Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Esben on December 13, 2009, 10:57:16 pm
-
Okay, on this drappy grey weekend, I have been looking at my workflows, to see if I could find anything new or if something could be done to optimize the process. Well, I also did my laundry.
Anyways, no more jabbering, let’s get to the point. This is an image shot with 4 different backs at mid day in broad daylight. Something that you would think should be fairly simple task for a $30,000 digital back. The images were taken by Capture Integration and can be downloaded from their website as full resolution tiffs, all developed with default settings in their own native software by Capture Integration.
The files all looked fine, so I thought let’s try and squeeze them a little. I gave them all the same treatment, +4 stop on the exposure slider in Lightroom. I cropped a selection and enlarged each to 100%, and I put them side by side to see if there was any difference.
[attachment=18636:flat_crop.jpg]
I won’t disclose which is which yet.
[attachment=18637:optimized_crop.jpg]
The next step was to try to optimize the “damaged” files back to normal. I’ve adjusted each file individually and used only curves and unsharp mask in Photoshop. No color correction in this round.
I found that the 2 images at the top could not take the same amount of sharpening as the two bottom files. The sharpening would make the image much too noisy.
The backs involved were: Leaf Aptus 10, Phase One P40+, P65+, and Hasselblad H3D II 50MP.
The test also showed the benefit of Phase One’s and Hasselblad’s lens correction software. I found areas where the Leaf Aptus back were showing fringing in the highlight, something that both Hasselblad and Phase One to some degree compensate for in their software.
Equipment: Both the Phase One digital backs were mounted on the Mamiya 645 camera using the 150mm D lens. Both the Hasselblad and the Leaf Aptus10 were used on a Hasselblad H camera with a Hassalblad HC 150mm lens. All images were shot at F.8
Link to Capture Integration's test, link (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/comparisons/)
I own 2 Leaf backs myself and work daily with both Phase One and Hasselblad digital backs professionally as a digital tech, and have done so for more then 7 years.
Sincerely,
Esben
-
You go to the trouble of doing a test, but you do it outside, with the sun moving, and going in and out from behind clouds, with changing color temperatures, and potentially changing exposures, but you want to put them side by side? Hmm.
-
Bottom right looks best to me. What back was that? I'll bet the top two are Phase backs - the classic over-sharpened and pin-holed result of C1.
-
Okay, on this drappy grey weekend, I have been looking at my workflows, to see if I could find anything new or if something could be done to optimize the process. Well, I also did my laundry.
You should have quit after doing your laundry...at least maybe you could get your clothes cleaned (cause your processing test is about useless).
The files looked ok, so you decided to destroy them by adding a plus 4 Exposure and then try to fix them?
Bud, you seriously need to get a life...this will tell you nothing other than you don't have a clue how to process image files...it's a total waste of my time to even look at this thread (which is one of the reason's I'm kinda pissed that you wasted the bandwidth).
Seriously, go out and shoot something....do something even remotely useful.
-
top left P1 40+, top right P1 65+, bottom left Leaf, bottom right H3D
is this so?
-
Adding 4 stops ?
Why ?
Why not just shoot a scene as it is and than crop in the shadow areas.
Do this on ISO200 and 400 and you get a nice overview of quality.
Also did you think about the fact all backs have a different resolution ? so when making the same crop there already is a difference.
It's like people shooting a 5D on ISO3200 adding 4 stops and talking about the terrible pattern noise a year or two ago on DPZ.
We all know MFDB's are great when working with good light, proper exposure etc.
When you shoot files in real live that need 4 stops exposure hits you are better off with a camera with a P mode....
-
Ok, downloaded the files from capture group. I think the phaseone files are better developed, but with too much unsharp mask. It seems that the hasselblad files are without unsharp mask. It's just my feeling, but it seems that there is a love around phaseone that there is not around hasselblad or leaf in this test... maybe it's just my impression, but i've seen really better files from hasselblad and leaf, and frankly also from my p45+... So, i suggest you, go back to the computer and give us the raw files for a better comparision...
By the way, i appreciate the smashing files that Esben did, but this is a little bit too much for a real world exeperience...
-
The test is a very poor one (sorry) the lighting so different from file to file and for sure some focus issues too.
-
Interesting test, thanks for doing it. What are your own conclusions based not only on this test, but generally?
-
Thanks for the test! This actually has value for those interested in seeing how much a file can handle push/pull pixel washing. (sort of like the laudry water)
so, yes its kind of obvious that the lower right still looks decent as a crop. So which is which?
-
Why push the Processed file? If you needed to see that much exposure increase you'd at least try it with the RAW file to get some real dynamic range. Processing the file and then pushing it tells you nothing about DR.
-
Why push the Processed file? If you needed to see that much exposure increase you'd at least try it with the RAW file to get some real dynamic range. Processing the file and then pushing it tells you nothing about DR.
because after process is when image manipulation starts, using a 16bit/ Tif file.
-
because after process is when image manipulation starts, using a 16bit/ Tif file.
I couldn't disagree more. You are missing all of the advantages of RAW files if you don't take advantage of the manipulations possible before processing. If you need a dramatic increase or decrease in exposure or color adjustment or any of it, its best to do it before processing. Once you have the 16bit files, yes you can do a lot of adjustment but you'd be missing a lot of quality too if you had to make big moves on that tiff.
-
I couldn't disagree more. You are missing all of the advantages of RAW files if you don't take advantage of the manipulations possible before processing. If you need a dramatic increase or decrease in exposure or color adjustment or any of it, its best to do it before processing. Once you have the 16bit files, yes you can do a lot of adjustment but you'd be missing a lot of quality too if you had to make big moves on that tiff.
^
100% agree
all major luminosity adjustments should be made in RAW
am
-
The files were shot at base ISO, broad daylight, best backs on the market. I know that 4 stops is an exaggeration, but if you try 2 stops the file will still have the same distinct noise characters. Remember, the 4 stops is just to emphasize how the shadows look with a normally exposed file when opened up.
For the last 2-3 years I’ve thought of digital backs as being pretty equal, and of the software as the biggest difference. One back (from the same generation) is not really sharper than another back, and if it was, its most likely due to adjustments in the software and not the sensor.
This year I’ve started working more frequently with the Hasselblad backs for 2 reasons: clients have asked specifically for the Hasselblad backs, and the Hasselblad’s software is finally in a state where you can work with it, without it crashing or stalling. My feeling is that techs in the past have said thanks but no thanks, when offered a Hasselblad job, simply because of the problems involved with the software. Likewise, with Sinar, no sane digital tech will take on a job with rental computers and a Sinar DB being dropped off at a rental studio in the morning, and expect to be able to deliver 2000 processed jpgs at the end of the day.
I did the 4 stops test just because the files were there. I knew that 4 stops would push them to the edge. I also did this test because every time I speak with a Phase One dealer here in NYC, there’s no end to how much better Phase is to Hasselblad. So when a Phase dealer is offering downloads of all the files side by side, I thought, ok let’s test the files.
I’m fully aware (as the test states) that it's the default settings that are applied when processed, and that with a little fine adjusting of the noise reduction, the files will likely improve.
But, then again…
These files are supposed to hold water (a lot of water). That has always been the mantra of DSLR vs. DB. There’s more meat on the bone. The area around −3 to −5 stops down on the histogram is looking much better when shot with a digital back, etc.
[attachment=18655:optimize...rop_text.jpg]
I didn’t do the +4 stop to prove that one back was inferior to the other. I don’t think the samples show the definitive truth and the raw files could prove this to a greater extent. I just don’t think that the Hasselblad files are as bad as some people claim, and in this case its seems clear, at least to me.
Esben
-
You go to the trouble of doing a test, but you do it outside, with the sun moving, and going in and out from behind clouds, with changing color temperatures, and potentially changing exposures, but you want to put them side by side? Hmm.
Sums it up well. This thread can only generate mis-information. Hope everyone went to the CI sample page like gwhitf did and took a look.
-
^
100% agree
all major luminosity adjustments should be made in RAW
am
thats all great but I wasn't referrring to Lum or any exposure adjustments. In advert imaging you are usually making a file for a client/agency, and they have "ideas". When those ideas are final, you have technically butchered the original file, and end up with a beautiful new image. This needs a file with a lot of meat.
Having said that, not sure if this test will show "meatiness"
-
I think the quality of this test, still posted on CI's site, along with a couple of other posts I've read lately about MF testing, clearly shows that, in about the fall of 2009 is when the entire MediumFormat industry became irrelevant, and was left in the hands of a bunch of weekend hobbyist landscape photographers.
It just makes you wonder, had Poulsen not closed Hasselblad, and maybe if Phase had come out with a useful LCD, might the industry segment still be roaring strong? Or maybe did the high admission price of MF, couple with challenging economy, coupled with the intro of the 5DMarkII, just present The Perfect Storm?
I'm sure that's why Hasselblad dreamed up that unrealistic www.hassynyc.com site, just to give the illusion that someone under the age of 50 actually buys (not rents) a MF camera/back. Any businessman would be nervous about future growth when the average age of their customer is 50-60.
Somebody turn the lights out when you leave.
-
I think the quality of this test, still posted on CI's site, along with a couple of other posts I've read lately about MF testing, clearly shows that, in about the fall of 2009 is when the entire MediumFormat industry became irrelevant, and was left in the hands of a bunch of weekend hobbyist landscape photographers.
It just makes you wonder, had Poulsen not closed Hasselblad, and maybe if Phase had come out with a useful LCD, might the industry segment still be roaring strong? Or maybe did the high admission price of MF, couple with challenging economy, coupled with the intro of the 5DMarkII, just present The Perfect Storm?
I'm sure that's why Hasselblad dreamed up that unrealistic www.hassynyc.com site, just to give the illusion that someone under the age of 50 actually buys (not rents) a MF camera/back. Any businessman would be nervous about future growth when the average age of their customer is 50-60.
Somebody turn the lights out when you leave.
signed
-
¿... so, even before Auto Phocus Lock (APL), Phocus 2 and the H4D-60, Hasselblad was way ahead of what competition there was?
-
¿... so, even before Auto Phocus Lock (APL), Phocus 2 and the H4D-60, Hasselblad was way ahead of what competition there was?
IMO yes
-
Somebody turn the lights out when you leave.
The lights are already out when you are looking through a barrel.
I'm not sure what you shoot, or if you are a daily shooter with a workflow, but I assure you that the hobbyist landscape shooter is not the only person using DB. The lights are not going out for maybe another decade at least. The DB is very relevent in many pro applications....And if they get some competitive pricing, I would think for a lvery long time. Unless Canon expands out of 35mm (Why not?). I have heard / read that the larger chips are just extensions, or fused larger parts of the smaller chips. meaning not made with far superior tech than FF chips. Anyway. The fact is that the DB is a important tool. Price will be the factor of where it is going. Are they worth $30K, no. not for anything I do. Perhaps in the next few years they can drop prices to top out at $10-15K. With the Mark3 being such a beast at $8k, I can see the DB market compete at higher prices. But with the 5Dm2, this looks like a interesting situation for everyone (as you mention). The price points will likely change drastically. DBs will not be obsolete. ever(that means at least 10 years) :-)
-
The lights are already out when you are looking through a barrel.
DBs will not be obsolete. ever(that means at least 10 years) :-)
It depends what you are talking about...
Hi-res sensors >24 Mpx
large > 24 * 36mm sensors
detachable sensors (DBs)
Because of minor inconveniences like the wavelength of light, you cannot get much benefit out of much more than 24 Mpx from a 24 * 36mm sensor, so Canikon will have to invent bigger cameras to join the game.
High-res cameras do not have to have detachable backs, particularly if each back is calibrated to a single body as with Hasselblad - I have a DB cos I have a MFDVC (Digital Medium Format View Camera).
-
It depends what you are talking about...
Hi-res sensors >24 Mpx
large > 24 * 36mm sensors
detachable sensors (DBs)
Because of minor inconveniences like the wavelength of light, you cannot get much benefit out of much more than 24 Mpx from a 24 * 36mm sensor, so Canikon will have to invent bigger cameras to join the game.
High-res cameras do not have to have detachable backs, particularly if each back is calibrated to a single body as with Hasselblad - I have a DB cos I have a MFDVC (Digital Medium Format View Camera).
Yes, as I wouldnt even consider Hassy to be in the game as the locked themselves out. Not sure what they are thinking...unless they had something exclusive and worthwhile..... yet to see anything so far.