not a typist is an indication of faulty vision?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: samuel_js on February 13, 2008, 12:26:02 pm
Quote
I'm also convinced that you have no spirit of enquiry or desire to share knowledge. Most of us are here to learn something.

Are you seriously suggesting that a spelling mistake or the hitting of a wrong key by someone who is not a typist is an indication of faulty vision?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, you're not sharing knowledge, because you know nothing about MFD but what you read on the internet. That is leading to misunderstanding and a false ideas of what a MFDB can actually do in real life photography.

I'm done, really.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 13, 2008, 12:44:41 pm
Quote
If you already have a pile of good MF lenses, that would be a good reason. When MFDBs not only have bigger sensors than 35mm but more pixels, that's a good reason. If you have clients who are impressed with really expensive gear or who are willing to pay higher prices because they know you are using very expensive gear, then that might be good reason. If the work flow using C1 appeals to you and is bettered designed for DBs than is ACR, that might be another reason. If you are used to using MFs rather than 35mm, that mght also be a contributing factor. To some extent we are all creatures of habit and might have difficulty getting the best results with a different format.

The issue here is about quality differences between 2 formats that differ in size by a degree which is significantly less than the size difference between the Olympus 4/3rds and 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, I didnt have any MF equipment at all before I bought it especially to put a digital back on it, I got a back with the same number of pixels on it almost to my DSLR. I develop in lightroom so have the same workflow, I'm as used to 35mm as I am MF.
 I ask you again, why did I switch?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: pss on February 13, 2008, 06:26:42 pm
wow....somebody please stop the madness...or at least do a search in this forum about DMF vs DSLR....i have yet to find anyone to not acknowledge a difference between the 2....anyone who has actually used both...sharpening jpegs does not prove anything...
and really....if you don't see the difference or the difference you see isn't worth the price difference or giving up ease of use, AF,.....GREAT! perfect....i have said many times here that i think the 5D might just be the best camera ever made....the quality it produces for the price is unheard of IMO! it would be hard to find an application where a 5D file would not be good enough or could not be tweaked and teased and retouched in post to produce a final product that should realistically be all one could ask for....i believe that..unfortunately i have also worked with and owened way too many DSLRs and DMF backs to know that it can be better and to know what i want from a file....
there is no magic bullet....
or maybe better said: there is a different one for everybody....a capture device for everybody....
the last back i owned was a P30 which i sold not too long ago...delivered perfect files..great...but honestly my work does not require 20x30 prints...ever....
a friend of mine shoots with the 5d and wanted something better....he was looking into the P30 but i told him t save some money and look into the P21....he loves it...he can shoot as fast as he is used to, the file quality is exactly the step up from what he was missing with the 5D and he does not need 20x30 files either....

there is a great review somewhere floating on the web...someone comparing a D3 with a 1dsMkIII....showing the difference in detail between the files..and the D3 files res'd up to the same size....funny....

a hassV with a square 16mpix back at 100 will provide a better file then a 1dsmkIII....but there is no way in hell i would want to shoot a wedding or sports or action or....with it....why would i? and the difference will be close enough that i probably won't drag it into the woods to shoot landscapes either....but it is  nice to have the option.....

btw: everything in this thread has been said before and i really urge everybody to just check it out for themselves..please....and then decide which is better for YOU....
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 13, 2008, 11:42:02 pm
Quote
Ray, you're not sharing knowledge, because you know nothing about MFD but what you read on the internet. That is leading to misunderstanding and a false ideas of what a MFDB can actually do in real life photography.

I'm done, really.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Samuel,
You might be done, but I feel I should reply for the benefit of others at least. It's not true that I know nothing of MFD apart from what I've read on the interent. I do have Michael's 'Measuring Megabytes" DVD containing RAW images of a variety of formats, including MF film scans, the P45 and very high resolution scanning backs. This was produced when the top 35mm DSLR was the 1Ds2 and included RAW images from the the 5D as well.

I also have an RB67 and a few Mamiya lenses sitting unused on a shelf. This was second hand gear I bought and used for a while before switching to DSLRs. I also have a Nikon 8000ED MF scanner which I used for scanning my 6x7 negatives and my main printer is the wide format Epson 7600. I generally prefer my prints to be fairly large (23"x35") when I hang them on my wall, so I can see them from a distance.

You can deduce from the above that I'm the sort of person who could be persuaded by any jump in image quality that one particualr format might provide. However, the issue here is not one of 35mm versus DB in general, but specifically about the differences between two formats of similar pixel count which differ in size by a relatively small degree.

When you consider the variety of different format cameras now available; the G9 with a sensor about 1/20th the size of 35mm; the 40D with a sensor less than 2/5ths the size of 35mm; the Olympus 4/3rds with a sensor about 1/4 the size of 35mm and the Nikon D2X with a sensor also about 2/5ths the size of 35mm; a DB with a sensor that is just twice the size of 35mm is perhaps not such a big deal.

The precedent already exists for smaller formats to equal the quality of slightly larger formats. When the D2X was released, careful and thorough comparisons revealed that image quality was at least on a par with the larger format 1Ds. There was no need to accept someone's word for it. Seeing is believing.

With such precedents in mind, including claims that the Olympus E-3 compares very favourably with the Canon 5D, one has to be rather suspicious of claims that a P21 produces better quality images than a 1Ds3, especially when no evidence supporting such claims is provided, by anyone. (I'm discounting here the amateurish and unprofessional comparisons, which are the only one's I've come across so far).

If anyone reading this has the time to take on this enormous and gargantuan task of comparing a P21 with a 1Ds3; anyone who has the patience to precisely match FoVs and the skill to use both formats in the way they should be used to achieve a particular artistic intent, which means using lenses that are the best for the format at apertures that provide equivalent DoF; anyone who has a sharp eye and the ability to precisely focus each camera on the same spot in the same scene which is subject to the same lighting conditions; then please do us all a favour and post the RAW images of such a comparison.

We shall then be in a better position to determine if such claims for the P21 are humbug or not.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 12:39:26 am
Quote
Ray, I didnt have any MF equipment at all before I bought it especially to put a digital back on it, I got a back with the same number of pixels on it almost to my DSLR. I develop in lightroom so have the same workflow, I'm as used to 35mm as I am MF.
 I ask you again, why did I switch?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Woof75,
You'll have to be more specific. Precisely which DB and which lenses did you find gave you a better result than which 35mm DSLR and lenses? I don't want to insult you and imply that you might not have done a competent comparison, but the fact is I don't know you. You don't know me either, which is why I always like to back up any claims I make about image quality with examples. Opinions are easy. Factual demonstration is not.

Another issue which is often glossed over or completely ignored is the difference in aspect ratios between the 2 formats. I suspect that this difference would have a greater effect than any other factor in tipping image quality one way or another. If you always find that you crop a 35mm image to a 3:4 format then you are effectively throwing away pixels and that would be one reason to use a camera with a 4:3 aspect ratio. For example, the P21 has an 18mp chip. Crop the 1Ds3's 21mp chip to a 4:3 aspect ratio and the 2 sensors have almost exactly the same pixel count.

However, crop the P21 to a 35mm aspect ratio and you end up comparing a 21mp sensor with a 16mp sensor. In these circumstances, I suspect the 1Ds3 would deliver slightly better results than the P21, something which is politely ignored by those claiming superior results from the P21.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: pss on February 14, 2008, 01:23:04 am
Quote
Woof75,

However, crop the P21 to a 35mm aspect ratio and you end up comparing a 21mp sensor with a 16mp sensor. In these circumstances, I suspect the 1Ds3 would deliver slightly better results than the P21, something which is politely ignored by those claiming superior results from the P21.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174757\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i am actually done with this as well...because it has all been said before and everybody has to make up their own mind and believe their own eyes....
i, personally prefer a P20 (not P21) file to any canon file....is the P20 better in all situations, hell no...but studio at 100 iso....i prefer it.....
and if i would print 25x35 prints i would either shoot with a P45 or probably/preferably with a 8x10....not that anything less would not be able to handle it, but for that size, those are thebest tools....
and i really do not want to see a 5D file res'd up to that size....or at least not within 6ft viewing distance....
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 01:51:15 am
Quote
i am actually done with this as well...because it has all been said before and everybody has to make up their own mind and believe their own eyes....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most of us don't have the opportunity to believe our own eyes because the information is not shared. It's not a matter of it all being said before, although it's true if you repeat something often enough, some people will believe it.

If you can't demonstrate something, it's probably not true, no matter how many times you claim it is true.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 14, 2008, 08:48:21 am
Ray, really, what is in this for me? I'm starting to feel sorry for you, you've never even shot a digital back. I have shot both on a regular basis, I work for and have worked for most of the major magazines between New York and London, I'm represented by a major Chelsea gallery. I keep myself anonymous because a google search on my name would otherwise come up with every technical problem I've ever had, not exactly what you want a client to see.

Really, it takes a good eye to tell the difference, if you can't tell the difference then I have to question how good of an eye you have. If you see the difference and decide that you prefer a DSLR for whatever reason that may be then that is fine, I totally understand. But to not see the difference is quite telling. (Unfortunately the difference is more a question of tonality and feel rather than a simple pixel peeping phenomenon  so you do need a good eye to see it).
I'm done trying to educate you from a position of experience, maybe trying to was foolish of me.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 09:51:40 am
Quote
Ray, really, what is in this for me? I'm starting to feel sorry for you, you've never even shot a digital back. I have shot both on a regular basis, I work for and have worked for most of the major magazines between New York and London, I'm represented by a major Chelsea gallery. I keep myself anonymous because a google search on my name would otherwise come up with every technical problem I've ever had, not exactly what you want a client to see.

Really, it takes a good eye to tell the difference, if you can't tell the difference then I have to question how good of an eye you have. If you see the difference and decide that you prefer a DSLR for whatever reason that may be then that is fine, I totally understand. But to not see the difference is quite telling. (Unfortunately the difference is more a question of tonality and feel rather than a simple pixel peeping phenomenon  so you do need a good eye to see it).
I'm done trying to educate you from a position of experience, maybe trying to was foolish of me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm truly amazed by this attitude. My mind boggles at such irrationality. Not only does it take a good eye to discern any subtle difference between two images, whether it's a difference of resolution, tonality or hue, but most important of all, by far, it takes the presence of two images that contain such differences in order for the differences to be seen.

Where are the images? All the images I've seen so far purporting to show such differences are in my view, and the view of others, flawed examples; shots that have not been taken with due regard for FoV matching, DoF and appropriate processing of both images.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 10:03:05 am
Quote
Ray, really, what is in this for me?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Woof75,
I really don't think there's anything in it for you. You're stuck with what's increasingly appearing to me to be a myth.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 14, 2008, 10:39:01 am
Quote
Woof75,
I really don't think there's anything in it for you. You're stuck with what's increasingly appearing to me to be a myth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What a dim view of humanity you must have Ray. I pity you.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Christopher on February 14, 2008, 10:49:22 am
Quote
What a dim view of humanity you must have Ray. I pity you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174842\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can talk as much as you want, but none of you have packed up your claims with an fair review between a P21 and a 1DsMk3. All these compared shots wich in your eyes should show the difference, were just bad one. Here I have to go with Ray has he said:

"All the images I've seen so far purporting to show such differences are in my view, and the view of others, flawed examples; shots that have not been taken with due regard for FoV matching, DoF and appropriate processing of both images."

And before you start flaming again, yes I have used a P30 and yes it is quite better, BUT nobody is talking about a P30 or 45 we are talking about a P21.... So where are all these benefites ?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 11:00:55 am
Well, thanks Christopher. It's good to know there are other rational people around  
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 11:06:01 am
Quote
What a dim view of humanity you must have Ray. I pity you.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=174842\")

Woof75,
This has certainly been an interesting thread for me. Thanks at least for providing such a good example of an ad hominem attack. It would be a shame if such a long thread as this had no educational value.

[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/url]
Title: PMA round up
Post by: samuel_js on February 14, 2008, 11:57:47 am
Quote
And before you start flaming again, yes I have used a P30 and yes it is quite better, BUT nobody is talking about a P30 or 45 we are talking about a P21.... So where are all these benefites ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is a clear proof of inexperience in MFDB. The only reason someone choose a p30 over a p21 is the final print size, cropping choices, etc... Image quality, color, DR, etc... is equally superior to any 35mm.
You are still not getting it, and you won't, because you don't work with these tools.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Christopher on February 14, 2008, 12:40:25 pm
Quote
This is a clear proof of inexperience in MFDB. The only reason someone choose a p30 over a p21 is the final print size, cropping choices, etc... Image quality, color, DR, etc... is equally superior to any 35mm.
You are still not getting it, and you won't, because you don't work with these tools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And you still haven't given me one single example to prove your point.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: DarkPenguin on February 14, 2008, 12:52:15 pm
Quote
This is a clear proof of inexperience in MFDB. The only reason someone choose a p30 over a p21 is the final print size, cropping choices, etc... Image quality, color, DR, etc... is equally superior to any 35mm.
You are still not getting it, and you won't, because you don't work with these tools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought they weren't getting it, and won't, because no one has actually shown proof that it is better?  Ray is asking for proof.  If you aren't going to produce said proof then you probably don't want to feed this thread.  (Ignoring whether or not you could produce it if you had the time and inclination.)

I do applaud your effort in this regard (and it shows enough for me personally) but it was clearly too flawed to really be proof.

All that said.   What proof is Ray actually looking for?  Printed proof?  400% differences?  And what is the standard for the differences?  I don't see any significant difference between FF and crop but Ray does.  (I clearly print much smaller than Ray.)  I can see a difference between FF and MFDB but Ray doesn't consider them significant.  So...  ???
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 14, 2008, 12:52:26 pm
Quote
And you still haven't given me one single example to prove your point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Christopher are you saying that there is a difference between a P30 and a P21 except resolution?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Rob C on February 14, 2008, 01:43:30 pm
Quote
Ray, really, what is in this for me? I'm starting to feel sorry for you, you've never even shot a digital back. I have shot both on a regular basis, I work for and have worked for most of the major magazines between New York and London, I'm represented by a major Chelsea gallery. I keep myself anonymous because a google search on my name would otherwise come up with every technical problem I've ever had, not exactly what you want a client to see.

Really, it takes a good eye to tell the difference, if you can't tell the difference then I have to question how good of an eye you have. If you see the difference and decide that you prefer a DSLR for whatever reason that may be then that is fine, I totally understand. But to not see the difference is quite telling. (Unfortunately the difference is more a question of tonality and feel rather than a simple pixel peeping phenomenon  so you do need a good eye to see it).
I'm done trying to educate you from a position of experience, maybe trying to was foolish of me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Woof75

I have never owned nor even tried an MF back and at my stage of the game it is very unlikely that I ever will. Like Ray, retirement is a way of life - not necessarily a particularly welcome one,  but thatīs how photography goes; when youīre hot youīre hot and when youīre not youīre not. There is not a lot in photography to encourage one to work at lower levels than one has experienced in the past, so a fond farewell is often the best way of getting out with some dignity...

But the point is this: when I was working my ass off I did change from Hasselblad to Bronica 67 and that was a disaster induced by stock considerations. Having ditched that Bronica nightmare I went back to a totally Nikon armoury for a few years and then made the error of allowing myself to think 67 again to the extent that I bought into Pentax 67. You guessed: another mistake. In effect, none of those 67 systems was as convenient as was the 66 nor were the results better.

And thatīs one big point that Ray was making: whether you throw away film acreage or dump pixels, the result is the same in that your original starting point has been savaged and the assumptions based on original size become flawed.

But, if you work with either 35mm film or, for that matter, 35mm-based digital slr cameras, you do develop a style very much based on using the full frame, in which case, using the full small format does equate with cropping a larger sensor, as you will have to do, to suit most page shapes.

Now, you say you have worked with a great number of publications between NY and London - (the Atlantis Sunday Times, perhaps - just a joke, no offence), and you will probably admit from that experience that few publications run square pics very often, so the oblong comes into its own. You also say you have gallery representation. Fine, but from what I have personally seen, that is no guarantee of photographic ability, usually it turns out to be something very different that gets photographers onto gallery walls, but we need not get into that pile of manure right now. But, if we must talk gallery, then the square Hasselblad does have its place if only for the cute little V-cuts on the left-hand margin of the printed rebate which seem to be part of the magic potion that opens doors.

However, isnīt it frustrating that on an A3+ itīs the 35mm slr type of camera that can produce the bigger untrimmed image!

So where do I stand on all of this? On the side of free choice: use whatever turns you on but please, donīt let any one of us take it personally enough to get pissed of with fellow scribblers; we are mostly here to share bits of knowledge, experience and even perhaps just to fill in otherwise empty time. Got to say, when I was working, finding time for VAT returns, income tax returns or even sending out invoices was pushing things hard; chat-shows like this one would never have stood a chance!

So stand back, take a deep breath and leave it to the doggies to worry the ends of the same bone!

Ciao - Rob C
Title: PMA round up
Post by: samuel_js on February 14, 2008, 01:57:17 pm
Quote
And you still haven't given me one single example to prove your point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know, we don't need to give you proof or examples of anything. I have thousands off DB and 35mm digital files in my hard drive that it took myself with my own hands. If you think you'll get an idea of what a DB can do looking at some jpgs you're very wrong about how proffs work and how we test and use our stuff.
Don't worry if you don't see any difference. It's nothing wrong with your eyes. It's simply that other people's vision could be better than yours.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 14, 2008, 02:26:21 pm
Quote
Woof75

I have never owned nor even tried an MF back and at my stage of the game it is very unlikely that I ever will. Like Ray, retirement is a way of life - not necessarily a particularly welcome one,  but thatīs how photography goes; when youīre hot youīre hot and when youīre not youīre not. There is not a lot in photography to encourage one to work at lower levels than one has experienced in the past, so a fond farewell is often the best way of getting out with some dignity...

But the point is this: when I was working my ass off I did change from Hasselblad to Bronica 67 and that was a disaster induced by stock considerations. Having ditched that Bronica nightmare I went back to a totally Nikon armoury for a few years and then made the error of allowing myself to think 67 again to the extent that I bought into Pentax 67. You guessed: another mistake. In effect, none of those 67 systems was as convenient as was the 66 nor were the results better.

And thatīs one big point that Ray was making: whether you throw away film acreage or dump pixels, the result is the same in that your original starting point has been savaged and the assumptions based on original size become flawed.

But, if you work with either 35mm film or, for that matter, 35mm-based digital slr cameras, you do develop a style very much based on using the full frame, in which case, using the full small format does equate with cropping a larger sensor, as you will have to do, to suit most page shapes.

Now, you say you have worked with a great number of publications between NY and London - (the Atlantis Sunday Times, perhaps - just a joke, no offence), and you will probably admit from that experience that few publications run square pics very often, so the oblong comes into its own. You also say you have gallery representation. Fine, but from what I have personally seen, that is no guarantee of photographic ability, usually it turns out to be something very different that gets photographers onto gallery walls, but we need not get into that pile of manure right now. But, if we must talk gallery, then the square Hasselblad does have its place if only for the cute little V-cuts on the left-hand margin of the printed rebate which seem to be part of the magic potion that opens doors.

However, isnīt it frustrating that on an A3+ itīs the 35mm slr type of camera that can produce the bigger untrimmed image!

So where do I stand on all of this? On the side of free choice: use whatever turns you on but please, donīt let any one of us take it personally enough to get pissed of with fellow scribblers; we are mostly here to share bits of knowledge, experience and even perhaps just to fill in otherwise empty time. Got to say, when I was working, finding time for VAT returns, income tax returns or even sending out invoices was pushing things hard; chat-shows like this one would never have stood a chance!

So stand back, take a deep breath and leave it to the doggies to worry the ends of the same bone!

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob, I have no idea what your point is, if it is that all formats have an advantage and a disadvantage then I agree as I have stated before. Also I do take it personally, I am being accused of using something out of some sort of strange self delusion rather than experience and a good eye.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 06:04:01 pm
Quote
Rob, I have no idea what your point is, if it is that all formats have an advantage and a disadvantage then I agree as I have stated before. Also I do take it personally, I am being accused of using something out of some sort of strange self delusion rather than experience and a good eye.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why you should take this personally beats me. I don't know you. You don't know me. You've also disguised yourself so your clients don't know you on this forum, probably a wise thing to do because any of your clients coming across this thread  might wonder, as I do, why you are so reluctant to demonstrate the quality differences you see between a 1Ds3 and a P21.

I could be wrong, but I get a sense of a cover-up going on here. Could the reason you can't provide a couple of RAW images demonstrating such differences be due to the fact that you don't have a 1Ds3 and have never done a comparison using a 1Ds3? Or perhaps the reason is, you know such differences are small and are worried that anyone with good photoshop skills would be able to easily impart to the 1Ds3 image those very qualities which you think are inherently imbedded in the P21 file.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 14, 2008, 06:09:19 pm
Quote
Why you should take this personally beats me. I don't know you. You don't know me. You've also disguised yourself so your clients don't know you on this forum, probably a wise thing to do because any of your clients coming across this thread  might wonder, as I do, why you are so reluctant to demonstrate the quality differences you see between a 1Ds3 and a P21.

I could be wrong, but I get a sense of a cover-up going on here. Could the reason you can't provide a couple of RAW images demonstrating such differences be due to the fact that you don't have a 1Ds3 and have never done a comparison using a 1Ds3? Or perhaps the reason is, you know such differences are small and are worried that anyone with good photoshop skills would be able to easily impart to the 1Ds3 image those very qualities which you think are inherently imbedded in the P21 file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not spending my valuable time shooting brick walls for you Ray, I ask you again, why do I use it if I can't see a quality difference, why does Mario Testino use one, why does Mert and Marcus use one, these are  some of the best eyes in the industry, any chance they are seeing something that the almighty Ray doesn't see. (or hasen't seen because he doesn't even own one)
Title: PMA round up
Post by: samuel_js on February 14, 2008, 06:19:26 pm
Quote
Why you should take this personally beats me. I don't know you. You don't know me. You've also disguised yourself so your clients don't know you on this forum, probably a wise thing to do because any of your clients coming across this thread  might wonder, as I do, why you are so reluctant to demonstrate the quality differences you see between a 1Ds3 and a P21.

I could be wrong, but I get a sense of a cover-up going on here. Could the reason you can't provide a couple of RAW images demonstrating such differences be due to the fact that you don't have a 1Ds3 and have never done a comparison using a 1Ds3? Or perhaps the reason is, you know such differences are small and are worried that anyone with good photoshop skills would be able to easily impart to the 1Ds3 image those very qualities which you think are inherently imbedded in the P21 file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, If the Canon 1Ds IV was 31 mp. Would you still compare it to a P30? I don't think so. The only thing you guys are looking at here is the pixel count.
If you look at the corners of any of my H2/35mm files compared to any canon file you would cry, I promise. Go and try to fix that in Photoshop.
You guys need a bit of actual real life experience to know how good a system is. There's a lot of factors to measure. But the truth is that real photographers doesn't spend their time with those test. The experience and every day work will show you the best system.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 06:38:39 pm
Quote
You know, we don't need to give you proof or examples of anything. I have thousands off DB and 35mm digital files in my hard drive that it took myself with my own hands. If you think you'll get an idea of what a DB can do looking at some jpgs you're very wrong about how proffs work and how we test and use our stuff.
Don't worry if you don't see any difference. It's nothing wrong with your eyes. It's simply that other people's vision could be better than yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's the RAW files we want, Samuel. Even maximum quality jpeg crops would leave too many doubts because such images can be processed for almost any 'look' you want.

Once again, threads like this have arisen because of the existence of the 21mp 1Ds3 which, when cropped to the same aspect ratio as the P21, has a very similar pixel count. You might have thousands of digital 35mm files on your hard drive, but are any of them from the 1Ds3?

As far as I know, the pixel count of DBs has always been ahead of 35mm sensors. 6mp DBs were available when the maximum for cropped 35mm was 3mp. At the time of the 11mp 1Ds we had 16mp DBs. The argument that it's not about pixel count also seems suspect to me. We all know that a large image file downsampled to a smaller size can result in subtle improvements in image quality such as lower noise and greater accutance.

Of course you don't need to provide any proof substantiating your claims. You don't need to and it looks as though you are not going to. It just seems to me a rather imperious and arrogant attitude to have, but it's your call.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: samuel_js on February 14, 2008, 06:45:09 pm
Quote
It's the RAW files we want, Samuel. Even maximum quality jpeg crops would leave too many doubts because such images can be processed for almost any 'look' you want.

Once again, threads like this have arisen because of the existence of the 21mp 1Ds3 which, when cropped to the same aspect ratio as the P21, has a very similar pixel count. You might have thousands of digital 35mm files on your hard drive, but are any of them from the 1Ds3?

As far as I know, the pixel count of DBs has always been ahead of 35mm sensors. 6mp DBs were available when the maximum for cropped 35mm was 3mp. At the time of the 11mp 1Ds we had 16mp DBs. The argument that it's not about pixel count also seems suspect to me. We all know that a large image file downsampled to a smaller size can result in subtle improvements in image quality such as lower noise and greater accutance.

Of course you don't need to provide any proof substantiating your claims. You don't need to and it looks as though you are not going to. It just seems to me a rather imperious and arrogant attitude to have, but it's your call.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your problem is that you think the 1DS III is better than the MarkII or de mark I or closer to the p21 because of the pixel count. Wrong, the quality is the same but with more resolution. That's all. Again, there's other factors to look at.
I'm done now really. No need for me to continue with this. Just use the better for your needs.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Streetshooter on February 14, 2008, 06:48:58 pm
Quote
It's the RAW files we want, Samuel. Even maximum quality jpeg crops would leave too many doubts because such images can be processed for almost any 'look' you want.

Once again, threads like this have arisen because of the existence of the 21mp 1Ds3 which, when cropped to the same aspect ratio as the P21, has a very similar pixel count. You might have thousands of digital 35mm files on your hard drive, but are any of them from the 1Ds3?

As far as I know, the pixel count of DBs has always been ahead of 35mm sensors. 6mp DBs were available when the maximum for cropped 35mm was 3mp. At the time of the 11mp 1Ds we had 16mp DBs. The argument that it's not about pixel count also seems suspect to me. We all know that a large image file downsampled to a smaller size can result in subtle improvements in image quality such as lower noise and greater accutance.

Of course you don't need to provide any proof substantiating your claims. You don't need to and it looks as though you are not going to. It just seems to me a rather imperious and arrogant attitude to have, but it's your call.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A suggestion Ray.  Instead of disbelieving everybody else on this forum, why don't you hire the gear yourself, do a comparison test to your standard and post it here for all to see.

Now that would be interesting....


Pete
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 07:25:11 pm
Quote
A suggestion Ray.  Instead of disbelieving everybody else on this forum, why don't you hire the gear yourself, do a comparison test to your standard and post it here for all to see.

Now that would be interesting....
Pete
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would be interesting but I suspect you know already why I haven't done this. I don't have the equipment and I can't hire the equipment. Photographic hire places in Brisbane don't seem to carry the latest equipment.

What gives you the impression I'm disbelieving everyone on the forum? I'm not the only one who thinks the image quality differences between a 1Ds3 and P21 are likely to be very small and inconsequential.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 14, 2008, 09:36:35 pm
Quote
It would be interesting but I suspect you know already why I haven't done this. I don't have the equipment and I can't hire the equipment. Photographic hire places in Brisbane don't seem to carry the latest equipment.

What gives you the impression I'm disbelieving everyone on the forum? I'm not the only one who thinks the image quality differences between a 1Ds3 and P21 are likely to be very small and inconsequential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I love it that you use the words "likely to be very small and inconsequential," someone who has never even used this stuff is telling an experienced pro who has used both systems extensively that.  Also, you didn't tell me why I and Mario Testino, Steven Miesel etc etc continue to use MF if a dslr would give the same results.  These people don't need a fancy camera to impress a client. Trust me, when you shoot all the time as a profession the novelty factor of using a big fancy camera has no bearing, you use the tool that will get the job done best most easily with the least shoulder ache possible. Sometimes thats a DSLR and sometimes it's MF.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: DarkPenguin on February 14, 2008, 09:46:29 pm
That's great.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 14, 2008, 09:52:50 pm
Quote
I'm not spending my valuable time shooting brick walls for you Ray, I ask you again, why do I use it if I can't see a quality difference, why does Mario Testino use one, why does Mert and Marcus use one, these are  some of the best eyes in the industry, any chance they are seeing something that the almighty Ray doesn't see. (or hasen't seen because he doesn't even own one)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now I get it. It's a matter of 'follow the leader'. Use whatever the best talents in the industry use and you can't go far wrong. There's really no need for any equipment comparisons at all.

I've got no idea if Mario Testino has ever used a 1Ds3, has ever done any 1Ds3/P21 comparisons or what his views are on the subject.

If I wanted the best quality images that the current state of digital photography could provide, in a shooting environment where equipment weight and cost was not a major concern, I'd definitely be going for something like a P45+ with the finest Digitar or Rodenstock lenses that money can buy.

I've always been of the opinion that larger sensors have the potential to provide better quality images, all else being equal.

I was very interested to read recently on this site Edmund's report that he was getting very good results at ISO 1600 with his P45+ by underexposing 4 stops at ISO 100. I would also be interested in a comparison between such a P45+ shot and a 1Ds3 shot at ISO 1600. Larger sensors generally accommodate a larger dynamic range. If the DR of the P45 is measured at 12 stops (for example) compared to 10 stops for the 1Ds3, using the same standard of DR measurement, then there's an implication that the P45 could be underexposed 2 stops without producing greater shadow noise than the 1Ds3 does when correctly exposed. This might be an advantage of the larger format in circumstances where bracketing of shots (with the smaller format) is not practicable because of subject movement.

Now you are claiming that there are meaningful quality differences, that are not necessarily related to DR or resolution, that are so significant to you that you would buy into a different system, at presumably great expense, in order to get such improved quality.

Now, I just find it very odd that you are so reluctant (that everyone who might own the different systems in question is so reluctant) to share this wondrous joy you've experienced upon observing these differences.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: pss on February 14, 2008, 11:15:12 pm
Quote
I'm not the only one who thinks the image quality differences between a 1Ds3 and P21 are likely to be very small and inconsequential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i am sure you are not the only one and you are correct that the image differences between a 1ds3 and aP21 are small...how significant they are is a very personal decision and that is that....and again there is so much more to those tools then just image quality....

why are you asking for proof? i and many others know why they are using what they are using...why on earth should they have to proof anything to you? if you think that you find the right tool for you by reading about it, i think you are wrong....
also if you don't have any rental places around or places that sell the stuff where you live, there is obviously not a big photomarket either, so you probably don't need those tools anyway....if you just want them, just get them..mailorder....or are you just kicking tires forever...not in the market for a ds3 or a P21 anyway? so why are you doubting people's choices? why shoudl they shoot walls so you can get off?
edmund shoots a P45 at 4stops under at 100 and ,bla,bla,bla....isn't this supposed to be a photography forum? who cares! he wanted to get into DMF to shoot runway! i remember that discussion well! but he likes what he likes and makes his own tests......but really: shouldn't we talk about composition, tones, expression, maybe a little business?
if i write about something i have tested and experienced, you can read that, look at my work and say:BS! the guy has no clue! which really is fine with me....

i can tell you again that i was helping a friend of mine today (retouching, getting files ready, proof printing) for a story soon to appear in maxim magazine....shot with a P21 and we compared some files from the 5D and again...maybe the difference is small and insignificant to you, but it sure is very obvious to us....would the final file in the mag look different if he would have used the 5D for that shoot? maybe not, we probably could have tuned them to look just as good...but that is not the point....we looked at the proof prints....
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Rob C on February 15, 2008, 05:41:57 am
My how rapidly the world turns! Last time I put my head over the parapet Mario Testino was shooting with a Pentax 67. Not to forget that Marco Glaviano shot his book Sirens of Costasmeralda (sic) on a Canon dslr...

But there you are, it isnīt only about quality and personal choice in the end, it gets mixed up with other peoplesī work flow too. I know several photographers of note who would have been perfectly happy to continue using their RZs or RBs had their clients not decided to save their own money by demanding files only.

The bottom line is that we are in a state of flux and much of what is happening includes the passing of more than one baby down the plug-hole along with the soiled water. The fact that photographers now have to have skills which once resided in process houses is not good news for photographers, it is just more unwanted responsibility way beyond that which a photographer needed to have. In my mind, a photographer is all about making pictures: the job ends with handing over the transparency or print. There is no reason on Earth that a great photographer should be expected to  be a great retoucher, that he should have to fight problems related to printing companies etc. It used to take long apprenticeships for those skills to be learned in their trades - how can anyone realistically expect the photographer to embrace them all? He doesnīt. He has to hire other people and expand his operating base and take on a whole raft of unsolicited problems, not the least of which is how to charge for the additional time the new way takes.

To fight over the value or otherwise of different systems of camera is really quite redundant. As has been pointed out already by several here, myself included, they are all different and it is an individual choice based on expectation and resources that governs the ultimate decision for model A over the rest.

On the other hand, perhaps thatīs what these forum debates are really all about: the last word. Sadly, you often get it because the other guy has simply given up on you as being a waste of time.

On the other hand, there is always Mr P who transfixes me with his short jabs: were I any good at lateral thinking I might just get to the meanings sometimes... but I love them even if I donīt always understand them!

No sunshine today; quite cloudy and a little cold. Just love the Med in winter when it sucks!

Rob C
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 15, 2008, 07:28:03 am
Quote
i am sure you are not the only one and you are correct that the image differences between a 1ds3 and aP21 are small...how significant they are is a very personal decision and that is that....and again there is so much more to those tools then just image quality....

why are you asking for proof? i and many others know why they are using what they are using...why on earth should they have to proof anything to you? if you think that you find the right tool for you by reading about it, i think you are wrong....

Why am I asking for proof? I would describe it more as evidence. We're talking here about the qualities of a visual medium; the qualities of a photographic image from two different styles and formats of cameras and there are no proper examples to demonstrate what's being referred to.

This thread began with the following statement from Woof75;

Quote
Michael, I strongly disagree with your assessment that lower pixel count digital backs are becoming irrelevant because the pixel count increases of digital SLR's. As you say earlier in your article, it's about time people stop worrying about pixel counts and start thinking about quality and in that regard digital backs give a very different look than a DSLR. A 22 MP DSLR is about as different from a 22MP digital back as a 16MP DSLR is from a back, it's not the pixel count that you get a back for (though it can be useful) it's the different look. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree.

Five pages later, all we have is a pile of words and one deeply flawed comparison. Dear me! What a debacle!

But never mind! It's no big deal for me. I have a natural curiosity about such matters because of my longstanding interest in Photography, but there's a limit to the amount of trouble and expense I'm willing to go to in search of such elusive and ineffable qualities.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 15, 2008, 08:23:45 am
Quote
Why am I asking for proof? I would describe it more as evidence. We're talking here about the qualities of a visual medium; the qualities of a photographic image from two different styles and formats of cameras and there are no proper examples to demonstrate what's being referred to.

This thread began with the following statement from Woof75;
Five pages later, all we have is a pile of words and one deeply flawed comparison. Dear me! What a debacle!

But never mind! It's no big deal for me. I have a natural curiosity about such matters because of my longstanding interest in Photography, but there's a limit to the amount of trouble and expense I'm willing to go to in search of such elusive and ineffable qualities.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No time for posting tests, they often don't show things anyway, ones sharper than the other, just sharpen the other more, see now that ones sharper. (but what does that do to the overall look and feel?) See you need to look at it not as a pixel peeper looking at jpegs but as an artist looking at big images on screens or prints with the eye of an artist. I wish it could be more easily digestible for all to see but you really need to use one of these things yourself.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 15, 2008, 01:03:29 pm
Quote
No time for posting tests, they often don't show things anyway, ones sharper than the other, just sharpen the other more, see now that ones sharper. (but what does that do to the overall look and feel?) See you need to look at it not as a pixel peeper looking at jpegs but as an artist looking at big images on screens or prints with the eye of an artist. I wish it could be more easily digestible for all to see but you really need to use one of these things yourself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I find that the over all look and feel of any of my big images on print or screen is largely dependent on the amount of processing I do. The finished image will almost always be very different in tonality, contrast, sharpness etc than the way it first appears in my RAW converter before any adjustments are made.

The idea that some subtle 'look' or 'quality' is going to survive the many adjustments I make and shine through, so to speak, to make it clear the original file was a P21 and not a 1Ds3, simply does not seem credible to me.

The few RAW files from Phase backs that I've looked at so far, initially have had a very different appearance to Canon files in ACR. For some reason the AWB (as shot) is very different. However, a simple adjustment of temperature and tint can remove 90% of that initial difference in appearance.

This argument you're presenting that it takes a fine artistic eye to discern these differences and that one either sees them or one doesn't, reminds me very much of the audio amplifier arguments that used to be common in the 1970's and 80's.

For a couple of decades or so I was fascinated with hi fi matters and used to read reviews in hi fi mags of the latest loudspeaker and amplifier designs. I have no trouble understanding lens MTF charts because I was already familiar with loudspeaker and amplifier frequency response charts.

One thing that used to puzzle me greatly were the claims by apparent experts in the audio field that differences in amplifier design were very audible. Even though two power amplifiers might have a similar RMS power rating, a similarly flat frequency response to beyond the limits of human hearing and similarly low harmonic distortion way below the threshold of human hearing, the expensive amplifier with an exotic design was often claimed to sound better.

Reviews of such amplifiers would often refer to a 'punchy' bass with lots of 'kick', or a 'sweet' treble, or a sense of 3-dimensionality that the cheaper amplifier just lacked. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't hear such differences. I could certainly hear major differences between 2 pairs of loudspeakers, but the subtle differences inherent in the different classes and desgns of power amplifiers escaped me. Provided the amplifiers had enough power to drive the speakers and were at least of reasonable quality, they all sounded alike to me.

Could it be I have defective hearing? Not likely, since I do (or did) play the piano.

Could it be that to hear such differences one needs above normal hearing, or golden ears?

Well, one day this was put to the test in a very thorough manner by one of the leading Hi Fi magazines of the day that seemed to specialize more in objective testing methods than some of their rivals. I suppose you could call them the Dpreview of the audio world.

They invited a number of leading audio experts to a listening session. All of them were chosen because they had avowed with great certainty that they could easily tell the difference between the sound of a valve amplifier, a hybrid valve/transistor amplifier, a Class A amplifier, Class C, MOS VFET and so on. These were guys who knew what they were doing; who had had years of experience in the audio industry. They were asked to bring along their favourite listening material and/or recordings they were particulalrly familiar with.

Now, I can't remember the precise details of the equipment used, but the loudspeakers and turntable would have been the best available. The amplifiers ranged from a $400 Pioneer model to a $10,000 Mark-levinson Valve/Hybrid amp the size of a small fridge. All the amplifiers were connected to the main speakers through a switching system so that at any given time whilst the music was playing, the amplifier driving the speakers could be changed. The listeners were never told which amplifier was in use at any particualr time.

The objective of the exercise was to identify the amplifier in use at any particular time. Do you think these experienced experts, so confident of their abilities, were able to do that? Not at all. The results were no better than tossing a coin. In fact they were slightly worse because the el cheapo Pioneer amp was confused with the expensive Mark-Levinson more than 50% of the time.

The reason I'm going to this trouble is to give a hint as to the sort of procedure that would be necessary to clear up this matter of the P21 versus the 1Ds3. Most of us can see subtle differences of hue, tone, temperature, saturation etc, otherwise we wouldn't be able to edit our images. Just a small touch of an adjustment curve makes a visible change. If you can't see the change, you're in trouble with regard to editing images.

What I would propose is that some competent photographer who owns both cameras, and a selection of good lenses for both cameras, does a thorough and careful job of shooting a still-life with both cameras, paying particular attention to precise matching of FoV, DoF and exact focussing on the same spot.

He then makes the RAW images available to anyone who's interested so they can process the images to the best of their ability. The processed images could then be made available in their original but equalised size, stripped of their EXIF information and metadata, and we could have a poll on which was which.

How does that sound? Too much trouble I'm sure, so we can continue to have these fruitless discussions about some mystical quality of DBs, only visible to the finely tuned artistic temperament.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 15, 2008, 01:58:25 pm
Quote
Well, I find that the over all look and feel of any of my big images on print or screen is largely dependent on the amount of processing I do. The finished image will almost always be very different in tonality, contrast, sharpness etc than the way it first appears in my RAW converter before any adjustments are made.

The idea that some subtle 'look' or 'quality' is going to survive the many adjustments I make and shine through, so to speak, to make it clear the original file was a P21 and not a 1Ds3, simply does not seem credible to me.

The few RAW files from Phase backs that I've looked at so far, initially have had a very different appearance to Canon files in ACR. For some reason the AWB (as shot) is very different. However, a simple adjustment of temperature and tint can remove 90% of that initial difference in appearance.

This argument you're presenting that it takes a fine artistic eye to discern these differences and that one either sees them or one doesn't, reminds me very much of the audio amplifier arguments that used to be common in the 1970's and 80's.

For a couple of decades or so I was fascinated with hi fi matters and used to read reviews in hi fi mags of the latest loudspeaker and amplifier designs. I have no trouble understanding lens MTF charts because I was already familiar with loudspeaker and amplifier frequency response charts.

One thing that used to puzzle me greatly were the claims by apparent experts in the audio field that differences in amplifier design were very audible. Even though two power amplifiers might have a similar RMS power rating, a similarly flat frequency response to beyond the limits of human hearing and similarly low harmonic distortion way below the threshold of human hearing, the expensive amplifier with an exotic design was often claimed to sound better.

Reviews of such amplifiers would often refer to a 'punchy' bass with lots of 'kick', or a 'sweet' treble, or a sense of 3-dimensionality that the cheaper amplifier just lacked. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't hear such differences. I could certainly hear major differences between 2 pairs of loudspeakers, but the subtle differences inherent in the different classes and desgns of power amplifiers escaped me. Provided the amplifiers had enough power to drive the speakers and were at least of reasonable quality, they all sounded alike to me.

Could it be I have defective hearing? Not likely, since I do (or did) play the piano.

Could it be that to hear such differences one needs above normal hearing, or golden ears?

Well, one day this was put to the test in a very thorough manner by one of the leading Hi Fi magazines of the day that seemed to specialize more in objective testing methods than some of their rivals. I suppose you could call them the Dpreview of the audio world.

They invited a number of leading audio experts to a listening session. All of them were chosen because they had avowed with great certainty that they could easily tell the difference between the sound of a valve amplifier, a hybrid valve/transistor amplifier, a Class A amplifier, Class C, MOS VFET and so on. These were guys who knew what they were doing; who had had years of experience in the audio industry. They were asked to bring along their favourite listening material and/or recordings they were particulalrly familiar with.

Now, I can't remember the precise details of the equipment used, but the loudspeakers and turntable would have been the best available. The amplifiers ranged from a $400 Pioneer model to a $10,000 Mark-levinson Valve/Hybrid amp the size of a small fridge. All the amplifiers were connected to the main speakers through a switching system so that at any given time whilst the music was playing, the amplifier driving the speakers could be changed. The listeners were never told which amplifier was in use at any particualr time.

The objective of the exercise was to identify the amplifier in use at any particular time. Do you think these experienced experts, so confident of their abilities, were able to do that? Not at all. The results were no better than tossing a coin. In fact they were slightly worse because the el cheapo Pioneer amp was confused with the expensive Mark-Levinson more than 50% of the time.

The reason I'm going to this trouble is to give a hint as to the sort of procedure that would be necessary to clear up this matter of the P21 versus the 1Ds3. Most of us can see subtle differences of hue, tone, temperature, saturation etc, otherwise we wouldn't be able to edit our images. Just a small touch of an adjustment curve makes a visible change. If you can't see the change, you're in trouble with regard to editing images.

What I would propose is that some competent photographer who owns both cameras, and a selection of good lenses for both cameras, does a thorough and careful job of shooting a still-life with both cameras, paying particular attention to precise matching of FoV, DoF and exact focussing on the same spot.

He then makes the RAW images available to anyone who's interested so they can process the images to the best of their ability. The processed images could then be made available in their original but equalised size, stripped of their EXIF information and metadata, and we could have a poll on which was which.

How does that sound? Too much trouble I'm sure, so we can continue to have these fruitless discussions about some mystical quality of DBs, only visible to the finely tuned artistic temperament.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Really all of these arguments are so silly when you've never shot a digital back. I'm sorry but your opinions really aren't valid.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Christopher on February 15, 2008, 02:15:54 pm
Quote
Really all of these arguments are so silly when you've never shot a digital back. I'm sorry but your opinions really aren't valid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

but yours is ^^
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 15, 2008, 02:25:34 pm
Quote
but yours is ^^
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes because I have used both extensively, really to continue the hifi analogy, it's like having an opinion on the sound of a hifi that you'd read about in a magazine. I mean come on.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: pss on February 15, 2008, 03:00:33 pm
actually the one thing that everybody agrees on (every reviewer,...) is that one of the advantages of DMF files is that you can do A LOT more in post then with DSLR files before they start to fall apart...the extra pixel depth and higher DR and less noise (at base speeds) give you way more room to push and pull the files in every direction you want....

but i have also said here many times that a master retoucher can make almost ANY files look amazing....which is why annie can easily shoot canon and make huge prints....the retouching for one print costs more then a Dback! but that is not what i would consider the norm and we have to look at the files how they come out....

if i shoot a P20 with a good MF lens and happen to hit the focus right, i do not need any sharpening in post...none, nada....with the canon i can make a file appear as sharp by sharpening the file, but on close inspection and especially when res'ing up with will be obvious...

but really it seems like you want me or someone else here do the work so you can feel that you were right all along...because, again, who knows that you would see the difference if i did the test?

you comparison with hifi is interesting to me, because i used to work in a hifi store a long time ago...we sold mostly british manufacturers, and we never posted any specs like watts or curves...the motto was, come in, sit down, listen, if you like it and it is in your price range, buy it and be happy....who cares about the specs....we encouraged people to bring their own amps, speakers, turntables and their own music....nobody can tell you what SOUNDS better....or at least if someone tries, you should not listen.....did i ever look at mags and read reviews? sure....but it is like wine....taste it, some people have different taste....blind taste it...there will be a difference and sometimes the cheaper one is more to your liking!

it does not always came down to numbers and charts and specs...even if you buy a car, the most important thing is to take a seat and drive it around the corner...yes the features and specs are important but just like a 2 ton truck with 250hp will probably be slower then a 750kg 125hp mini, a 10mpix cellphone cam will be horrible compared to a 3mpix DSLR....

to add something else here....lenses: lens ratings, tests,...if you think about a lens as a brush that paints the light onto the sensor, there is no bad lens...there are all kind of optical imperfections but they actually, maybe add a certain look to your image...maybe a little soft glow, a little flair from a 50year old uncoated lens makes a great interpretation of a scene....which is really what photography is about....
i am not saying that distortions are always great and i only want imperfect glass, but it is all very personal and in the end it is the print that counts....
Title: PMA round up
Post by: DarkPenguin on February 15, 2008, 03:51:40 pm
Quote
Yes because I have used both extensively, really to continue the hifi analogy, it's like having an opinion on the sound of a hifi that you'd read about in a magazine. I mean come on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175091\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Except you can email Ray a file that is representative of the output of the MFDB.  You can't email him an amplifier.  I think he is only concerned about the output of the MFDB.  (I also believe he has the collection of MFBD and other files that MR offered up for sale a while ago.)
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 15, 2008, 04:15:41 pm
Quote
Except you can email Ray a file that is representative of the output of the MFDB.  You can't email him an amplifier.  I think he is only concerned about the output of the MFDB.  (I also believe he has the collection of MFBD and other files that MR offered up for sale a while ago.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's funny but just looking at a couple of files doesn't do it, you have to look at many files. I'm really tired of repeating myself. Shall we all just wait for the review of the 1ds mark 3 that Michael will inevitably be doing.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 15, 2008, 04:47:42 pm
alright, brace yourself, here goes, I'll either show you what I'm talking about or I'll show the pointlessness of this kind of test, I guess it's win win. Now, neither of these eyes have been retouched, I converted both in my converter of choice, Lightroom, neither have been up or downsampled, both are at highest quality jpeg. I processed them both to be as sharp as I could without introducing artifacts, I converted to b & W to try and standardise the test as much as possible. Neither was shot with a tripod so not exceptionally sharp but you may see that the eye crop from the phase whilst not really being any meaningfull amount sharper has more sparkle and punch to it, the light is the same light, just in a slightly different place and yes different lights create different amounts of "sparkle". This comparison shows what I have seen on hundreds and hundreds of files. The eyes were taken pretty much at random from 2 different shoots. You may disregard this and say that I rigged it or you believe me when I say this is very indicative of what I see all the time. Your choice.
(I totally understand if people also say they prefer the canon file, thats a fair choice but you can't say there the same).
Title: PMA round up
Post by: DarkPenguin on February 15, 2008, 05:41:17 pm
Quote
Michael, I strongly disagree with your assessment that lower pixel count digital backs are becoming irrelevant because the pixel count increases of digital SLR's. As you say earlier in your article, it's about time people stop worrying about pixel counts and start thinking about quality and in that regard digital backs give a very different look than a DSLR. A 22 MP DSLR is about as different from a 22MP digital back as a 16MP DSLR is from a back, it's not the pixel count that you get a back for (though it can be useful) it's the different look. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I'll agree with that.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 15, 2008, 11:45:56 pm
Quote
alright, brace yourself, here goes, I'll either show you what I'm talking about or I'll show the pointlessness of this kind of test, I guess it's win win. Now, neither of these eyes have been retouched, I converted both in my converter of choice, Lightroom, neither have been up or downsampled, both are at highest quality jpeg. I processed them both to be as sharp as I could without introducing artifacts, I converted to b & W to try and standardise the test as much as possible. Neither was shot with a tripod so not exceptionally sharp but you may see that the eye crop from the phase whilst not really being any meaningfull amount sharper has more sparkle and punch to it, the light is the same light, just in a slightly different place and yes different lights create different amounts of "sparkle". This comparison shows what I have seen on hundreds and hundreds of files. The eyes were taken pretty much at random from 2 different shoots. You may disregard this and say that I rigged it or you believe me when I say this is very indicative of what I see all the time. Your choice.
(I totally understand if people also say they prefer the canon file, thats a fair choice but you can't say there the same).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is a good example of why we need shots of exactly the same scene with exactly the same lighting, taken from exactly the same perspective using apertures that produce exactly the same DoF... exact as is humanly possible that is.

Lens quality should also be matched to ensure, for example, there is no obvious resolution fall-off in the corners or at the edges. The P21 is a cropped format whereas the 1Ds3 isn't. The 35mm lens ideally should also be a sharper lens than the MF lens. Smaller formats need sharper lenses for images to match those from a larger format.

All the examples comparing the P21 with the 1Ds3 I've seen so far indicate to me that the people behind the cameras either have no intention, no desire and no motivation to do a proper and fair comparison, or they don't have the skills required to do a proper and fair comparison.

Woolf75 has made a claim that there are good reasons to use a DB instead of a 35mm DSLR with similar pixel count. I would agree that there are indeed good reasons. I can think of a few. The availability of better lenses would be the first one that springs to mind. An MF lens does not have to be better in an absolute sense, ie. higher resolution in terms of lp/mm at a particular contrast. It can be merely as good as the 35mm counterpart and still produce sharper results because the pixel spacing on a P21 is wider. Whilst a 1Ds3 can record detail up to 60 lp/mm (approximately), the P21 needs to record detail only up to 40 lp/mm to produce the same picture resolution. It may be the case that the P21 has an advantage in the sense it can record greater than 40 lp/mm because it has no AA filter. This is also a factor that one might take into consideration when comparing formats. Some people seem to hate aliasing artifacts and some seem to like them, or at least tolerate them for the sake of a sometimes slightly crisper look.

The second reason that springs to mind is the greater dynamic range of the DB at base ISO. Even though one might not be shooting a particularly contrasty scene most of the time, the extra dynamic range allows for less concern, less anxiety, about achieving a full exposure to the right. With DR to spare, one can afford to underexpose a bit more with a DB. I think it would be true to say that the 35mm user's obsession with ETTR is due to the lower DR of that format.

I really don't understand the attitude of people like Woof75 who claim that DBs have a different look, it's as simple as that. You either see it or you don't. That seems to be a very unhelpul and uninformed attitude. This is not just about who's right and who's wrong, for me. It's about learning what are the causes for this 'different look'. Is it something that can be easily fixed with a few adjustments in Photoshop, or is it a quality deeply embedded in the DB file which cannot be emulated in a 35mm image either with or without expending a great deal of time?

Is it really perhaps due to the use of a better, more expensive MF lens? Could it be the case that the best 35mm lenses are really no sharper than the best MF lenses? These are the questions that need to be answered for us to learn something out of this exercise.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: DarkPenguin on February 16, 2008, 12:53:28 am
The posts are getting even bigger these days.  I guess the real sign that there is nothing more to say is when it takes so long to say it.

Anyway.

Ray, the next time you're someplace that can rent a MFDB feel free to do so.  Let us know what you find.  While you're at it you can also look into Leica lenses and tell us what the Leica look is all about.  It has only taken people 50 years to come up with some theories on that one.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: pss on February 16, 2008, 12:56:30 am
Quote
The posts are getting even bigger these days.  I guess the real sign that there is nothing more to say is when it takes so long to say it.

Anyway.

Ray, the next time you're someplace that can rent a MFDB feel free to do so.  Let us know what you find.  While you're at it you can also look into Leica lenses and tell us what the Leica look is all about.  It has only taken people 50 years to come up with some theories on that one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

funny...you can take a wild guess what i am shooting with now.....
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 16, 2008, 01:07:59 am
Quote
but really it seems like you want me or someone else here do the work so you can feel that you were right all along...because, again, who knows that you would see the difference if i did the test?

True learning is always a case of finding out if you were right or wrong. I get the impression that there are some people here who simply don't want to find out if they are right or wrong. I've already explained, it would be extremely difficult, not to mention very expensive, for me to get hold of both a P21 and 1Ds3 to carry out thorough tests in a relaxed environment. There's no place where I live that hires out such equipment (although I'd have no trouble hiring a 1Ds or D2X) so I'd have to pay for the equipment first and then try to claim a refund on the grounds the equipment wasn't suitable. I have no MF body that fits a P21 (I don't believe my RB67 cuts it, but perhaps I'm wrong here) and no modern MF lenses. However, I do have a Mamiya Sekor C 65/f4.5; a Mamiya Sekor C 90/F3.8; a Mamiya Sekor C 180/F4.5 and a Mamiya Sekor C 360/F6.3. How these lenses rate in the general scheme of things I don't know, but considering a 36x48 sensor is a fairly substantial crop of 60x70mm and the fact that these are C lenses, I don't think I should be getting too excited. If I could find and fit a second hand P21 to my RB67 body, I would perhaps be interested, if the price was right, but given a choice between a second hand P21 and a future upgrade to the 5D or the upcoming Sony FF 35mm with a 24mp sensor, I might choose the latter.

Quote
you comparison with hifi is interesting to me, because i used to work in a hifi store a long time ago...we sold mostly british manufacturers, and we never posted any specs like watts or curves...the motto was, come in, sit down, listen, if you like it and it is in your price range, buy it and be happy....who cares about the specs....we encouraged people to bring their own amps, speakers, turntables and their own music....nobody can tell you what SOUNDS better....or at least if someone tries, you should not listen.....did i ever look at mags and read reviews? sure....but it is like wine....taste it, some people have different taste....blind taste it...there will be a difference and sometimes the cheaper one is more to your liking!

The point of the audio analogy was to demonstrate that it is possible for a bunch of 'so-called' experts to misconstrue what they are hearing; to get confused as to the true causes of the differences they either did hear or imagined they heard.

I wouldn't be surprised if in your store you also had different amplifiers hooked up to different loudspeakers so people were comparing entire systems. It seems to be a fact that the major differences in hi fi systems that people hear can be attributed to the quality of the loudspeakers, the design, shape and size of the listening room and the position of the listener in that room. When it comes to what you actually prefer, better quality or more expensive equipment does not always rule.

I'm reminded of an anecdote about the owner of a hi fi chain of stores who ordered a large number of custom made loudspeakers from a Taiwanese manufacturer. His specifications were that the loudspeakers should sound good when heard from a distance of about 6ft in a large room full of other electronic equipment, TVs and various white goods.

The manufacturer pointed out that such a design of loudspeaker would not sound good in the average domestic lounge. The owner of the store replied he didn't care. He was only interested in making sales.  

By the way, it's such a long time since I even held that RB67 in my hands, whilst looking just now at the description lenses I have, I cocked the shutter whilst playing around with the camera then wasn't able to release it. I remembered the shutter button had a lock on it but I still couldn't release the shutter. I don't like storing a camera with the shutter set so this was a bit of a worry. I searched for the manual, scratched my head, then realised I had the dark slide in place. Removing it solved the problem. I still have an unused film in that camera   .
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 16, 2008, 01:25:20 am
Quote
Ray, the next time you're someplace that can rent a MFDB feel free to do so.  Let us know what you find.  While you're at it you can also look into Leica lenses and tell us what the Leica look is all about.  It has only taken people 50 years to come up with some theories on that one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Both Leica and Zeiss have always had a good reputation for producing fine lenses, even when I was a little boy. I don't think it's taken people 50 years to realise that or understand the reasons. It was the Germans during WWII who gave the Japanese a leg up, in the production of lenses.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 16, 2008, 08:48:49 am
Ray this test is indicative of what I see all the time as typical of the 2 formats. Do you believe me?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 16, 2008, 10:31:00 am
Quote
Ray this test is indicative of what I see all the time as typical of the 2 formats. Do you believe me?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Woof75,
Instead of asking me if I believe you, you should be asking yourself what it is about those two eyes that makes one of them more appealing than the other.

Having examined both crops, I see nothing but make-up, lighting and perspective differences. In the DB shot, the eye has mascara on the lower lid, the white of the eye is brighter and perhaps most important of all, the pupil has a specral highlight.

There are a few other things that probably contribute to the greater appeal of the DB eye. It's at a slight angle and it's slightly larger within the frame.

None of the above characteristic necessarily have anything to do with format, except, if you have difficulty in seeing what you are shooting then that could be the cause of getting a misplaced highlight in the eye. But I'm sure you know that the 1Ds3 can be used tethered, or if that's too much hassle, can be used in LiveView mode which allows for enlargement of the subject on the camera's LCD screen and very precise manual focussing.

Just to make what I'm saying clearer, I've modified the 35mm shot transferring the specral highlight from one eye to the other and lightened the white of the eye in the 35mm shot. I think you'd agree the 35mm shot now looks better and that a misplaced highlight has nothing to do with camera format.

[attachment=5156:attachment]
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 16, 2008, 10:45:12 am
Quote
Woof75,
Instead of asking me if I believe you, you should be asking yourself what it is about those two eyes that makes one of them more appealing than the other.

Having examined both crops, I see nothing but make-up, lighting and perspective differences. In the DB shot, the eye has mascara on the lower lid, the white of the eye is brighter and perhaps most important of all, the pupil has a specral highlight.

There are a few other things that probably contribute to the greater appeal of the DB eye. It's at a slight angle and it's slightly larger within the frame.

None of the above characteristic necessarily have anything to do with format, except, if you have difficulty in seeing what you are shooting then that could be the cause of getting a misplaced highlight in the eye. But I'm sure you know that the 1Ds3 can be used tethered, or if that's too much hassle, can be used in LiveView mode which allows for enlargement of the subject on the camera's LCD screen and very precise manual focussing.

Just to make what I'm saying clearer, I've modified the 35mm shot transferring the specral highlight from one eye to the other and lightened the white of the eye in the 35mm shot. I think you'd agree the 35mm shot now looks better and that a misplaced highlight has nothing to do with camera format.

[attachment=5156:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, thanks for correcting my "misplaced highlight".  The 1ds 3 can be used tethered too. Have you even used any of these cameras before? You just aren't seeing it, some people do and some people don't, the only way I can describe it is that the db file has a "thickness" to it, some people call it a 3D type thing. Some people see it and some don't, even with that highlight been put in a different place the difference is still there. Theres nothing else I can say, you see it or you don't.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 16, 2008, 11:46:20 am
Quote
You just aren't seeing it, some people do and some people don't, the only way I can describe it is that the db file has a "thickness" to it, some people call it a 3D type thing. Some people see it and some don't, even with that highlight been put in a different place the difference is still there. Theres nothing else I can say, you see it or you don't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175264\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is why I brought in the audio analogy. You can probably imagine I used to have many an argument with golden eared audiophiles about the implausibility of anyone really being able to hear the subtle differences between different designs of power amps that had sufficient power to drive the speakers. Such people would swear blind that they could hear such differences. There was no doubt in their mind whatsoever, except when there were no visual clues as to which amplifier was in use. Then they were stuffed.

Such matters can only be resolved by going to a lot of trouble taking shots of identical scenes as I've recommended, then getting a third party who is impartial, and who has good skills in Photoshop, to work on both sets of images with the purpose of getting them looking as close as possible. Ideally, it would be better to make prints of both sets of images then people such as yourself could be invited to choose which were from the DB. Such prints would have to be screened first for any tell-tale signs of aliasing which would be a dead give away.

This is the usual scientific method of settling matters like this. You've just presented a pair of images which have very obvious differences which have nothing to do with format differences. To determine if you really can see this subtle 3D effect, we have to eliminate all other differences. In the final analysis, it might well be the case that aliasing will always have some visible effect which will characterise a difference between the two formats. Choice of subject matter would be very important to eliminate this factor.

There are still quality differences between your two crops after my modification. I see more texture in the skin of the forehead in the DB shot, but not more texture under the eye. This makes me think there is still some difference of either focussing or DoF between the 2 shots, perhaps even aliaising.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 16, 2008, 01:19:25 pm
Quote
This is why I brought in the audio analogy. You can probably imagine I used to have many an argument with golden eared audiophiles about the implausibility of anyone really being able to hear the subtle differences between different designs of power amps that had sufficient power to drive the speakers. Such people would swear blind that they could hear such differences. There was no doubt in their mind whatsoever, except when there were no visual clues as to which amplifier was in use. Then they were stuffed.

Such matters can only be resolved by going to a lot of trouble taking shots of identical scenes as I've recommended, then getting a third party who is impartial, and who has good skills in Photoshop, to work on both sets of images with the purpose of getting them looking as close as possible. Ideally, it would be better to make prints of both sets of images then people such as yourself could be invited to choose which were from the DB. Such prints would have to be screened first for any tell-tale signs of aliasing which would be a dead give away.

This is the usual scientific method of settling matters like this. You've just presented a pair of images which have very obvious differences which have nothing to do with format differences. To determine if you really can see this subtle 3D effect, we have to eliminate all other differences. In the final analysis, it might well be the case that aliasing will always have some visible effect which will characterise a difference between the two formats. Choice of subject matter would be very important to eliminate this factor.

There are still quality differences between your two crops after my modification. I see more texture in the skin of the forehead in the DB shot, but not more texture under the eye. This makes me think there is still some difference of either focussing or DoF between the 2 shots, perhaps even aliaising.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One was shot at F19, the other at F16, the distance to subject was a good 10 feet, DOF is not an issue, where does aliasing come into this? Ray, time and time again your showing yourself to be technically inept.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 16, 2008, 10:22:18 pm
Quote
One was shot at F19, the other at F16, the distance to subject was a good 10 feet, DOF is not an issue, where does aliasing come into this? Ray, time and time again your showing yourself to be technically inept.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175306\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And time and time again you are failing to explain in what way I am technically inept. Just saying so doesn't make it true.

If the width of these images was matched (the shorter side) using a zoom lens so one could shoot from the same position, the f stops should differ by a factor of 1.5x (36/24).

F16 with 35mm should ideally be f24 with DB. Or f19 with DB should ideally be close to f12-13 with 35mm. There's a hint in these shots that 35mm DoF is slightly shallower (less detail in the forehead) when in fact the f stops used would suggest the reverse should be true, so you probably didn't match FoVs only using FL. I think you probably changed position. Therefore I think it's more likely the focussing in the 2 shots is slightly different and that accounts for the greater forhead detail in the DB shot.

Where does aliasing come in? Haven't you been reading the recent threads on the advantages, disadvantages and problems of not having an AA filter? (I'm assuming the P21 does not have an AA filter. Most DBs don't.) Apparently, aliasing can manifest itself in all sorts of unpredictable ways. It's not just a matter of getting better detail at frequencies close to the Nyquist limit, or artificial detail close to the Nyquist limit. One can get harmonic effects at lower frequencies, well below the Nyquist limit.

Sometimes the effects of aliasing are difficult (perhaps impossible) to remove without destroying real detail, yet some people think that a lack of an AA filter imparts a certain 'crispness' to an image and would prefer that their camera did not have one. Some people have gone to the expense of having the AA filter removed from their 5D and are happy with the results.

When making a pair of prints from the two formats (for the purpose of doing this double blind test), one would try to choose images that had no hint of aliasing artifacts in the DB shot. Got it?
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 17, 2008, 01:33:21 am
I would like to add a bit of personal reflection on the sort of locked arguments that take place in threads such as this. Most of us have invested interests, money committed, wisely or not, livelihoods to be supported.

I feel at times, I have an unfair advantage in these discussions because I can afford to be as completley impartial and objective as my talents allow.

I have no myths I feel compelled to support (that I'm conscious of, at least) and no clients that I feel might be influenced by the grandiose nature of my photographic equipment, although I do admit that many strangers I meet as I walk around with a 5D around my neck seem unduly impressed by the appearance of a camera which is so much more prominent (in your face) than the average P&S that most people carry.

I usually feel a bit unconfortable at expressions of "Wow! That's a real camera, isn't it!" and do my best to downplay their impression with a remark like "It's just an old-fashiond 35mm camera, but digital."

I'd just like to say again, it's not about who's right or wrong but why whoever is right is right. Have you learned something? That's all that matters.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: woof75 on February 17, 2008, 08:50:53 am
Ray, these are tiny crops, like 5% of a frame, if your shooting a person 3/4 length with with a short telephoto lens your depth of field at F16 is such that if the eyelashes are in focus the forehead is. If you knew what you were looking at and/or had the bravery to admit it, you'd look at my examples and realize that the 2 eyes are different and the difference is the difference of the 2 formats. I've seen it time and time again, are all my 35mm shots lacking depth of field and therefore thats the difference? Unfortunately I'm asking you to take one leap of faith in another person which to your detriment you dont seem to be able to do, yes I could have rigged this test, what I'm telling you though is that this test is what I see all the time when comparing the 2 formats. Do you believe me? Your choice. It should be noted that I could sell my MF equipment and get a 1ds 2  if I wanted too at no loss at all and have far less wrist ache when shooting so I dont know where my vested interest comes in.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Ray on February 17, 2008, 01:01:04 pm
Quote
If you knew what you were looking at and/or had the bravery to admit it, you'd look at my examples and realize that the 2 eyes are different and the difference is the difference of the 2 formats.

Woof75,
I'm fully aware that the two eyes are different. Have I not already tried to explain to you that you cannot demonstrate what you are trying to demonstrate by comparing two different subjects?

The subjects must be identical. The lighting must be identical. The DoF must be identical. The perspective must be identical and the focussing must be identical. In addition, the exposures should be correct. The lenses should be good and the cameras should be on a tripod. Have I missed anything?

Only then do we stand a chance of being able to see this elusive phenomenom you keep referring to. All differences, apart from the one we are trying to see, become distractions which only serve to confuse the issue.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Provokot on March 01, 2008, 10:02:32 am
Hmmmmm. STOP ARGUING!

Putting on my Art Director's hat for a moment, I can tell you what I want as someone who uses, rather than makes photographs, I want to be able, one day soon, to crop into much smaller areas of a photograph and get greater clarity from the portion of the pic than I can now with digital.

This requires 2 things:  Cleverer chips with more pixels. (and better quality per pixel)

Much better lenses than are available in any format at present.

I have little doubt that large sums of R&D budget are being spent on both of these issues by all the significant camera, chip and lens manufacturers.

Now y'all be nice!

Paul
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Rob C on March 03, 2008, 04:28:46 am
Quote
Hmmmmm. STOP ARGUING!

Putting on my Art Director's hat for a moment, I can tell you what I want as someone who uses, rather than makes photographs, I want to be able, one day soon, to crop into much smaller areas of a photograph and get greater clarity from the portion of the pic than I can now with digital.

This requires 2 things:  Cleverer chips with more pixels. (and better quality per pixel)

Much better lenses than are available in any format at present.

I have little doubt that large sums of R&D budget are being spent on both of these issues by all the significant camera, chip and lens manufacturers.

Now y'all be nice!

Paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well now, isnīt that exactly what all photographers have wanted ever since cameras were available? That it can ever happen is highly improbable.

Rob C
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Provokot on March 04, 2008, 06:00:14 am
Quote
Well now, isnīt that exactly what all photographers have wanted ever since cameras were available? That it can ever happen is highly improbable.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ummm.... Improbable? Highly Improbable?  No, possible. Just like the probability of having a terrabyte hard drive on a home PC? Or a digital imaging chip of 3, yes, THREE megapixels?  Such things were pure fantasy just a few years ago.  I have no doubt that lenses and imaging sensors will improve as new methods and materials are brought to the table. Its what we now expect.

I am still of the firm belief that in technology terms we are almost at the point where we can with great pride, claim to have scratched the surface.
Title: PMA round up
Post by: Henry Goh on March 04, 2008, 06:29:17 am
Quote
Well now, isnīt that exactly what all photographers have wanted ever since cameras were available? That it can ever happen is highly improbable.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It has already been done.  Last year 2 researchers showed that they can refocus any image after the fact.  They used a camera that has 14 small lenses mount around the perimeter of a main lens.  They can zoom in and refocus any part of the capture.  There were some videos around too.