Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: 203 on June 18, 2008, 03:52:55 pm
-
Below are a couple RAW files: 1Ds3 with 50mm 1.4 and the Phase p30+ on a Phase One/Mamiya body with the 80mm. There were shot at a dealer in order to compare shooting speed, tonality, shadow detail, etc. A crude test at best.
*Because the viewfinder mask for the Phase was not in use, the bodies are effectively at different distances from the subjects, so these files are really no good for comparing resolution.*
The sales guy will be coming to a model shoot with me in the next week or two for a more effective test of the Phase camera…
Canon:
https://download.yousendit.com/96779E3E5C9A34A4 (https://download.yousendit.com/96779E3E5C9A34A4)
Phase:
https://download.yousendit.com/961BB1660EDA6194 (https://download.yousendit.com/961BB1660EDA6194)
As I wrote in another thread:
Other notes on the Phase:
Lens feels much better than older mamiya 645 as far as I rememher, AF is good – way better than the Contax AF in a dimly lit room. The Contax hunted repeatedly…
Viewfinder seems about as large as the Canons, though the Canon is brighter. (50mm 1.4 on the Canon, 80mm on the Phase.)
Phase kit is a little heavier than the Canon with 50 1.4.
Operation of the Phase is pretty fast – seems like about a second between exposures
Zooming and scrolling on the Phase is awkward I.M.H.O.
(this is a continuation of my comments in the thread about stitching...)
-
Ron,
Thanks for doing this. I'm interested in your take on the P30+. I have one, its great and all, but the camera part of the equation can be disappointing.
What was your take on the shutter lag, if any, of the Phase camera?
T
-
I don't know if it was lag, or what...but I did ask the guy if second shutter sync was on, as the camera would click twice, once at first, and then maybe a half of a second later a second click and then the strobe would fire...
It seemed odd, but I didn't have time to delve into the menus to see what was up. The sales guy didn't know what it was either.
I'll see it that still happens when I test the camera with daylight in a week or two.
-
I don't know if it was lag, or what...but I did ask the guy if second shutter sync was on, as the camera would click twice, once at first, and then maybe a half of a second later a second click and then the strobe would fire...
It seemed odd, but I didn't have time to delve into the menus to see what was up. The sales guy didn't know what it was either.
I'll see it that still happens when I test the camera with daylight in a week or two.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sounds like he was using mirror lock up, but I don't know for sure of course.
-
Nice work Godman. I like your landscapes and the scratchy portraits. (I like your name too.)
-
I had a look at the Canon file. Was that ISO 100? It was noisier than expected.
-
I had a look at the Canon file. Was that ISO 100? It was noisier than expected.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How did you convert it? DPP has the least noise it seems (with NR turned off). C1 4.1 gets rid of the jaggies, but it's noisier.
-
The two shots are quite good comparable; the Canon's exposure is about 1/3 stop lower than that of the P30+. That's very good (in a test in controlled situation one would have to make several shots with both cameras 1/3 stop apart and select those, which are the closest).
Note: the histogram shows, that ISO 100 on the P30+ is "fake", it is the numerical derivative of whatever. I don't know if this fact had any influence on the result. One would have to create a serie of images to find out, which is the base ISO.
It is important to know, that in ACR
- the P30+ shots gets adjusted by -1 EV,
- the 1DsMkIII shot is adjusted by +0.35 EV.
These adjustments are not visible on the "Exposure" slider. In order to go back to the origin, the P30+ image has to be adjusted by +1 EV and the 1DsMkIII image by -0.35 EV.
After this reverse-adjustment and picking WB on the white or grey card, the RGB values on this card reflect the small true difference in the exposure; replacing the -0.35 EV by -0.15 EV equalizes the exposures.
Anyway, Rawnalyze is more suitable for analyzing them. It shows, that the level of noise in terms of standard deviation is virtually identical in these images, measured on very dark, smooth areas. However, I find the P30+ better on such areas subjectively.
Screen captures of the histograms and of different displays are in this, 3MB large layered TIFF (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/1DsMkIII_vs_P30Plus_comparison.TIF)
Note, that Rawnalyze displays the *raw* data. There is no noise reduction, etc. except for what is unavoidable, namely black level compensation on the 1DsMkIII image. I picked WB on the white card in both images; that changes the RGB values, and it was necessary to make the standard deviations comparable. The raw values are not comparable directly, as the pixel values of the 1DsMkIII are between 0 and 14256, and of the P30+ between 0 and 65535.
I explain the captures only if someone is really interested for that.
-
Panopeeper, I am personally not that interested in all the heavy duty science, but I do have a variety of exposures of these scenes, so let me know if you want the Canon at 1/3 brighter...
-
I do have a variety of exposures of these scenes, so let me know if you want the Canon at 1/3 brighter...
Thanks, but it is not necessary. This small difference is all right, as the comparison shows.
I miss something else, but you can't deliver that (until another test occasion?): very fine structures in very dark areas, to judge the reproduction of details. For example in these shots there is a blue strip around a cuchion or whatever beside the battery (?). This shows, that the P30+ captured details *much* better than the 1DsMkIII (shown in the captures), but
a. it is not dark enough,
b. more importantly, it is 50% larger on the P30+ (in pixels), thus it is not reasonable to compare the details on them. You can not expect the same level of details in much less pixels.
-
Nice work Godman. I like your landscapes and the scratchy portraits. (I like your name too.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you.
-
The files are fairly closely matched for FoV in the vertical direction, although the P30 image is a bit closer. But this is all right if one is testing the DR of the 1Ds3. Give it a slight disadvantage and see if it holds up. It does, in my opinion.
This result is surprising for me. I've always been willing to cut the MFDB crowd a lot of slack. Bigger sensors with more pixels have to produce better image quality. Same number of pixels on bigger sensors have to produce lower shadow noise.
But these shots from #203 seems to smash the myth. Both shots seem to be equally and fully exposed to the right; if anything, they are both overexposed.
Exposure is the same for both shots. In the 100% crops below, I've lightened the shadows equally and, this time, I've upressed the smaller file (the 1Ds3) to the same size as the P30 file.
Both images, for all practical purposes, are on a par, as I see it. This is a very surprising result indeed.
[attachment=7093:attachment]
Oops! The 1Ds3 image is on the right. Did you notice?
-
The files are fairly closely matched for FoV in the vertical direction, although the P30 image is a bit closer. But this is all right if one is testing the DR of the 1Ds3. Give it a slight disadvantage and see if it holds up. It does, in my opinion.
This result is surprising for me. I've always been willing to cut the MFDB crowd a lot of slack. Bigger sensors with more pixels have to produce better image quality. Same number of pixels on bigger sensors have to produce lower shadow noise.
But these shots from #203 seems to smash the myth. Both shots seem to be equally and fully exposed to the right; if anything, they are both overexposed.
Exposure is the same for both shots. In the 100% crops below, I've lightened the shadows equally and, this time, I've upressed the smaller file (the 1Ds3) to the same size as the P30 file.
Both images, for all practical purposes, are on a par, as I see it. This is a very surprising result indeed.
[attachment=7093:attachment]
Oops! The 1Ds3 image is on the right. Did you notice?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is anyone able to assess dynamic rance differences from these files?
-
The files are fairly closely matched for FoV in the vertical direction, although the P30 image is a bit closer. But this is all right if one is testing the DR of the 1Ds3. Give it a slight disadvantage and see if it holds up. It does, in my opinion.
This result is surprising for me. I've always been willing to cut the MFDB crowd a lot of slack. Bigger sensors with more pixels have to produce better image quality. Same number of pixels on bigger sensors have to produce lower shadow noise.
But these shots from #203 seems to smash the myth. Both shots seem to be equally and fully exposed to the right; if anything, they are both overexposed.
Exposure is the same for both shots. In the 100% crops below, I've lightened the shadows equally and, this time, I've upressed the smaller file (the 1Ds3) to the same size as the P30 file.
Both images, for all practical purposes, are on a par, as I see it. This is a very surprising result indeed.
[attachment=7093:attachment]
Oops! The 1Ds3 image is on the right. Did you notice?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why is the file on the left magenta?
I'm interested in how well the 1ds3 performs. I tested one when it came out and frankly thought it was too much of an incremental improvement over the 1ds2. Its a leap from a 5d, but not worth the upgrade.
Perhaps Michael could have a "Technical" forum that was devoted to MFDB v. 1ds3 and lens tech? Seriously, it would streamline things.
-
Why is the file on the left magenta?
I'm interested in how well the 1ds3 performs. I tested one when it came out and frankly thought it was too much of an incremental improvement over the 1ds2. Its a leap from a 5d, but not worth the upgrade.
Perhaps Michael could have a "Technical" forum that was devoted to MFDB v. 1ds3 and lens tech? Seriously, it would streamline things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
WHY?
We are medium format shooters in here...
I think Dpreview is good for 35mm dslr's..
People in here may be comparing Medium format cameras with one another, but not 35mm...
Snook
-
WHY?
We are medium format shooters in here...
I think Dpreview is good for 35mm dslr's..
People in here may be comparing Medium format cameras with one another, but not 35mm...
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah Snook, I think there should be a different forum for this stuff. But then again, I can just ignore it. I am interested in the 1ds3 for when I need a 35mm solution, not as a comparison to MFDB. I don't think the question, at least for me, is whether a 1ds3 is on par with a P30, its whether a 1ds3 is usable for my work in a pinch. I'm shooting a catalogue next week and might rent one for some of the atmospheric/environmental shots.
-
Yawn. I'll check back in a few weeks to see if things are any better.
-
Is anyone able to assess dynamic rance differences from these files?
The last two layers in the file I posted show a selection on the very darkest, smooth area: the black scaffold. The selected spot's pixels are in the 9th and 10th stop in both shots.
The noise level is the same in both shots, but I find the P30+ reproduction much better. Unfortunately there is nothing there to compare the fine detail reproduction because of the different magnification. For proper comparison, the magnificationmeasured on pixels should be the same; the total field of view it totally irrelevant from this point.
Note, that it required +5 EV to lift this spot out of the darkness.
My impression is, that the DR of the P30 is somewhat better, although it is partly balanced by the slightly higher exposure of the P30+ shot.
-
WHY?
We are medium format shooters in here...
I think Dpreview is good for 35mm dslr's..
People in here may be comparing Medium format cameras with one another, but not 35mm...
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
WHY?
Because anyone, professional or otherwise, who has an interest in the technology they use to make photographs will surely also be interested in the way the formats have slowly begun to converge over the last year or so. I don't think they will meet....but it's getting closer with every upgrade.
I personally use both formats, both have their particular place; but the times when I use my Mk3 instead of my Blad are becoming more frequent than they were last year with my Mk2.
Unlike a number of posts in this thread, I don't agree that the Canon files stand up against the Phase with very close scrutiny. But for a great many images that are destined to be crucified by a litho press in a commercial world... it really does do a remarkable job.
I think your "I think Dpreview is good for 35mm dslr's.." comment is simple, petty snobbery which serves no useful purpose. The tread is related to medium format photography, if it's specific content doesn't interest you....why comment at all? A number of people "in here" do seem interested.
Bitching about formats is just so tiresome...
-
Thanks Ron for posting the samples.... I appreciate a chance to look at this.
Also thanks Gabor for posting the photobola stuff.
I'd be surprised if anyone can really get meaningful DR data from the samples but in practical terms
just push up the exposure and lift the shadows in both files and see what kind of detail you get. I see clear banding in the 1DsIII file when pushed hard and none in the P30. But in the p30 file there is moire in the bag when you push everything up (so the detail is still there). So the P30 seems to have more reach.
Also from a purely esthetic look the P30 file has a more real look - check out the red apple on the left side - color is more real in the p30 as there is more detail.
lastly we don't need another forum for DSLR vs MFDB we just need another forum for Ray.
-
Here are a couple more files, this time from the H2 with the same Phase P30+ back, and with more comparable cropping.
Canon:
https://download.yousendit.com/781BD1FF45987C57 (https://download.yousendit.com/781BD1FF45987C57)
Phase:
https://download.yousendit.com/12343CDC4F46AFAB (https://download.yousendit.com/12343CDC4F46AFAB)
-
Here are a couple more files, this time from the H2 with the same Phase P30+ back, and with more comparable cropping.
There is a serious problem with the back on the H2. Look at the fine histograms; the first one is the P30+ on the H2, the second one is the P30+ on the Mamiya.
I have reason to believe, that this is caused by a faulty connection somewhere. The consequence of this error can be posterization.
Added: and as it is visible, this defect adds horrendeous noise.
-
Here's a C1 conversion (100% crop) of both files, with the 1Ds resized larger to match the Phase...so this is the equivalent of viewing a 9.5 foot print from 12" away - as rendered on your 72 ppi monitor:
-
Here's a C1 conversion (100% crop) of both files, with the 1Ds resized larger to match the Phase...so this is the equivalent of viewing a 9.5 foot print from 12" away - as rendered on your 72 ppi monitor:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think the Phase file is sharpened at all. When looking at the sharpened Phase file last night I got Moire in the texture of the lizard's skin. Much, much sharper that these crops.
That being said, the ds3 crop looks a little over sharpened, but holds up well.
-
I don't think the Phase file is sharpened at all. When looking at the sharpened Phase file last night I got Moire in the texture of the lizard's skin. Much, much sharper that these crops.
That being said, the ds3 crop looks a little over sharpened, but holds up well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I saw moire in the Phase too, in the sandbag on the floor, so I didn't want to over sharpen anything. I also found that halos show up pretty quickly, so I backed off the sharpening. (thus the RAW files are posted...) And I think part of the reason the 1Ds look over sharpened is because it has been enlarged to this ridiculous level so the diagonal lines can go a bit jaggy, and we are pixel peeping at 100% ;-)
Anyway, I am doing this testing only because my business model dictates that before I invest in another system, I should see some proof. Proof that it will make my images better somehow, in the real world. Is the resolution or sharpness actually better that my old Leaf back, or my Canons? Will that show in print? How about the D.R. – is that better? How much better? Would $30K be better spent flying around the world shooting images for my portfolios?
-
Would $30K be better spent flying around the world shooting images for my portfolios?
Yeah, I actually think it would.
-
Yes I saw moire in the Phase too, in the sandbag on the floor, so I didn't want to over sharpen anything. I also found that halos show up pretty quickly, so I backed off the sharpening. (thus the RAW files are posted...) And I think part of the reason the 1Ds look over sharpened is because it has been enlarged to this ridiculous level so the diagonal lines can go a bit jaggy, and we are pixel peeping at 100% ;-)
Anyway, I am doing this testing only because my business model dictates that before I invest in another system, I should see some proof. Proof that it will make my images better somehow, in the real world. Is the resolution or sharpness actually better that my old Leaf back, or my Canons? Will that show in print? How about the D.R. – is that better? How much better? Would $30K be better spent flying around the world shooting images for my portfolios?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No question the MFDB files are better than 35mm dig files, to me anyway. But, CMYK web press magazine printed, who cares. DS1, ds2, ds3, 5d, P45 whatever. 14 stops of DR is great but you are always limited to what, a three stop range of ink black and (crappy) paper white in a magazine? I looked at some images I shot with the P30 that were printed on a web press and, well, they could have been shot on 645 film, or maybe good scans of 35mm chromes. What MF offers, and is reproduced on a web press, is the look of MF, the look of the lenses and the larger sensor. That is what's important with an MFDB, to me. (Shoot a girl under hard, contrasty lights and retouch it. That's where you'll see a big difference in file quality). So, in short, I would take the cash and finance some editorials for Mixte or L'Official or French or Dazed etc., have a web site redesign and a party kicking it off at Lit/Fuse, Mars Bar, or 124 Rabbit Club or something. That will make you more money than a back.
-
Why is the file on the left magenta?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since I was pressed for time, I just converted both images in ACR using auto settings and 'as shot' white balance. I've addressed only shadow noise in those crops. I noticed the magenta hue in the P30 crop and I would definitely correct that when assessing the entire image for resolution and other qualities, which I will do later. I would also like to downsample the P30 file to the same size as the 1Ds3 file to see if the noise difference remains the same.
The 1Ds3 image does have slightly more banding in those crops, but it's not significant. I find it necessary to engage in a bit of pixel peeping in order to determine if differences are of pixel-peeping proportions or not. In my view the shadow noise differences in these shots are of pixel-peeping proportions and would not be noticeable even in a large print. A crop at 100% magnification on the avarage monitor is representative of a really huge print.
-
Is anyone able to assess dynamic rance differences from these files?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I matched levels across both images (the raws appear to have different tone curves applied to the *raw* data), making white backdrop, grey card, and deep shadows the same brightness.
The DB was obviously shot hotter, *and* had more blacks in the histogram.
That would mean it has LESS DR.
I also think the Canon has a larger DR, since it can go to 3200 ISO, with cleaner shadows. I suspect Canon can easily outspend and outtech the DB makers.
-
I don't think the Phase file is sharpened at all. When looking at the sharpened Phase file last night I got Moire in the texture of the lizard's skin. Much, much sharper that these crops.
That being said, the ds3 crop looks a little over sharpened, but holds up well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Look at the far right (mac?) keyboard. The Canon is much sharper. Is the Canon backfocused?
-
Also from a purely esthetic look the P30 file has a more real look - check out the red apple on the left side - color is more real in the p30 as there is more detail.
lastly we don't need another forum for DSLR vs MFDB we just need another forum for Ray.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see a slightly more saturated, slightly different hue in the P30, but not much:
[attachment=7113:attachment]
-
No question the MFDB files are better than 35mm dig files, to me anyway. But, CMYK web press magazine printed, who cares. DS1, ds2, ds3, 5d, P45 whatever. 14 stops of DR is great but you are always limited to what, a three stop range of ink black and (crappy) paper white in a magazine? I looked at some images I shot with the P30 that were printed on a web press and, well, they could have been shot on 645 film, or maybe good scans of 35mm chromes. What MF offers, and is reproduced on a web press, is the look of MF, the look of the lenses and the larger sensor. That is what's important with an MFDB, to me. (Shoot a girl under hard, contrasty lights and retouch it. That's where you'll see a big difference in file quality). So, in short, I would take the cash and finance some editorials for Mixte or L'Official or French or Dazed etc., have a web site redesign and a party kicking it off at Lit/Fuse, Mars Bar, or 124 Rabbit Club or something. That will make you more money than a back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed, and seldom mentioned.
The real advantage for medium format, in my work, is the difference in "look" or the perspective of the lenses. The differences in resolution and color are not important to me -- most of my work is for print (magazines or advertising) and has plenty of post-production.
I routinely use my 1DsII and the H2/P30+ in the same shoots -- their strengths are in their differences. Different tools, different applications.
The Canon is great in a certain type of morning or late afternoon window light, or open shade. It is predictable and performs extremely well, handles well, and allows me to more more freely with the subject.
With the Phase, I feel more connected to the process of image-making, feeling the image in the viewfinder as I press the shutter. The file are more flexible in post, and I prefer the perspective of the longer medium format lenses. But I find myself focusing on the camera more than I would like -- the whole system is really heavy, and I have to pay more attention to the autofocus. If only the H body had an extra focus point to focus on faces in verticals...
In the studio, and most cases on location, the difference in quality is worth it. But, most of that advantage is only for me to see -- once printed, the only difference that anyone will notice is the difference in perspectives or "look" between medium format and 35mm.
Just as it's always been, film or digital.
-
The real advantage for medium format, in my work, is the difference in "look" or the perspective of the lenses. The differences in resolution and color are not important to me -- most of my work is for print (magazines or advertising) and has plenty of post-production.
<snip>
In the studio, and most cases on location, the difference in quality is worth it. But, most of that advantage is only for me to see -- once printed, the only difference that anyone will notice is the difference in perspectives or "look" between medium format and 35mm.
Just as it's always been, film or digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's hard to tell exactly what you mean by the 'look' of medium format, but since you mention the word 'perspective' twice I'm wondering if you're somehow under the impression that perspective has anything to do with lens or format size. Perspective is defined by camera to subject distance, and nothing else. So unless you're talking about shallow DOF, I'm curious what exactly you mean.
If you are talking about DOF, then I suppose that may be a legitimate difference, but only if there is no lens for the 35mm system that will allow you to achieve the combination of perspective, field of view, and depth of field that you get with your MF lens.
-
I'm wondering if you're somehow under the impression that perspective has anything to do with lens or format size
That is a common misconception, but it is more surprizing here, on a "professional" forum, than for example on DPReview.
-
It's hard to tell exactly what you mean by the 'look' of medium format, but since you mention the word 'perspective' twice I'm wondering if you're somehow under the impression that perspective has anything to do with lens or format size. Perspective is defined by camera to subject distance, and nothing else. So unless you're talking about shallow DOF, I'm curious what exactly you mean.
If you are talking about DOF, then I suppose that may be a legitimate difference, but only if there is no lens for the 35mm system that will allow you to achieve the combination of perspective, field of view, and depth of field that you get with your MF lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
MF looks different. It is the DOF but more the focus fall off. Its different than 35 or a disc camera or 4x5. Its also in the lenses themselves, in that they are better than most 35mm lenses.
But look, I'm not trying to convince anyone. If you can't see a difference in looks in photographs produced by different formats, then don't sweat it. You won't need to get one.
-
That is a common misconception, but it is more surprizing here, on a "professional" forum, than for example on DPReview.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the tone of your comment was uncalled for.
-
When you closely look at the files and the lizzard you can see that with the MFD the lizzard is more LOOSE from the background while on the other shot it's more part of the background.
This for me is the great appeal for MFD, it gives the pictures a more 3D look and not the flat.
This is even better see when going even bigger to for example a 6x7 camera with film.
-
When you closely look at the files and the lizzard you can see that with the MFD the lizzard is more LOOSE from the background while on the other shot it's more part of the background.
This for me is the great appeal for MFD, it gives the pictures a more 3D look and not the flat.
This is even better see when going even bigger to for example a 6x7 camera with film.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=202564\")
I don't know what you guys are seeing but throwing focus with medium format digital, especially the medium format lenses that only go to 2.8 or 3.5 is not that spectacular and compared to the 35mm lenses that go to 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 medium format doesn't have that much if any advantage.
[a href=\"http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html]http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html[/url]
Keep in mind that 645 is the smallest of the medium format frames and the sensors we have now aren't even full 645 so you always working at a greater distance from the subject.
If it wasn't for cost, I'm sure there would be a complete rethink of the lenses, given the sensor sizes we have now.
Granted at the same f stop a larger format size will throw more focus, but you can always move the numbers to get a look.
I can give you a lot of reasons to shoot a medium format back, but the "3d look" whatever that means isn't necessarily one of them.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/image/desert_bg449_Copy793.jpg)
Where medium format does have an advantage is if you shoot to a vertical page, as you don't have to keep walking backwards to fit the page, though this advantage works completely opposite when you go horizontal for double truck.
JR
JR
-
When you closely look at the files and the lizzard you can see that with the MFD the lizzard is more LOOSE from the background while on the other shot it's more part of the background.
This for me is the great appeal for MFD, it gives the pictures a more 3D look and not the flat.
This is even better see when going even bigger to for example a 6x7 camera with film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just out of curiosity, do any of these look "3-D"?
-
Just out of curiosity, do any of these look "3-D"?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
203 Great Shot's..
Specially the second one, the african? girl, Just beautiful!!
The lighting is great..
Is it window light camera left and fill with CT gel?
Looks very nice..
Snook
-
Just out of curiosity, do any of these look "3-D"?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really, really nice images. Congrats. I wish I had a studio with light like that!
-
Thanks Snook and Gregory.
The second image is just daylight from camera left, in my studio - the blue highlights from the blue sky. I think there was light also coming in from another window and bouncing off a beige wall, creating the highlight on her back. (all of these images are 100% daylight, with a mirror & blue gel for the highlights in the third image.)
We actually had some incredible light last week, when the rays were periodically glancing off the Empire State building and into my space. I like daylight for the randomness. What you see behind the model (above her head) in the below image is some light which was randomly bouncing off of parked cars across the street (we were shooting in a hotel.) Someone asked me if I wanted them to block the reflections, and I said, certainly not. The reflections came and went in different formations throughout the day, making each picture a little different.
And yes, the model in the second image in the previous post is African. She was a runner, training for the olympics when a scout from Ford Models saw her picture in the paper, and that was the end of her running career ;-)
http://nymag.com/fashion/models/anasanyana/ajumanasanyana/ (http://nymag.com/fashion/models/anasanyana/ajumanasanyana/)
-
Hi,
I would have had to see the shots next to each other.
The so called 3D effect is caused by MANY factors.
Being:
1. Light/shadows
2. Pose/placement
3. DOF
4. Contrast
A lot of these can be achieved with any camera that is of good quality.
I have made some nice 3D looking shots with a 10D.
What I find however is that when I compare two identical shots next to each other the MF shot gives me more sense of 3D.
When you look again at the two samples, the lizzard is more loose of the background than in the other shot, also the stones are more rounded on that same shot, and the red apple looks rounder than on the other shot.
Again, you can get stunning results with all cameras if you control the scene, but make the same shot with a DSLR and a MFDB and somehow the difference is seen in most cases for me.
I think it's mostly due to the better quality of the pixels (higher dynamic range, no filtering etc.).
What I like further about MF is the compression of the longer lenses vs DOF they give, it just is a different look.
But we can talk ages about it, some people see it some don't.
I have a background in Home Theater and Calibrations (lots of them) and there are people that don't see a difference between a $1000.00 projector 720P and a $6000.00 projector 1080P with 1080P source material.
While for me it's day and night.
-
Thanks Snook and Gregory.
The second image is just daylight from camera left, in my studio - the blue highlights from the blue sky. I think there was light also coming in from another window and bouncing off a beige wall, creating the highlight on her back. (all of these images are 100% daylight, with a mirror & blue gel for the highlights in the third image.)
We actually had some incredible light last week, when the rays were periodically glancing off the Empire State building and into my space. I like daylight for the randomness. What you see behind the model (above her head) in the below image is some light which was randomly bouncing off of parked cars across the street (we were shooting in a hotel.) Someone asked me if I wanted them to block the reflections, and I said, certainly not. The reflections came and went in different formations throughout the day, making each picture a little different.
And yes, the model in the second image in the previous post is African. She was a runner, training for the olympics when a scout from Ford Models saw her picture in the paper, and that was the end of her running career ;-)
http://nymag.com/fashion/models/anasanyana/ajumanasanyana/ (http://nymag.com/fashion/models/anasanyana/ajumanasanyana/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202593\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
203 Thanks for the information..
The girl is VERY beautiful. Photographically speaking to me..:+}
Nice Daylight..
I have not shot Daylight in years..
Actually Have shot much since Digital because I have always been un happy with the results and usually I am doing so many pictures per day that it is impossible to have the light run out..
I can imagine that you have a very short window for shooting and tripod a must..?
Nice shot's...
You mind me asking the shot of the girl.. what camera lens and what speend and aperture more or less... what you developing in etc..
Sorry I just really like it and it inspires me to start shooting more daylight..:+}
Thanks
*Snook
-
when I compare two identical shots next to each other the MF shot gives me more sense of 3D
You listed just above the "reasons" for the 3D effect, none of which is partticular characteristic of MFDBs. So, there must be something else.
When you look again at the two samples, the lizzard is more loose of the background than in the other shot, also the stones are more rounded on that same shot, and the red apple looks rounder than on the other shot
I wonder how (at which zooming) you are looking at them. I find the size difference in pixels very important in the overall effect.
In order to be comparable, not the field of views should be the same but the size of the objects in pixels. Then the larger image should be cropped to the size of the smaller one, and then it becomes reasonable to compare the effect.
I think it's mostly due to the better quality of the pixels (higher dynamic range, no filtering etc.)
The lack of filtering contributes to the sharpness, but that plays no role in the present case.
However, mentioning the dynamic range in this context is particularly interesting: the P45+ image (the second one, on the H2) is wrecked. Its dynamic range is less than that of the 1DsMkIII, so I wonder what you are seeing there.
-
I don't know what other people see, but when I look at the shots, the MFDB shot just looks more real to me.
But again forums are written about this effect and NO-ONE ever has given a 100% answer.
I only know what I see, and trust me I don't have money to burn and for what I normally do a 1DsII is more than enough
I made the switch to MF because the pictures looked more real for me.
-
I don't know what other people see, but when I look at the shots, the MFDB shot just looks more real to me
I did not doubt that; I am looking for a plausible explanation.
My own explanation is, that it is the large field of view, coupled with minimal rectilinear distortion. The same field of view can be achieved on DSLRs only with much shorter lenses, which are everything but stellar. Therefor, photogs with DSLRs use lenses with smaller angle of view to achieve the same field of view, which means taking a farther position, i.e. the perspective changes.
In other words, the wide angle of view with MFDBs allows you to shoot from "the middle of the scenery".
-
Could be, I tried to explain it to myself many times but I don't have a 100% answer.
The only thing I know that when I compare the MFDB shots with my own 5D the 5D seems to be flat.
In the beginning I did some test setups with three bottles in different distances and there the difference was obvious for me (I searched for the photo but can not find it anymore )
-
re:
"....I would have had to see the shots next to each other...."
So you can only see this effect if the image is next to another image?
Could be, I tried to explain it to myself many times but I don't have a 100% answer.
The only thing I know that when I compare the MFDB shots with my own 5D the 5D seems to be flat.
In the beginning I did some test setups with three bottles in different distances and there the difference was obvious for me (I searched for the photo but can not find it anymore )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is why I asked you to comment on the series of JPEGs I posted, as they are taken with a variety of cameras/lenses. Care to comment on the "3D"ness of each of them?
Anyone else?
Also, as you can see there is a 4x5 thrown in there. That should look more 3D than the rest for sure, right?
-
Snook, you should reaqaint yourself with shooting daylight. It's great. While the light changes throughout the day, as long as you have enough windows you should be fine. I just shot a catalog, all daylight, and we were shooting between around 11:00 am until 5 or 6 pm each day, with no problem at all - see two samples from that shoot below.
Of course you need a tripod, and sometimes shift the ISO around.
There are so many dudes shooting with the same studio lighting look (Profotos, bla bla bla) that using the available light in the studio can make your work stand out a bit.
Plus it's free, and you don't have to lift anything ;-) I say this jokingly, but you can imagine how free it felt when I went to Paris to shoot in April with JUST CAMERAS. No 80 lbs. of strobe stuff. And the pictures end up looking nicer, IMO.
It's more with less.
last week's daylight cashmere catalog:
the one with the bow tie:
1/50s f/5.0 at 85.0mm iso200
the other one:
1/100s f/3.5 at 85.0mm iso400
-
Snook, you should reaqaint yourself with shooting daylight. It's great. While the light changes throughout the day, as long as you have enough windows you should be fine. I just shot a catalog, all daylight, and we were shooting betwen around 11:00 am until 5 or 6 pm each day, with no problem at all. Of course you need a tripod, and sometimes shift the ISO around.
There are so many dudes shooting with the same studio lighting look (Profotos, bla bla bla) that using the available light in the studio can make your work stand out a bit.
Plus it's free, and you don't have to lift anything ;-) I say this jokingly, but you can imagine how free it felt when I went to Paris to shoot in April with JUST CAMERAS. No 80 lbs. of strobe stuff. And the pictures end up looking nicer, IMO.
It's more with less.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for you info and I will try to shoot more..:+}
What speeds and apertures are usually using during the day...
You getting a lot of light?
I shot a catalogue a while back and I suffered trying to maintain the quality all day and towards the end I was really stressing b/c the light was falling off fast and did not want to have just 2 shots daylight simulated with flash.. quite a pain and never looks the same....:+]
I was using the 1DsMII with speeds around iso 200 to 320 anywhere from 30/th to 125/th f 4. to f5.6 and a lot of the images were soft.
Of course it is hard form me still to see a 100% view of a flashed image and a daylight image.. the daylight always looks soft...
I keep forgetting back in the film days we never looked at the images at 100% in computers so maybe that is where I get confused..:+]
You know what I mean.
For example your image of the daylight at 100-200% viewing.. do they lok kind of soft compared to your studio flashed shot's...?
Or is it a problem that I am having..?
Thanks
a lot and maybe I should start a different thread not to bombard this one...
Snook
-
You know what I mean.
For example your image of the daylight at 100-200% viewing.. do they lok kind of soft compared to your studio flashed shot's...?
Or is it a problem that I am having..?
Thanks
a lot and maybe I should start a different thread not to bombard this one...
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dude, looking at images at 200% is nonsense in my book. If I want to see how an image will look in print, I look at 50%. When my clients are breathing down my neck in the studio wanting to see details, I zoom in to 50%.
Sure, strobe stuff usually looks sharper than daylight stuff at 100%, but does that mean it looks better? No. (for example, I find a lot of that stuff in the Recent Works thread looks like *someone sharpened the shit out of it.*)
Ok, the last image I am going to post for a while is below.
1/15s f/2.2 at 50.0mm iso200
It's obviously not very sharp, the girl is moving, the dress is moving, and the clients LOVED IT. And they didn't ask me for blur either.
-
In order to be comparable, not the field of views should be the same but the size of the objects in pixels. Then the larger image should be cropped to the size of the smaller one, and then it becomes reasonable to compare the effect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Surely it depends on what you are trying to compare, Gabor. Most photographers are concerned with the appearance of the final print (or image on display monitor); is it sharp and vibrant; does the file have enough resolution to blow up large; is there good detail in the shadows or, is there objectionable noise in the shadows; is the tonality smooth and natural etc?
If these are your concerns, then it's essential to compare images with the same FoV since the FoV is central to the composition. Also, if the sensor is a different size then it's essential to adjust f stop to achieve equal DoF in both images because degree of DoF is also central to the composition. Choice of f stop also affects resolution.
However, there are good reasons to compare 'pixel for pixel' performance and that certainly can be useful information to have. For example, if both my longest lenses for MFDB and 35mm were 300mm, I might want to know whether I should use a 1Ds3 or a P45+ for a particular shot, if the composition required a 35mm size and aspect ratio.
In other words, will the P45+ image with 300mm lens, after cropping to the same FoV as the 1Ds3 shot with 300mm lens, be better quality? In order to predict which is likely to be better, I need to compare 'pixel for pixel' quality, as well as lens quality.
I would suggest that most photographers try to maximise the benefits of their sensor 'real estate' and choose a lens and perspective which result in the least amount of cropping.
-
Having now had some time to examine #203's P30/1Ds3 images, I see no significant differences in over all quality between the two files, that matter to me.
At 200% magnification on my monitor, the P30 has the edge regarding clarity of text at the point of focus. The fact that the red apple in the P30 shot has a more solid red (should we describe that as a 'fat' red?) is an effect which one could no doubt achieve in the 1Ds3 image after a bit of selective manipulation in PS.
[attachment=7136:attachment]
After grey-balancing the two images, the magenta cast in the P30 shadows has been dispelled, only to be replaced by a strong cyan cast in the very deepest shadows. That's not a problem in this image because it's only apparent after the shadows have been lightened to an extreme and unnatural degree, but it's a curious effect and might be entirely due to the way ACR handles P30 files.
[attachment=7138:attachment]
The fact that the same f stop has been used in both these images is a flaw in the methodology. In these two shots from #203, an attempt has been made to match horizontal FoVs rather than vertical FoVs. The sensor dimensions along the horizontal axis differ by a factor of 1.33 and so should the f stops used. In other words, in this comparison, F6.3 should have been used with the 1Ds3. It does make a difference. Parts of the image which are nearest to the camera are noticeably sharper in the 1Ds3 image, as you can see from the following 100% crop showing roughly equal shadow noise but superior 1Ds3 resolution.
[attachment=7137:attachment]
The sameness of f stops used also raises a doubt about the slightly greater resolution of the P30 at the point of focus. Would the difference have been even narrower if the 1Ds3 had been used at F6.3 instead of F8? Most 'good' 35mm lenses tend to be sharpest somewhere between F5.6 and F8.
-
Having now had some time to examine #203's P30/1Ds3 images, I see no significant differences in over all quality between the two files, that matter to me.
At 200% magnification on my monitor, the P30 has the edge regarding clarity of text at the point of focus. The fact that the red apple in the P30 shot has a more solid red (should we describe that as a 'fat' red?) is an effect which one could no doubt achieve in the 1Ds3 image after a bit of selective manipulation in PS.
[attachment=7136:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What's with the zipper artifacts on the 1Ds3 image on the blue-yellow border below "Ready-Mop"? Kind of nasty, but more likely an issue with the raw converter than the raw file itself.
The P30 looks to have indeed regarding sharpness, but also has significant jaggies; both it would seem can be attributed to the lack of AA filter.
-
I usually see a slightly pronounced "3D effect" in my Leica DMR files than in those ones taken with my Canons but I think that the reason of this is no other than the lack of AA filter of the digital back and the higher contrast and smooth tone and color rendition of the Leica glass. Same for a lot of shots taken with the M8. Anyway, I agree with Frank Dorhoof about the factors that really plays a definitive role in this question and that you can get that 3D effect with almost any good quality camera if the conditions of the shot are the adequate ones.
-
Just out of curiosity, do any of these look "3-D"?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great "3-D" look, I like them.
Good photographers don't need to spend $30000 to get that "3-D look".
Flexibility, clean high ISO, ease, great sharp L zoom lenses, WIFI shooting - all in the 1DSMIII, makes the difference. words does not replace great shots.
Menachem Reiss, www.reiss.co.il
-
You mind me asking the shot of the girl.. what camera lens and what speend and aperture more or less... what you developing in etc..
Sorry I just really like it and it inspires me to start shooting more daylight..:+}
Thanks
*Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Snook, I can give you the info next week when I am back at the studio. I do not recall the details off hand, and I am out in the country now...
-
@reissme,
I never said you need $30,000 to get the 3D effect.
On the conturary I say it's debit to MANY other factors, however......
What I do know for 100% is that if you photograph the same scene with a DSLR and with a MFDB the MFDB will have MORE of that 3D effect.
I think that most is debit in the higher dynamic range and cleaner pixels.
Interpixel contrast is very important for 3D looks in hometheater, as is blacklevel (although those two are related).
You can do the test quite easily.
Take your best 3D looking shot and make a curve adjustment where you lift the center part, you will see that the 3D effect slowly goes away.
Same happens when you pull up your blacks (no real black anymore).
This is one of the reasons why in projectors I waited a LONG time to switch from a CRT projector to now a D-Ila.
The D-Ila is the first digital projector with a native CR of 35.000:1 (measured it myself, so no brochure talk) without the use of an Iris of dynamic settings, the 3D look of that projector is STUNNING.
In digital capture the same rules should apply.
In other words, to have that 3D effect all the elements should already be in place and the last factor is the capture device.
Capture the same scene with a DSLR and it's 3D looking, capture the same scene with a MFDB and it's even more so.
But it's not so that a DSLR can't capture a 3D looking image
That's why it's ridicilous to just say this is done with MF and this is done by DSLRs.
HOWEVER, the scene you see here with the stones and lizard is a clear example, again look at the stones and the lizard, both look much less flat on the MFDB sample.
-
HOWEVER, the scene you see here with the stones and lizard is a clear example, again look at the stones and the lizard, both look much less flat on the MFDB sample.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Frank, I suspect that what you are seeing with the lizard has more to do with the fact that the Canon file was resized to proportions of the Phase file, and we are seriously pixel peeping here anyway - this is a 3" segment of a 7 foot print.
But anyway, are there any files on your own personal web site which demonstrate maximum "3D" which you would point us to? Not trying to be difficult, I just want to see what you are seeing...
-
I always like these two:
.
Same goes for the 645, some lenses enhance the feel, some are less.
So the whole story is probarbly:
80% the whole setup, independed on camera.
20% the used capture device, where I suspect that the contrast and rendition of black (and those two are very close connected) are key elements for the 3D look.
The lack of an AA filter could be just as important because there is no interpixel infection (hope that's a correct translation).
Some say that due to the bellows focussing of the RZ you get more contrast out of the lenses which in basis looked strange for me, although when thinking about it could make alot of sense. The lens stays EXACTLY the same throughout the whole focus range, meaning the optical system does not change and can not pick up stray light or scatterlight, meaning it could indeed render more contrast and better black rendition.
However I never dove into that subject so it could be BS (it's something that was told to me and it's not something I will discard without testing), fact is that it seems that the RZ gets even more "real" looking pictures than the 645 with the SAME digital back, problem is..... what do I see.
Do I see the difference in lenses, the bellow focus, or the construction of the RZ.
And that will probarbly never be answered.
For me it also doesn't really matter, I keep in mind which lens gives me what I want and that's the one I will use if possible.
-
@reissme,
I never said you need $30,000 to get the 3D effect.
On the conturary I say it's debit to MANY other factors, however......
What I do know for 100% is that if you photograph the same scene with a DSLR and with a MFDB the MFDB will have MORE of that 3D effect.
I think that most is debit in the higher dynamic range and cleaner pixels.
Interpixel contrast is very important for 3D looks in hometheater, as is blacklevel (although those two are related).
You can do the test quite easily.
Take your best 3D looking shot and make a curve adjustment where you lift the center part, you will see that the 3D effect slowly goes away.
Same happens when you pull up your blacks (no real black anymore).
This is one of the reasons why in projectors I waited a LONG time to switch from a CRT projector to now a D-Ila.
The D-Ila is the first digital projector with a native CR of 35.000:1 (measured it myself, so no brochure talk) without the use of an Iris of dynamic settings, the 3D look of that projector is STUNNING.
In digital capture the same rules should apply.
In other words, to have that 3D effect all the elements should already be in place and the last factor is the capture device.
Capture the same scene with a DSLR and it's 3D looking, capture the same scene with a MFDB and it's even more so.
But it's not so that a DSLR can't capture a 3D looking image
That's why it's ridicilous to just say this is done with MF and this is done by DSLRs.
HOWEVER, the scene you see here with the stones and lizard is a clear example, again look at the stones and the lizard, both look much less flat on the MFDB sample.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Frank
As 203 points out, you can't see the real quality in Canon file that was upsized to proportions of the Phase file. I will trust only new tests with both cameras shooting same objects, in the same light, same perspective, with different lenses, differnt f numbers to get same Dof and to compensate for different CMOS/CCD size.
Menachem Reiss www.reiss.co.il
-
I always like these two:
.
Same goes for the 645, some lenses enhance the feel, some are less.
So the whole story is probarbly:
80% the whole setup, independed on camera.
20% the used capture device, where I suspect that the contrast and rendition of black (and those two are very close connected) are key elements for the 3D look.
The lack of an AA filter could be just as important because there is no interpixel infection (hope that's a correct translation).
Some say that due to the bellows focussing of the RZ you get more contrast out of the lenses which in basis looked strange for me, although when thinking about it could make alot of sense. The lens stays EXACTLY the same throughout the whole focus range, meaning the optical system does not change and can not pick up stray light or scatterlight, meaning it could indeed render more contrast and better black rendition.
However I never dove into that subject so it could be BS (it's something that was told to me and it's not something I will discard without testing), fact is that it seems that the RZ gets even more "real" looking pictures than the 645 with the SAME digital back, problem is..... what do I see.
Do I see the difference in lenses, the bellow focus, or the construction of the RZ.
And that will probarbly never be answered.
For me it also doesn't really matter, I keep in mind which lens gives me what I want and that's the one I will use if possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Frank
I like your work
The 3-D look you say is only due to shallow DOF that can be done easily with the Canon 1DSMIII by using 85 mm F:1.2L or 50 mm F:1.2L
Menachem Reiss www.reiss.co.il
-
If you can not look at images and see the 3D or no 3D (as I invited people to do with the images I posted above) then does it matter?
If you have to conduct scientific tests and look at 100% pixelpeep side by side with some other image, then what does it matter?
Again, with that dragon thing, I think all you are seeing is more vs. less pixels.
By the way, does one of these pictures of the guy working on the car look more 3D than the other?
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=201600 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25904&view=findpost&p=201600)
And on that note, I am off the 3D topic...
-
@203,
Totally correct, it's sometimes like people are telling me what I see cannot be true, again if that was the case I would have NEVER invested in the system to start with.
If other people don't see it I won't try to confince them it is true, I always say that it's quite possible that they don't see it
For me it has to be obvious other wise I won't invest.
-
What's with the zipper artifacts on the 1Ds3 image on the blue-yellow border below "Ready-Mop"? Kind of nasty, but more likely an issue with the raw converter than the raw file itself.
The P30 looks to have indeed regarding sharpness, but also has significant jaggies; both it would seem can be attributed to the lack of AA filter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Emil,
You are looking at crops of 200% enlargements. In addition, the 1Ds3 file was upressed, using bicubic, to the same size as the P30 file (after cropping the P30 file to approximately the 3:2 aspect ratio) and then sharpened.
The 200% crops show jaggies because the monitor resolution is fairly low at 96 or 120 ppi. If one were to print the full size image, that is, make a print about 7ftx10ft, which one would need to do to inspect the amount of detail you see in these 200% crops from the same distance, then it would be normal practice to interpolate the file to 240ppi for best results and sharpen accordingly. You should then not see any jaggies.
-
@203,
Totally correct, it's sometimes like people are telling me what I see cannot be true, again if that was the case I would have NEVER invested in the system to start with.
If other people don't see it I won't try to confince them it is true, I always say that it's quite possible that they don't see it
For me it has to be obvious other wise I won't invest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202745\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 3D effect is surely only apparent in relation to other images which lack that subtle effect. Most of us who process images in Photoshop are able to discern a whole range of subtle effects, slight changes in hue and contrast, differences in the 'solidity' of color, subtle changes in DoF and sharpness etc.
A difference in the processing of the same file, whether it be 35mm or MFDB, can have a far greater effect on the final appearance of the result than any generic 3D difference between 35mm and MFDB.
For example, I used to prefer the RAW converter Raw Shooter Premium to Adobe's Camera Raw, for many images, but not all. I found I could often get a more vibrant result and shapes that seemed to have a more solid color, like the P30 red apple in #203's shot.
Since Adobe bought out RSP, they seem to have adopted some of the same type of controls that were a feature of RSP, such as detail enhancement, vibrancy and saturation sliders as well as generally more control such as variable pixel width for sharpening. However, it's still difficult to emulate the precise effect that I used to get with RSP, but it's not impossible to at least to get close to it. But I need to have a copy of the RSP conversion open at the same time so I have something to work towards.
What I would question is:
(1) Is the 3D effect of MFDB just a combination of lighting, quality of lens, choice of F stop and the particular way the RAW converter handles the files.
(2) There seems to be general confusion about the need to change f stop when comparing images from different size sensors. Subtle differences in DoF can contribute to a sense of a different degree of 3D effect. Even in the comparisons of same scenes in this thread from #203, who seems to be a fairly competent photographer, the same f stop (F8) has been used with both cameras. Why?
(3) If an MFDB system simply produces better results because of a whole range of factors which are part of the system, including bigger pixels, more pixels, better lenses, better tethering, faster flash sync etc, then no argument. That's presumably what you pay for.
-
Having now had some time to examine #203's P30/1Ds3 images, I see no significant differences in over all quality between the two files, that matter to me.
At 200% magnification on my monitor, the P30 has the edge regarding clarity of text at the point of focus. The fact that the red apple in the P30 shot has a more solid red (should we describe that as a 'fat' red?) is an effect which one could no doubt achieve in the 1Ds3 image after a bit of selective manipulation in PS.
[attachment=7136:attachment]
After grey-balancing the two images, the magenta cast in the P30 shadows has been dispelled, only to be replaced by a strong cyan cast in the very deepest shadows. That's not a problem in this image because it's only apparent after the shadows have been lightened to an extreme and unnatural degree, but it's a curious effect and might be entirely due to the way ACR handles P30 files.
[attachment=7138:attachment]
The fact that the same f stop has been used in both these images is a flaw in the methodology. In these two shots from #203, an attempt has been made to match horizontal FoVs rather than vertical FoVs. The sensor dimensions along the horizontal axis differ by a factor of 1.33 and so should the f stops used. In other words, in this comparison, F6.3 should have been used with the 1Ds3. It does make a difference. Parts of the image which are nearest to the camera are noticeably sharper in the 1Ds3 image, as you can see from the following 100% crop showing roughly equal shadow noise but superior 1Ds3 resolution.
[attachment=7137:attachment]
The sameness of f stops used also raises a doubt about the slightly greater resolution of the P30 at the point of focus. Would the difference have been even narrower if the 1Ds3 had been used at F6.3 instead of F8? Most 'good' 35mm lenses tend to be sharpest somewhere between F5.6 and F8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
As one who prefers ACR for my image conversion and workflow, and as a new owner of Phase One P25+, I can say that ACR is not the best tool for processing RAW P1 files. (And some suggest that it's not best for Canon files either, though it's my tool of choice there.) I'm not proficient in the use of Capture One, and I do alright with CS3/ACR, but I get much better results using C-1 when working with the Phase files. And there is a visible difference between using C-1 v3.7.8 and C-1 v4.1.1, of which I prefer the results from v4.1.1.
My Phase One file experience is limited and I'm new to MFDB, but I am comfortable with processing digital files. My approach (for now) is to process the RAWs in C-1 v4.1.1 and do final processing for output in PS (CS3).
-
Ray,
As one who prefers ACR for my image conversion and workflow, and as a new owner of Phase One P25+, I can say that ACR is not the best tool for processing RAW P1 files. (And some suggest that it's not best for Canon files either, though it's my tool of choice there.) I'm not proficient in the use of Capture One, and I do alright with CS3/ACR, but I get much better results using C-1 when working with the Phase files. And there is a visible difference between using C-1 v3.7.8 and C-1 v4.1.1, of which I prefer the results from v4.1.1.
My Phase One file experience is limited and I'm new to MFDB, but I am comfortable with processing digital files. My approach (for now) is to process the RAWs in C-1 v4.1.1 and do final processing for output in PS (CS3).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I understand that. Nikon owners believe that Nikon Capture produces better results with Nikon RAW images. Some Canon owners prefer Canon's DPP to ACR and I used to prefer RSP. It would be no surprise if Capture One produces better results with Phase One files than ACR.
The question might be, is it just difficult to emulate the Capture One result in ACR or actually impossible?
Which apple do you prefer below? The red apple on the right is a 1Ds3 apple, ehanced in PS after conversion in ACR. The apple on the left is the P30 apple.
Does the P30 apple look more enticing? Does it have a greater 3D effect? Is it more solid or healthier-looking, or fresher?
[attachment=7152:attachment]
-
Which apple do you prefer below? The red apple on the right is a 1Ds3 apple, ehanced in PS after conversion in ACR. The apple on the left is the P30 apple.
Does the P30 apple look more enticing? Does it have a greater 3D effect? Is it more solid or healthier-looking, or fresher?
[attachment=7152:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I could go for a nice pear.
Actually, the image on the left looks poorly processed (no offense intended). There's a magenta cast to the apple and to the letters on the Coke can. Other elements are off as well. I'm not suggesting "sides", just wanted to mention my experience with the different conversion software (which is widely understood as it relates to other cameras and SW as well). I own Canon gear and intend to keep it. I like it. I almost bought a 1Ds3. And now I have a P25+ with Mamiya glass (which has some advantages over some Canon glass IMO). It's all good.
Happy shooting.
edit: typo
-
As one who prefers ACR for my image conversion and workflow, and as a new owner of Phase One P25+, I can say that ACR is not the best tool for processing RAW P1 files
The color reproduction needs to be adjusted. This can be done with more or less success using one of the calibration scripts. However, I expect that custom pofiles will be accepted in the near future; that should solve the problem, which is allegedly non-existent (if one listens to Adobe)
I can imagine, that the noise processing of C1 is better, as they have more information regarding the raw data. Plus, this market segment is too tiny for Adobe to move even a finger (this is strictly my opinion).
There is another issue: the ISO handling.
I am pretty sure, that you don't know, that your back does not have different ISOs; the ISO setting is imaginary. Don't be upset, this is very good so, I would be happy to have my camera that way.
However, the handling of such raw files should be different from the "customary" ones. ACR's handling is, that ISO 200 is regarded as basis, and images with other ISOs get a default intensity adjustment (misnomer in ACR: "Exposure"): ISO 100 becomes darkened by 1 EV, ISO 400 gets +1 EV and ISO 800 gets +2 EV. (You don't see these adjustments on the slider!)
Now, this may work well in some circumstances, but in other cases it may be disastrous. It may show you a dark image despite good exposure, or it may indicate horrendeous overexposure of a perfectly ETTR shot image.
I can imagine, that C1 makes it better.
-
There is another issue: the ISO handling.
I am pretty sure, that you don't know, that your back does not have different ISOs; the ISO setting is imaginary. Don't be upset, this is very good so, I would be happy to have my camera that way.
However, the handling of such raw files should be different from the "customary" ones. ACR's handling is, that ISO 200 is regarded as basis, and images with other ISOs get a default intensity adjustment (misnomer in ACR: "Exposure"): ISO 100 becomes darkened by 1 EV, ISO 400 gets +1 EV and ISO 800 gets +2 EV. (You don't see these adjustments on the slider!)
Now, this may work well in some circumstances, but in other cases it may be disastrous. It may show you a dark image despite good exposure, or it may indicate horrendeous overexposure of a perfectly ETTR shot image.
I can imagine, that C1 makes it better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, Gabor, I do understand this, thanks to your posts at GetDPI and elsewhere. I'm still not completely clear as to which is the very best ISO to shoot this back on, but tend to shoot on ISO 50 or 100 and process in C-1. I have not profiled my back for ACR and I do see markedly better results using C-1 for my conversion.
Cheers.
-
Actually, Gabor, I do understand this, thanks to your posts at GetDPI and elsewhere
I'm sorry, I did not recognize your tag from other forums.
I'm still not completely clear as to which is the very best ISO to shoot this back on
The ISO setting has to roles:
1. evaluation of the necessary exposure,
2. instruction of the raw processing.
You should figure out, which setting yields the most accurate metering. Try to achieve ETTR using the in-camera histogram. If the P25+ displays a raw histogram, that's great. Using a neutral WB (Uni-WB) is not an option, if your customers are standing behind your back and want to see the result on the LCD.
So, shoot the same scnery, same illumination with metering based on different ISOs, and verify the actual, i.e. raw exposure. You can use Rawnalyze, but you have to convert the raw file in DNG (Adobe's DNG converted does this very fast).
If you know, which ISO setting reflects the raw data state the closest, stick to that. Meter and shoot with that setting, as long as you can. If the light is not enough, the shutter would have to be too long, reduce the exposure with bias, and be aware, that you are now working with "ISO 400" or "ISO 800".
The ISO 800 image of Buy's bathroom with the P45+ was almost three stops lower exposed than the very right. When you process that in ACR, it becomes increased by 2 EV. That is quite noisy already (though the noise is nice). Two stops from the right edge is quite good.
If C1 treats your images as clipped, even though they are not, and you can't help with exposure/brightness correction (I don't know, how C1 is acting in such circumstances), then go with a lower ISO; that makes C1 believe, that higher pixel values are "acceptable".
Finally, pls post a raw file of whatever with whatever setting, except a black frame, only as technical reference for me. I am hunting for the error, which I noticed in the raw file of the P30+ posted above by 203.
-
I'm sorry, I did not recognize your tag from other forums.
No problem at all. For some reason I used a slightly different screen name. And besides, no one expects people to keep track of everyone on the web.
The ISO setting has to roles:
1. evaluation of the necessary exposure,
2. instruction of the raw processing.
You should figure out, which setting yields the most accurate metering. Try to achieve ETTR using the in-camera histogram. If the P25+ displays a raw histogram, that's great. Using a neutral WB (Uni-WB) is not an option, if your customers are standing behind your back and want to see the result on the LCD.
So, shoot the same scnery, same illumination with metering based on different ISOs, and verify the actual, i.e. raw exposure. You can use Rawnalyze, but you have to convert the raw file in DNG (Adobe's DNG converted does this very fast).
If you know, which ISO setting reflects the raw data state the closest, stick to that. Meter and shoot with that setting, as long as you can. If the light is not enough, the shutter would have to be too long, reduce the exposure with bias, and be aware, that you are now working with "ISO 400" or "ISO 800".
The ISO 800 image of Buy's bathroom with the P45+ was almost three stops lower exposed than the very right. When you process that in ACR, it becomes increased by 2 EV. That is quite noisy already (though the noise is nice). Two stops from the right edge is quite good.
If C1 treats your images as clipped, even though they are not, and you can't help with exposure/brightness correction (I don't know, how C1 is acting in such circumstances), then go with a lower ISO; that makes C1 believe, that higher pixel values are "acceptable".
Finally, pls post a raw file of whatever with whatever setting, except a black frame, only as technical reference for me. I am hunting for the error, which I noticed in the raw file of the P30+ posted above by 203.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for these details. I was under the impression that the P25+ uses a base or native ISO of 50, but I could be wrong. I will do some testing.
I'm not using ACR for any Phase files at this point. They're simply better looking when processed with C-1 (IMO). I can get them close with ACR, but it requires a bit more effort.
Re. Rawnalyze: I'm a Mac user, so I don't believe that option is available to me.
And to clarify: Guy's ISO 800 shots in his bathroom were captured with the P25+ back, not the P45+ (just to keep the details in line).
Regarding a raw file to be posted: do you want it with no clipping; histogram mostly right; histogram centered; doesn't matter as long as it's not black?
Dale
-
Re. Rawnalyze: I'm a Mac user, so I don't believe that option is available to me.
Someone will test it with Crossover in the coming days. (But Crossover is not for free.)
Guy's ISO 800 shots in his bathroom were captured with the P25+ back, not the P45+
The P45 was a typo. I saw that you too have the P25+.
Regarding a raw file to be posted: do you want it with no clipping; histogram mostly right; histogram centered; doesn't matter as long as it's not black?
If you have one with something in the very shadow, that's the best (like the softbox or the bag in the above shot).
-
I am pretty sure, that you don't know, that your back does not have different ISOs; the ISO setting is imaginary. Don't be upset, this is very good so, I would be happy to have my camera that way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is not necessarily very good, unless Phase One have managed to eliminate the noise from amplification and ADC. Amplification in software after the fact also amplifies all sources of noise in the file. The earlier the ISO amplification is in the signal processing chain, the fewer additional noise sources are amplified along with the image data.
-
Re. Rawnalyze: I'm a Mac user, so I don't believe that option is available to me.
Someone will test it with Crossover in the coming days. (But Crossover is not for free.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202781\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was able to get Rawanalyze to work under Crossover Mac, at least its basic features were in place. But what made the purchase of Crossover a no-brainer for me was that it runs IRIS
-
I am pretty sure, that you don't know, that your back does not have different ISOs; the ISO setting is imaginary. Don't be upset, this is very good so, I would be happy to have my camera that way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gabor,
Have I misunderstood the basic process that Canon employs to achieve low noise at high ISO, a process which many digital cameras, I believe, do not employ and as a result do not achieve such low noise at high ISO?
As I understand it, the Canon CMOS sensor includes a miniature analog pre-amplifier at every photosite, which responds to the ISO setting and applies a set amount of gain to the analog signal before it's converted to digital.
The consequence of this analog preamplification is that subsequent 'system' noise from that point on, is less in proportion to the original amplified signal and S/N is improved as a result.
A similar (but not precise) audio analogy would be Dr Dolby's brilliant noise reduction system for miniature tape recorders, wherein the audio signal before it's recorded on the tape, is amplified at the frequencies which are similar to the tape recorder's system noise (tape hiss), then on playback the signal is reduced back to normal at the precise frequencies it was previously boosted, together with the tape hiss.
I see no advantage in post A/D ISO creation in place of pre-A/D analog boost.
-
Actually, the image on the left looks poorly processed (no offense intended). There's a magenta cast to the apple and to the letters on the Coke can. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Both images were initially processed the same way in ACR with the eyedropper used on the grey card to create a more accurate WB, and shadows and contrast sliders set to zero.
In the initial comparisons I posted, the 1Ds3 apple displays weaker reds but more detail on the apple skin. I hear the comment of weaker reds quite frequently when MFDB images are compared with 35mm images. I just increased the strength of the red apple in PS. If weak reds are a problem, then a specific calibration for the camera, in ACR, should be carried out. I haven't bothered to do that for my own cameras, but I do wonder if people who find ACR unsatisfactory might change their mind if they did a calibration.
-
Gabor,
Have I misunderstood the basic process that Canon employs to achieve low noise at high ISO, a process which many digital cameras, I believe, do not employ and as a result do not achieve such low noise at high ISO?
As I understand it, the Canon CMOS sensor includes a miniature analog pre-amplifier at every photosite, which responds to the ISO setting and applies a set amount of gain to the analog signal before it's converted to digital.
The consequence of this analog preamplification is that subsequent 'system' noise from that point on, is less in proportion to the original amplified signal and S/N is improved as a result.
A similar (but not precise) audio analogy would be Dr Dolby's brilliant noise reduction system for miniature tape recorders, wherein the audio signal before it's recorded on the tape, is amplified at the frequencies which are similar to the tape recorder's system noise (tape hiss), then on playback the signal is reduced back to normal at the precise frequencies it was previously boosted, together with the tape hiss.
I see no advantage in post A/D ISO creation in place of pre-A/D analog boost.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=202793\")
My understanding is different. There is fairly good evidence that Canon employs a standard variable gain amplifier (VGA) off the sensor to implement ISO; two in fact, one for the "main" ISO's 100-200-400-800-1600 etc, and a second one to implement "in-between" ISO's; see
[a href=\"http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p2.html#read_vs_iso]http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...tml#read_vs_iso[/url]
Low noise at high ISO is a result of low noise in the circuitry involved in reading out the sensor to the VGA, it seems to me. It also seems to me that they would do better using a single VGA for all ISO; this would eliminate the anomalously large read noise that makes in-between ISO's not much better than underexposing at the next lowest "main" ISO.
-
Low noise at high ISO is a result of low noise in the circuitry involved in reading out the sensor to the VGA, it seems to me. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Emil,
If this is the case, then why does the low noise in the circuitry not improve S/N at base ISO?
My first DSLR was the Canon 6mp D60. I took the trouble to compare same exposures at various ISOs, simply because I was missing shots by wasting time in changing ISO to increase shutter speed as the lighting conditions changed. I wanted to see how much I would lose if I didn't bother to change ISO and just underexposed at base ISO in manual mode.
I discovered I would be losing very little with the D60. At ISO 400 and 800, the improvement was fairly slight and mainly confined to the deep shadows.
My next DSLR, the 8mp 20D was another kettle of fish entirely. Performance at base ISO of 100 was very similar to the D60; hardly more resolution and very similar DR. But noise at high ISO in the 20D was vastly improved. In fact image quality at ISO 1600 with the 20D appeared actually better than the D60 at ISO 400, in terms of color saturation, noise and resolution.
-
I understand that. Nikon owners believe that Nikon Capture produces better results with Nikon RAW images. Some Canon owners prefer Canon's DPP to ACR and I used to prefer RSP. It would be no surprise if Capture One produces better results with Phase One files than ACR.
The question might be, is it just difficult to emulate the Capture One result in ACR or actually impossible?
[attachment=7152:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am now using C1 4.1 to process my ZD files, and I am impressed.
C1 was obviously developped from the ground up with AA filter less capturing devices in mind, and the gap with LR/ACR in terms of detail and lack of artifacts is pretty large. Even larger than the gap between LR and C1 on D3 files.
Therefore, I believe that a comparison based on ACR conversions will penalize the Phase more than the Canon. The best would be to use C1 to convert both files.
As a side note, I do feel that C1 does a better job than even NX2 on D3 files.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am now using C1 4.1 to process my ZD files, and I am impressed.
C1 was obviously developped from the ground up with AA filter less capturing devices in mind, and the gap with LR/ACR in terms of detail and lack of artifacts is pretty large. Even larger than the gap between LR and C1 on D3 files.
Therefore, I believe that a comparison based on ACR conversions will penalize the Phase more than the Canon. The best would be to use C1 to convert both files.
As a side note, I do feel that C1 does a better job than even NX2 on D3 files.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
C1 does a much better job processing the Phase files than ACR or LR also the same is true on the ZD back. Looking forward to the new Pro version when it comes out soon. Even more control with the Phase backs
-
I see no advantage in post A/D ISO creation in place of pre-A/D analog boost.
The MFDBs in question (those which I looked at) do not carry out numerical adjustment of pixel values to imitate higher ISO like the DSLRs do. They always record at their maximum ISO gain. They can afford it with 16bit depth.
The P45+ behaves rather like the DSLRs in ISO, though it does not offer the fake high ISOs.
-
C1 does a much better job processing the Phase files than ACR or LR also the same is true on the ZD back. Looking forward to the new Pro version when it comes out soon. Even more control with the Phase backs
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree, I tried ACR with the Phase and it made a mess of the files - burned out highlights, etc. C1 is far superior for the Phase, and it does a good job with the Canons too. Though DPP shows less noise with the 1Ds3.
So I recommend C1 or DPP for the Canon, and C1 for the Phase for sure.
Interestingly, while C1 shows a bit more noise, it also does a better job with the jaggies than DPP does...
-
I agree, I tried ACR with the Phase and it made a mess of the files - burned out highlights, etc. C1 is far superior for the Phase, and it does a good job with the Canons too. Though DPP shows less noise with the 1Ds3.
So I recommend C1 or DPP for the Canon, and C1 for the Phase for sure.
Interestingly, while C1 shows a bit more noise, it also does a better job with the jaggies than DPP does...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From my old days with the Canon's , red was the biggest issue of all orange red and C1 even back than did a much better job with them. I don't know how the newer version of DPP is working but that Nikon NX stuff , I hate the workflow. Threw it off the machine in a hurry. I may even be trashing LR pretty soon here. Someone at Adobe likes red a lot both my M8, D300 and Phase back always fighting red with LR. Seriously do not overlook C1 for many of the camera's . In my mind it is the most neutral. But I agree with you C1 is not the best with noise without a little work. 4.1 is a little better though
-
This RAW file comparison was started to see how much difference there is between 22mp Canon and 31mp Phase, since that's the obvious step-up camera. This week I will be testing either the Phase P30+ or the P21/P25+, in my studio during a shoot using models, probably with daylight and some flash.
The main areas which are said to be superior on the MF backs are:
1. shadow detail - looking at the above (somewhat lame) "coke can" test and some others I have done, I do not see a significant difference in shadow detail or noise *for my purposes.* (If anyone here knows of a more revealing side-by-side test, please post a link.)
2. dynamic range - hopefully will be tested for my practical purposes this week (as I did in the below shot between two Canons.) I know there are lots of anecdocal comments about the MF D.R. advantage, but are they true? (after all, there are lots claims about the shadow detail advantage, but for the most part I am failing to see it.) If I have to jack up curves in the shadows by +2 to see some advantage, then that's just plain silly.
I may end up buying another MF back regardless of the results (especially now that the H2 or Leaf kits can be had for approx. $18K!) But before I do, I will try to seperate fact from fiction as much as possible.
Below is a test I conducted with the 1Ds3 when I first got it, comparing it's highlight retention to the 5D, and I will do something similar with the Phase this week if I have time. (again, not strictly scientific, but good enough for my practical purposes.)
(though I may post the results on a blog which I have started, instead of over here, clogging up Michael's forum ;-)
-
(though I may post the results on a blog which I have started, instead of over here, clogging up Michael's forum ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Link ?
-
This RAW file comparison was started to see how much difference there is between 22mp Canon and 31mp Phase, since that's the obvious step-up camera. This week I will be testing either the Phase P30+ or the P21/P25+, in my studio during a shoot using models, probably with daylight and some flash.
The main areas which are said to be superior on the MF backs are:
1. shadow detail - looking at the above (somewhat lame) "coke can" test and some others I have done, I do not see a significant difference in shadow detail or noise *for my purposes.* (If anyone here knows of a more revealing side-by-side test, please post a link.)
2. dynamic range - hopefully will be tested for my practical purposes this week (as I did in the below shot between two Canons.) I know there are lots of anecdocal comments about the MF D.R. advantage, but are they true? (after all, there are lots claims about the shadow detail advantage, but for the most part I am failing to see it.) If I have to jack up curves in the shadows by +2 to see some advantage, then that's just plain silly.
I may end up buying another MF back regardless of the results (especially now that the H2 or Leaf kits can be had for approx. $18K!) But before I do, I will try to seperate fact from fiction as much as possible.
Below is a test I conducted with the 1Ds3 when I first got it, comparing it's highlight retention to the 5D, and I will do something similar with the Phase this week if I have time. (again, not strictly scientific, but good enough for my practical purposes.)
(though I may post the results on a blog which I have started, instead of over here, clogging up Michael's forum ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sometimes I think we all drink the Kool aid. Not that it's really important or not, but you don't have to live in NY and look very far down almost any avenue to see images that represent many milliions of dollars in production and about 2 dozen gallleries all hanging some beautiful imagery, all shot with every type of camera imagineable.
I can promise you that even the most astute observer will not care what camera, back, lens, or format it was shot with, though they will notice the photographs that they find personally interesting.
This isn't to say you shouldn't use the tools that best work for what you do and if you "believe" that one brand, or format makes your work better, then that is the only justification that you need.
Personally, I think it's time for a new format, something that is not legacy medium format or traditional 35mm because film sizes are gone and there is no real reason we are still strapped to frame sizes that few sensors really fill up.
I would love to see something between a 35mm camera and a P-30, but with a whole new size of lenses that really equate to the format. Is an 80mm a normal lens on a P45, or A-65, or p-30?
Presently the only full frame cameras in the world are Canon and Nikon and I guess that should suffice, but the issue I have with 35mm is the frame proportions.
Maybe it's just a film mindset from the past but for me I always shoot 35mm too tight, almost to the point that their is zero side room. I tell myself a billion times to step back and I always find myself doing the opposite and moving forward.
With medium format I go the other way and once again it is probably just a mindset from the past thinking that there will be some room to crop if I'm too loose.
The only issue I have with medium format is to capture spontinaity. It's just a more difficult format and I think if somebody had the resource to really devleope an in between system, probably 4x3 proportions that shot fast, focused fast, had good high iso and enough pixel count to to some cropping, then there probably would be a different professional format all together.
Then again, if I was a camera maker and read these forums I would think that most people only care about 100% crops of paint cans and eyeballs.
JR
-
1. shadow detail
2. dynamic range
These are the same. High dynamic range means, that much can be made out of the underexposed spots.
If I have to jack up curves in the shadows by +2 to see some advantage, then that's just plain silly
Now, that is not silly. That is just high dynamic range.
Example 1:
Shooting on a sunny day with nice, bright clouds, but the frame contains dark foresty areas. If the clouds are supposed to be protected from burning, the dark areas will be underexposed.
The magenta in the sky indicates, that the green just started to clip; any higher exposure would burn the sky. The red, blue pixels show, that there "black clipping" occured already. Increasing the intensity by 5/3 EV brings the trees to enjoyable level, but it is noisy.
(http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/DR_TooHigh_40D11073.GIF)
Example 2:
The setting does not allow for appropriate exposure, i.e. the shot will be underexposed and the intensity has to be increased in raw processing.
That is dynamic range. If you don't need this, then you are wasting lots of money if buying a camera with high dynamic range capability.
Below is a test I conducted with the 1Ds3 when I first got it, comparing it's highlight retention to the 5D
There is no such thing as "highlight retention" with digital. The highlights are there if you don't expose too high. That's it.
It has sense only in conjunction with metering, i.e. the issue is, how the evaluated exposure is positioned. This is a non-issue with a camera, which does not have ISO settings anyway. Moreover, even if teh camera is metering incorrectly, it does not matter, as ling as you are aware of that and bias the exposure accordingly.
Anyway, watch out for the Phase One back. The second raw file you posted is a wreck, any comparison with that file is senseless; I hope this won't be the case with the next combination you are trying.
-
Anyway, watch out for the Phase One back. The second raw file you posted is a wreck, any comparison with that file is senseless; I hope this won't be the case with the next combination you are trying.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=202877\")
As I stated earlier, I will be using a different back. And for the record, when I did a similar test with a different P30+ back on a Phase/Mamiya camera, the shadows looked the same as this one, even when boosted to +2.
unbroken P30 back post:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25937&view=findpost&p=202129]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=202129[/url]
Panopeeper, whatever you want to call it, I'll be seeing which one burns out the highlights faster this week (I hope.)
========================
And by the way James, don't knock the photos of paint cans and eyeballs!!! There are a lot of esthetic pleasures to be had there if you really look ;-)
But seriously, I agree that the long 35mm frame is a pain. And what I have done (which helps sometimes) is to buy one of those $35 Canon precision focusing screens (which really does help see what is and what is not in focus with the Canons) and then put fine lines on it with a sharp pencil - lopping off the top and bottom - effectively marking the 4x5 shaped area of the frame. It's a cheap and easy solution to better envision the crops, and it's a good reminder to back up.
re: I can promise you that even the most astute observer will not care what camera, back, lens, or format it was shot with, though they will notice the photographs that they find personally interesting.
my writing from another thread:What this often comes down to for me is, look in publication - any publication - billboards, magazines, point of purchase display, etc. - and tell me which camera was used for which image. For the most part, it's impossible to tell.
You can look in National Geographic and see images which look like they have amazing dynamic range, , colors, saturation and then you see that the story was shot by some dude who uses Canon 5Ds exclusively. Or it was shot on a Nikon D2x, which has pretty shitty dynamic range, noise issues, etc.
And then you walk into CVS and see some 2 foot beauty shots in the makeup aisle, and they look fuzzy and low resolution, even though they were shot with on a 39 mp back, or on 4x5 film. And you see Annie Leibowitz shooting ads for Disney, American Express, etc. with her Canons, *with zoom lenses attached.*
-
Seriously do not overlook C1 for many of the camera's . In my mind it is the most neutral.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm waiting for C1 to stabilize, then I'll put out a new batch of profiles
Edmund
-
I disagree with "no highlight retention". One must separate what the engineer sees and what the photographer gets:
I have a Canon - I shoot at ISO 1250, I blow the highlights. Boom they're gone.
I have a Kodak/Dalsa chip. I shoot at ISO 800. The Raw processor is actually lifting the base ISO by 3-4 stops. The default rendering will kill the highlights, but they're still there in the file. Maybe the Raw processor will show them if I ask nicely - eg Shadow/hilite sliders in C1.
Of course if I overexpose the highlights at ISO 100 on the DB they are gone.
Edmund
That is dynamic range. If you don't need this, then you are wasting lots of money if buying a camera with high dynamic range capability.
There is no such thing as "highlight retention" with digital. The highlights are there if you don't expose too high. That's it.
It has sense only in conjunction with metering, i.e. the issue is, how the evaluated exposure is positioned. This is a non-issue with a camera, which does not have ISO settings anyway. Moreover, even if teh camera is metering incorrectly, it does not matter, as ling as you are aware of that and bias the exposure accordingly.
Anyway, watch out for the Phase One back. The second raw file you posted is a wreck, any comparison with that file is senseless; I hope this won't be the case with the next combination you are trying.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
And for the record, when I did a similar test with a different P30+ back on a Phase/Mamiya camera, the shadows looked the same, even when boosted to +2.
Well, it needs more boosting to show the differences.
These crops show the effect of that electric fault; not only the noise, but the color shift too is caused by the that:
P30+ on the Mamiya, NR off (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/P30plus_on_Mamiya_CF000841_NRoff.jpg)
P30+ on the H2, NR off (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/P30plus_on_H2_CF19108_NRoff.jpg)
P30+ on the Mamiya, color NR=25 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/P30plus_on_Mamiya_CF000841_NR25.jpg)
P30+ on the H2, color NR=25 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/P30plus_on_H2_CF19108_NR25.jpg)
They have been converted with identical adjustments (actually, everything zero except "exposure" and "fill light"), but WB picked separatedly on the white card.
-
I have a Canon - I shoot at ISO 1250, I blow the highlights. Boom they're gone
You deserve it. There is no ISO 1250; that shot was made with ISO 1600 and reduced before recording the raw data. The in-between ISOs are for JPEG shooters.
Independently of that: this is a metering issue. If you figure out, that your camera meters incorrectly, apply a constant bias. The dynamic range is not meant as a reserve for metering error.
Of course if I overexpose the highlights at ISO 100 on the DB they are gone
Yeah, yeah, yeah! Now you need to recognize, that if it is *not* blown in the raw data, then it is useful.
Photographers, particularly the owners of those expensive machines need to learn the characteristics of their equipments, hardware as well as software, otherwise they throw away a large part of the capability of the expensive equipment.
There is no reason not to use the entire dynamic range of the camera. If an image *looks* overexposed but it is not, one can regain that without penalty, for example by reducing the intensity.
-
LOL
I'd say the sellers of the cheap machines have better explainers than the engineers of the expensive machines.
Maintaining my computer systems (hardware, profiles, installation, drivers, software, updates) is now soaking up at least 30% of the time I use them. There is a technology problem.
Edmund
You deserve it. There is no ISO 1250; that shot was made with ISO 1600 and reduced before recording the raw data. The in-between ISOs are for JPEG shooters.
Independently of that: this is a metering issue. If you figure out, that your camera meters incorrectly, apply a constant bias. The dynamic range is not meant as a reserve for metering error.
Yeah, yeah, yeah! Now you need to recognize, that if it is *not* blown in the raw data, then it is useful.
Photographers, particularly the owners of those expensive machines need to learn the characteristics of their equipments, hardware as well as software, otherwise they throw away a large part of the capability of the expensive equipment.
There is no reason not to use the entire dynamic range of the camera. If an image *looks* overexposed but it is not, one can regain that without penalty, for example by reducing the intensity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
panopeeper, could you explain the no iso1250 to me. Thanks
-
Well, it needs more boosting to show the differences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In my opinion this is not real world, it's treating the camera as a science project. I have never shot something where the shadows needed a 2 or 3 or 4 stop boost, so why even look into it? Research for the sake of research is one thing, but what I want to look into is actual useful information which will help me in the studio. If I have to tweak the hell our of the file to see a difference between these two cameras, then forget it. Does anyone here actually shoot photos where they are bound to need to increase exposure by +3 or +4 after the fact? I know i don't
As you can see from the fashion images I have posted, I am a real photographer, trying to get the job done. At most, my files need minor tweaks in the shadows, so for me +2 is already extreme. Never mind +3, +4, etc. I mean why stop there, why don't we look into what the files look like at +10??
-
In my opinion this is not real world, it's treating the camera as a science project. I have never shot something where the shadows needed a 2 or 3 or 4 stop boost, so why even look into it?
This is just what I meant above with
particularly the owners of those expensive machines need to learn the characteristics of their equipments
1. The shot in question has been metered for ISO 100, i.e. the metering calculated with +1 EV and that was compensated for by the raw processor. In other words, the three stops increase is only two stops.
If you make such a shot metered for ISO 800, then everything goes three stops lower, i.e. increasing the intensity by three stops is nothing extreme.
2. The pixel values on the softbox are in the 11th and 12th stop. Just that shot (the first one, on the Mamiya) shows, that the back does manage that.
If your typical work does not require the above, then you don't need a camera with such a dynamic range. Of course you may have other reasons for buying an MFDB, but DR is none of those.
-
could you explain the no iso1250 to me
Canon cameras do not have particular ISO gains for the 1/3 stop or 1/2 stop settings. If you select a +1/3 ISO, then the next lower full-stop ISO will be applied and the result multiplied by about 1.27. This reduces the dynamic range without absolute any advantage if you are recording raw data.
If you select a -1/3 ISO, then the next higher full stop ISO will be applied, and the result divided by about 1.27. This at least does not reduce the dynamic range, only the number of levels, but with 16bit that should not be an issue. However, this too is only fooling yourself.
The Nikon D3 and D300 appear to have true fractional ISO gains, which is really strange, as these machines do not gain really much from the increased ISO anyway.
-
Canon cameras do not have particular ISO gains for the 1/3 stop or 1/2 stop settings. If you select a +1/3 ISO, then the next lower full-stop ISO will be applied and the result multiplied by about 1.27. This reduces the dynamic range without absolute any advantage if you are recording raw data.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gabor,
There's total confusion here. Emil wrote on the previous page, the following:
My understanding is different. There is fairly good evidence that Canon employs a standard variable gain amplifier (VGA) off the sensor to implement ISO; two in fact, one for the "main" ISO's 100-200-400-800-1600 etc, and a second one to implement "in-between" ISO's
My understanding is, the VGA is at each pixel site. As we know, the actual light-receiving photo-receptor on CMOS sensors is considerably smaller than the pixel pitch, in order to make room for other processing devices.
Canon generally don't advertise such details about their sensor design, but years ago Michael provided some information about Canon's first DSLR, the 3mp D30, which he got from some technical notes provided by Canon.
The D30, as a result of its small number of pixels has a very wide pixel pitch, around 10 microns, which is wider than the pixel pitch of most MFDBs, yet the actual light-receiving photodiode is apparently only 5.25 microns in diameter.
However, the microlens covers almost the whole of each photosite (with narrow gaps between each microlens). It's the microlenses and their particular design which ensures that as much of the light as possible, which falls on the sensor, is directed to the photodiodes underneath rather than the other processing devices next to the photodiodes.
-
The MFDBs in question (those which I looked at) do not carry out numerical adjustment of pixel values to imitate higher ISO like the DSLRs do. They always record at their maximum ISO gain. They can afford it with 16bit depth.
The P45+ behaves rather like the DSLRs in ISO, though it does not offer the fake high ISOs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gabor,
Can you amplify on that explanation, please? I can't envisage how a camera could always record at its maximum ISO gain, unless it has only one ISO gain.
-
Gabor,
I can't envisage how a camera could always record at its maximum ISO gain, unless it has only one ISO gain.
That's right; I did not express it correctly. What I meant is, that there is only one ISO gain, and that is the maximum possible with reasonable noise.
For example my 40D yields quite good image in the 8th and 9th stop at ISO 1600. The 14bits are too many, keep only 13 of them, and add three bits for the now cut off stops at the high end (at 1600): that would mean 11-12 stops DR. That would suffice me for a while. The cost of 16bits is all right with me: lower frame rate. It would require even less storage than now, because I shoot very often with bracketing.
-
Re 1/3 stop ISO on Canons
I don't have samples from all cameras (who uses these ISOs?), but I just shot a set with the 40D. This has the particularity, that the pixel value range changes with ISO; that and the "holes" in the pixel values respecively the staggering demonstrates the effect.
I marked the saturation levels with a yellow ellipsis on each capture. The histograms are "zoomed in", each column/bar represents one pixel value.
ISO 200 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon40D_ISO200_11692_fineHist.GIF)
ISO 250 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon40D_ISO250_11693_fineHist.GIF)
ISO 320 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon40D_ISO320_11694_fineHist.GIF)
ISO 400 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon40D_ISO400_11695_fineHist.GIF)
-
Low noise at high ISO is a result of low noise in the circuitry involved in reading out the sensor to the VGA, it seems to me.
Emil,
If this is the case, then why does the low noise in the circuitry not improve S/N at base ISO?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because the noise floor is controlled by the noisiest element in the signal processing chain for any given ISO. At low ISO, the sensor noise is not amplified much, and the biggest noise source comes from the VGA and ADC. At high ISO, the sensor noise is highly amplified and becomes a bigger noise source than these two. The low sensor noise can't help if it is being masked by bigger contributions from downstream in the signal processing chain.
-
Canon cameras do not have particular ISO gains for the 1/3 stop or 1/2 stop settings. If you select a +1/3 ISO, then the next lower full-stop ISO will be applied and the result multiplied by about 1.27. This reduces the dynamic range without absolute any advantage if you are recording raw data.
If you select a -1/3 ISO, then the next higher full stop ISO will be applied, and the result divided by about 1.27. This at least does not reduce the dynamic range, only the number of levels, but with 16bit that should not be an issue. However, this too is only fooling yourself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This depends on the model. Canon's "pro" line (the 1 series and 5D) have "true" intermediate ISO gains (such as 1250) that are implemented in hardware via a second stage amplification downstream of the main ISO amplifier. It is only the "consumer" line (xxxD and xxD series) that implement intermediate ISO's by digital multiplication of data from the nearest main ISO 100/200/400/800/1600.
-
In fact, I have an ISO 1000 and 1250 image from the 5D, and these do not show the typical signs of fake ISOs.
-
In fact, I have an ISO 1000 and 1250 image from the 5D, and these do not show the typical signs of fake ISOs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a good example of the sort of problems we face on the internet. The notion that Canon DSLRs do not have 'real' intermediate ISO values has been around for quite a while. John Sheehy mentioned this characteristic of Canon DSLRs quite often.
Whilst I have a tendency to disbelieve almost everything I read, I simply don't have the time to check everything, and comparing ISO 160 on my 5D with ISO 100 (at the same exposure) was something I couldn't be bothered doing. I just avoided using those intermediate ISOs.
It now seems there was no good reason to avoid them.
-
Because the noise floor is controlled by the noisiest element in the signal processing chain for any given ISO. At low ISO, the sensor noise is not amplified much, and the biggest noise source comes from the VGA and ADC. At high ISO, the sensor noise is highly amplified and becomes a bigger noise source than these two. The low sensor noise can't help if it is being masked by bigger contributions from downstream in the signal processing chain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202935\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is still confusing for the layman, Emil. You wrote that the the lower noise at high ISO was due to the lower circuitry noise before analog pre-amplification.
If this is the case, whatever the analog gain later applied, the lower circuitry noise, prior to gain and with or without gain, should also have an effect on lowering noise whatever the ISO setting, which is merely an instruction to apply gain.
However, as Canon improves its technology, I can see that lower circuitry noise prior to pre-amplification, coupled with lower noise pre-amplifiers, could result in the dramatic improvement we now see in high ISO noise compared with Canon's earlier models.
-
This is still confusing for the layman, Emil. You wrote that the the lower noise at high ISO was due to the lower circuitry noise before analog pre-amplification.
If this is the case, whatever the analog gain later applied, the lower circuitry noise, prior to gain and with or without gain, should also have an effect on lowering noise whatever the ISO setting, which is merely an instruction to apply gain.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=202953\")
Sorry, I didn't want to resort to using equations. The point is that the gain is not applied to all noise sources, only to those upstream of the amplifier; downstream noise sources (including the noise of the amplifier itself) are not amplified.
As I understand it, the sensor readout has an associated noise N; this feeds into the amplifier that does ISO, which applies a gain G and adds its own noise N'. The output has two independent contributions to the noise, G*N from the amplified sensor readout noise, and N' from the amplifier itself. For instance, take the 1D3; the noise G*N is about .8*ISO/100 and the noise N' is about 4.2 raw levels; at ISO 100, N' is the bigger contributor, while at ISO 1600, G*N~13 is bigger.
Because the low ISO and high ISO noise are determined by different circuit elements, reducing one of them does not necessarily result in improved performance for all ISO. And note that it is the noise from circuit elements *before* the ISO amplification that determine the high ISO noise performance; this I think is why CMOS provides better high ISO performance, by having lower noise in the sensor element readout.
BTW, I probably shouldn't have said the ISO amplifier is off-chip. It can be and often is on the sensor chip itself, but I don't think it's part of the pixel circuitry itself, and that is the only distinction that was important for what I was saying...
[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor[/url]
-
This is a good example of the sort of problems we face on the internet. The notion that Canon DSLRs do not have 'real' intermediate ISO values has been around for quite a while. John Sheehy mentioned this characteristic of Canon DSLRs quite often.
Yes, it was John who discovered this property (in the context of the 30D, IIRC). But in his defense, he is always quite specific in qualifying what models have this property (he was also involved in verifying that the 5D has true intermediate ISO's); the problem is the usual one of human communication, that a piece of information relayed multiple times loses a fraction of its accuracy with each transmission and eventually becomes garbled.
Whilst I have a tendency to disbelieve almost everything I read, I simply don't have the time to check everything, and comparing ISO 160 on my 5D with ISO 100 (at the same exposure) was something I couldn't be bothered doing. I just avoided using those intermediate ISOs.
It now seems there was no good reason to avoid them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202951\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, there is still a good reason to avoid intermediate ISO's on the pro Canons, they are still quite a bit noisier in absolute terms than their "main" ISO neighbors. If I have a choice in terms of Av/Tv, I still prefer the main ISO's and tweaking the Av/Tv a third stop to get the proper exposure. At least, this is what I do up to about ISO 1000-1250 on my 1D3, at which point the read noise is controlled by the sensor readout and it doesn't matter whether the secondary amplifier is kicking in or not, and one can use the intermediate ISO's without penalty.
This is all due to Canon's bizarre double stage amplification mechanism for providing these intermediate ISO's. Nikon just uses a single variable gain amplifier for all ISO's including the intermediate ones, and the read noise just smoothly increases with ISO rather than bouncing around like it does for Canon.
Oh, and for those who shake their heads at this sort of "science experiment", it's a good example how such experiments inform exposure decisions in order to maximize image quality.
-
-
Oh, and for those who shake their heads at this sort of "science experiment", it's a good example how such experiments inform exposure decisions in order to maximize image quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No no no, go ahead. If scientifically proven what the best practice is per body/sensor please let us know so I can use it to my benefit. No problem in people sorting out all the scientific details for us to benefit from. At least that is my opinion. Trial & error does work as well but takes longer I guess.
It just sounds a bit like you are kind of missing out on the really fun part, taking or making images.
-
"It just sounds a bit like you are kind of missing out on the really fun part, taking or making images."
You hit the nail on the head!
Jammer dat Holland niet zo gelukkig was!
Guus Hiddink did wonders for the Socceroos too!
-
Finally, pls post a raw file of whatever with whatever setting, except a black frame, only as technical reference for me. I am hunting for the error, which I noticed in the raw file of the P30+ posted above by 203.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=202773\")
Gabor,
Here is a RAW file which has no photographic merit. It's simply a shot which includes data from slightly clipping highlights to clipping shadows. I was outside today and was curious about how the P25+ would handle this ridiculous range. If it's not useful for your purposes I can upload something different.
Dale
[a href=\"https://download.yousendit.com/138ED46D1AAA8B09]https://download.yousendit.com/138ED46D1AAA8B09[/url]
-
For the Ruski's I mean!
-
"It just sounds a bit like you are kind of missing out on the really fun part, taking or making images."
You hit the nail on the head!
Jammer dat Holland niet zo gelukkig was!
Guus Hiddink did wonders for the Socceroos too!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Staat er in ieder geval 1 Hollander in de 1/2 finale
Guus has proven to be a top trainer more than once. This does include the Socceroos indeed.
-
"Guus has proven to be a top trainer more than once. This does include the Socceroos indeed."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-
It just sounds a bit like you are kind of missing out on the really fun part, taking or making images.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=202987\")
What makes you think I do?
[a href=\"http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/Trips/Homer_Alaska_2008/IMG_6318-web.jpg]http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/Tr...MG_6318-web.jpg[/url]
-
What makes you think I do?
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/Tr...MG_6318-web.jpg (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/Trips/Homer_Alaska_2008/IMG_6318-web.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now that's what I like looking at much more
-
What makes you think I do?
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/Tr...MG_6318-web.jpg (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/Trips/Homer_Alaska_2008/IMG_6318-web.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The sort of tame bird we like our kids to feed from their hands
They had some tame birds of this sort flying around at Photokina, fortunately none of them decided to order some food to go
Edmund
-
Here is a RAW file which has no photographic merit. It's simply a shot which includes data from slightly clipping highlights to clipping shadows. I was outside today and was curious about how the P25+ would handle this ridiculous range. If it's not useful for your purposes I can upload something different.
Dale,
this image is the perfect demonstration of what I was saying to 203. The dynamic range of the scenery was huge. The exposure was perfect: 1/3 stop more and lots of clipping occurs.
The factual highlight clipping was negligable - only 115 pixels were saturated (these are reflecting particles in the granit).
The area under the large rocks is underexposed (down to black clipping), but very fine details can be extracted from the 10th and partly from the 11th stop.
Anyway, this image does not exhibit the electric fault; good for you (though I still don't know the reason - it is not impossible, that this is coming and going, like a contact error).
There is another interesting thing to observe on this image, combined with that of Guy's: the stitching of the sensor parts. This is, what is called - incorrectly - "centerfold". It is in the center of the P45+ I have seen (five different backs), but Phase One seems to have made some smart improvent (I guess the P25+ is newer than the P45+): pieces of different sizes are stitched together. For example yours consists of three vertical strips, 1932, 640 pixels and the rest (I can't make out the horizontal stitching). Guy's copy consists of 646, 2526 and 920 pixel wide strips. This would mean better utilization of the chips (this should make the back cheaper!).
-
Dale,
this image is the perfect demonstration of what I was saying to 203. The dynamic range of the scenery was huge. The exposure was perfect: 1/3 stop more and lots of clipping occurs.
The factual highlight clipping was negligable - only 115 pixels were saturated (these are reflecting particles in the granit).
The area under the large rocks is underexposed (down to black clipping), but very fine details can be extracted from the 10th and partly from the 11th stop.
Anyway, this image does not exhibit the electric fault; good for you (though I still don't know the reason - it is not impossible, that this is coming and going, like a contact error).
There is another interesting thing to observe on this image, combined with that of Guy's: the stitching of the sensor parts. This is, what is called - incorrectly - "centerfold". It is in the center of the P45+ I have seen (five different backs), but Phase One seems to have made some smart improvent (I guess the P25+ is newer than the P45+): pieces of different sizes are stitched together. For example yours consists of three vertical strips, 1932, 640 pixels and the rest (I can't make out the horizontal stitching). Guy's copy consists of 646, 2526 and 920 pixel wide strips. This would mean better utilization of the chips (this should make the back cheaper!).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gabor maybe have me confused with someone else. I have the same back as Dale P25 plus,mine was just purchased new. I did demo the the P30 plus though
-
Gabor maybe have me confused with someone else. I have the same back as Dale P25 plus,mine was just purchased new. I did demo the the P30 plus though
Guy, you posted a set with different ISOs, of your bathroom with a GretagMacbeth color checker, shot with a P25+. I have not seen any *raw* images of you by a P30+. Did you post some? Where?
I have not been clear enough, but I mentioned the P45+ only as contrast to the P25+ with the sensor stitching.
-
Gabor,
I'm glad that the file worked for the purposes here.
Thanks for the info regarding the sensor configurations as well.
Dale
Dale,
this image is the perfect demonstration of what I was saying to 203. The dynamic range of the scenery was huge. The exposure was perfect: 1/3 stop more and lots of clipping occurs.
The factual highlight clipping was negligable - only 115 pixels were saturated (these are reflecting particles in the granit).
The area under the large rocks is underexposed (down to black clipping), but very fine details can be extracted from the 10th and partly from the 11th stop.
Anyway, this image does not exhibit the electric fault; good for you (though I still don't know the reason - it is not impossible, that this is coming and going, like a contact error).
There is another interesting thing to observe on this image, combined with that of Guy's: the stitching of the sensor parts. This is, what is called - incorrectly - "centerfold". It is in the center of the P45+ I have seen (five different backs), but Phase One seems to have made some smart improvent (I guess the P25+ is newer than the P45+): pieces of different sizes are stitched together. For example yours consists of three vertical strips, 1932, 640 pixels and the rest (I can't make out the horizontal stitching). Guy's copy consists of 646, 2526 and 920 pixel wide strips. This would mean better utilization of the chips (this should make the back cheaper!).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Guy, you posted a set with different ISOs, of your bathroom with a GretagMacbeth color checker, shot with a P25+. I have not seen any *raw* images of you by a P30+. Did you post some? Where?
I have not been clear enough, but I mentioned the P45+ only as contrast to the P25+ with the sensor stitching.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I posted some raws i think with the P30 plus from when I was in San Juan playing with it but that was some time ago not sure were they are. But yes you are correct the bathroom shots are with the P25 plus which i am very pleased with BTW with the higher ISO's. ISO 400 is really nice and 800 is nothing to sneeze at. I'm still playing around with the higher ISO stuff to find my happy spot but so far pretty good.
-
the bathroom shots are with the P25 plus which i am very pleased with BTW with the higher ISO's. ISO 400 is really nice and 800 is nothing to sneeze at
You mean "underexposed by 1 2/3 EV and by 2 2/3 EV", right? (According to those images.) ISO 800 of that camera means "undermetering by 2 EV".
I'm still playing around with the higher ISO stuff to find my happy spot but so far pretty good
If one can believe those shots of the bathroom, I mean if the exposure was according to the metering based on the ISO, unbiased, then ISO 200 should be the only one ever selected.
Correction: based on that serie, it should be 100. (See details in a post further down.)
-
If one can believe those shots of the bathroom, I mean if the exposure was according to the metering based on the ISO, unbiased, then ISO 200 should be the only one ever selected.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gabor, are you suggesting that ISO 200 is the true "native" ISO of the P25+ back? And further suggesting that one gains nothing in terms of image quality by shooting at ISO 50 or ISO 100?
I need to do more "testing", but so far I have preferred the look of the ISO 100 and ISO 50 shots over the ISO 200 shots. This may be purely coincidental, as my ISO increases have been to accommodate reduced light conditions or when I wanted a slightly higher shutter speed. I have not shot the same scene on each ISO setting while manually manipulating exposure time to balance for the ISO steps.
Frankly, I've simply been shooting at the lowest ISO suitable for the available lighting, that is, depending on the aperture or exposure time needed for the desired results.
Edit to add: I see that you, Gabor, edited your post to correct your remark. You are suggesting ISO 100 to be base or "native" on the P25+ back. Thanks for the correction.
-
You mean "underexposed by 1 2/3 EV and by 2 2/3 EV", right? (According to those images.) ISO 800 of that camera means "undermetering by 2 EV".
If one can believe those shots of the bathroom, I mean if the exposure was according to the metering based on the ISO, unbiased, then ISO 200 should be the only one ever selected.
Correction: based on that serie, it should be 100. (See details in a post further down.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They were replaced and uploaded , please let's stay up to date on this stuff. You make it sound like I cheated somehow, sure you want to say something like that. Let's be careful how we word things please . The first set was underexposed and my reshoot was exposed on the money.
-
are you suggesting that ISO 200 is the true "native" ISO of the P25+ back?
I am suggesting, that there is no "native" ISO, because there is only one. The ISO selection changes the metering, and the question is, which ISO yields the best exposure (i.e. utilizing the dynamic range and minimizing the noise).
Guy posted a set with ISO 100, 200, 400 and 800, with successively reduced exposure. From those, the ISO 100 shot is perfectly exposed (1/3 EV down from the right edge); however, the question is, how good that metering reflected the entire scenery, i.e. how reliable the camera's metering is in that particular setting.
On the other hand, when I see ACR's automatic adjustments, ISO 200 seems to be the basis. Is ACR reliable in this relation? Did they make respective tests? I doubt it, because ACR applies the same adjustment to P45+ images as well, which do not need to be adjusted, for it has different ISOs.
And further suggesting that one gains nothing in terms of image quality by shooting at ISO 50 or ISO 100?
Let's see the meaning of ISO selection on different cameras, on the histograms, which show the effect of the exposure.
First, Canon 40D;
40D ISO 200 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon40D_ISOSerie_200_Hist.GIF)
40D ISO 400 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon40D_ISOSerie_400_Hist.GIF)
40D ISO 800 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon40D_ISOSerie_800_Hist.GIF)
40D ISO 1600 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon40D_ISOSerie_1600_Hist.GIF)
The histograms show, that *roughly* identical image data has been delivered with increasing ISO setting, although the shutter was 1/20s, 1/40s, 1/80s and 1/160s. The increased ISO gain "made up" for the reduced exposure. Of course this "substitute exposure" is not a 100% substitute, i.e. the noise will be higher with the lower exposure.
Now, let's see what is happening if there is no ISO implemented on that level; following are the histograms from Guy's shots:
P25+ ISO 100 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/P25Plus_ISOSerie_100_CF000251_Hist.GIF)
P25+ ISO 200 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/P25Plus_ISOSerie_200_CF000252_Hist.GIF)
P25+ ISO 400 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/P25Plus_ISOSerie_400_CF000253_Hist.GIF)
P25+ ISO 800 (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/P25Plus_ISOSerie_800_CF000254_Hist.GIF)
Here too the shutter has been halved with each stop increase of the ISO; however the pixel data got halved as well (the thicker white bars under the histograms mark one stop, the thinner bars 1/3 stop).
The higher ISO setting did not make up for the lower exposure. In other words, the higher ISO means metering as if there was a higher ISO implemented, but the camera does not implement it, it has to be compensated for in the raw processing.
This is equaivalent to the "ISO by pushing the exposure in raw conversion".
What is the result? If you pick a certain spot on the image, its brightness (in terms of pixel values) goes down with each ISO increase. Something, which has been in the sixth stop (from the very right edge) at ISO 100 will be in the range of the ninths stop with ISO 800. Accordingly, the noise will be higher and the details less.
There is nothing wrong with it, but it is important to understand: the higher ISO is in no way a substitute for higher exposure. Therefor my suggestion: always shoot with that ISO, which yields a close to ETTR exposure. If you can't afford the required exposure (moving subject, low light), then you will see, that you are underexposing, but you get the same as if you had increased the ISO.
Downsides:
- the display on the LCD will be darker,
- you have to increase the intensity in raw processing.
Of course you may shoot with higher ISO *when you realise, that you can't go with the required exposure*; the resulting image is the same without the downsides. But, again: be aware, that this is an "emergency measure", just like I am shooting with ISO 800 and 1600 only in "emergency cases".
-
You make it sound like I cheated somehow, sure you want to say something like that. Let's be careful how we word things please . The first set was underexposed and my reshoot was exposed on the money.
Please read my above post to Dale carefully, and check out the histograms.
-
Please read my above post to Dale carefully, and check out the histograms.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=203206\")
The latest versions are here. [a href=\"http://idisk.mac.com/guymancuso-Public?view=web]http://idisk.mac.com/guymancuso-Public?view=web[/url]
Noise test 2
Whatever results you get really as i said before are meaningless to me . All shooters care about is if we set it at ISO 800 do you get nice results. How we get there or how it works on the back end is somewhat meaningless because we don't shoot the science of it we look at final results.
-
I really don't see the 3D effect with MF. I think that is plain fantasy. Maybe 20,000K makes people see things...
The very real thing for me about MF is the VIEWFINDER. It lets me see, compose and shoot in a way that really sets in a mood to shoot and create. Makes me want to make photographs.
I really don't care that much about the pixels nowadays. I got over the angst of having uber IQ. I care about how I feel when I shoot. If a camera is great to use, then you'll probably end up with better images from that camera than from another that isn't, regardless of IQ.
That is the sole reason I prefer MF over 35mm. I feel that 35mm full frame viewfinders are small, and uncomfortable to use, no matter how good they can be.
-
No Guy, I don't think Gabor is suggestion any cheat. All he is saying is even if you have set it to ISO 800, all it was is an under-exposure of the files, not a real ISO 800.
Thierry
They were replaced and uploaded , please let's stay up to date on this stuff. You make it sound like I cheated somehow, sure you want to say something like that. Let's be careful how we word things please . The first set was underexposed and my reshoot was exposed on the money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203187\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The latest versions are here. http://idisk.mac.com/guymancuso-Public?view=web (http://idisk.mac.com/guymancuso-Public?view=web)
Noise test 2
Whatever results you get really as i said before are meaningless to me . All shooters care about is if we set it at ISO 800 do you get nice results. How we get there or how it works on the back end is somewhat meaningless because we don't shoot the science of it we look at final results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Guy, on one hand you are right, but if you are working with uncontrollable situations where you rely on natural light (such as in architectural photography) you are always making 'informed' decisions about what will be usable/acceptable to the client in extreme circumstances.
So many of my shots are produced in extremely low light and then pushed up as far as they can go...I'm sure many other photographers (particularly those who work with interiors) encounter these same situations.
For me, these tests can explain a lot (even if I arrived to the same conclusions by trial and error) and will influence decisions in real world situations and also what I recommend to my clients when being briefed on a job...
Murray
-
I agree with Murray,
to get the shot is what counts.
If I need to use my D3 at 6400 instead of my Hy6/75LV at 800, I'll be using the Nikon.
If the image doesn't have to go beyond A3 I'm covered.
Still prefer the Hy6 as I like the viewfinder etc better.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
Today I came across a magazine article that addresses the heart of the discussion on this thread: In the comparison of MF to 35mm, is it more than just pixel count?
The article is called "The Fall and Rise of Medium Format" by Simon Wakelin. It is in the July/August 2008 issue of Digital Photo Pro.
The bulk of the article was about MF manufacturers promoting bit depth Here are quotes:
Jack Showalter, president of Hasselblad USA “Let’s face it, it’s not just pixel count. The reason you use a larger piece of silicon for medium format is to convert more photons to electrons and thus gain more data with deeper bit depth.”
“Dealing with true 16-bit color depth makes a difference” says Mark Rezzonico, vice president of Leaf America.
Jans H. Christiansen, marketing director of Phase One “…if you’re shooting in tricky lighting situations and you want those subtle details, tones, shadows and highlights to show, this is where medium format really comes into its own.”
Is part of the appeal of MF the fact that the cameras are bigger and look more exclusive? Isn’t that what Hugh Milstein of Digital Fusion means when he says “The bottom line with medium format is that big glass makes a big impression… the guy with the bigger camera gets the better shot because it elicits an emotional response from the talent."
Personally, I found the argument about bit-depth unconvincing, but I think there is no doubt that MF cameras have a different presence in the studio.
-
Let’s face it, it’s not just pixel count. The reason you use a larger piece of silicon for medium format is to convert more photons to electrons and thus gain more data with deeper bit depth
The sensel size (linear, not area) of the 39 MPix H39 is a hopping 6.8micron.
For comparison:
Canon 5D: 8.2micron
Canon 1DMkIII: 7.4micron
Nikon D3: 11.3micron
There must be something else there.
-
Today I came across a magazine article that addresses the heart of the discussion on this thread: In the comparison of MF to 35mm, is it more than just pixel count?
The article is called "The Fall and Rise of Medium Format" by Simon Wakelin. It is in the July/August 2008 issue of Digital Photo Pro.
The bulk of the article was about MF manufacturers promoting bit depth Here are quotes:
Jack Showalter, president of Hasselblad USA “Let’s face it, it’s not just pixel count. The reason you use a larger piece of silicon for medium format is to convert more photons to electrons and thus gain more data with deeper bit depth.”
“Dealing with true 16-bit color depth makes a difference” says Mark Rezzonico, vice president of Leaf America.
Jans H. Christiansen, marketing director of Phase One “…if you’re shooting in tricky lighting situations and you want those subtle details, tones, shadows and highlights to show, this is where medium format really comes into its own.”
Is part of the appeal of MF the fact that the cameras are bigger and look more exclusive? Isn’t that what Hugh Milstein of Digital Fusion means when he says “The bottom line with medium format is that big glass makes a big impression… the guy with the bigger camera gets the better shot because it elicits an emotional response from the talent."
Personally, I found the argument about bit-depth unconvincing, but I think there is no doubt that MF cameras have a different presence in the studio.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203888\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to disagree with you there as I see a big difference with Bit depth fro my P30 to my 1DsMII.
It is easily seen with a grey background... If you do any retouching you'll notice there is a big difference between my phase and Canon files.
I have not had a 1dsMIII file to play with, but do not think it is better than the P30's 16 bit.
The 16 Bit hold up a lot more abuse for sure.. even in just exposure.
I have heard there is not much of a difference to really upgrade to the 1DsMIII from the 1DsMII, But am I missing something?
Snook
-
But am I missing something?
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. I will send you a couple RAW images (off-line) from model shoots if you want to check them out.
-
Just shoot a grey background with a graduate and you will see a difference.
At least between the 5D and the Leaf.
On the 5D I see some stepping/rings caused by bitdepth shortage, on the Leaf file I don't see those.
-
The sensel size (linear, not area) of the 39 MPix H39 is a hopping 6.8micron.
For comparison:
Canon 5D: 8.2micron
Canon 1DMkIII: 7.4micron
Nikon D3: 11.3micron
There must be something else there.
I think there is something wrong with your numbers here. D3 is around 8.7 microns, 1Ds3 is roughly the same sensel size as the H3DII-39, in the mid 6 range (6.4), 5D I believe is right, 8.2. Oops, you said 1DMkIII, not 1DsMkIII; that one has a 7.2 micron sensel size.
One thing you are missing is that the MFDBs use CCDs and don't give up any of their real estate to processing power. The CMOS chips may be fixing this soon by putting the engines behind the chips, but as of right now not all of a CMOS is dedicated to capturing photons.
-
I think there is something wrong with your numbers here. D3 is around 8.7 microns
Right; when I looked up the resolution, I picked the wrong number, namely the middle-resolution.
One thing you are missing is that the MFDBs use CCDs and don't give up any of their real estate to processing power
Yes; however, those chips have microfilters, which increase the utilization of the light falling over that area. This reduces the sharpness, but that is a different issue. I was not disputing, that MFDBs yield better image quality than DSLRs; I was disputing the particular argumentation based on the sensel size; that is plainly incorrect.
-
Just shoot a grey background with a graduate and you will see a difference.
At least between the 5D and the Leaf.
On the 5D I see some stepping/rings caused by bitdepth shortage, on the Leaf file I don't see those.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you judging this from a print or on screen? I would gather that the screen view could be less than accurate in your particular test.
Ken
-
One thing you are missing is that the MFDBs use CCDs and don't give up any of their real estate to processing power. The CMOS chips may be fixing this soon by putting the engines behind the chips, but as of right now not all of a CMOS is dedicated to capturing photons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Except that Canon and Nikon use *lenses* over each pixel to concentrate the photons onto the appropriate bit of real estate... It's been that way for at least the last 6 years...
I'd suggest reading Roger Clark's excellent site...
-
Right; when I looked up the resolution, I picked the wrong number, namely the middle-resolution.
Yes; however, those chips have microfilters, which increase the utilization of the light falling over that area. This reduces the sharpness, but that is a different issue. I was not disputing, that MFDBs yield better image quality than DSLRs; I was disputing the particular argumentation based on the sensel size; that is plainly incorrect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gabor,
I would have thought that, in addition to any sharpness benefit flowing from the absence of an AA filter and microlens, the CCD DB, of same pixel pitch as a CMOS sensor, has a larger photon collector (deeper well, or greater fill factor) and can therefore accommodate a greater dynamic range, all else being equal (which it never is, of course).
In fact, when you consider all the factors that the DB has going for it, it's surprising that the DB is not better than it appears to be.
Consider the following which I believe are statements of fact:
(1) Doubling the sensor size results in any image of same FoV and DoF being comprised of double the number of photons, or double the amount of light at the same ISO.
For example, a 50mm lens on the 1Ds3 has, at F8, the same diameter aperture as a 70mm lens on the P45 at F11 (Aperture Diam=FL/F stop). Allowing for slight discrepancies due to different aspect ratios, the Field of View will be the same; the DoF will be the same; but the amount of light received by the P45 sensor will be approximately double at any given ISO.
(2) Due to the greater size of the CCD photodiode within each photosite, base ISO can be lower; for example ISO 50 instead of the usual ISO 100, assuming equal quantum efficiency. The base ISO of 200 on the D3, in place of the usuall ISO 100, is possible due to greater quantum efficiency. If the D3 photodiodes were the same size as its pixel pitch (as a result of all the on-chip processors being on the reverse side of the chip) then the D3 would benefit from improved image quality at ISO 100 and greater dynamic range.
(3) Any image taken at a base ISO of 50, using a 24x36mm DB, will be a product of 4x the amount of light as that used to produce the same image with a 1Ds3 at its base ISO of 100, assuming equal standards of correct exposure are applied.
Perhaps the surprising thing here is just how good the images are from 35mm DSLRs considering they can't manage to use more than 1/4 of the amount of light that a DB can use, when maximum image quality is sought.
-
Except that Canon and Nikon use *lenses* over each pixel to concentrate the photons onto the appropriate bit of real estate... It's been that way for at least the last 6 years...
I'd suggest reading Roger Clark's excellent site...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204098\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe the P30 also has microlenses and a base ISO of 100, suggesting its photodiodes are smaller than its pixel pitch.
The purpose of the microlens is to ensure that the light falling on the sensor is not wasted. The light, as far as possible, is directed onto the photon collector or diode rather than onto other devices such as on-chip pre-amplifiers.
Without the microlens, a base ISO of 100 would have to be something like ISO 25 for the same image quality. It would be a very inefficient system.
However, the microlens cannot help the inherent dynamic range limitations of the small photodiode. A small bucket can hold only a small amount of water.
-
(1) Doubling the sensor size results in any image of same FoV and DoF being For example, a 50mm lens on the 1Ds3 has, at F8, the same diameter aperture as a 70mm lens on the P45 at F11 (Aperture Diam=FL/F stop). Allowing for slight discrepancies due to different aspect ratios, the Field of View will be the same; the DoF will be the same; but the amount of light received by the P45 sensor will be approximately double at any given ISO
The unit is the sensel, not the sensor. The P45+ has twice the area, but 39Mpix vs 21Mpix of the 1DsMkIII.
My opinion is unchanged: one of the most distinctive features of MFDBs is the higher dynamic range, which is mainly due to the different approach of reading the data (perhaps we could call it UniISO); this requires three to four more bits per pixel, much longer processing and recording time. It is not surprising, that MFDBs' frame rate is counted in frames/minute, not in frames/second.
Any DSLR maker could do the same if they wanted to. This is the main issue.
Of course the wide field of view and huge pixel count are important as well. The lack of AA is just that: the lack of a useful feature, as trade-off for another useful characteristic. One can be happy about the added sharpness because of the lack of AA filter, but one needs to keep in eyes: anyone can remove the AA filter from a DSLR. There is a good reason they are there.
This was different with the earlier lower pixel counts, but now the MFDB pixel sizes are very close to those of DSLRs (or even smaller, see my examples above), and moiree is becoming a consideration.
-
one of the most distinctive features of MFDBs is the higher dynamic range, which is mainly due to the different approach of reading the data [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Does anyone know of a real side-by-side test which demonstrates this? Link? (I am not talking about anecdotal commentary, but an actual test with both cameras in the same room at the same time.) Just curious as to how much difference there is.
-
The unit is the sensel, not the sensor. The P45+ has twice the area, but 39Mpix vs 21Mpix of the 1DsMkIII.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A unit is anything you define as such. The final composition with a specific FoV and a specific DoF, seen or printed at a specific size, is also a unit. Many would consider it the most important unit of all, regarding photographic matters.
Such a unit from the P45+, in best image quality mode at ISO 50, will be comprised of approximately 4x the number of photons as the same unit from the 1Ds3 at ISO 100.
The word photography means 'painting with light'. MFDBs give you more light to paint with. It's as simple as that.
However, CMOS based DSLRs can do a better job with the same amount of light, which of course means underexposure for the MFDB.
-
Oh I just had to reply to this thread. We had a discussion in the 35mm forum about the 1DS3 and high ISO noise when under exposed. The result was that when properly exposed, and even better ETTR, the 1DS3 make excellent prints all the way to 1600.
On the other hand, and since I believe the op of this thread made sure both images were ETTR this may not be relevant, the further under exposed you went with the 1DS3 and high ISO, the problem of noise and detail degenerated exponentially.
The reason I mention this is that perhaps the MF outperforms when underexposed and in shadow detail?
This shot was made hand held at 1/20 F2.8 at ISO 1600 using a street light only. Virtually noiseless at 12x18 print size.
I for one am interested in this thread. For one, if you could get the performance out of a Canon G9 that you get out of a MF, would you carry the MF around, or use the G9? Things do get miniaturized as time goes. For that reason alone this thread is important.
I guess my main interest for now is how well the detail and noise of the 1DS3 in shadows stacks up against the MF.
-
Of course the wide field of view and huge pixel count are important as well. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
35m DSLRs usually have a wider maximum field of view because of the availability of lenses. I believe there's no MF equivalent of a 12mm lens for 35m format.
The larger sensor, and larger photoreceptor within each photosite, are the two main factors which allow the DB to use more light at base ISO, for any given scene or composition. Pixel count has little bearing on this issue.
The P21 with fewer pixels than the 1Ds3, the P25 with about the same number of pixels and the P45 with almost double the number of pixels, can all use about 4x the amount of light as the 1Ds3 at base ISO (assuming that all those backs have a base ISO of 50).
Whether the DB can use that light as efficiently as the 1Ds3 is another matter. This could be determined by comparing the DR of a fully exposed 1Ds3 image at ISO 100 with a P25 image underexposed 2 stops at ISO 50. Assuming the ISOs are accurate and assuming proper technique is used to compare images which are matched with respect to FoV and DoF, the exposure values should be the same for both images.
-
I believe there's no MF equivalent of a 12mm lens for 35m format
I doubt, that this lens would come up in a "competition" between FF and MFDB, when the question is image quality.
The larger sensor, and larger photoreceptor within each photosite, are the two main factors which allow the DB to use more light at base ISO, for any given scene or composition. Pixel count has little bearing on this issue
Here is the secret: the larger pixel count on the same size of sensor implies smaller sensels :-)
-
the further under exposed you went with the 1DS3 and high ISO, the problem of noise and detail degenerated exponentially
This is obvious; the noise depends mainly on the exposure (with a given camera).
This shot was made hand held at 1/20 F2.8 at ISO 1600 using a street light only. Virtually noiseless at 12x18 print size
The noise in OOF areas is pretty useless in assessing the camera. Plus, processed images reveal nothing. From what I see, most of the noise could have been cut off by blackpoint.
-
Here is the secret: the larger pixel count on the same size of sensor implies smaller sensels :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's no secret. The secret is the actual size of the photoreceptor, photodiode, photon receiving device (whatever you want to call it) within the sensel. That is, the size of the bucket.
The Sigma 12mm lens might not be too hot, but the Nikkor 14/2.8 is reputed to be excellent. MFDBs have no wide-angle or FoV advantage compared with FF 35mm. DBs are, after all, a cropped format.
-
This is obvious; the noise depends mainly on the exposure (with a given camera).
The noise in OOF areas is pretty useless in assessing the camera. Plus, processed images reveal nothing. From what I see, most of the noise could have been cut off by blackpoint.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep I agree with your analysis. I actually only posted that image to make the point that at ISO 1600, images from the 1DS3 are quite usable in real world applications, such as print. I have underexposed some images using ISO 800 that were not. Anyway, you're point is well taken. I could post the original RAW if you're interested?
-
Any DSLR maker could do the same if they wanted to. This is the main issue.
I think Canon really dropped the ball on the 1Ds3 in this regard, by making it the same basic approach as all their other DSLR's (high-speed CMOS, AA filter, etc).
I really hope the supposedly upcoming D3x is built more like an MFDB, with a slower CCD and no AA filter. I would be perfectly happy with 2fps and a base ISO of 50 if it meant more DR and better image quality at base ISO. Unfortunately I think it's unlikely to happen, because the market has decided that high ISO noise is the single biggest criteria by which DSLR's are judged, and if it were to be noisy at ISO 1600 everyone on the internet would criticize it as a failure.
-
I think Canon really dropped the ball on the 1Ds3 in this regard, by making it the same basic approach as all their other DSLR's (high-speed CMOS, AA filter, etc).
I really hope the supposedly upcoming D3x is built more like an MFDB, with a slower CCD and no AA filter. I would be perfectly happy with 2fps and a base ISO of 50 if it meant more DR and better image quality at base ISO. Unfortunately I think it's unlikely to happen, because the market has decided that high ISO noise is the single biggest criteria by which DSLR's are judged, and if it were to be noisy at ISO 1600 everyone on the internet would criticize it as a failure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, yes, but having the ability to shoot at ISO 1600 and print 20x30 inch prints that are relatively noise free is a big thing to most people who use the 1DS3 for typical 35mm photography, with the exception of landscape photography. That means you can shoot in light four stops lower than you could originally shoot virtually noise free, which means you can shoot natural light in places you never could before. Or you can at least shoot longer. It is really nice to dial up 400, then 800, and then 1600 and keep shooting like nothing has changed. It also opens up other natural light possibilities that were beforehand impossible w/o gross noise. For studio work, this doesn't apply of course. And you already know all of this.
-
I think Canon really dropped the ball on the 1Ds3 in this regard...
I would be perfectly happy with 2fps and a base ISO of 50 if it meant more DR and better image quality at base ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Jeff, what are your issues with the image quality?
-
I think Canon really dropped the ball on the 1Ds3 in this regard, by making it the same basic approach as all their other DSLR's (high-speed CMOS, AA filter, etc).
I really hope the supposedly upcoming D3x is built more like an MFDB, with a slower CCD and no AA filter. I would be perfectly happy with 2fps and a base ISO of 50 if it meant more DR and better image quality at base ISO. Unfortunately I think it's unlikely to happen, because the market has decided that high ISO noise is the single biggest criteria by which DSLR's are judged, and if it were to be noisy at ISO 1600 everyone on the internet would criticize it as a failure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The type of work most suited to 35mm style cameras does not go well with not having a AA filter, 35mm shooters often shoot greater quantities than MF shooters. If it's wedding photography dealing with moire will seriously restrict workflow.
The 1DsmkIII has more moire than the smkII, that will be why it has an AA. not that it will show in most images. Having had to deal with moire on the Kodak SLR/n it ain't a joke.
If the big Nikon came around without an AA it would kill the camera for the type of work it should excel at.
MF is MF it has advantages and disadvantages over 35mm, depending on what and how you shoot will determine wether the advantages or disadvantages come to the front.
If slower CCD and no AA filter fit with your photography then a MF is the way to go.
MF has more to offer than extra MP's, it is not however best suited to the type of work I do..... more the pity.
Kevin.
-
I will certainly have the coming D3x with a 14-24 and a 24-70 to be used for those situations
where my Hy6/75LV is not suitable.
Like those situations discussed previously.
Happy shooting
Cheers,
Willem.
-
The type of work most suited to 35mm style cameras does not go well with not having a AA filter, 35mm shooters often shoot greater quantities than MF shooters. If it's wedding photography dealing with moire will seriously restrict workflow.
I have to wonder whether wedding shooters make any signficant part of the target market for 21-24mp 35mm cameras. Most of the ones I've talked to are shooting with 5D, 1DMk2/3, or now the D3 with many anticipating the D700. They seem to feel 12mp is plenty, and they're more concerned about high-ISO, AF, etc. Most high-volume shooters don't want to deal with the filesize of a 20mp camera.
If the big Nikon came around without an AA it would kill the camera for the type of work it should excel at.
MF is MF it has advantages and disadvantages over 35mm, depending on what and how you shoot will determine wether the advantages or disadvantages come to the front.
I don't agree with that, at least not completely. I think the lines between which cameras should be used for which task are breaking down somewhat with Digital. The 1DsMk3 (and presumably forthcoming high-res Nikon and Sony bodies) have some overlap with the lower end of MF digital. These cameras seem aimed as studio, still life, and landscape users who choose to stick with 35mm format but still want more resolution.
If slower CCD and no AA filter fit with your photography then a MF is the way to go.
MF has more to offer than extra MP's, it is not however best suited to the type of work I do..... more the pity.
I'm a "serious amateur" who shoots landscapes and nature. Spending $40K on a top-of-the-line MF digital kit is out of the question. I started considering entry-level MF when Mamiya broke the $10K barrier, but the more I researched and discovered the limitations not only of the ZD back but MF in general, I realized there was no way I could replace my current kit with MF; MF just isn't versatile enough. Maybe if I was a highly-paid professional I could justify using both (and paying an assistant to help me carry all that gear into the field). But as it stands I'm better off sticking with 35mm for now. I'd love to have a view camera and digital back but prices are going to have to come down more.
-
Hi Jeff, what are your issues with the image quality?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a fair question.
-
I'm not exactly sure what the point of the question is. If it's specifically about the 1DsMk3 (which I've not used, I shoot Nikon), I've already mentioned what I would like to see done differently in such a camera.
-
(Panopeeper @ Jun 27 2008, 11:06 PM)
one of the most distinctive features of MFDBs is the higher dynamic range, which is mainly due to the different approach of reading the data
Does anyone know of a real side-by-side test which demonstrates this? Link? (I am not talking about anecdotal commentary, but an actual test with both cameras in the same room at the same time.) Just curious as to how much difference there is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I haven't seen such testing, but it would be easy enough to do. It needn't be done side-by-side, current DSLR's have been analyzed already. Anyone with a MFDB they want tested should provide the following:
1. A pair of identical images of a colorchecker chart (GM is fine, others are probably OK too as long as the squares are big enough), slightly OOF and filling a large part of the frame; lens two stops down from wide open (to minimize vignetting but not to introduce dust bunnies); shot at the camera's base ISO (usually 100); metered properly. The images should be shot in succession, waiting for the buffer to clear before taking the second one. Tripod of course, fixed light source uniformly illuminating the target.
2. Same as (1), but three stops overexposed relative to the metering for (1).
3. Same as (1) but three stops underexposed relative to the metering for (1).
I'm rather busy at the moment but would try to make some time for the analysis if RAW files were hosted for download somewhere.
-
I'm not exactly sure what the point of the question is. If it's specifically about the 1DsMk3 (which I've not used, I shoot Nikon), I've already mentioned what I would like to see done differently in such a camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought maybe he meant that with post processing and sharpening, what is the image quality concern with the 1DS3?
-
I thought maybe he meant that with post processing and sharpening, what is the image quality concern with the 1DS3?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204943\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, sure you can undoubtedly get great results with the 1DS3, but that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement. It seems most MFDB users like the fact that they don't an AA filter in front of their sensor; I don't see why that wouldn't be an attractive option for 20MP+ 35mm DSLR's.
-
Well, sure you can undoubtedly get great results with the 1DS3, but that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement. It seems most MFDB users like the fact that they don't an AA filter in front of their sensor; I don't see why that wouldn't be an attractive option for 20MP+ 35mm DSLR's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You either have one or not, and both would need to be--or may need to be--processed to increase AA or decrease it. Or maybe I'm really not understanding the real detriment of the AA filer.
-
Well, sure you can undoubtedly get great results with the 1DS3, but that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement. It seems most MFDB users like the fact that they don't an AA filter in front of their sensor; I don't see why that wouldn't be an attractive option for 20MP+ 35mm DSLR's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The hotrod 5D images at MaxMax show only a very marginal accutance or resolution improvement compared to images from the unmodified 5D. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that most DBs not only do not have an AA filter, but also have no microlenses.
Microlenses have a slight blurring effect like a weak AA filter. However, the CMOS sensor needs microlenses because the photodiode is relatively small compared with the pixel pitch.
I assume that the CCD photodiode is much larger within the photosite and therefore doesn't require a microlens to direct the incoming photons to the photodiode.
'No AA filter' plus 'no microlens' should add to a more noticeable difference than one sees in the hotrod 5D comparisons where only the AA filter has been removed.
I believe the P30 has microlenses. This fact could partly explain why the differences between the P30 and 1Ds3 are so marginal.
-
Try shooting both systems on f22 and we'll talk more......
-
Try shooting both systems on f22 and we'll talk more......
Well, I don't have a 1DsMkIII, nor a P30+, but I wonder if one can demonstrate the change in sharpness between f/11 and f/22 with a P30+ on raw images.
This particular advantage of MFDBs has probably long gone, perhaps even became a disadvantage by now.
Update: I roughly recalculated it. It did not turn into a disadvantage, but the high-density MFDB sensors are reducing the advantage.
-
The 1DsIII becomes noticably softer at f8 which is to be honest very fast.
Maybe not if you shoot alot of outside portraits, but when working in the studio for stilllife or portraiture that CAN become a real problem.
Especially because on f8 it's very noticable but it already kicks in below that.
-
The 1DsIII becomes noticably softer at f8 which is to be honest very fast
That is certainly very fast. However, this is not normal. It depends on the lens as well.
I can't test it with the 1DsMkIII, but I did test it with my 40D; it has smaller sensels than the 1DsMkIII, i.e. the diffraction effect is larger. Using the 50mm f/1.4, which is probably the most common lens on Canons. The sweet spot is between f/5.6 and f/8; everything else is softer, of course, but that does not reflect diffraction on its own.
F/11 is close to equivalent, f/16 is noticable softer but acceptable for the purpose of DoF, and f/22 is too soft. Viewing the non-demosaiced image, I see about one pixel wide "blur" at the edges with f/22 compared to f/8. Very thin branches almost vanish, others get two pixels thicker with f/22.
-
The 1DsIII becomes noticably softer at f8 which is to be honest very fast.
Maybe not if you shoot alot of outside portraits, but when working in the studio for stilllife or portraiture that CAN become a real problem.
Especially because on f8 it's very noticable but it already kicks in below that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205961\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
this is simply wrong ! far more between 5,6 and 11 you get the higest quality possible
with most L lenses and a 1dsmk3.
-
this is simply wrong ! far more between 5,6 and 11 you get the higest quality possible
with most L lenses and a 1dsmk3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Funny, I can see the difference (and it's not as good) at f11, on my original 1Ds, with 8.8 micron pixels...
Maybe you are looking at out-of-cam jpgs, or incorrectly processing your RAW files?
-
Try shooting both systems on f22 and we'll talk more......
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
Why would I want to compare two scenes with a different DoF? From the time I first started posting in the MF section of the forum, I got a distinct impression that many MFDB users do not appreciate the fact that different size sensors require the use of different F stops.
To take a more extreme example to illustrate the point, do you think it would be sensible if I were to compare the 12mp Canon G9 P&S with the 12mp Canon 450D using both cameras at F8?
Matching vertical FoVs, the P30 should be stopped down approximately one stop in relation to the 1Ds3.
I don't believe the 1Ds3 would provide any more resolution than the 5D when used at F16. Likewise, I don't believe a P45 would provide any more detail than a P25 when both are used at f16 or F22.
Someone please do a comparison to prove me wrong .
-
Funny, I can see the difference (and it's not as good) at f11, on my original 1Ds, with 8.8 micron pixels...
Maybe you are looking at out-of-cam jpgs, or incorrectly processing your RAW files?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You have to be specific when referring to such marginal differences; which lens at F11 compared to which F stop? At apertures wider than F11, lenses vary considerably in performance. Most seem to be sharpest somewhere between F5.6 and F8. A few really good lenses are sharpest at F4. Even fewer may be equally sharp at F2.8 and F8. However, when this occurs, the lens that's equally sharp at both F2.8 and F8 might not be quite as sharp at F8 as some other lenses which are not as good at F2.8.
It's generally considered true that all 'good' 35mm lenses will begin to show the effects of diffraction as one stops down beyond F8, but just how noticeable that difference is will depend on sensor size, the lens quality and the detail and contrast of the target. The resolution difference between F8 and F16 should be far more noticeable on the 450D than on the 1Ds or 5D, shooting the same target with the same lens from the same distance.
The extra pixels of the 1Ds3 are essentially wasted at F16. You should get just as sharp and detailed results with the 1Ds at that aperture.
-
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...p?t=6103&page=3 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6103&page=3)
See reply 23
It's an extreme sample, but sort like stories have been appearing on several sites.
I tested a 1DsIII a while ago and also found that f11 was noticable softer that f8 and this was with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
-
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...p?t=6103&page=3 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6103&page=3)
See reply 23
It's an extreme sample, but sort like stories have been appearing on several sites.
I tested a 1DsIII a while ago and also found that f11 was noticable softer that f8 and this was with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
Makes sense to me. When I moved from the 8mp 20D to the 5D, I was surprised I could use F16 with minimal loss of resolution with the 5D. With the 20D I would hesitate to stop down beyond F8 because I knew there would be a trade-off. I'd be sacrificing sharpness for the benefit of additional DoF.
The 1Ds3 has similar pixel density to the 20D. Resolution (ie. lp/mm) does not care about sensor size, only pixel density or pixel pitch. The same principles that apply to the 20D will apply to the 1Ds3. Softening of the image will appear at the same F stops using the same lens.
-
Frank,
Makes sense to me. When I moved from the 8mp 20D to the 5D, I was surprised I could use F16 with minimal loss of resolution with the 5D. With the 20D I would hesitate to stop down beyond F8 because I knew there would be a trade-off. I'd be sacrificing sharpness for the benefit of additional DoF.
The 1Ds3 has similar pixel density to the 20D. Resolution (ie. lp/mm) does not care about sensor size, only pixel density or pixel pitch. The same principles that apply to the 20D will apply to the 1Ds3. Softening of the image will appear at the same F stops using the same lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Off the wall question here..
How does the 1DsMIII shoot tethered since it has no firewire now? Is it through USB Now and if so.. isn't that slower than Firewire and more problematic?
Just was wondering..
Snook
-
Off the wall question here..
How does the 1DsMIII shoot tethered since it has no firewire now? Is it through USB Now and if so.. isn't that slower than Firewire and more problematic?
Just was wondering..
Snook
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206326\")
It's usb in mk3. Tether to mac is slow unless running windows in it.
See [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25681]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=25681[/url]
post #9 for example.
Cheers,
J
-
I shoot to a PC. Tethered speed is at least as fast if not better than the 1dSMK2 fire wire. The biggest draw back is I have all these long fire wire cables I can't use anymore!
-
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...p?t=6103&page=3 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6103&page=3)
See reply 23
It's an extreme sample, but sort like stories have been appearing on several sites.
I tested a 1DsIII a while ago and also found that f11 was noticable softer that f8 and this was with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This behavior is no different than the 1Ds2.
It varies by lens:
I have used the 16-35 Mark I and the 16-35 Mark II, both on the 1DsM3. At 16mm and at 24mm, the 16-35 Mark I is noticeably sharper at F8 than at F11. At 16mm and 24mm, the 16-35 Mark II is a touch sharper at F11 than at F8.
The 50/1.2 is very sharp at f/11.
The 24/tse lens is sharper at f/11 than f/5.6 but it's very soft at f/22. Similarly, the 14/2.8 II lens is sharper at f11 than f/5.6 or f/22. And same goes for the 24/1.4 lens.
Also, much depends upon what you are after. I have some architecture shots made last year, on the 1Ds2 and the 90/tse lens. In one series, f/5.6 is sharper at the focus point than f/16 but f/16 still has better depth of field.