Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: synn on October 06, 2013, 06:47:08 pm
-
Hello everyone at LuLa,
I have been lurking this site for a few years now. I have to thank you for all the discussions you've had here over the years, which have really helped me understand a lot of things. I can't think of a better place to ask the next question I have.
Before anyone asks, this is not another thread about "Whether it's worth it". I know it is. I have done my homework. This is a thread about some very specific MF related questions.
I am a fine art photographer mostly into thematic portraiture. You can see some of my work here: www.sandeepmurali.com . I am a long term Nikon user and currently shoot with a D800 and a D7100. 35mm DSLRs sure have come a long way and while these cameras do a lot of things really well, there are some things lacking which are really limiting my creative flow.
Things like detail resolution:
Now both cameras have plenty of "Resolution", but that's all megapixel numbers. When it comes to actual detail resolving, I find them lacking for my needs. There's a "Bite" that I see in medium format files that are simply not there in the files from both my cameras. I've tried everything. Lens micro adjust, getting sharp primes, shooting outside diffraction zone, everything. It just isn't the same. I got the D7100 because I think it's the "AA filter effect", but even that doesn't come close to the MF bite. My current workaround is to do hi-pass sharpening in Photoshop, but even that looks too "Digital" to my eye, not organic.
This is very important to me as I like to retouch skin and keep other detail like hair and eye lashes razor sharp. I have a Bronica ETRSi kit that I bought for peanuts and I see that "Bite" in the rolls I get out of it, but film is not a viable long term solution. At least for me. It's a "Hobby camera" for me at best. One that I love to death, though.
Tonality:
This is my biggest gripe. I just HATE the way I have to fight 35mm cameras to get great skintones. I got myself a Color Checkr and while it does help, the gradation in the tones is simply too digital. And that goes for Canon files too; just in a different way. I do miss the grace that print film has in the gradation as well as the beautiful highlights. I've tried film emulation programs and all that, but the files just don't look the same. Maybe I am too picky.
Other things:
I am a simple kinda shooter. Pocketwizard Plus III, Elinchrom Quadra, Sekonic meter, shoot. I don't have time for cludgy things like ND filters on the lens, hypersync this, HSS that etc. I like to have 1/800 sync out of the box and you know all roads lead to one place witht hat goal in mind.
My biggest revelation came when I got myself a copy of Capture One and opened a Leaf file downloaded from the Mamiyaleaf site in it. Holy cow, everything just looked "Right" from the word go! The skintones and gradation were stupendous and there was very little sharpening, if any, needed (Granted, that was a Credo 80 file, but since then, I have looked around for files from everything from the 22MP back to the 80 and have found the same characteristic in them). That made me realize that I need to go MF.
I've been reading and researching for the past few months. Lots of things to learn in the MF arena. Kodak this, Dalsa that, Sensor + etc. etc. It's all pretty dizzying. I finally have a rather clear understanding of what I want, I think.
I find that the Hasselblad offerings are the most cost effective, but I don't like the closed system approach. It's like getting a slightly bigger 35mm DSLR. If they improve their APL for instance, I want to have the ability to replace the body and keep my own back. i don't want to pony up 5 figures again to get an all new kit. It all seems counter intuitive tot he modular MF approach.
The Pentax 645D just doesn't appeal to me at all. From the files that I have worked on, it barely has an edge over my D800 and the 1/125 flash sync kills it for me. Also, this one isn't modular either.
I have been seeing some rather neat deals on used PhaseOnes. But 30MP+ backs still command a pretty stiff premium. Also, I am really not sure if I can live with that rear display for very long.
...and then we have Leaf. From the first Leaf file I processed, I somehow knew this was the direction I had to take. I like the Leaf skintones the best of all and the prices are quite reasonable in the used market. Moreover, there are some good deals even for brand new kits right now. Now all I need to do is choose the right one for me.
So here's my dilemma.
The Aptus II 7 and the Aptus II 8 kits are the exact same price, brand new. One is 33MP and the other 40MP, as you know. The former is a bigger sensor, but still not full frame. Try as I may, I can't make up my mind between the two. As I said, I mostly do fine art portraiture, so I'd almost always have a tele on it. But at the same time, I also do environmental portraiture and I LOVE the 24mm focal length for that in 35mm system. See an example below:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2835/9697811028_e8f2e693fe_c.jpg)
Please advise me, in the Mamiya system, is there a leaf shutter lens that will give me 24mm equivalent FoV on the cropped sensor in the Aptus II 8? If not, it's a major dealbreaker for me. Also, how prone is the 33MP back to moire compared to the 40MP? As you can see, I work with some pretty intricate fabric patterns and I want to keep moire retouching to a minimum if I can.
In terms of tonality, are both backs the same? This is VERY important to me. "Only" 33MP" is fine as long as it delivers great tones. It is very difficult to tell from the samples I have with me as they are of different subjects.
My budget for this switch is about USD 12,000 and I hope to save up this amount by February next year. I really hope you guys can help me make the right choice too.
Thanks in advance!
Sandeep
-
Hi, unless you go for the 60 and 80mp backs and good lenses you are not going to see a significant jump in resolution from a Nikon D800/E. I have a PhaseOne IQ160 and Rodenstock HR lenses on an Arca Rm3di and it wipes the floor silly with any dslr, yes, even the D800E with the best lenses. The detail from the system I got is just incredible. I actually purchased a 645D and sold it before getting my current setup. It just did not have that big of an edge over the DSLRs in regards to image quality if any. Dynamic range, specially on the highlights was worse than on the latest dslrs. The 645D is a great camera though. Loved using it. The viewfinder is awesome and the color is different than any dslr so you can work on a different look. Very easy, reliable and just no fuss. The Medium Format Digital technical camera setup is MUCH more involved and it is a LOT more work to use. But the results are worth it. I mainly got it for landscapes. I have used it for other things but also got a Hasselblad H1 to use the back for more conventional work.
The digital backs, almost all of them, do offer a different color palette and generally greater color depth and obviously a lot of different options in regards to camera platforms since you can mount them in a wide variety of camera systems.
That said, its best to approach medium format digital as a system, not a camera. You need to factor in what you want, how you work and any specific needs and expectations.
For me it was very straightforward. I wanted maximum image quality to make large landscape image prints. I wanted to use mostly a 24mm, 35mm full frame equivalent lens, that allowed good movements (shift/rise/fall) and some tilt to control depth of field and focus. I work on a tripod using mostly ND and Grad filters.
The arca/rodenstock/iq160 rig excels at this. No question about it. The fact that I can mount the back on the Hassy and use it for other things is awesome. I still mostly use my Canon gear for my commercial photography but it is great to have the option to use medium format.
Think of it as another tool in the shed. It won't substitute a great dslr system for a lot of things. So If you do a wide variety of photography I wouldnt dump the dslr.
-
Hello,
I totally agree with Ken.
Cheers
Simon
-
Hi,
I agree with Simon and Ken. Would just add that there is nothing magical with MFD. It is simply a larger bit of sensor.
I bought a second hand P45+ and a Hasselblad 555ELD recently, it is great fun to use. I got some really good pictures with that Camera/Lens/Back combo, but the only advantage I see for certain is better resolution. For me, color was a bit problematic but I'm quite happy with what I have now.
DR is in my view less on the P45+ than on my Sony Alpha 99, it is pretty obvious because I sometimes have issues with DR that I never had on Sony.
Also, Moiré will be problematic. I shoot landscapes but still see a lot of aliasing artifacts, stopping down to f/22 solves that problem.
Those obseravtions aside, I like shooting with the Hassy/P45+ combo.
Best regards
Erik
Hello,
I totally agree with Ken.
Cheers
Simon
-
Think about getting into a Rollei 6008 or Hy6. The glass for these cameras is phenomenal. Also, you can use film or a digital back. Best of all, these are still being made and you can get one brand new or go to the used market.
-
in the Mamiya system, is there a leaf shutter lens that will give me 24mm equivalent FoV on the cropped sensor in the Aptus II 8?
You would need a 35mm MF lens to get that field of view. I don't think that there is one with a leaf shutter in Mamiya mount.
You seem to live in the south of India. Would it be possible for you to buy second hand, possibly from abroad? Ebay is still the cheapest way to find out whether one likes a camera system: buy used, try it for a few months and sell it back if you don't like it.
-
It seems like you like you mainly like the default color out of these systems, and then I don't think you need to worry about sensor size. About the fine detail be honest to yourself and make a print - does that detail make a difference to you other than when you pixel peep?
For a technical camera I'd pick the Aptus-II 7, as I think the 48x36mm size is perfectly balanced for the image circle sizes available there (often about 90mm), actually better than the full-frame (I have the older incarnation Aptus 75 myself). For portraiture I'd go for the Aptus-II 8 though, it's newer 6um technology. If you like super-short depth of field you'll lose some though.
If you can I think you should try before buy (hard if buying second hand, I did not try my system in advance...) and test how the cameras are to work with. The large viewfinder many find to be a great improvement, but some may find the auto focus lacking.
-
Hello all,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. You do raise some good points.
@Ken: While I am interested in getting a technical camera set up some time in the future, 99% of the time I am doing location portraiture and a tech camera just won't cut it. I need a DSLR type body with AF (Yes, even the basic AF that MF bodies have) for it. Make no mistake, I am not looking at an MF setup to replace my 35mm kit, but to augment it. I will still need my 35mm setup for the odd landscape or two, plus the occasional low light portrait. But for all other shoots (Controlled lighting, killing ambient, short DoF, there's no way my 35mm kit can fill the gaps without cludgy workarounds.
@Eric: TBH, I never really liked the P45+'s output for portraiture. While the landscapes I have seen from it are awesome, the portraits simply don't look all that great. The p40+ and the Leaf backs I mentioned earlier had much better out-of-the-box skintones, judging by the RAW files I worked on. DR is not a big concern for me as I am shooting under controlled lighting conditions. However, where that DR is placed is of importance to me. The D800, while having industry leading DR, places most of it in the deep shadows. Great when one is lifting the shadows, but the highlight spectrum contains nowhere as much information. No matter how I vary my lighting, whatever modifier I use, the way the mids move to the highights is simply too... for the lack of a better word, plasticky. Even the samples I have seen from a 22MP back has better "bite" in it and much more graceful gradation from mids to highlights.
Again, the case might be different for landscapes. But even with the landscapes I shoot, I see that plastickyness in the D800 files (Even after high pass sharpening). I haven't had a chance to compare it head to head with an MFDB, but even a low res scan of some Velvia 100 from my Bronica has that "It" factor that the D800 files don't have.
For example,
D800 shot with 16-35 VR:
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5542/9427991531_eb329bd3a5_b.jpg)
Velvia 100 in Bronica ETRSi with 150 f/4 MC:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1015215_10151558216559209_834701418_o.jpg)
...and that's after web compression.
@tnabbott: Interesting. I thought the hy6 was out of production. I looked it up and seems like they are still being made, but there are no dealers here (In singapore), hence service and support would be non-existent.It's a bit too much of a risk to take for a first time purchase, I'm afraid.
@Jerome: You're right, I checked and there's no LS version of the 35mm. There is however, the 28mm. I guess I can get the 35mm used online and live with it until I can save up for the 28.
I am actually based in Singapore and we do have a Phase/ Leaf dealer and a Hasselblad dealer. I am in good terms with the former as I've bought a ton of Nikon and Elinchrom stuff from them, so a demo shouldn't be too hard to arrange.
I don't mind buying online if it's from a trustworthy source and if it makes sense after shipping+ taxes (7% of invoice), but I have to look into whether the dealer here would be happy to service an overseas unit.
@Torger: About the fine detail, I guess it's one of those things, once you see you cannot unsee. It's a combination of that detail and the tonality that makes MF images appeal to me. It has reached such a point hat I can tell an MF file from a 35mm file even without looking at the EXIF.
The D800 files do have lots of detail, but it's all "Waxy detail" so to speak. I did do test prints of the D800 files vs some Leaf RAWs and I could see the difference. Again, this just might be me being picky.
Interesting point about the Aptus II 8 having a newer sensor. Does this mean it has better IQ than the Aptus II 7 too? Please advise.
As mentioned above, while I am interested in getting a tech camera sometime in the future, it is not a major concern at this point. Portraiture is.
Thanks again,
Sandeep
-
Technically speaking (signal-to-noise etc) the Aptus-II 8 has a little bit better image quality and the Aptus-II 7. However, tonality and other aspects important for portraiture are more subjective qualities so I think you need to compare for yourself.
Concerning DR highlight vs shadows all cameras of today behave the same, ie each pixel fills up photons until the well is full and then it's clipped straight off. Exposure meters of cameras (may choose to put exposure closer or farther away from the clipping point) and tone curves and highlight rendering in raw converters may give the impression that there is a difference, but there's not. Film on the other hand is non-linear, ie there's built in compression of highlights which makes highlight handling a bit smoother. In the future sensors will have this too (actually there's already on market Fuji and Panasonic made one, but tech is only available for small sensors currently).
On the other hand, no matter how cameras behave technically, it's what you can produce with the available post-processing tools that matters. So if you experience better highlight detail with Capture One and Aptus-II than Nikon and CaptureNX then that is what matters to you.
I often hear people say that with MF you don't need to do as much post-processing work to get portraiture to look right (and that probably is very true, afterall it's a key focus of these systems, while DSLRs are much more all-around). Some say that if you really put effort into it you can get the D800 to produce just as good output as MF, while some say that no matter how they try the don't get as good results. If cost is an issue more than working effort, I'd surely look into maximizing the potential out of your D800 before jumping to MF. One thing to try is to experiment with different raw converters and color profiles and see what you get. I would be surprised if Phase One's own software Capture One would produce great D800 output per default :-).
-
Hi Torger,
very interesting insight about sensor technology. Thanks for that!
Regarding D800 files in Capture One, I have indeed tried to process the D800 files in it. I get a wee bit more resolution than in CNX2/ LR4, but the color rendering is totally off; no matter what color profile I use. To make matters worse, C1 doesn't have any option by which I can use a color checker to create a custom profile, Like I can with LR. In contrast, every Leaf file that I've dropped into C1 just looks amazing out of the box.
The below image is the best I can get out of the D800 after custom profiles, using a super sharp lens (The 85 f/1.8 G) and some high pass sharpening.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5462/9430721291_0b3a3c1235_c.jpg)
To my eyes, it still looks not quite "There". Maybe it's just me over analyzing. ;D
-
I love your sample image, the skin tones in particular! There is a very MF feel to it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
Thank you. That's the closest I have gotten to MF, yes. Took a bit of fighting, though.
The fact that Leaf files look like that from the moment I import them is what's making me yearn for MF.
-
@Jerome: You're right, I checked and there's no LS version of the 35mm. There is however, the 28mm. I guess I can get the 35mm used online and live with it until I can save up for the 28.
The 28mm is much, much wider than the 35mm. In 24x36 equivalent, it is close to a 20mm lens.
If you want the field of view of a 24mm on your D800 and need a central shutter on an AF SLR, you have little choice besides Hasselblad. You can use either the HC 35mm or the HCD 35-90 zoom. The zoom is quite heavy.
You will also have true focus, which is useful for portraiture.
I have to look into whether the dealer here would be happy to service an overseas unit.
These cameras need to be sent back to the manufacturer for service.
As to highlights: you can tweak your D800 meter to underexpose a bit, the meter is a bit hot by default. That will improve highlights rolloff and costs nothing beyond playing with the setup menus.
As to colors: I also noticed more pleasing skin colors on MF than on the D800. There is no physical reason why larger pixels would lead to better skin colors, but there could be a very simple reason for it, namely that the color filter arrays primaries were chosen to increase separation for these colors. This would come at the cost of worse colors in other hues and more noise at high iso.
-
Things like detail resolution:
Now both cameras have plenty of "Resolution", but that's all megapixel numbers. When it comes to actual detail resolving, I find them lacking for my needs. There's a "Bite" that I see in medium format files that are simply not there in the files from both my cameras. I've tried everything. Lens micro adjust, getting sharp primes, shooting outside diffraction zone, everything. It just isn't the same. I got the D7100 because I think it's the "AA filter effect", but even that doesn't come close to the MF bite. My current workaround is to do hi-pass sharpening in Photoshop, but even that looks too "Digital" to my eye, not organic.
Hi Sandeep,
Hi-pass sharpening is an edge contrast enhancing procedure, it will never produce the same effect as a shot with a sensor without AA-filter. The MFDB AA-filterless shot will be aliased, and have a higher MTF at the lower spatial frequencies, which can only be approximated by using deconvolution sharpening.
I suggest you give the FocusMagic (http://www.focusmagic.com/download.htm) plugin for Photoshop a try, preferably on a luminosity blend-if layer (which will avoid highlight clipping). The layered approach also allows to mask out skin, and leave hair and other detail in. It works even better if you first up-sample the image, apply deconvolution sharpening, and then down-sample back to the original file size, and add a tiny bit more deconvolution sharpening. Resolution and MTF of micro-detail is boosted by restoring actual resolution, not by adding contrast.
Tonality:
This is my biggest gripe. I just HATE the way I have to fight 35mm cameras to get great skintones. I got myself a Color Checkr and while it does help, the gradation in the tones is simply too digital. And that goes for Canon files too; just in a different way. I do miss the grace that print film has in the gradation as well as the beautiful highlights. I've tried film emulation programs and all that, but the files just don't look the same. Maybe I am too picky.
It's hard to suggest a different approach when all we have is subjective impressions to go on. Capture One offers very good Raw conversion quality, and it has a number of features specifically aimed at skin tone color. Tonality is a function of local contrast, and overall tone-curve. I prefer to use a Linear response curve, and if necessary tweak the highlight roll-off exactly to my liking. I prefer natural highlights, not compressed film-like highlights, but that can be changed by adjusting the curves or highlight control in Capture One.
For overall tonality, there is (IMHO) no better tool than Topaz Labs "Clarity" plugin, although I use it in combination with their "Adjust" plugin. These two give huge control over tonality, including some interesting masking functionality, e.g. for targeting skin tones.
My biggest revelation came when I got myself a copy of Capture One and opened a Leaf file downloaded from the Mamiyaleaf site in it. Holy cow, everything just looked "Right" from the word go! The skintones and gradation were stupendous and there was very little sharpening, if any, needed (Granted, that was a Credo 80 file, but since then, I have looked around for files from everything from the 22MP back to the 80 and have found the same characteristic in them). That made me realize that I need to go MF.
By all means, if that rocks your boat, go for it. But I do get a feeling that there are improvements possible with your current post-processing. Also remember that all files need some post-processing, but the amount also depends on one's personal preferences. Only you can judge that.
...and then we have Leaf. From the first Leaf file I processed, I somehow knew this was the direction I had to take. I like the Leaf skintones the best of all and the prices are quite reasonable in the used market. Moreover, there are some good deals even for brand new kits right now. Now all I need to do is choose the right one for me.
That may have something to do with the particular choice of Bayer CFA filter colors, which may happen to do well with skincolor in general, but there are many skincolors so I'm not 100% sure that the filter response is the only reason. Capture One does use ICC profiles that may give a better starting point as well, compared to other converters. And again, specific skin color control is also part of Capture One, and many users report that it works wonders.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That may have something to do with the particular choice of Bayer CFA filter colors, which may happen to do well with skincolor in general, but there are many skincolors so I'm not 100% sure that the filter response is the only reason.
All human skin tones have the same hue, because all human skins use the same pigments to produce the color, just more or less of one of them. This fact has been used for analog TV (in the NTSC system, one of the primaries was chosen to be on that line so as to give more bandwidth to skin colors) and, for example, vectorscopes have a marking for that specific hue. TV engineers routinely used skin color as a reference to color-correct their images and the function still exists in most video editors today.
From casual comparisons between an Hasselblad camera and various 24x36 DSLRs, I would say that the Hasselblad tends to show more of the underlying skin structure of the skin: blood but also freckles. Blood color manifest itself in that some parts of young skins are a bit more pink than others. It also manifest itself negatively on some aged skins where one would like to hide veins, for example.
The effect is not exclusive to medium format cameras. My old Minolta 5D had very pleasing skin colors as well.
A study of the phenomenon would not be easy to do. The pigments giving their colors to skin, hemoglobin and melanin, have somewhat peculiar spectra and cannot be readily emulated by a color picker, for example.
-
All human skin tones have the same hue, because all human skins use the same pigments to produce the color, just more or less of one of them.
Hi Jerome,
That's correct (although there is still some variation), but Hue-angle is not the only aspect that defines color. Saturation is also important to differentiate between more pale or more reddish skin, and black skin may pick up more ambient reflected light. The thickness (and color) of the epidermis, and the more or less superficial blood-vessel network will cause a variation, even in the same person's skin tones. Pigmentation is also somewhat variable over time/season, so we're faced with a moving target.
A study of the phenomenon would not be easy to do. The pigments giving their colors to skin, hemoglobin and melanin, have somewhat peculiar spectra and cannot be readily emulated by a color picker, for example.
That's right, skin is difficult. The tools that Capture One offers to target the correction of skin-color can be very useful in that respect. I would certainly not attribute good skin-color and tonality to MFDBs alone. Post-processing plays a large role as well, as usual.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Post processing plays a large role, but cannot find a difference between colors when none has been recorded in the first place. It is a problem of metamerism. For example, it could be that the CFA of MF backs are designed to elicit a different response for the hues of hemoglobin and melanin while the CFA of cameras designed for more general use are less capable of differentiating the two pigments. It is only speculation, of course.
-
Hi Sandeep
I've been using the Hasselblad H system for a while now and it is awesome
seriously dude get to know your dealer and try out the H5d out of the box colour and skin tones are lovely
then get some prints done don't just look at specs, pixels and histograms
all MF costs fairly big dolllars but which ever system you go with once you open the files and start working on them you will never look back
Andrew
-
Post processing plays a large role, but cannot find a difference between colors when none has been recorded in the first place. It is a problem of metamerism. For example, it could be that the CFA of MF backs are designed to elicit a different response for the hues of hemoglobin and melanin while the CFA of cameras designed for more general use are less capable of differentiating the two pigments. It is only speculation, of course.
I don't think that the real difference is just the CFA colors, since there is also an overlap between the filter ranges. What may play a larger role is the strength of the IR-filtration. Human skin, especially the lower layers, diffusely reflects Infra-Red, and the CFA filters are transparent to IR and will result in recording a signal in all three channels (thus reducing saturation).
That may result in more accurate (skin-tone friendly) ICC profiles for some combinations.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Post processing plays a large role, but cannot find a difference between colors when none has been recorded in the first place. It is a problem of metamerism. For example, it could be that the CFA of MF backs are designed to elicit a different response for the hues of hemoglobin and melanin while the CFA of cameras designed for more general use are less capable of differentiating the two pigments. It is only speculation, of course.
One thing I have noticed from using the IQ160 (compared to Nikon and Canon DSLRs) is that it seems to show a wider range of hues. It shows differences in hues that the dslrs do not. Also all colors seem to have more "depth" to them. I do not know if I am using the right terminology but what happens is that there might be three slightly different reds in a scene for example and the dslr shows them as the same red color (even when taking care not to clip any channel) while the IQ160 will show three, slightly different reds, just like in reality. I do not know why that is but I believe it happens with all colors.
-
Wow, GREAT stuff with that sharpening plugin, BartvanderWolf! I just ran a mis-focused photo from my archives through it and holy cow! The result was amazing!
Attached is a couple of screenshots. Before and after.
While it still can't do anything about the tonality, it does certainly go a long way towards adding some bite to the D800 files!
Thanks again!
-
I guess sharpening is an aesthetic/personal thing but that "recovered" image looks horridly digital to my eye. Granted it's making something out of an image that is out of focus, so I guess you can't complain.
Much, much better IMO to have natural appearing sharpness and microcontrast/bite to start with than to have to sharpen or fiddle with every image.
-
Hi Doug,
Yes, this one is definitely overdone, I just had 2 minutes of play time with the plug-in! :)
I also agree that natural microcontrast is always better, which is why I am leaning towards MF in the first place!
-
One thing I have noticed from using the IQ160 (compared to Nikon and Canon DSLRs) is that it seems to show a wider range of hues. It shows differences in hues that the dslrs do not. Also all colors seem to have more "depth" to them. I do not know if I am using the right terminology but what happens is that there might be three slightly different reds in a scene for example and the dslr shows them as the same red color (even when taking care not to clip any channel) while the IQ160 will show three, slightly different reds, just like in reality. I do not know why that is but I believe it happens with all colors.
I normally refer to this as color discrimination. In other words the ability to discriminate or distinguish between subtle variations of a color. It's very useful in all sorts of photography but especially in nature where at first glance a subject (e.g. a fall foliage tree) only has a few colors, but, with proper capture and processing a nearly infinite variety of subtle colors come forward.
Someone said it above: if your camera captures and can distinguish between two colors you have complete flexibility in post especially in Capture One's Color Editor. You can leave the two colors as-is, increase the difference between them (Color Editor: select and increase uniformity), or decrease the difference between them (Color Editor: select both and rotate apart). But if the two colors are rendered identically
There are several technical elements that interact to increase or decrease color discrimination (CFA overlap, IR filter cutoff and sharpness, bit depth, etc etc) so pointing to any one element is usually futile. Since all engineering is a series of compromises the only way to get the very best color response is to start a design project with the mentality that you want quality above all other factors (e.g. quality vs cost, quality vs range of features, quality vs size).
-
I guess sharpening is an aesthetic/personal thing but that "recovered" image looks horridly digital to my eye. Granted it's making something out of an image that is out of focus, so I guess you can't complain.
Hi Doug,
It's also a matter of applying the 'correct' parameters. Attached is another rendering of the OOF original JPEG. This one was, to give some alternative options, a combination of upsampling, Topaz In-focus, Topaz Detail, down-sampling, and luminosity blend-if layer, all based on that JPEG.
Much, much better IMO to have natural appearing sharpness and microcontrast/bite to start with than to have to sharpen or fiddle with every image.
Of course, a better starting point is always preferable.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am not trying to disuade you from getting a MF system, but color on the D800 can be a challenge. Custom profiles and styles are needed in C1. Have you had a profile made for teh D800? I only use the D800 for B&W now. I think it is an amazing B&W camera.
Hi Torger,
very interesting insight about sensor technology. Thanks for that!
Regarding D800 files in Capture One, I have indeed tried to process the D800 files in it. I get a wee bit more resolution than in CNX2/ LR4, but the color rendering is totally off; no matter what color profile I use. To make matters worse, C1 doesn't have any option by which I can use a color checker to create a custom profile, Like I can with LR. In contrast, every Leaf file that I've dropped into C1 just looks amazing out of the box.
The below image is the best I can get out of the D800 after custom profiles, using a super sharp lens (The 85 f/1.8 G) and some high pass sharpening.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5462/9430721291_0b3a3c1235_c.jpg)
To my eyes, it still looks not quite "There". Maybe it's just me over analyzing. ;D
-
I am a simple kinda shooter. Pocketwizard Plus III, Elinchrom Quadra, Sekonic meter, shoot. I don't have time for cludgy things like ND filters on the lens, hypersync this, HSS that etc. I like to have 1/800 sync out of the box and you know all roads lead to one place with that goal in mind.
FYI with a hard-line to the pack or with a Profoto Air transmitter you can actually get to 1/1600 with the more recent phase and leaf backs on a df or df+ with LS lenses.
The last time I genuinely needed 1/1600th was when I was shooting a family portrait on the beach at sunset and it started off overcast but the clouds let up and my subjects were blasted with direct sunlight I needed to knock down.
-
I have not read what everyone else has written. But i'll speak from my own experience. I share a studio with 3 nikon d800 shooters. I used to shoot with a 5d mk ii myself. I moved to a hasselblad h3dii-39 about 6 months ago. Every time i do a shoot with the Hassy - me and my studio collegues are amazed by the image quality. There is something about the skin tones and softness of the images. I just LOVE the 100mm f2,2 lense. For every shoot i do i move more and more towards never shooting 35mm again.
The iso is terrible, the focus is terrible and the camera is terribly heavy. I don't care - I LOVE IT.
-
Hi,
Yes, I agree. But the image seems unsharp to begin with. I would guess out of focus.
I have played around a lot with different tools, but what I have found works best for me is Lightroom's sharpening with low radius 0.7 - 1.0 around 45% amount and 75-100% detail. Another way is to use high amount (say 100) but detail set to 0.
Regarding Focus Magick, Topaz InFocus and so on I actually prefer Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. It does also do deconvolution.
Interestingly, I use the same parameters for Sony Alpha 99 and Hasselblad/P45+. Could be that the Zeiss lenses can take a bit more sharpening than newer designs.
It is well possible that Capture 1 has slightly more detail and I am quite certain that it produces less color artefacts.
Best regards
Erik
I guess sharpening is an aesthetic/personal thing but that "recovered" image looks horridly digital to my eye. Granted it's making something out of an image that is out of focus, so I guess you can't complain.
Much, much better IMO to have natural appearing sharpness and microcontrast/bite to start with than to have to sharpen or fiddle with every image.
-
Hi,
It is impossible to judge sharpness and fine detail contrast from a web size print. If you want to discuss sharpness, please post raw images or at least 1:1 crops.
Personally, I am a landscape shooter. Also, I just have MFD (P45+) for something like 3 months. The main difference I see is resolution, my DSLR is Sony Alpha 99 and the MFDB is a P45+, the resolution difference is quite visible on screen, but I guess not very visible in prints (OK, I see no difference in A2 prints and little in 70x100 cm (34x40") prints). I cannot say if any image I shot is from Sony Alpha or Phase One P45+, unless doing an analytical comparison or reading EXIF data. But, P45+ images are more yellowish and a bit sharper. They are also a bit noisier in the shadows. So, there are clues to pick up...
As I am a lanscape shooter, I am not very interested in skin tones. The cloth in the image is probably difficult, violet/purple are not spectral colors, they are a perceived mixture of two spectral colors. A violet flower can come out blue with one profile and reddish violet on another profile. Perception plays a major role. Accurate is not the same as pleasant. This has also a lot to do with contrast ranges. A good sensor has probably a contrast range of 13 EV, something like 1:8196 contrast ratio, when we show it on screen we need to compress it to around 1:500 (9 bits or 9 EV). In print we can only have something like 1:128 ratio, around 7EV. So tonal range is always mapped down. A straight mapping would yield boring images, so mapping usually involves pushing local contrast and saturation.
What is happening is that you can observe a few millions of colors. Those millions of colors are mapped down two three distinct intensities, R, G and B. That is all the sensor does! The three signals than processed adjusted for white balance and converted to RGB by a color profile. You make a lot of adjustment to the RGB values. Those RGB values are put trogh some numerical processing to convert to screen or printer color space.
So it is a long process. A mix of spectral colors-> a single RGB signal -> Convert to input color space -> color space conversion for viewing -> adjustments ->color space conversion for printing. The sensor is only involved in the first step, converting millions of colors into three different discrete signals. Have you considered this?
Best regards
Erik
Hi Torger,
very interesting insight about sensor technology. Thanks for that!
Regarding D800 files in Capture One, I have indeed tried to process the D800 files in it. I get a wee bit more resolution than in CNX2/ LR4, but the color rendering is totally off; no matter what color profile I use. To make matters worse, C1 doesn't have any option by which I can use a color checker to create a custom profile, Like I can with LR. In contrast, every Leaf file that I've dropped into C1 just looks amazing out of the box.
The below image is the best I can get out of the D800 after custom profiles, using a super sharp lens (The 85 f/1.8 G) and some high pass sharpening.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5462/9430721291_0b3a3c1235_c.jpg)
To my eyes, it still looks not quite "There". Maybe it's just me over analyzing. ;D
-
Hi Emil,
Yes, those are my thoughts too! :)
Hi Erik,
The sample you have quoted was actually posted not to demonstrate sharpness, but to show tonality. Getting those skintones out of a D800 is hard work in Lightroom, even harder in Capture One. Getting those from a Leaf file is as simple as just importing into Capture One.
As someone mentioned earlier, the ability for an MF back to capture subtle differences in variations of the same color is what's probably helping in tonality. Without going into too much technicality, all I can say is that no matter what's going on in the backend, the files I have processed from MF backs deliver much better skintones out of the box than 35mm files, that too with much lesser work. For a portrait shooter, this is very, very important.
-
Hi,
You had a comment when you posted the image: "The below image is the best I can get out of the D800 after custom profiles, using a super sharp lens (The 85 f/1.8 G) and some high pass sharpening.". That was the reason I discussed sharpening.
My guess is that Capture 1 puts a lot of emphasis on skin tones under studio conditions and also has a set of tools to enhance skin tones. I don't think it is much related to sensor design.
Color is a bit up to taste. I have a P45+ and I have mixed feelings regarding the colors. The P45+ has a Kodak chip while P65+ and later have DALSA. The DALSA sensors are said to have better colors. Just to say that not all MFDBs are created equal.
I tried to look into color previously and I have not arrived to any conclusion: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=9
Here are some sample posts with P45+ and different profiles in LR and also Capture 1, just two shots, white balance on gray card (ColorChecker Passport)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3750_FULL/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3750_Persons/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3756_FULL/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3756_flower/
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
The sample you have quoted was actually posted not to demonstrate sharpness, but to show tonality. Getting those skintones out of a D800 is hard work in Lightroom, even harder in Capture One. Getting those from a Leaf file is as simple as just importing into Capture One.
As someone mentioned earlier, the ability for an MF back to capture subtle differences in variations of the same color is what's probably helping in tonality. Without going into too much technicality, all I can say is that no matter what's going on in the backend, the files I have processed from MF backs deliver much better skintones out of the box than 35mm files, that too with much lesser work. For a portrait shooter, this is very, very important.
-
Hi Sandeep,
Hi-pass sharpening is an edge contrast enhancing procedure, it will never produce the same effect as a shot with a sensor without AA-filter. The MFDB AA-filterless shot will be aliased, and have a higher MTF at the lower spatial frequencies, which can only be approximated by using deconvolution sharpening.
I suggest you give the FocusMagic (http://www.focusmagic.com/download.htm) plugin for Photoshop a try, preferably on a luminosity blend-if layer (which will avoid highlight clipping). The layered approach also allows to mask out skin, and leave hair and other detail in. It works even better if you first up-sample the image, apply deconvolution sharpening, and then down-sample back to the original file size, and add a tiny bit more deconvolution sharpening. Resolution and MTF of micro-detail is boosted by restoring actual resolution, not by adding contrast.
It's hard to suggest a different approach when all we have is subjective impressions to go on. Capture One offers very good Raw conversion quality, and it has a number of features specifically aimed at skin tone color. Tonality is a function of local contrast, and overall tone-curve. I prefer to use a Linear response curve, and if necessary tweak the highlight roll-off exactly to my liking. I prefer natural highlights, not compressed film-like highlights, but that can be changed by adjusting the curves or highlight control in Capture One.
For overall tonality, there is (IMHO) no better tool than Topaz Labs "Clarity" plugin, although I use it in combination with their "Adjust" plugin. These two give huge control over tonality, including some interesting masking functionality, e.g. for targeting skin tones.
By all means, if that rocks your boat, go for it. But I do get a feeling that there are improvements possible with your current post-processing. Also remember that all files need some post-processing, but the amount also depends on one's personal preferences. Only you can judge that.
That may have something to do with the particular choice of Bayer CFA filter colors, which may happen to do well with skincolor in general, but there are many skincolors so I'm not 100% sure that the filter response is the only reason. Capture One does use ICC profiles that may give a better starting point as well, compared to other converters. And again, specific skin color control is also part of Capture One, and many users report that it works wonders.
Cheers,
Bart
bookmarked ! ;)
-
Hi,
I agree Bart on most issues, just want to say that I just retested FocusMagic on image with what may be less than optimal focus and got really outstanding results. Don't really have time make a good demo, but below is a sample of the Magic IM can do.
Yeah, probably oversharpened, I know...
Best regards
Erik
Hi Sandeep,
I suggest you give the FocusMagic (http://www.focusmagic.com/download.htm) plugin for Photoshop a try, preferably on a luminosity blend-if layer (which will avoid highlight clipping). The layered approach also allows to mask out skin, and leave hair and other detail in. It works even better if you first up-sample the image, apply deconvolution sharpening, and then down-sample back to the original file size, and add a tiny bit more deconvolution sharpening. Resolution and MTF of micro-detail is boosted by restoring actual resolution, not by adding contrast.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I agree Bart on most issues, just want to say that I just retested FocusMagic on image with what may be less than optimal focus and got really outstanding results. Don't really have time make a good demo, but below is a sample of the Magic IM can do.
Yeah, probably oversharpened, I know...
Best regards
Erik
I used FocusMagic before there was PhotoshopCC around. The new Smartsharpen Filter in PS-CC is even better than FocusMagic. But the results are still close.
-
I used FocusMagic before there was PhotoshopCC around. The new Smartsharpen Filter in PS-CC is even better than FocusMagic. But the results are still close.
Hi Adrian,
It might be interesting to put that to the test on e.g. the challenging image crop in this thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.msg378541#msg378541), and add the result there as well.
As far as I know, the deconvolution algorithm of 'Smart Sharpen' hasn't changed, it just got some more controls to fight the artifacts, which is always a good thing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I have used Focus Magick before and have not found it beneficial compared with Smart Sharpen, but I have now tested it on a presharpened image with DoF issues and got amazingly good results.
Best regards
Erik
I used FocusMagic before there was PhotoshopCC around. The new Smartsharpen Filter in PS-CC is even better than FocusMagic. But the results are still close.
-
Hi Adrian,
It might be interesting to put that to the test on e.g. the challenging image crop in this thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.msg378541#msg378541), and add the result there as well.
As far as I know, the deconvolution algorithm of 'Smart Sharpen' hasn't changed, it just got some more controls to fight the artifacts, which is always a good thing.
Cheers,
Bart
here is a quick try:
www.adrianschulz.de/forum/a33fw4n3.jpg (http://www.adrianschulz.de/forum/a33fw4n3.jpg)
Original:
http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/downloads/0343_Crop+Diffraction.png (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/downloads/0343_Crop+Diffraction.png)
-
here is a quick try:
www.adrianschulz.de/forum/a33fw4n3.jpg (http://www.adrianschulz.de/forum/a33fw4n3.jpg)
Yes, that's quite usable. Not the best possible, but good enough for most uses. Most methods have difficulty picking up the venetian blinds behind the windows at he bottom left of the tree trunk, and clearly separating the vertical spokes of the balcony railings without ringing while maintaining a three dimensional look.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Synn -
Based on the way you work, medium format seems a viable choice for you.
The D800 is such an interesting camera as I have heard both raves and complaints about the file. Perhaps it's just post processing - getting the color right. Hard to say - but certainly it might be worth seeking out some counsel on getting the most out of the Nikon file and then see if you still feel it doesn't have that certain something for you.
I'm not surprised you are swayed by the Leaf skin tones.
If you do end up pursuing a medium format system, there's no reason to not consider a Leaf Aptus-II 7 or 8. I have generally felt like the Aptus-II 7 would be a better choice for portraiture, the larger sensor and fewer pixels providing more of a different feel than 35mm, but I've also not had any complaints from anyone who moved downstream to an Aptus-II 8 (or P40+) from a larger sensor like an Aptus 22 (or P25+). In fact, they've been universally pleased. I don't feel the extra 7 megapixels is significant, but it's true the Aptus-II 8 will be less prone to moire and have a slightly cleaner result at ISO 100/200/400 (if you would use those).
If you imagine shooting with a Leaf digital back and loving the files, then the real question becomes the camera. Since you like the 24mm equivalent - your only option there is 35mm on a sensor the size of the Aptus-II 7, which is closest, translating to a 25mm. The 28mm becomes 20mm - very wide. On the Aptus-II 8, the 28 becomes 22mm, maybe also too wide. And the 35mm becomes 28mm, maybe not wide enough. So - key question - how important is that focal length to you? If it's real important, then that also means if you end up with an Aptus-II 7/35mm combo, that your only option would be a Hasselblad H camera with the 35mm lens, since no other 35mm leaf shutter lens exists.
A lot to think about - but I think first it is real important to make sure you're getting the most out of your D800.
Also, not having a local Hy6 dealer doesn't mean you can't get support on that system. ;)
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
Good points from Steve as usual. I would say that trying to max out performance from your D800 is a good advice.
Regarding color:
- Photograph a gray card in same light the subject is illuminated with and adjust WB for white card
- Consider to build a profile using a color checker card, or some of the alternatives. A color checker card and Adobe DNG Profile Editor works just fine and even allows you to tweak your rendition
Regarding sharpness:
- Focus using live view at maximum magnification and use MLU and self timer or cable release
All this applies to MF, too, if applicable.
Here you see same P45+ exposure with different DNG Profiles on LR and also C1 processing:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3750_FULL/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3750_Persons/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3756_FULL/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3756_flower/
Color balance was on the gray card in the last shot.
Best regards
Erik
Synn -
Based on the way you work, medium format seems a viable choice for you.
The D800 is such an interesting camera as I have heard both raves and complaints about the file. Perhaps it's just post processing - getting the color right. Hard to say - but certainly it might be worth seeking out some counsel on getting the most out of the Nikon file and then see if you still feel it doesn't have that certain something for you.
I'm not surprised you are swayed by the Leaf skin tones.
If you do end up pursuing a medium format system, there's no reason to not consider a Leaf Aptus-II 7 or 8. I have generally felt like the Aptus-II 7 would be a better choice for portraiture, the larger sensor and fewer pixels providing more of a different feel than 35mm, but I've also not had any complaints from anyone who moved downstream to an Aptus-II 8 (or P40+) from a larger sensor like an Aptus 22 (or P25+). In fact, they've been universally pleased. I don't feel the extra 7 megapixels is significant, but it's true the Aptus-II 8 will be less prone to moire and have a slightly cleaner result at ISO 100/200/400 (if you would use those).
If you imagine shooting with a Leaf digital back and loving the files, then the real question becomes the camera. Since you like the 24mm equivalent - your only option there is 35mm on a sensor the size of the Aptus-II 7, which is closest, translating to a 25mm. The 28mm becomes 20mm - very wide. On the Aptus-II 8, the 28 becomes 22mm, maybe also too wide. And the 35mm becomes 28mm, maybe not wide enough. So - key question - how important is that focal length to you? If it's real important, then that also means if you end up with an Aptus-II 7/35mm combo, that your only option would be a Hasselblad H camera with the 35mm lens, since no other 35mm leaf shutter lens exists.
A lot to think about - but I think first it is real important to make sure you're getting the most out of your D800.
Also, not having a local Hy6 dealer doesn't mean you can't get support on that system. ;)
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Thank you steve for that very comprehensive response. I have dropped you a PM.
Erik: All that is done and done. I shoot with a grey cards, use a custom profile, everything. The samples I have posted are all shot this way. Even after all that, the D800 output lacks the subtle tonality that I see in files from a Leaf back.
-
Rightly or wrongly I've owned and/or used about every brand of digital camera made and since I shoot 99.999% people in still and motion, I can list in varying order the best out of camera skin tones, but it is kind of a mute point as everyone works with different lighting, subjects, even back end processing.
My first suggestion would be process in C-1 for most cameras, or Iridint Developer. C-1 is good out of can on most problematic files, Iridient is great if you go under the hood and set some single channel parameters.
Overall I think all digital is usually very subject dependent, but for commercial work I've shot 75% of what I do with Canons, 1ds I, II, III and now the 1dx. The 1dx being the worst of the bunch and I find very Nikon like which to me is very global and very red/orange warm.
If your going medium format I strongly suggest testing in your lighting and style and very much do this with many multiple of subjects, especially one image with all subjects together.
That will tell you as much as anything.
But, my bottom line is this. If I shot with direct light or flash and didn't have to tether, I'd shoot with a M-8 and/or M-9 (and buy two of each due the crazy s__t they do), but the look is worth it.
If I could shoot mostly with medium format I'd buy a 40mpx Hasselblad, as those files really produce beautiful skintones. Our studio was asked by a Asian client to process and retouch a session from a Chinese photographer using a 40mpx blad and I was really surprised at how pretty the skintones were. The Chinese photographer shot was a duplicate in lighting style, props and subjects of the Ad series we started so I had a direct comparison to my cameras.
IMO
BC
P.S. and if your buying medium format I'd call Steve Hendrix and he will give you the truth even if it works against him. My next call would be to Doug Peterson. Both these guys know their stuff and won't sell you just to sell you.
-
Hi Bcooter,
Thank you very much for that comprehensive response and my apologies for responding almost a month late (Work, travel and whatnot). I have been in touch with both gentlemen that you have mentioned and they have helped me understand so much about the medium format landscape. I am evaluating the various options now and should be able to make my decision by the end of the year.
I have also been practicing on Capture One and have finally managed to get it to deliver some nice colors out of my Nikon files. They now look a bazillion times better than they ever did in Lightroom (Even after custom profiles) and now I can viably use my D800 as the second camera in my setup.
Here's an example:
http://www.sandeepmurali.com/p234558723/h726e47e7#h726e47e7
That image looked "Dead" after the LR conversion (Posted a few pages back). I am much happier with this version.
Funny thing is, out of fun, I was working on some very old files of mine, from my erstwhile D70s. Ran them through Capture One and finished in Photoshop. I am so surprised at how smooth the skintones were from that camera. In a way, more analog and less plasticky than the current gen cams, including the D800. I am not a physicist, but I get a feeling that in the quest of stupid high ISOs, camera makers now are losing focus on base ISO color reproduction (Pun intended).
Here's an example:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/964284_10151846001499209_1180969882_o.jpg)
-
The D70 was a CCD camera, as I recall, just like the digital backs and Leica M8/9/S2. CCDs seem better at color deliniation and separation, so a caucasian model's blush really looks like blush, not a melding of magentas and reds in the model's skin with the blush.
My experience with the D800 is similar to yours. D3x was better by a bit. There is a global yellow/red bias, and particular hues of red have a strong bias or shift. I tortured myself working through this. I would get a somewhat neutral file and fix it in PS with a layer of Hue/Saturation, then some curves in the seperate red/yellow channels. Then the color is great.
That being said, I think the 1ds3/5d2 had better skin out of the box.
Hi Bcooter,
Thank you very much for that comprehensive response and my apologies for responding almost a month late (Work, travel and whatnot). I have been in touch with both gentlemen that you have mentioned and they have helped me understand so much about the medium format landscape. I am evaluating the various options now and should be able to make my decision by the end of the year.
I have also been practicing on Capture One and have finally managed to get it to deliver some nice colors out of my Nikon files. They now look a bazillion times better than they ever did in Lightroom (Even after custom profiles) and now I can viably use my D800 as the second camera in my setup.
Here's an example:
http://www.sandeepmurali.com/p234558723/h726e47e7#h726e47e7
That image looked "Dead" after the LR conversion (Posted a few pages back). I am much happier with this version.
Funny thing is, out of fun, I was working on some very old files of mine, from my erstwhile D70s. Ran them through Capture One and finished in Photoshop. I am so surprised at how smooth the skintones were from that camera. In a way, more analog and less plasticky than the current gen cams, including the D800. I am not a physicist, but I get a feeling that in the quest of stupid high ISOs, camera makers now are losing focus on base ISO color reproduction (Pun intended).
Here's an example:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/964284_10151846001499209_1180969882_o.jpg)
-
I think anyone who wants to buy MF should evaluate *exactly* the intended solution in his studio.
On a related note, I picked up a Canon 1Ds3 on a swap for my 5D2, and find the focus on the big Canon is excellent (unlike the 5D2) and the files very nice. Forum members might find this camera current and of interest for "people" use.
Edmund
-
I think anyone who wants to buy MF should evaluate *exactly* the intended solution in his studio.
On a related note, I picked up a Canon 1Ds3 on a swap for my 5D2, and find the focus on the big Canon is excellent (unlike the 5D2) and the files very nice. Forum members might find this camera current and of interest for "people" use.
Edmund
The auto focus system in the new Canon 1dx and 5D3 is one generation ahead from Nikon's and the older Canons. I because for my type of shooting any modern autofocus will do, so I use Nikon. But using the Canon is eye opening.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
The skin tones of Hassey files right out of the box are beautiful. Weirdly the RAW files produced by the Sony a850/a900 are very comparable to the look of Aptus 22 MP files. I am using a Nikon d800 now. I like the camera a lot. My work requires the pixel density and the selection of lenses that Nikon offers. It is possible to tame the flesh tones coming out of the Nikon, however it helps to have an accurate monitor, a good eye for color, and knowing the camera really well. When you compare a Nikon d800 file to a 22mp MFB file you will see the difference. Though CCD chips have less dynamic range than the current generation of CMOS chips, MF files look smoother, punchier, and more nuanced. I really love the look of the files rendered from the ancient Ixpress 96c MF back that I used to use on occasion back around 2005. The RAW developer, Flexcolor was a bit retro 1995, but it was powerful.
-
Hi Sandeep,
I read your post and some of the replies....
I have to agree with folks that are suggesting to FIRST look into your post processing. Take on a differnet approach to it. Also I think you underestimate the "negative" impact the AA has. I am surprised you didn't get a D800E?
(I know the moire). I don't do a lot of fabric, and willing to do the post if I come across the issue. for 10 years it has happened a hand full of times that I was easily able to manage.
Years back,before I purchased a DB, I had a 1Ds and I also had a Kodak SLRc. The Kodak had no AA, and the files were 3D MF like. The 1Ds was soft. (The "bite" has a lot to do with the AA)... Except I had such trouble with the way the Kodak handled lighting, specially if any came in direction of the lens, I would get magenta overcasts and such, so I put that down and went the MF route. Shame about the Kodak, it had a great software tool set, ISO 06!. I would guess the same sensor was what made the Kodak Db so successful for a while.
I have been meaning to rent a D800E to see how it would do with my studio shoots. I would never consider a camera with a AA filter for my studio needs.
I also think the way lighting is setup gives a great impression on the overall impact of an image. I have seen well balanced light from a 35mm look very MF tonally. Before you plunk down any money, I would do as others have suggested and see what you can do about exposing in the lighting, and post processing. (Sometimes slight fill lights can do wonders in giving you range).
The problem with the above info I give is that I have only compared a P25MFdB to my AA-soft 5Dm2 as a equal mpixel size. The Kodak was 14mp, and the 1Ds was 11mp. So if the NonAA D800E is anything like a Kodak SLRc at a 36mp resolution, this SHOULD bypass a P25 MFdB ??? There is a 2 bit difference between most top end Dslr vs MFdb, 14/16 bit, 2 channels are for noise... Erik had written something about it a while back.
I have been using this back for some time, and I do love the results. I do want more resolution and more DOF, so that was my reason to look for the D800E. But I don't see myself doing anything about it.
I do rememebr sopmething about the P30 that I would avoid. Something about the lens over sensor aliagnment, is not suited for Tilt/Shift if you ever do go toward tech cam.
Also, I LOVED this on the Mamiya RZ. I have a 35mm lens which is a bit fishy, but an amazing lens. The glass is really good, and overall a great setup. Beautiful large view(I switch the gg glass to brighter). I would also caution about the Hass software RAW converter, If C1 has support for Hass, then no prob. But I had bad experience with it when testing years back(surely they must have improved). I think the P40 is a top contender also for long exposure, and the 45 all around. I was looking to upgrade to the P45, and see them online for about $7-9k. If I had a great gig and justify it I would get one of these.
Sometime back, the MFDB makers were adamant about the photosite size being the dominant trait compared to 35mm sensors(reason the 1Ds files are beautiful /11microns), as some are 12microns large. Now with newer MFDBs having 6 or so, and surely technology has gotten better with less gap microlenses, better SN ratio, light fill factor, etc... did this bridge the gap? and if so, why couldn't 35MM with the same range photosites be on par with the MFDBs? Maybe if Foveon would license the sensor there maybe some interesting designs in the future?
I hope this helps.
-
Hi,
Here are some images from a recent shoot, with mixed cameras (Sonya Alpha 99 + Hasselblad V/P45+), downscaled to 4000x4000 pixel frame: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/
Here are some comparable images from 24MP FF and the Hassy/P45+:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR/
Here are some more samples:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples3/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples2/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples/
The Hasselblad lenses are old designs, new lenses on a Phase One camera would be more modern designs.
The P45+ uses a Kodak sensor while most Aptus backs and later generation Phase One backs have Dalsa sensors. The impression I got is that Dalsa sensors may have better color.
The reason that the P30 did not work well with shifts is that it uses microlenses, so does the IQ180 while the IQ160 has no micro lenses, as far as I know.
Best regards
Erik
-
If you can do yourself a favor and not look at what camera took these and come up with true reasons why you like one over the other, and convince yourself somehow that some post processing wont make the satisfactory adjustment it needs, then you have yourself a winning choice. ....
....Not saying you cant eliminate a few off the bat for SOOC reasons.
-
However, where that DR is placed is of importance to me. The D800, while having industry leading DR, places most of it in the deep shadows. Great when one is lifting the shadows, but the highlight spectrum contains nowhere as much information. No matter how I vary my lighting, whatever modifier I use, the way the mids move to the highights is simply too... for the lack of a better word, plasticky. Even the samples I have seen from a 22MP back has better "bite" in it and much more graceful gradation from mids to highlights.
Hi Sandeep,
What you describe is real, and a direct result of the sensor physics/electronics.
The D800 and other recent CMOS cameras can be crudely categorized as "low signal, low noise" while the MFD units - especially the older backs with larger, fewer pixels - are "high signal, high noise" in comparison. They do not achieve their high signal because they are more light sensitive (on the contrary, they are typically one stop lower in quantum efficiency), but because (1) they are set one stop lower in base ISO, making you double exposure time to receive more signal, and (2) they have larger pixel surface areas. And they have larger pixel well capacities to accomodate that larger signal.
Analogy - consider a basin and a coffee mug. I leave them both outside in a rain shower. If I cover half of the top of the basin beforehand, it will catch only half of the water falling on it - this is like the one stop lower q.e. of the MFD sensors. Nevertheless, it still has a larger open area to the rain than the mug, so it will still catch more raindrops in a given time - this is like the pixel size/surface area difference. If I additionally take the mug inside halfway through the shower, the basin gets a further doubling of its catch - this is like the 1 stop lower ISO and corresponding longer shutter speed. Then I take the basin inside as well. I carefully pour the contents of the mug into a measuring jug, measuring all but a few drops that adhere to the sides of the mug. I try to do the same with the basin, but I slosh and spill some water - this is like the readout noise difference. I reckon that in both cases, I have measured 99% of the rainwater collected, or to put it another way, the volume I measured was 99 times larger than the estimated error - this is like the dynamic ranges being the same.
Anyway, if (as I have done) one models the signal to noise curves for the individual noise components in a sensor, and for their composite effect, you get quite different trends for these different types of sensor. The MFD units are killed by high readout noise at the shadow end (which is why they are poor at high ISO, when the shadows are pushed to become mid tones), but in the base ISO mid tones and highlights, where readout noise slips into insignificance behind shot/Poisson noise, they have better S/N due to their larger signals and lower percentage shot noise - as you put it, "much more graceful gradation from mids to highlights". The D800 and its ilk, on the other hand, will keep discriminating stop after stop of shadow detail thanks to its low readout noise, but as it is doing so with mere handfuls of signal photons at the bottom end, it can look rather quantized compared to the thousands of distinct shades of equally low S/N scuzz at the bottom of the DR range for MFD images.
In short, as I have said often, the quality along the range covered by the DR is very important...few people realize this and they look only at the overall quantity of the DR.
Ray
-
Years back,before I purchased a DB, I had a 1Ds and I also had a Kodak SLRc. The Kodak had no AA, and the files were 3D MF like. The 1Ds was soft. (The "bite" has a lot to do with the AA)... Except I had such trouble with the way the Kodak handled lighting, specially if any came in direction of the lens, I would get magenta overcasts and such, so I put that down and went the MF route. Shame about the Kodak, it had a great software tool set, ISO 06!. I would guess the same sensor was what made the Kodak Db so successful for a while.
Phil - no, that Kodak SLRc had a completely different sensor tech to the Kodak DBs (and even the earlier Kodak DSLRs based on the Nikon F5 and Canon 1n). The 14n, SLRn, and SLRc had a Fill Factory CMOS sensor, while all the other Kodaks had Kodak's own CCD sensors.
I would agree however that "the "bite" has a lot to do with the AA". Big pixels without an AA filter have much better MTF than ones with an AA filter, even smaller ones. I see this all the time in my Canon 5DII vs my Kodak DCS645M back. The Kodak wins. It also wins on colour.
Sometime back, the MFDB makers were adamant about the photosite size being the dominant trait compared to 35mm sensors(reason the 1Ds files are beautiful /11microns), as some are 12microns large. Now with newer MFDBs having 6 or so, and surely technology has gotten better with less gap microlenses, better SN ratio, light fill factor, etc... did this bridge the gap? and if so, why couldn't 35MM with the same range photosites be on par with the MFDBs?
Well the 1Ds has 9 micron pixels, not 11 microns...but you are onto something here. There are Phase One and Leaf 5.2 micron pixels with no AA filter, and there are Nikon and Sony 4.9 micron pixels with no AA filter. On a per pixel comparison, the gap has been bridged to a large extent. Several differences remain however: colour response, noise characteristics along the DR range, and above all, MFD will always have larger sensors...
Ray
-
The reason that the P30 did not work well with shifts is that it uses microlenses, so does the IQ180 while the IQ160 has no micro lenses, as far as I know.
Hi Erik,
I always thought that too: no microlenses for both the P65+ and its successors the H4D-60, IQ160 and Credo 60. It's the natural conclusion when you see a DB with a low base ISO of 50 - it can't have high q.e., so surely it can't have microlenses! Further evidence came from the P65+ not having a bad reputation for lens cast with tech cams...not nearly as problematic as trying to use a microlensed Kodak sensor on a tech cam.
And everytime I said "no microlenses in the 60 MP backs" on forums like this, with Phase One, Leaf, and Hasselblad reps/dealers present, no-one contradicted me. So it appeared to be fact.
But then Dalsa belatedly (in 2012) released a datasheet for the FTF9168C used in these 60MP backs, and there it was...there are microlenses!
I was surprised to see that this CCD is a scaled up version of the 48MP FTF6080C (which would have been a twin/competitor to Kodak's 50MP CCD if any company had decided to use that Dalsa chip). The FTF6080C datasheet had been kicking around for a few years. Microlenses, yes. High q.e., not really...midway between Kodak non-microlensed and microlensed CCDs. So, modest q.e., together with Dalsa's trademark deep pixel capacities...that's why it has a base ISO of 50.
Dalsa have a quite fascinating conference proceedings paper online, from 2008: "A 36×48mm^2 48M-pixel CCD imager for professional DSC applications". (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4796668&tag=1) Let me know if you cannot access the full text PDF version; I can email it to you. This describes the FTF6080C and compares it to their previous 33MP sensor, and Kodak's 39 MP sensor. They mention things like:
"Improvement of QE by integrating an anti-reflective nitride layer on the poly-silicon gate electrodes;
Application of gap-less microlenses on top of the RGB color filter pattern, optimized for wide angular response and low color cross-talk"
Combined, these steps did result in considerable q.e. improvements over earlier, unlensed Dalsa sensors...but it has to be pointed out that those earlier sensors were already well behind the unlensed Kodak sensors.
So the q.e. order is (worst <-> best): Dalsa unlensed, Kodak unlensed, Dalsa lensed (48 & 60 MP), Kodak lensed (18, 31 and 40MP).
The stuff in that paper about how they optimized their microlenses for wide angular response is great. It explains why the big brother of that sensor in the P65+ did not have a bad reputation for lens cast with tech cams.
Further improvements were that "the readout noise at 25MHz pixel frequency was decreased from 17e- noise to 11e- noise after CDS". That pips the best Kodaks (12.5e-).
Nothing was done however to improve the rather awful dark noise in long exposures...not until the re-engineered miracle that is the IQ260!
Ray
-
And everytime I said "no microlenses in the 60 MP backs" on forums like this, with Phase One, Leaf, and Hasselblad reps/dealers present, no-one contradicted me. So it appeared to be fact.
As I recall I once did corrected this notion.
But usually when I notice a minor technical error that does not mislead a reader on the actual practical use of the equipment I bite-my-lip and ignore it.
In other words it's just as useful for a user to hear "no microlenses on the 60mp sensor" as it is to hear "the micro lenses are there but are less prohibitive of light coming in at a strange angle" when it comes to picking a back which works well on a tech camera.
I'd imagine it's even possible I've used "no microlenses" once or twice myself in search of a succinct way to categorize backs for people as either movement-on-tech-camera compatible or not.
If you look back at my description over the years of the P30+ sensor you'll notice I used adjectives like "strong" or "deep" microlenses to describe the reason that back cannot be used on a technical camera with any significant movements with normal/wide lenses. At least I think that's how I've described it, hard to remember everything you've written after this many posts :).
-
Hi,
Just as a general comment, I would suggest that the main (or rather only) benefit of MFDs come from the larger area.
Best regards
Erik
Phil - no, that Kodak SLRc had a completely different sensor tech to the Kodak DBs (and even the earlier Kodak DSLRs based on the Nikon F5 and Canon 1n). The 14n, SLRn, and SLRc had a Fill Factory CMOS sensor, while all the other Kodaks had Kodak's own CCD sensors.
I would agree however that "the "bite" has a lot to do with the AA". Big pixels without an AA filter have much better MTF than ones with an AA filter, even smaller ones. I see this all the time in my Canon 5DII vs my Kodak DCS645M back. The Kodak wins. It also wins on colour.
Well the 1Ds has 9 micron pixels, not 11 microns...but you are onto something here. There are Phase One and Leaf 5.2 micron pixels with no AA filter, and there are Nikon and Sony 4.9 micron pixels with no AA filter. On a per pixel comparison, the gap has been bridged to a large extent. Several differences remain however: colour response, noise characteristics along the DR range, and above all, MFD will always have larger sensors...
Ray
-
Hi,
I made an experiment recently, the idea being that large pixels with no OLP produce fake detail. I just took a feather I found on a beach and photographed it at home. I got a lot of artifacts both with my Sonnar 150/4 and the Planar 80/2.8 using the same shooting position, so I guess this is something we always see.
After shooting with the "Blad" I shot from the same position with the Sony Alpha 99 that has somewhat smaller pixels with an OLP filter. The Alpha 99 had less color artefacts but still a lot. Finally I shot an image with my Alpha 77, which has smaller pixels (3.9 microns I think). The Alpha 77 has also an OLP filter, I think, the Alpha 77 image is best.
These images were taken at 150 mm setting at fixed distance. The images were scaled down P45+ dimensions using ImageMagick which uses Lanzcos I think.
What I see is that small pixels with OLP filtering may be the best solution. Please note, in this setting I ignored sensor size, I just looked at the image quality at fixed magnification of the sensor image.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/FakeDetail/comparison1.html
Best regards
Erik
Phil - no, that Kodak SLRc had a completely different sensor tech to the Kodak DBs (and even the earlier Kodak DSLRs based on the Nikon F5 and Canon 1n). The 14n, SLRn, and SLRc had a Fill Factory CMOS sensor, while all the other Kodaks had Kodak's own CCD sensors.
I would agree however that "the "bite" has a lot to do with the AA". Big pixels without an AA filter have much better MTF than ones with an AA filter, even smaller ones. I see this all the time in my Canon 5DII vs my Kodak DCS645M back. The Kodak wins. It also wins on colour.
Well the 1Ds has 9 micron pixels, not 11 microns...but you are onto something here. There are Phase One and Leaf 5.2 micron pixels with no AA filter, and there are Nikon and Sony 4.9 micron pixels with no AA filter. On a per pixel comparison, the gap has been bridged to a large extent. Several differences remain however: colour response, noise characteristics along the DR range, and above all, MFD will always have larger sensors...
Ray
-
Ray,
I your analysis you assume the sensors are linear in the high range; but AFAIK some new CMOS sensors use the antiblooming to get a (tuneable) shoulder in the highlights. I checked this assumption with Aptina and they concurred, said this had been going on for some time.
Edmund
-
Nice samples to look over Erik.
Without looking at what camera they were, subjectively I thought the A99 looked nice, while the 77 had less moire, or "filler" info.
So you used the same lens on all?
I would love to see this test on harder or reflective subjects, perhaps using a Schneider 180 HM or 120 macro digital glass. Or even the Rodenstock perhaps?
What I did sense from my smaller files was that in post production, retouching a MFdb file was always meatier in having more information. I havn't shot anything that I really edit hard other than the MFdb files, so I don't have much to compare. 14bit makes a difference, perhaps the 16bit still may hold a meatier file? But to what degree?
Thanks for correcting my micron size on the 1Ds, and good to know about the Kodak difference. I guess I forgot. I try to keep the tech stuff to a minimum, and work on the process and art of the shoots, but I am a techy to some degree:-) Having said that, the SLRc Kodak made some amazing files. I still have it, just not had much reason to do any testing, specially with so many new camera since that, and FINALY Nikon out (besides Foveon) with the first pro level DSLR without a AA!(as far as I know) .
-
Hi,
Regarding the aliasing samples I was not clear enough.
I used the Sonnar 150/4 on the Hasselblad and my 70-400/4-5.6 at 150 mm on the Alphas. I could have used the Sonnar on the Alphas to, with an adapter, but decided not to. MTF-wise the two lenses are pretty close, with the Sonnar having the edge. The images were shot from tripod at the same distance. In the set conditions, smaller pixels make a larger image, but I scaled down all images using a decent scaling method.
I don't have Schneider or Rodenstock lenses. On the other hand the Sonnar 150/4 is pretty good and a better lens is causing more artifacts in this kind of test.
What this essentially told me was that smaller pixels are good.
Best regards
Erik
Nice samples to look over Erik.
Without looking at what camera they were, subjectively I thought the A99 looked nice, while the 77 had less moire, or "filler" info.
So you used the same lens on all?
I would love to see this test on harder or reflective subjects, perhaps using a Schneider 180 HM or 120 macro digital glass. Or even the Rodenstock perhaps?
What I did sense from my smaller files was that in post production, retouching a MFdb file was always meatier in having more information. I havn't shot anything that I really edit hard other than the MFdb files, so I don't have much to compare. 14bit makes a difference, perhaps the 16bit still may hold a meatier file? But to what degree?
Thanks for correcting my micron size on the 1Ds, and good to know about the Kodak difference. I guess I forgot. I try to keep the tech stuff to a minimum, and work on the process and art of the shoots, but I am a techy to some degree:-) Having said that, the SLRc Kodak made some amazing files. I still have it, just not had much reason to do any testing, specially with so many new camera since that, and FINALY Nikon out (besides Foveon) with the first pro level DSLR without a AA!(as far as I know) .
-
Ray,
Fantastic description - thank you for that!
Eric
Hi Sandeep,
What you describe is real, and a direct result of the sensor physics/electronics.
The D800 and other recent CMOS cameras can be crudely categorized as "low signal, low noise" while the MFD units - especially the older backs with larger, fewer pixels - are "high signal, high noise" in comparison. They do not achieve their high signal because they are more light sensitive (on the contrary, they are typically one stop lower in quantum efficiency), but because (1) they are set one stop lower in base ISO, making you double exposure time to receive more signal, and (2) they have larger pixel surface areas. And they have larger pixel well capacities to accomodate that larger signal.
Analogy - consider a basin and a coffee mug. I leave them both outside in a rain shower. If I cover half of the top of the basin beforehand, it will catch only half of the water falling on it - this is like the one stop lower q.e. of the MFD sensors. Nevertheless, it still has a larger open area to the rain than the mug, so it will still catch more raindrops in a given time - this is like the pixel size/surface area difference. If I additionally take the mug inside halfway through the shower, the basin gets a further doubling of its catch - this is like the 1 stop lower ISO and corresponding longer shutter speed. Then I take the basin inside as well. I carefully pour the contents of the mug into a measuring jug, measuring all but a few drops that adhere to the sides of the mug. I try to do the same with the basin, but I slosh and spill some water - this is like the readout noise difference. I reckon that in both cases, I have measured 99% of the rainwater collected, or to put it another way, the volume I measured was 99 times larger than the estimated error - this is like the dynamic ranges being the same.
Anyway, if (as I have done) one models the signal to noise curves for the individual noise components in a sensor, and for their composite effect, you get quite different trends for these different types of sensor. The MFD units are killed by high readout noise at the shadow end (which is why they are poor at high ISO, when the shadows are pushed to become mid tones), but in the base ISO mid tones and highlights, where readout noise slips into insignificance behind shot/Poisson noise, they have better S/N due to their larger signals and lower percentage shot noise - as you put it, "much more graceful gradation from mids to highlights". The D800 and its ilk, on the other hand, will keep discriminating stop after stop of shadow detail thanks to its low readout noise, but as it is doing so with mere handfuls of signal photons at the bottom end, it can look rather quantized compared to the thousands of distinct shades of equally low S/N scuzz at the bottom of the DR range for MFD images.
In short, as I have said often, the quality along the range covered by the DR is very important...few people realize this and they look only at the overall quantity of the DR.
Ray
-
Ray,
I your analysis you assume the sensors are linear in the high range; but AFAIK some new CMOS sensors use the antiblooming to get a (tuneable) shoulder in the highlights. I checked this assumption with Aptina and they concurred, said this had been going on for some time.
Edmund
Can you tell us more about how this works? Bleed over from sensor well to sensor well is collected / measured some how or what?
-
Hi,
Edmund may have a point here. It may be it is simple a waste gate, leaking charge to ground?! It may also explain something I see. In general I try to expose for the highlights, just below clipping. What I have seen recently is that my P45+ exposures are quite dark while I guess that my Alpha 99 exposures are more normal. It is very difficult compare images, as this is an observation in post and where there are clouds light is changing fast. I seldom shoot the exactly same subject with DSLR and MFD even when I carry both (I never carry MFD only, need my long zooms and ultrawides).
What I do is that I check the images in RawDigger looking at real raw data.
So what I see is that ETTR images exposed for highlights are dark on the P45+ and I struggle shadow detail. On the A99 shadow detail is always there, never a problem.
If Edmund is right it could be that I can expose more on the Alpha 99 without saturating pixels.
I enclose one of those dark P45+ shots. In this case I had little problems with dark details.
Best regards
Erik
Can you tell us more about how this works? Bleed over from sensor well to sensor well is collected / measured some how or what?
-
On your posted data, I find that the right-hand part of the histogram curve drops down like it had hit a brick wall. It looks as if you have hit saturation, which would not be surprising when one sees the picture: the highlights in the clouds are very bright.
-
Hi,
No, those are not saturated. Saturated histograms have a spike in the maximum channel. The plot is logarithmic, that may be the reason it is unusual. But I agree it's odd.
Best regards
Erik
On your posted data, I find that the right-hand part of the histogram curve drops down like it had hit a brick wall. It looks as if you have hit saturation, which would not be surprising when one sees the picture: the highlights in the clouds are very bright.
-
My little take on this topic:
There was a time when upgrading to Medium Format was evident to gain IQ. People started by using 35mm, with a long learning curve and jumped to MF/LF, to pursue the goal of high quality photography. In film days, the gap was very visible, it was logic.
Jumping to MF was kind of mandatory to "future proof" your hard work, even at the start of digital photography. Then the 35mm industry, with the Cmos technology, started to up the pixels count on their wafers. Just remember the Mamyia DF vs 1DsIII fight...
This is interesting to see that MF industry stay with CCD technology and do not jump into Cmos kindergarten fest. Many posts above show why and skin tones/wavelength interpretation seems to be the key. Leica M8 (or even the old digilux) output very pleasant skin tones, better than Nikon or Canon Cmos based DSLR.
The visual impact between CCD and Cmos should not be minimized, at all. Some had a look at SIGMA with the foveon because, even if it is a Cmos sensor, it output something close to CCD rendering as well as the D700 because of his big pixels. Some do not like the M240 output because (and it is understandable) of the lack of crispness or whatever, like if the M9 had a soul and not the M240. I, and I'm not alone, see what they mean.
Today, 35mm industry try all the possible tech ways to not die. Incredible amount of pixels, features and automatisms. D800/e, Sony A7r and so on ... Wonderful tool compared to ancient technology even very old MFDB.
So, as some photographers said to me one day, if you want to future proof your work/passion, do not jump on the first little digital MF you find on the market. This is a hard way because you will need to learn it hard and seek lenses + study all your graphic chain behind thus engaging more costs. If you jump into MF, buy at least IQ260 or H5D60 >> this is the step to go beyond (in the future) what latests 35mm DSLR offer and will offer soon. If you do not have it yet, you will need a good computer and a good screen + calibration tools (Mac + Eizo + Xrite). There is no little steps today; you move in or not... if you are pro or very passionate.
It is why "crop MFDB" like S2, pentax and all the entry level stuff (H4D40, P40) are a dead end by today standards. A D800e + very good lenses (Zeiss) do a very good job and come very close to the end result of those backs, period. This is a wonderful tool for the one who can't invest in bigger imagers.
And here come the softwares... With the actual plethora of pro-softwares you can find around, you can render a LOT of things, even shaping a 35mm shoot in a sort of MF looking shoot. That's the hard reality, truly. But it need some practice and it is time eater.
Now, if you really want to have a MF "look" and really want a MF, nothing can stop you apart yourself. You have the choice. If you come from a 5D or a D700 and want MF look, you can find (even new) the old and reliable Mamiya DF. ISO50/100 only, CCD look, not expensive even the lenses, possibility to use it like a tech cam with bellows and adapters ...
This is not a killer MF but it is simple to use. Sensor is 2x the size of 24x36 with same density as the D700. It is a double D700... but with CCD color rendition.
You also have the film way, who is not dead at all but take more time, for sure. Incredible DR, real rendering on a 6x7 sensor, less expensive on the run than a IQ260 system ;)
So IMHO, for your little budget, there is three pragmatic ways:
The first, illogical by today standards but yet pragmatic, is the Mamyia DF. 22MP, 8500€ brand new, inexpensive lenses, very good rendering, big sensor, CF and SD card, rugged ...
The second, the most pragmatic and future proof, is the D800e + plethora of good lenses (135f2 ZF2, 21f2.8 ZF2 or AF equivalents in Nikkor line-up, + screen/computer). If you do not like skin tones out of this camera, try to find someone who can teach you how to improve that in post quickly.
The third... the film way, the real MF. You can rent a Voigtländer Bessa III 667 (or 667W) or his Fuji equivalent and burn a roll or two with it. Scan it with an Epson V750 and see by yourself. You can buy a used Rolleiflex Hy6 Mod2, because you will have the possibility to plug a MFDB on it later. Absolutely awesome camera and lenses, very underestimated.
You have the choice. But for real MF venture, 15k$ is close to nothing (especially if you face some mechanical problems and need to pay the bills, this is why I don't speak about Hassy...).
-
One corollary, I believe, is that if any channel on a modern dSLR is in the last hard stop you will have imprecise color rendering. This implies that "conventional" matrix profiling by testchart will always fail, and that matrix profiles should be determined with at least one stop *under* exposure, that art repro should be done at one stop under, and that LUTS should be used for any normal exposures, which is certainly a datapoint of *practical* importance.
Of course, we don't know exactly what the firmware is doing in re-encoding the "raw" data, and how the "waste gates" are tuned by the firmware, my experience with my D4 leads me to believe that the control level is set in firmware.
As the author of the very nice RawDigger, Iliah Borg will probably have more realistic opinions than me, but with no disrespect intended, I don't think that RawDigger can really "see" the hardware, only the virtual presentation, and some conjectures about the non-documented features. It is a tool for the photographer, more than for the engineer.
An actual engineer from one of the big companies might speak out, but for some reason they all think that disguising their hardware structure will disguise the failings of same, rather than publishing them so software can be developed to amend them. Maybe someone here could get access to the nodelist dump from a reverse engineering firm in which case a couple of weeks hard work would probably tell us what the sensor really does.
Edmund
PS. The magic lantern guys might be have more experimental data, as they have explored setting the various on-chip registers.
Hi,
Edmund may have a point here. It may be it is simple a waste gate, leaking charge to ground?! It may also explain something I see. In general I try to expose for the highlights, just below clipping. What I have seen recently is that my P45+ exposures are quite dark while I guess that my Alpha 99 exposures are more normal. It is very difficult compare images, as this is an observation in post and where there are clouds light is changing fast. I seldom shoot the exactly same subject with DSLR and MFD even when I carry both (I never carry MFD only, need my long zooms and ultrawides).
What I do is that I check the images in RawDigger looking at real raw data.
So what I see is that ETTR images exposed for highlights are dark on the P45+ and I struggle shadow detail. On the A99 shadow detail is always there, never a problem.
If Edmund is right it could be that I can expose more on the Alpha 99 without saturating pixels.
Maxmax published a measurement they made on the Canon D40, and it certainly seems like some highlight compression going on.
(http://maxmax.com/images/Cameras/Technical/Canon40D_GreenPowerCurve.jpg)
I enclose one of those dark P45+ shots. In this case I had little problems with dark details.
Best regards
Erik
-
MaxMax were plotting data from JPEGs.
-
> if any channel on a modern dSLR is in the last hard stop you will have imprecise color rendering. This implies that "conventional" matrix profiling by testchart will always fail, and that matrix profiles should be determined with at least one stop *under* exposure, that art repro should be done at one stop under, and that LUTS should be used for any normal exposures, which is certainly a datapoint of *practical* importance.
Technically the metering point of modern cameras is shifted downwards, "overestimating" the sensitivity. That is done not just because of "leaving more headroom to preserve highlights", but also because of the linearity issues in the last 1/3 to full stop in highlights. Not to overload the response, consider summaries presented at http://harvestimaging.com/blog/?p=1238 and http://harvestimaging.com/blog/?p=1249 . Trusting metering system for shooting profiling target is a good start. Generally because the noise in shadows is relatively low there is no penalty in underexposing profiling target shots about 1 EV compared to "ETTR". One may want experimenting with exposure. RawDigger allows to create compensated (normalized) CGATS files so that the data appears properly exposed to profiling tool. Normalization and white balance are done with great care in RawDigger, using floating point and proper rounding technique.
In practice it is important also to use flat field normalization and good light sources for profiling. Flat field normalization helps with light and white balance variations across the target but it cant help against poor spectrum of the light sources. Halogen lights with daylight filtration work well, HMI not so well.
> I don't think that RawDigger can really "see" the hardware
Quite so. All RD can do is analyse raw data as recorded. It is far from sensor output, I know it well as I work with sensors directly to. And yes, RD helps guesswork on sensor properties. The accuracy of such guesswork depends on the skills and knowledge of the user.
-
> I don't think that RawDigger can really "see" the hardware
Quite so. All RD can do is analyse raw data as recorded. It is far from sensor output, I know it well as I work with sensors directly to. And yes, RD helps guesswork on sensor properties. The accuracy of such guesswork depends on the skills and knowledge of the user.
And for an additional fee, you can provide a camera maker a private version that shows both raw and "Raw" :)
Edmund
-
Hi Edmund,
Thanks for putting things straight, some food for thought.
Regarding RawDigger, I guess it is the best tool we photographers have to understand raw data, but I understand that raw data is sometimes half cooked.
Best regards
Erik
One corollary, I believe, is that if any channel on a modern dSLR is in the last hard stop you will have imprecise color rendering. This implies that "conventional" matrix profiling by testchart will always fail, and that matrix profiles should be determined with at least one stop *under* exposure, that art repro should be done at one stop under, and that LUTS should be used for any normal exposures, which is certainly a datapoint of *practical* importance.
Of course, we don't know exactly what the firmware is doing in re-encoding the "raw" data, and how the "waste gates" are tuned by the firmware, my experience with my D4 leads me to believe that the control level is set in firmware.
As the author of the very nice RawDigger, Iliah Borg will probably have more realistic opinions than me, but with no disrespect intended, I don't think that RawDigger can really "see" the hardware, only the virtual presentation, and some conjectures about the non-documented features. It is a tool for the photographer, more than for the engineer.
An actual engineer from one of the big companies might speak out, but for some reason they all think that disguising their hardware structure will disguise the failings of same, rather than publishing them so software can be developed to amend them. Maybe someone here could get access to the nodelist dump from a reverse engineering firm in which case a couple of weeks hard work would probably tell us what the sensor really does.
Edmund
PS. The magic lantern guys might be have more experimental data, as they have explored setting the various on-chip registers.
-
Hi,
Thanks for pointing that out. Ouch!
Best regards
Erik
MaxMax were plotting data from JPEGs.
-
Hi,
I reposted the Unprocessed images and raw histograms from P45+ and Alpha 99.
The unprocessed image from the A99 is much less dark. These are of course different images although taken at the same place at the same time. But I feel that the P45+ images exposed for clouds are generally darker than Alpha 99 files similarly exposed. I also feel the Alpha 99 files have cleaner shadow detail.
Note I say 'feel', this is not anything like scientific data.
Best regards
Erik
-
If you are looking for Sony raw data as raw as possible you can go to Preferences in RawDigger and in Data Processing section uncheck "Subtract Black", check "Linear Raw Curve", check "Sony ARW hack".
Visual brightness comparison is difficult, but if you are doing that please watch the settings in Preferences - Display Options. Autoscale anв Auto Exposure correction should be unchecked both.
-
Thanks!
I looked but I still have to learn what I see!
Best regards
Erik
If you are looking for Sony raw data as raw as possible you can go to Preferences in RawDigger and in Data Processing section uncheck "Subtract Black", check "Linear Raw Curve", check "Sony ARW hack".
Visual brightness comparison is difficult, but if you are doing that please watch the settings in Preferences - Display Options. Autoscale anв Auto Exposure correction should be unchecked both.
-
For photographer purposes, "Subtract Black" should be left on Auto most of the cases (only for the cameras that are not yet officially supported by rawDigger manual intervention may be necessary).
The rest depends on the purpose, and the raw converter of the choice. Most raw converters do not use ARW hack and use the linearization curve; so if the purpose is evaluating how a converter will "see" the data set the Preferences not to apply ARW hack and to use the curve.
For raw converter developers, it is different. Also it is different if one is going to use RawDigger as a data exporting tool for raw data and sensor analysis (like how many bits are used to represent one "colour", or noise analysis, etc.).
-
Hi Sandeep,
I read your post and some of the replies....
I have to agree with folks that are suggesting to FIRST look into your post processing. Take on a differnet approach to it. Also I think you underestimate the "negative" impact the AA has. I am surprised you didn't get a D800E?
(I know the moire). I don't do a lot of fabric, and willing to do the post if I come across the issue. for 10 years it has happened a hand full of times that I was easily able to manage.
Hi Phil,
As I mentioned in one of the previous posts, I did change my post processing workflow and got better results from the D800 files, but they aren't there yet. I have processed my files, files from others, files from Canon DSLRs (All under various lighting setups), even looked at the finished work from other photographers and non of them are devoid of that plastickyness. The samples from the Aptus II backs that I have worked on however get it right straight after import. I like that.
As I also mentioned in the previous post, I re-processed some very old files from my D70s and they have this wonderful tonality too that the D800 files lack.
I didn't get a D800E because at the time when I bought mine, there was absolutely no stock of the E model anywhere. The dealers wouldn't even accept a deposit to reserve a unit because they had no idea when the stock would arrive too.
-
My little take on this topic:
There was a time when upgrading to Medium Format was evident to gain IQ. People started by using 35mm, with a long learning curve and jumped to MF/LF, to pursue the goal of high quality photography. In film days, the gap was very visible, it was logic.
Jumping to MF was kind of mandatory to "future proof" your hard work, even at the start of digital photography. Then the 35mm industry, with the Cmos technology, started to up the pixels count on their wafers. Just remember the Mamyia DF vs 1DsIII fight...
This is interesting to see that MF industry stay with CCD technology and do not jump into Cmos kindergarten fest. Many posts above show why and skin tones/wavelength interpretation seems to be the key. Leica M8 (or even the old digilux) output very pleasant skin tones, better than Nikon or Canon Cmos based DSLR.
The visual impact between CCD and Cmos should not be minimized, at all. Some had a look at SIGMA with the foveon because, even if it is a Cmos sensor, it output something close to CCD rendering as well as the D700 because of his big pixels. Some do not like the M240 output because (and it is understandable) of the lack of crispness or whatever, like if the M9 had a soul and not the M240. I, and I'm not alone, see what they mean.
Today, 35mm industry try all the possible tech ways to not die. Incredible amount of pixels, features and automatisms. D800/e, Sony A7r and so on ... Wonderful tool compared to ancient technology even very old MFDB.
So, as some photographers said to me one day, if you want to future proof your work/passion, do not jump on the first little digital MF you find on the market. This is a hard way because you will need to learn it hard and seek lenses + study all your graphic chain behind thus engaging more costs. If you jump into MF, buy at least IQ260 or H5D60 >> this is the step to go beyond (in the future) what latests 35mm DSLR offer and will offer soon. If you do not have it yet, you will need a good computer and a good screen + calibration tools (Mac + Eizo + Xrite). There is no little steps today; you move in or not... if you are pro or very passionate.
It is why "crop MFDB" like S2, pentax and all the entry level stuff (H4D40, P40) are a dead end by today standards. A D800e + very good lenses (Zeiss) do a very good job and come very close to the end result of those backs, period. This is a wonderful tool for the one who can't invest in bigger imagers.
And here come the softwares... With the actual plethora of pro-softwares you can find around, you can render a LOT of things, even shaping a 35mm shoot in a sort of MF looking shoot. That's the hard reality, truly. But it need some practice and it is time eater.
Now, if you really want to have a MF "look" and really want a MF, nothing can stop you apart yourself. You have the choice. If you come from a 5D or a D700 and want MF look, you can find (even new) the old and reliable Mamiya DF. ISO50/100 only, CCD look, not expensive even the lenses, possibility to use it like a tech cam with bellows and adapters ...
This is not a killer MF but it is simple to use. Sensor is 2x the size of 24x36 with same density as the D700. It is a double D700... but with CCD color rendition.
You also have the film way, who is not dead at all but take more time, for sure. Incredible DR, real rendering on a 6x7 sensor, less expensive on the run than a IQ260 system ;)
So IMHO, for your little budget, there is three pragmatic ways:
The first, illogical by today standards but yet pragmatic, is the Mamyia DF. 22MP, 8500€ brand new, inexpensive lenses, very good rendering, big sensor, CF and SD card, rugged ...
The second, the most pragmatic and future proof, is the D800e + plethora of good lenses (135f2 ZF2, 21f2.8 ZF2 or AF equivalents in Nikkor line-up, + screen/computer). If you do not like skin tones out of this camera, try to find someone who can teach you how to improve that in post quickly.
The third... the film way, the real MF. You can rent a Voigtländer Bessa III 667 (or 667W) or his Fuji equivalent and burn a roll or two with it. Scan it with an Epson V750 and see by yourself. You can buy a used Rolleiflex Hy6 Mod2, because you will have the possibility to plug a MFDB on it later. Absolutely awesome camera and lenses, very underestimated.
You have the choice. But for real MF venture, 15k$ is close to nothing (especially if you face some mechanical problems and need to pay the bills, this is why I don't speak about Hassy...).
Hi there,
For my purposes and shooting style, the files from an Aptus II 7/8 are much better than what my D800 offers, which was the original point.
Also, I have mentioned in several posts previously, I have done many things in post that improved the skintones since then, but they are still nowhere as natural looking as files from an MF.
I do have a film MF camera, as I mentioned earlier. A Bronica ETRSi. However, as much as I like the Portra 160, shooting film is just not a permanent solution for the type of work I do.
Manual lenses on the D800 is not a solution for the model shoots I do either. Moreover, manual focusing with the D800 viewfinder is a major pain int he ass. Manual focusing on my bronica is a joy.
I hope you understand and respect that different people have differing needs and for my particular need, the 33/40MP Leaf backs are perfect. I am not looking at getting into a spec war with other DSLR shooters or to show that I have 60 MP while they have "Only 36" or whatever. Just looking for the tool that fits my artistic vision best. :)
-
As for the rest of the posts, I do appreciate the effort you put in folks, but all this MTFing and Rawdigging and all that really goes above my head.
All I know is, the DSLR files really butcher subtle tonal differences while the MF files don't. I have managed to make the DSLR files look better, but they are not there yet. Instead of fighting the files with every shoot that I do, I just want to use a system that gets it right, out of the box. :)
-
Maybe I missed it, but what raw converters are you using?
-
To summarize,
I predominantly used to use LR 5 with a custom profile created with a Spyder Checkr. The samples int he first page are all processed this way.
I have used Capture NX2 and while it does get some decent results out of the D800 files, the user experience makes me want to throw heavy objects at a wall.
In the later posts, I have posted some samples I have processed using C1pro, where I created a custom preset using a sample shot of my Spyder Checkr.
In the past, I have also tried RAW Therapee, Photo Ninja and DxO and have rejected using them for various usability issues.
My files are always finished in Photoshop.
None of the above can cure the plastickyness that comes with the D800 files (Or the 5D3 files for that matter. I often shoot alongside another guy who uses a 5D3).
I can try to do new things in processing, sure, but the files from my very old D70s have much better skin tonality using the same workflow, so it's not down to my (Lack of) technique alone.
The Leaf files, in comparison look splendid right out of the box.
Here's an image from my last gig processed using my C1pro workflow (Shot with the D800 and an Elinchrom Quadra through Maxilite reflector and an SB 900):
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/10758440545_9e4926a362_c.jpg)
I still am not completely happy with the tonality of the skin.
-
To summarize,
I predominantly used to use LR 5 with a custom profile created with a Spyder Checkr. The samples int he first page are all processed this way.
I have used Capture NX2 and while it does get some decent results out of the D800 files, the user experience makes me want to throw heavy objects at a wall.
In the later posts, I have posted some samples I have processed using C1pro, where I created a custom preset using a sample shot of my Spyder Checkr.
In the past, I have also tried RAW Therapee, Photo Ninja and DxO and have rejected using them for various usability issues.
My files are always finished in Photoshop.
None of the above can cure the plastickyness that comes with the D800 files (Or the 5D3 files for that matter. I often shoot alongside another guy who uses a 5D3).
I can try to do new things in processing, sure, but the files from my very old D70s have much better skin tonality using the same workflow, so it's not down to my (Lack of) technique alone.
The Leaf files, in comparison look splendid right out of the box.
Here's an image from my last gig processed using my C1pro workflow (Shot with the D800 and an Elinchrom Quadra through Maxilite reflector and an SB 900):
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/10758440545_9e4926a362_c.jpg)
I still am not completely happy with the tonality of the skin.
Synn,
Try underexposing by at least 1.5 stops.
I'm one of the more geeky guys here. The reasons are too long to explain. But I too have been having this discussion about plastic skin for years.
I think what you then really need is a profile made for 1.5 stops under, but just try going under and seeing if you can then hand-tune the files is a good start. Maybe the guy with the strange name -Cooter- will divulge his secret sauce for getting rid of this issue.
Iliah says that one can deal with this in software, I'm not convinced, although he's smarter than me most days of the week. You can try his solution if 1.5 stops under doesn't give you usable files at least.
Edmund
-
Hi eronald,
I know the reason. The D800 has more DR in the shadows than in the highlights. That's an option while landscaping (And I do that), but it simply isn't when you're doing high pressure shooting with strobes in the field and depending on a lightmeter and also calculating the ratio of ambient: strobe on the go. Especially when I have to underexpose the ambient by 2 stops compared to the strobe. This is already at 1/320s, which is where the D800 tops out in terms of sync.
Again, this really isn't about DR either. There are subtle variations in how skin turns from mids to highlights that I can see in a Leaf file that simply doesn't exist in the D800 files.
-
Synn,
No that is not the reason. The reason is too geeky for you probably, but essentially highlight color gets destroyed in a subtle way. Your complaint about plastic skin is justified. Just do as I say, and if it doesn't work try one of the other guys recipes. With a D800@ISO 200 you have so much DR that it doesn't matter if you shoot under by a couple of stops.
Take the whole exposure down by a couple of stops, if necessary just use an ND filter. Try it, it'll be cheaper than paying for MF :)
Edmund
Hi eronald,
I know the reason. The D800 has more DR in the shadows than in the highlights. That's an option while landscaping (And I do that), but it simply isn't when you're doing high pressure shooting with strobes in the field and depending on a lightmeter and also calculating the ratio of ambient: strobe on the go. Especially when I have to underexpose the ambient by 2 stops compared to the strobe. This is already at 1/320s, which is where the D800 tops out in terms of sync.
Again, this really isn't about DR either. There are subtle variations in how skin turns from mids to highlights that I can see in a Leaf file that simply doesn't exist in the D800 files.
-
Synn,
No that is not the reason. The reason is too geeky for you probably, but essentially highlight color gets destroyed in a subtle way. Just do as I say, and if it doesn't work try one of the other guys recipes. With a D800@ISO 200 you have so much DR that it doesn't matter if you shoot under by a couple of stops.
Edmund
Hi eronald,
Again, it's not possible while doing on-location strobe work without using clumsy workarounds like ND filters (Which, as I explained in my original post, I hate using while doing portraits).
To underexpose the shot for on location strobe work involves powering down the strobe (Doable) and raising the shutter speed (Not doable because I am already at max sync). The only way to underexpose the ambient any further would involve leaf shutters which takes me to MF-land again.
-
Hi eronald,
Again, it's not possible while doing on-location strobe work without using clumsy workarounds like ND filters (Which, as I explained in my original post, I hate using while doing portraits).
To underexpose the shot for on location strobe work involves powering down the strobe (Doable) and raising the shutter speed (Not doable because I am already at max sync). The only way to underexpose the ambient any further would involve leaf shutters which takes me to MF-land again.
Let's take the problem apart:
1. Try the ND/underex route in a test. If it improves the images then you have a cure and we can look for a different solution.
Of course, MF can be a solution in your case (big budget, big lights), pancake makeup is a solution which works as well, choosing your models etc etc. Cooter seems to have found a way around these issues, but I don't know how he does it.
I really think that taking down the exposure a bit won't kill you.
Edmund
-
I can't stress enough how much this is not an option for me. The ND filter dims what is already, a dim viewfinder, affects AF and overall, provides a sub par experience to me. My aim is to get great files out of my normal shooting routine, not to suffer through the most important part (The actual shoot) and then get better colors out in post.
I love using filters for landscape work. NDs, especially. Just not an option for me while doing portraiture.
-
Synn,
I am not saying use ND in production. I am saying shoot two images, one with ND and one without, compare, and then we will know if the issue comes from the exposure. And make the raw files available to us. As techies we can only help you based on the data you give us.
Edmund
I can't stress enough how much this is not an option for me. The ND filter dims what is already, a dim viewfinder, affects AF and overall, provides a sub par experience to me. My aim is to get great files out of my normal shooting routine, not to suffer through the most important part (The actual shoot) and then get better colors out in post.
I love using filters for landscape work. NDs, especially. Just not an option for me while doing portraiture.
-
Tungsten helps.
Leica M9 helps more.
An Aptus is probably what you want, but the burden of legacy cameras , legacy AF, and the need for light May or may not be worth it in the end. A Leica S would work better, but then again, it's really expensive.
-
Hmm, I hear Doug -or is it Steve- at the door. Remember, you need to say "Come In" three times to let the devil come in and trade for your soul.
Edmund
An Aptus is probably what you want, but the burden of legacy cameras , legacy AF, and the need for light May or may not be worth it in the end. A Leica S would work better, but then again, it's really expensive.
-
Hi,
A few ideas.
1) Include a color checker or WB card in your image for accurate WB. In the image you show it should be illuminated by the flash
2) Try to use a Color Checker Passport , on the back size it has grey fields for different CC filtering. You can use those fields to warmen/cool skin colors
3) If you have a Color Checker you can use Adobe DNG Profile Editor to create a profile for your camera and it allows you to tweak those profiles
When I started using P45+ the colors coming out of Lightroom were plainly wrong. After that I created a color profile which had oversaturated yellows.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Screenshots/P45+_AdobeSTD_vs_DNGProfiler_small.png)
The image above shows the effect of that profile but without the oversatureted yellows.
The series on this links show Capture 1, LR5 with Adobe Standard Profile, Color Checker Passport profile, DNG Profile Editor and DNG Profile Editor adjusted.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3750_FULL/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3750_Persons/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3756_FULL/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3756_flower/
WB was based on grey card in the last series.
Hopefully, some help...
If you use Capture One try to use linear curve instead of "film curve". Trying underexposure may be a good thing.
Just for the sake of it, I include some images with very accurate rendition of skin (My hand front and back, underarm), measure with a spectro and converted with PatchTool.
I also plots of the measured spectra on the samples, note that there is a steep gradient around 570-600 nm. The CGA response curves have a very sharp gradient on red in precisely the same area, and I would think the may differ a bit.
Best regards
Erik
To summarize,
I predominantly used to use LR 5 with a custom profile created with a Spyder Checkr. The samples int he first page are all processed this way.
I have used Capture NX2 and while it does get some decent results out of the D800 files, the user experience makes me want to throw heavy objects at a wall.
In the later posts, I have posted some samples I have processed using C1pro, where I created a custom preset using a sample shot of my Spyder Checkr.
In the past, I have also tried RAW Therapee, Photo Ninja and DxO and have rejected using them for various usability issues.
My files are always finished in Photoshop.
None of the above can cure the plastickyness that comes with the D800 files (Or the 5D3 files for that matter. I often shoot alongside another guy who uses a 5D3).
I can try to do new things in processing, sure, but the files from my very old D70s have much better skin tonality using the same workflow, so it's not down to my (Lack of) technique alone.
The Leaf files, in comparison look splendid right out of the box.
Here's an image from my last gig processed using my C1pro workflow (Shot with the D800 and an Elinchrom Quadra through Maxilite reflector and an SB 900):
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/10758440545_9e4926a362_c.jpg)
I still am not completely happy with the tonality of the skin.
-
Before Edmund said it, I thought to myself the shoulder and check expo maybe pushing the difference in undertone color(slightly pushing to yellow in areas), and I too thought to pull back the light source a stop or so around that. This may bring it in the gradient ballpark. Another option is to use some Gobo between the subject and light source. This would require tinkering a bit I suppose, since it sounds like you want to be as effecient and formulated as possible.
If that doesn't work, due to the work limitations you give yourself, I think arenting a Sigma SD1 would be a first test before you do MF.
-
I too agree that the D800 tends to expose too hot and there is a simpler method to cure that: use custom setting b6 (page 290 of the English manual). You can only go to -1eV, but I believe that 1.5 is too much anyway.
In other words: you change the setting and keep everything (including the SB900) in auto. It cannot be simpler than that.
-
Synn,
I am not saying use ND in production. I am saying shoot two images, one with ND and one without, compare, and then we will know if the issue comes from the exposure. And make the raw files available to us. As techies we can only help you based on the data you give us.
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
I am traveling right now, but I will try to do this when I get back home.
-
Tungsten helps.
Leica M9 helps more.
An Aptus is probably what you want, but the burden of legacy cameras , legacy AF, and the need for light May or may not be worth it in the end. A Leica S would work better, but then again, it's really expensive.
Hi Tmark,
A Leica M9 is absolutely not an option given the absurd cost: performance ratio, no AF and my general dislike of rangefinders. Again, please consider my specific usage case. Strobe lit portraiture, which is not rangefinder territory.
Tungsten is also not an option as I don't work with continuous lights, but with strobes. Unless you're suggesting gelling the strobe, which brings with it the complexity of color matching that with the ambient again.
I am absolutely aware of the limitations of the DF+ camera body and I cam live with those. As for light, my lights would actually become more effective given the higher sync speeds leaf shutters are capable of.
-
Hmm, I hear Doug -or is it Steve- at the door. Remember, you need to say "Come In" three times to let the devil come in and trade for your soul.
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
I think you're doing a great disservice to both those gentlemen with that snide remark. Yes, they have been in touch with me, but because I initiated the conversation. They have given me a lot of useful information and at no point have pressurized me into buying anything from them. I consider them a great asset to this forum.
-
Hi,
A few ideas.
1) Include a color checker or WB card in your image for accurate WB. In the image you show it should be illuminated by the flash
2) Try to use a Color Checker Passport , on the back size it has grey fields for different CC filtering. You can use those fields to warmen/cool skin colors
3) If you have a Color Checker you can use Adobe DNG Profile Editor to create a profile for your camera and it allows you to tweak those profiles
When I started using P45+ the colors coming out of Lightroom were plainly wrong. After that I created a color profile which had oversaturated yellows.
Hi Erik,
Please read my previous posts in this thread again. I have covered all of those points already.
-
Before Edmund said it, I thought to myself the shoulder and check expo maybe pushing the difference in undertone color(slightly pushing to yellow in areas), and I too thought to pull back the light source a stop or so around that. This may bring it in the gradient ballpark. Another option is to use some Gobo between the subject and light source. This would require tinkering a bit I suppose, since it sounds like you want to be as effecient and formulated as possible.
If that doesn't work, due to the work limitations you give yourself, I think arenting a Sigma SD1 would be a first test before you do MF.
Hi Phil,
The "Skintone issue" is not specific to one lighting condition. I shoot with a variety of lighting setups and it is consistent.
I thought of buying a Sigma DP3 in the past (My friend has an DP2 which is ace), but Sigma has zero dealer or service support here, not to mention resale value. That goes for the SD series and DP series. Simply not a good way to invest my money.
-
I too agree that the D800 tends to expose too hot and there is a simpler method to cure that: use custom setting b6 (page 290 of the English manual). You can only go to -1eV, but I believe that 1.5 is too much anyway.
In other words: you change the setting and keep everything (including the SB900) in auto. It cannot be simpler than that.
Hi Jerome,
I don't have the D800 with me (Only took the V1 for the trip), but I will check this setting when I get home.
Your second sentence makes me concerned, though. I do not shoot or is there an option for me to shoot anything in "Auto" mode for my portrait shoots. My main lights are all manual and the SB 900 was only a supporting light (Hair light) that was triggered in SU4 optical slave mode. I prefer not to use any auto settings for portraits as the results are always inconsistent. My lightmeter and manual settings never fail to deliver the right results.
-
There are plenty of cheap triggering solutions on eBay to get you a faster sync speed to help underexpose like pocket wizard, pixel king and young nuo.
-
Hi Mr. Smith,
If you read my posts, I use Pocket Wizard Plus IIIs. They help me sync at 1/320s with my D800 with my Quadras.
It is physically impossible to sync any higher with this camera (Without doing silly HSS stuff) with ANY trigger.
-
Hi Phil,
The "Skintone issue" is not specific to one lighting condition. I shoot with a variety of lighting setups and it is consistent.
I thought of buying a Sigma DP3 in the past (My friend has an DP2 which is ace), but Sigma has zero dealer or service support here, not to mention resale value. That goes for the SD series and DP series. Simply not a good way to invest my money.
:) About DP3 Merril Files, if you have 12k$ to invest, you certainly not waste your money by spending 700$ on this oddity. I will post you some files here later in the day (From ginger girl to brown hair girl).
-
:) About DP3 Merril Files, if you have 12k$ to invest, you certainly not waste your money by spending 700$ on this oddity. I will post you some files here later in the day (From ginger girl to brown hair girl).
If they had an interchangable lens version of this camera or at least, a version with a longer lens, I'd be all over it. But as it stands now, it is not versatile enough for my needs.
Another pet peeve (May be irrational) that I have is the 3:2 ratio. I absolutely despise it. Almost all my images are cropped to either 4:3 or 5:4. I just "See different", when I work with a 4:3 camera, be it my Bronica ETRSi or a micro 4/3 camera. This is another thing that pushes me towards MFDB.
-
...
This is another thing that pushes me towards MFDB.
...
MFDB equipment will also help you get up and keep physical stamina, unlike these paperweight compacts .... ;)
-
If they had an interchangeable lens version of this camera or at least, a version with a longer lens, I'd be all over it. But as it stands now, it is not versatile enough for my needs.
Another pet peeve (May be irrational) that I have is the 3:2 ratio. I absolutely despise it. Almost all my images are cropped to either 4:3 or 5:4. I just "See different", when I work with a 4:3 camera, be it my Bronica ETRSi or a micro 4/3 camera. This is another thing that pushes me towards MFDB.
I work like you. All my pictures are cropped (and composed) to fit 1:1 or 4:3. Anyway I will post some examples and you will see :) Maybe SIGMA will come one day with a DP with interchangeable lens... But the Dp3 is more versatile than I thought at first. Well... I see that you like Wide Angle shoots for your models and this is not the strength of the DP ;)
-
I work like you. All my pictures are cropped (and composed) to fit 1:1 or 4:3. Anyway I will post some examples and you will see :) Maybe SIGMA will come one day with a DP with interchangeable lens... But the Dp3 is more versatile than I thought at first. Well... I see that you like Wide Angle shoots for your models and this is not the strength of the DP ;)
Haha I year ya!
just a 24mm equivalent and a 135mm equivalent would be enough for me to get started! And if I may dream, a full frame Foveon sensor too...
Looking forward to your sample images! :)
-
MFDB equipment will also help you get up and keep physical stamina, unlike these paperweight compacts .... ;)
Good point, haha.
I lift 4 days a week and carry a ton of gear by myself to the gigs (My assistant is a fragile person), so I am not too worried about the heft of the gear. :)
-
Hi Edmund,
I think you're doing a great disservice to both those gentlemen with that snide remark. Yes, they have been in touch with me, but because I initiated the conversation. They have given me a lot of useful information and at no point have pressurized me into buying anything from them. I consider them a great asset to this forum.
Dear Synn,
I cannot think of a better place to way to buy MF than Doug or Steve, who will certainly do their utmost to find something that works for you. Apparently there is such a thing as a colossal squid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_squid), and an honest dealer, although the honest politicians seem to have gone completely extinct. Unfortunately though even they will not be able to sell you a sense of humor. As most of us know, the Medium Format forum on one of the other sites is subtitled "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here. (Dante)". Now, I need to go see a man about a dog. May I wish you an enjoyable day?
Edmund
-
Hi Jerome,
I don't have the D800 with me (Only took the V1 for the trip), but I will check this setting when I get home.
Your second sentence makes me concerned, though. I do not shoot or is there an option for me to shoot anything in "Auto" mode for my portrait shoots. My main lights are all manual and the SB 900 was only a supporting light (Hair light) that was triggered in SU4 optical slave mode. I prefer not to use any auto settings for portraits as the results are always inconsistent. My lightmeter and manual settings never fail to deliver the right results.
Indeed I was confused when you said you used the SB-900. If you use an external lightmeter, custom setting b6 won't change anything. Your only option is to put your D800 on iso 100 and the external meter on iso 200, but you will quickly be limited by the max sync speed in sunlight. There is no way around this but strobes twice as powerful or the fastest sync speed of a central shutter.
-
> The D800 has more DR in the shadows than in the highlights.
There is no such thing as dynamic range in shadows or highlights. Dynamic range can't be split. There is a midtone split, which is exposure meter calibration. It is all about how the exposure is set, that is how you compensate exposure.
-
> The D800 has more DR in the shadows than in the highlights.
There is no such thing as dynamic range in shadows or highlights. Dynamic range can't be split. There is a midtone split, which is exposure meter calibration. It is all about how the exposure is set, that is how you compensate exposure.
You can set 18% gray as your zero stop by metering for it, setting the camera for that exposure and then see until when you can get detail in areas above and below that in a single exposure. Of course you will start loosing color accuracy and information before the "cutoff" but I am sure it can be done.
Here is a "test" someone did given it is with cameras in video mode and set at 800 iso I believe so it does not give the still cameras absolute max performance but it gives the general idea
-
> You can set 18% gray as your zero stop by metering for it
What 18%? JPEG? I thought we are discussing raw here.
-
> You can set 18% gray as your zero stop by metering for it
What 18%? JPEG? I thought we are discussing raw here.
Maybe the tools are now too complex for their target audience
Edmund
-
To test the DR you can use a DX-1 102-Db 18 Step Grayscale chart from DSC Labs: HERE (http://dsclabs.com/combi_test_transparencies.htm) , read about a test on the Arri HERE (http://provideocoalition.com/aadams/story/alexa_dynamic_range_its_all_in_how_you_use_it/)
I do not know how DxO does there testing for raw Dynamic range.
-
What is dynamic range that you can test it with a step wedge? Especially with no black trap? You know, just couple of days ago SONY reps claimed A7r has 14+ stops dynamic range as measured by independent DxO test, while Kodachrome had only 5. If you do not apply filters to marketing talk they will exploit your innocence to the fullest.
Here is what happens. The tone curve applied while converting to JPEGs raise the metered point to something close to 18%. This does not mean it is 18% in raw (that is that does not mean your midpoint in raw is exactly 2.45 stops below saturation).
Photographically useful dynamic range starts somewhere 20 dB (3 stops) higher than engineering dynamic range. You can check it shooting grey typeface on a gray sheet of paper to see where the camera stops resolving the type. You will also see that the larger is the font the deeper you can go into the underexposure without loosing resolution. At 3 stops above black the resolution is about 70% of the resolution in midtones for digital backs, and rapidly declines after that point.
You may want to look at http://www.rawdigger.com/houtouse/lightmeter-calibration and http://www.libraw.org/articles/Canon-5Dmk2-headroom.html
-
The DB guys are setting their metering low to supply clean highlights, and prevent saturation, the dSLR guys are setting their metering high to provide some pushability, and have warped hilite data.
Edmund
What is dynamic range that you can test it with a step wedge? Especially with no black trap? You know, just couple of days ago SONY reps claimed A7r has 14+ stops dynamic range as measured by independent DxO test, while Kodachrome had only 5. If you do not apply filters to marketing talk they will exploit your innocence to the fullest.
Here is what happens. The tone curve applied while converting to JPEGs raise the metered point to something close to 18%. This does not mean it is 18% in raw (that is that does not mean your midpoint in raw is exactly 2.45 stops below saturation).
Photographically useful dynamic range starts somewhere 20 dB (3 stops) higher than engineering dynamic range. You can check it shooting grey typeface on a gray sheet of paper to see where the camera stops resolving the type. You will also see that the larger is the font the deeper you can go into the underexposure without loosing resolution. At 3 stops above black the resolution is about 70% of the resolution in midtones for digital backs, and rapidly declines after that point.
You may want to look at http://www.rawdigger.com/houtouse/lightmeter-calibration and http://www.libraw.org/articles/Canon-5Dmk2-headroom.html
-
To test the DR you can use a DX-1 102-Db 18 Step Grayscale chart from DSC Labs: HERE (http://dsclabs.com/combi_test_transparencies.htm) , read about a test on the Arri HERE (http://provideocoalition.com/aadams/story/alexa_dynamic_range_its_all_in_how_you_use_it/)
I do not know how DxO does there testing for raw Dynamic range.
This will give you an engineering spec.
But I don't care if I can see detail in a shadow if there are nasty blobs of color, poor tonal transitions, and choppy luminance noise.
The engineering spec for DR does not care what the shadows look like aesthetically, nor does it take into account the positive effects of pairing hardware/software fine tuned together to produce pleasing end results.
According to DxO an IQ160 had the same DR when I was using it with Capture One v6 as when I was using it with Capture One v7. Technically they are right, but the more pertinent question of "how much could I pull out of shadows from an IQ160 file and still get good results" did change between the two software versions.
To evaluate the "photographically useful DR" of a system I suggest going and taking real world pictures with it, opening it in your preferred software, and seeing how much you can play with the file before it breaks apart :).
[Real World] > [Lab Tests] any day.
-
> To evaluate the "photographically useful DR" of a system I suggest going and taking real world pictures with it, opening it in your preferred software, and seeing how much you can play with the file before it breaks apart :).
More or less, but with a caveat - depends on how one meters. If one is to use film the practice is to know "the true sensitivity". It actually depends also on the development process, not just on the emulsion. Same with digital. The "sensitivity" stated is for out of camera jpegs and not for any postprocessing or raw. Each raw converter interprets the image depending on how the software developers see fit.
> [Real World] > [Lab Tests] any day.
Studio tests are very useful, and when finished, it is the time for location tests.
-
Doug,
C1-7 gives me an additional stop with the M9. 1250 - 1600 is useable.
This will give you an engineering spec.
But I don't care if I can see detail in a shadow if there are nasty blobs of color, poor tonal transitions, and choppy luminance noise.
The engineering spec for DR does not care what the shadows look like aesthetically, nor does it take into account the positive effects of pairing hardware/software fine tuned together to produce pleasing end results.
According to DxO an IQ160 had the same DR when I was using it with Capture One v6 as when I was using it with Capture One v7. Technically they are right, but the more pertinent question of "how much could I pull out of shadows from an IQ160 file and still get good results" did change between the two software versions.
To evaluate the "photographically useful DR" of a system I suggest going and taking real world pictures with it, opening it in your preferred software, and seeing how much you can play with the file before it breaks apart :).
[Real World] > [Lab Tests] any day.
-
Doug, if you want to pull one more real stop out of the shadows with a DB, all you need to do is set the thing to base ISO or even pretend it is base ISO -1 stop. As we all know it really only has one ISO, and in fact that ISO is probably 1 stop under the advertised base ISO. Oh, and yes, it helps a lot to get a good well-calibrated sample of the back rather than a bad sample of the back; in fact this is the case for any digital camera. The story I always tell is my 1Ds, I had the sensor changed and miraculously it could then shoot well at 1250 ISO and I published a bunch of images taken that way. My P45+, the first one had black stripes all over the images, and a centerfold, the second was mostly ok apart from the fact that it lost a column a couple of times and needed recalibration; I sold it by now but there were no complaints from the buyer so I guess it is average. It's hard to fault the companies, they budget for the chips, they have to take them, but only a few are really good, most are average, and a few pretty bad - but they all have to be sold. In a way it would be nicer if they were visibly graded, and customers could choose whether they need an ISO 100 chip or an ISO 800 chip; or a 1 frame/s or .3 fps. This is what Intel does with processors, they grade them for speed and then sell them at different prices.
Edmund
This will give you an engineering spec.
But I don't care if I can see detail in a shadow if there are nasty blobs of color, poor tonal transitions, and choppy luminance noise.
The engineering spec for DR does not care what the shadows look like aesthetically, nor does it take into account the positive effects of pairing hardware/software fine tuned together to produce pleasing end results.
According to DxO an IQ160 had the same DR when I was using it with Capture One v6 as when I was using it with Capture One v7. Technically they are right, but the more pertinent question of "how much could I pull out of shadows from an IQ160 file and still get good results" did change between the two software versions.
To evaluate the "photographically useful DR" of a system I suggest going and taking real world pictures with it, opening it in your preferred software, and seeing how much you can play with the file before it breaks apart :).
[Real World] > [Lab Tests] any day.
-
Here we go for DP3m sample. Large file, 80+ Mo (ProPhoto RGB). Simple settings, neutral color mode under flash (Elinchrom + Octa 100cm), no reflector, just a shoot. So you can manipulate it, PP it, and up-size it if you want to see how big it can be printed. Foveon skin tones are right. I mean, it is what you see and not a guestimate of the camera. Under correct lighting results are more than awesome. Might give some more later in the week. The amplitude of HL/LL recovery is very large on this imagers, close to what you can do with a D800 (in the HL).
www.hulyssbowman.com/tempo/Lula/Test.tif
For sure, if SIGMA come up one day with a FF sensor ... I think it can be just Wow.
-
The Sigma SD1 is about $2k or less if you search enough. With the money saved, you can always have a spare.
How would this be a bad investment if it produces for you for at least 2 years? You can adapt just about any lens, I think Sigma even has a lens mount swap service.
I think they made a mistake by not offering the body in a Nik or Can mount, but if it is a good tool, lenses are not a issue.
The only thing is the Dev software. I think they are making improvements that have helped, but other Raw devs are ignoring it. I can understand C1 not interested, as they have their own camera brand.
But I was hoping LR would support it. One of the reasons I haven't got one. I'm not happy about adapting a new software in the mix. Its more than enough as it is.
-
The Euro price is now 1000 Euros, the price here has been halved.
There is also a very good deal with a bundled lens.
It's a pleasure to be able to make a relevant post :)
Edmund
The Sigma SD1 is about $2k or less if you search enough. With the money saved, you can always have a spare.
How would this be a bad investment if it produces for you for at least 2 years? You can adapt just about any lens, I think Sigma even has a lens mount swap service.
I think they made a mistake by not offering the body in a Nik or Can mount, but if it is a good tool, lenses are not a issue.
The only thing is the Dev software. I think they are making improvements that have helped, but other Raw devs are ignoring it. I can understand C1 not interested, as they have their own camera brand.
But I was hoping LR would support it. One of the reasons I haven't got one. I'm not happy about adapting a new software in the mix. Its more than enough as it is.
-
Hi,
The Foveon is quite a bit different in that it does not use filters for color rendition. This makes it extremely dependent on math. If the camera would deliver a decent quality DNG file it would be helpful for developers, but as it is now, it is just an oddball camera with a small market share that needs a lot of development effort.
Best regards
Erik
The Euro price is now 1000 Euros, the price here has been halved.
Edmund
-
The Sigma SD1 is about $2k or less if you search enough. With the money saved, you can always have a spare.
How would this be a bad investment if it produces for you for at least 2 years? You can adapt just about any lens, I think Sigma even has a lens mount swap service.
I think they made a mistake by not offering the body in a Nik or Can mount, but if it is a good tool, lenses are not a issue.
The only thing is the Dev software. I think they are making improvements that have helped, but other Raw devs are ignoring it. I can understand C1 not interested, as they have their own camera brand.
But I was hoping LR would support it. One of the reasons I haven't got one. I'm not happy about adapting a new software in the mix. Its more than enough as it is.
Hello Phil,
Yes the SD1 came very cheap today (999€ in France) and can be a very good tool. We can shoot tethered and there is a plethora of lenses to use with BUT ... there is no live view and the DP line (who use telecentric lenses) give better results than the SD, IQ wise. That is the SIGMA paradox, as I call it. This is why the DP3m is a good deal (599€ in France) because of stunning glass, live view and simplicity and you can shoot at 1/2000 under flash because of the leaf shutter ... at the end it is very limited (fixed lens) but more flexible than a MFDB (at a light level).
For the software, yes it is a pita. It is slow, but this is JUST on more step in the chain. Just open the files and then only batch export ProPhoto Tiff 16bit and you are done. So for some ppl this one more step is too much but for some it worth it. When you see the files, you know it worth it.
SIGMA should work on a better software to hook the pros. A DP with interchangeable lense would be a very nice tool (If they can up the sensor to APS-H or FF it can be a super bonus). Future will tell. Just imagine that novoflex will jump on the occasion to build many cool things for a mirror-less foveon...
So now, just tell me objectively what do you think about the file I shared at the top of this page, I mean, your first impression.
-
Here we go for DP3m sample. Large file, 80+ Mo (ProPhoto RGB). Simple settings, neutral color mode under flash (Elinchrom + Octa 100cm), no reflector, just a shoot. So you can manipulate it, PP it, and up-size it if you want to see how big it can be printed. Foveon skin tones are right. I mean, it is what you see and not a guestimate of the camera. Under correct lighting results are more than awesome. Might give some more later in the week. The amplitude of HL/LL recovery is very large on this imagers, close to what you can do with a D800 (in the HL).
www.hulyssbowman.com/tempo/Lula/Test.tif
I am sorry, but in my opinion this is a bit overexposed on the skin (can't recover all highlights), does not react very well to processing, shadows are very noisy (but it is only luminance noise) and some bands appear on the top if try to process the file. As to the colors, I suppose that this woman wears make-up, so it is difficult to judge: it looks like make-up foundation color, not skin color.
I mean: it is very, very good for a point and shoot and at present price it is almost a steal. But is shows clear limits and I am not so sure what you are trying to prove with that picture.
-
I am sorry, but in my opinion this is a bit overexposed on the skin (can't recover all highlights), does not react very well to processing, shadows are very noisy (but it is only luminance noise) and some bands appear on the top if try to process the file. As to the colors, I suppose that this woman wears make-up, so it is difficult to judge: it looks like make-up foundation color, not skin color.
I mean: it is very, very good for a point and shoot and at present price it is almost a steal. But is shows clear limits and I am not so sure what you are trying to prove with that picture.
Proving nothing but the sharpness (reality) of the machine. Yes she do have make-up. This is done under very bad lighting, just to see what can do the machine without pp. With good lights... it is just disturbing how good it is on retina display. The file can be uprez by 50% at least and still deliver a lot on A0 prints. As you say, this is a steal !
So, when MF will deliver this clarity at 100% I think nobody will ever complain :p
-
The Foveon is quite a bit different in that it does not use filters for color rendition. This makes it extremely dependent on math.
Yes it does. It just uses them stacked vertically into layers rather than distributing into Bayer pattern.
-
Proving nothing but the sharpness (reality) of the machine. Yes she do have make-up. This is done under very bad lighting, just to see what can do the machine without pp. With good lights... it is just disturbing how good it is on retina display. The file can be uprez by 50% at least and still deliver a lot on A0 prints. As you say, this is a steal !
So, when MF will deliver this clarity at 100% I think nobody will ever complain :p
Actually MF and the Leica M8 both stand enlargement very well. MF *cameras* are mediocre, but the *backs* are very good very mature tech, inherited from military and space applications. When a Phase back produces good images it makes superb images, I have done 44" wide from 1/4 of the frame of my P45+ with no problems, and there is huge DR. I think this is true of *every* back.
This is not to say bad things about the sigma which appears to be very nice - but many people in this forum have had at least this level in quality for 10 years or so.
Sigma sabotaged the SD1 by overpricing it; I hope at some point they will make larger sensors and provide programming help so their usage spreads.
Edmund
-
For the software, yes it is a pita. It is slow, but this is JUST on more step in the chain. Just open the files and then only batch export ProPhoto Tiff 16bit and you are done. So for some ppl this one more step is too much but for some it worth it. When you see the files, you know it worth it.
Batch exporting all captures to 16 bit TIFF before you can do meaningful work on them is a terrible workflow compared to working with native raw files until the final stage. Needlessly large files during the adjustment phase, lose of the reserve dynamic range and flexibility of the underlying raw file (even at 16 bit TIFF you lose data compared to the original raw file).
I'm surprised you'd accept this.
-
The file can be uprez by 50% at least and still deliver a lot on A0 prints. As you say, this is a steal! So, when MF will deliver this clarity at 100% I think nobody will ever complain :p
Have you worked with a Phase file in Capture One v7??
It's incredibly sharp at 100% and it uprez's phenomenally well.
Loss of sharpness due to Bayer pattern used to be a big deal. That's just not the case anymore. I'd rate it as 10-15% depending on the subject.
The idea of Sigma advertising the SD1 as a 46mp system is a bad joke.
-
Yes it does. It just uses them stacked vertically into layers rather than distributing into Bayer pattern.
As I remember, Carver Mead's trick was that light propagates to a different depth in the silicon according to the wavelength. Of course, channel crosstalk will be terrible as the top level sees part of the light which propagates downwards, and light propagating sideways will cause issues which need to be dealt with, I guess. .
Edmund
-
The only thing is the Dev software. I think they are making improvements that have helped, but other Raw devs are ignoring it. I can understand C1 not interested, as they have their own camera brand.
But I was hoping LR would support it.
Phase One supports (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Supported-cameras.aspx) nearly all commonly used professional cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Samsung, Leica, Mamiya Leaf, Olympus, Panosonic.
I can't speak for them, but I'm quite sure the reason this camera isn't supported is because it has a very unusal sensor which would require a lot of custom work to support, and there are very few pros using it. Very poor return on investment for their time.
-
As I remember, Carver Mead's trick was that light propagates to a different depth in the silicon according to the wavelength. Of course, channel crosstalk will be terrible as the top level sees part of the light which propagates downwards, and light propagating sideways will cause issues which need to be dealt with, I guess.
Literal vs practical definitions aside the vertically stacked layers respond to Red, Blue, and Green respectively (even more technically each layer actually responds to a distribution of wavelengths centered around it's assigned colors).
-
Have you worked with a Phase file in Capture One v7??
It's incredibly sharp at 100% and it uprez's phenomenally well.
Loss of sharpness due to Bayer pattern used to be a big deal. That's just not the case anymore. I'd rate it as 10-15% depending on the subject.
The idea of Sigma advertising the SD1 as a 46mp system is a bad joke.
Doug,
Camera phones look good when you compare the number of pixels to the price.
The one thing which everyone here prefers to forget is that Sigma is a lens manufacturer, and they "donate" a really good lens with each DP camera; An equivalent lens for an M series Leica or a dSLR or an MF camera would cost several times the price of the whole DP package.
Edmund
-
> vertically stacked layers respond to Red, Blue, and Green
See attached.
-
We are between people who know what we are talking about, that for sure. To not mess around, some of us are very intrigued by this foveon technology. It is not mature, some said this is the future of photography ... So to resume, dear Doug, no I do not accept the whole batch export thing. Simply put, when shooting with a DP (a work, it happen sometimes) the camera is soo tricky that you are obliged to get things right at the very shoot, not really in PP. So when you open the files at home, often you do not need to do anything on the file at the raw level and it is... disturbing. With many camera, even MF, when we import files in whatever raw-developer, we work hard on PP : that's a fact, from the D700 to the S2, I always cook the files. With the SIGMA oddity, not really: It is all good or all bad. (I agree about the 46MP BS...)
We all seek the perfect Camera/software line for our specialized or generalist work but it do not exist. Even when we put large amount of money, deep in us, even if we do not say it, we are not THAT happy sometimes. The foveon way is kind of masochist way, I'm getting used with it. But I keep a silicon eye on the future of this technology. I will post more in the dedicated thread about foveon especially in monochrome mode.
-
> vertically stacked layers respond to Red, Blue, and Green
See attached.
Thanks Iliah. A picture is worth a thousand words :)
Edmund
-
Here we go for DP3m sample. Large file, 80+ Mo (ProPhoto RGB). Simple settings, neutral color mode under flash (Elinchrom + Octa 100cm), no reflector, just a shoot. So you can manipulate it, PP it, and up-size it if you want to see how big it can be printed. Foveon skin tones are right. I mean, it is what you see and not a guestimate of the camera. Under correct lighting results are more than awesome. Might give some more later in the week. The amplitude of HL/LL recovery is very large on this imagers, close to what you can do with a D800 (in the HL).
www.hulyssbowman.com/tempo/Lula/Test.tif
For sure, if SIGMA come up one day with a FF sensor ... I think it can be just Wow.
Thank you for that sample. It's absolutely brilliant and yes, if Sigma ever get around to making a full frame version of this sensor and an interchangable lens version of the DP3m, they are gonna hit it right out of the park.
-
Literal vs practical definitions aside the vertically stacked layers respond to Red, Blue, and Green respectively (even more technically each layer actually responds to a distribution of wavelengths centered around it's assigned colors).
Actually: no. The top layer responds to B+G+R, the middle to G+R and the bottom one to R only.
-
Batch exporting all captures to 16 bit TIFF before you can do meaningful work on them is a terrible workflow compared to working with native raw files until the final stage. Needlessly large files during the adjustment phase, lose of the reserve dynamic range and flexibility of the underlying raw file (even at 16 bit TIFF you lose data compared to the original raw file).
I'm surprised you'd accept this.
I have been using Raw Developper to process my DP2m files recently.
(http:///farm4.staticflickr.com/3758/10797933486_fda60b5c98.jpg)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/10797919726_df2e87e8ff.jpg)
The workflow is still not super smooth, but it is closer to what you get with decent raw developpers.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
> vertically stacked layers respond to Red, Blue, and Green
See attached.
Actually: no. The top layer responds to B+G+R, the middle to G+R and the bottom one to R only.
Indeed, and it also shows that there is hardly any color separation between the channel responses. There is more overlap than separation, which also shows when examining the Raw data (which almost looks like a monochrome RGB image). There is significant mathematical separation and amplification required to produce (saturated) color, which also explains the relatively poor high ISO performance of Foveon sensors. Also skin tone color in the shadows is pretty poor.
It is almost surprising how a color image can be calculated from that source data, but it also demonstrates that with clever post-processing almost any Raw data can be made more acceptable. So I'm still not sold on the skin color from e.g. Leaf backs being caused by the sensor. It's more likely a combination of CFA filter choices and an IR filter to match, and a Demosaicing that favors skin tones. The latter is just software doing its job.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's amazing how one can solve inverse problems these days - eg. CT scan.
But one doesn't always get results which are "nice" ... effective detail loss, noise, artefacts.
In the end, if the information has been damaged too much by the sensor one will pay a price.
The interesting question with Foveon is how much software improvement can be done, compared to all the work which has already been done with Bayer, and also how much cell design can be improved, in Bayer fill factor has been pushed a lot and there are backlit arrays with shared readouts. I do wonder if Sigma put a conventional Bayer sensor in the DP series that is only good in strong light, eg something with cells the size of a camera phone, how many MP would that be? 60? 80? 100?
Edmund
Indeed, and it also shows that there is hardly any color separation between the channel responses. There is more overlap than separation, which also shows when examining the Raw data (which almost looks like a monochrome RGB image). There is significant mathematical separation and amplification required to produce (saturated) color, which also explains the relatively poor high ISO performance of Foveon sensors. Also skin tone color in the shadows is pretty poor.
It is almost surprising how a color image can be calculated from that source data, but it also demonstrates that with clever post-processing almost any Raw data can be made more acceptable. So I'm still not sold on the skin color from e.g. Leaf backs being caused by the sensor. It's more likely a combination of CFA filter choices and an IR filter to match, and a Demosaicing that favors skin tones. The latter is just software doing its job.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Actually: no. The top layer responds to B+G+R, the middle to G+R and the bottom one to R only.
Yes Jerome is right. I will explain that later because it take a lot of times :)
-
Thanks for the correction re: the exact manner of the vertical color-response on the Foveon. I'm glad to have learned something today - and it's only 9am here!
-
It is not colour response, it is spectral response. The moment one stops thinking of the Foveon response in terms of colour and starts thinking in terms of luminosity and colour difference he is half-way to making it right.
-
BTW:
There is a "hack" for the Live view on the SD1 when I was looking around. It is capable of it now, but needs some software alterations
-
I kinda feel bad at bringing the Sigma to this conversation, but it deals directly with synn's issue.
Thank you for that sample. It's absolutely brilliant and yes, if Sigma ever get around to making a full frame version of this sensor and an interchangable lens version of the DP3m, they are gonna hit it right out of the park.
Having said this, I'm still surprised the Sd1 wouldn't work for you.
Edmund: Yes, even on Sigma site its about $1700
When a Phase back produces good images it makes superb images, I have done 44" wide from 1/4 of the frame of my P45+ with no problems, and there is huge DR.
Yes, MF does great at this.
but many people in this forum have had at least this level in quality for 10 years or so.
I think your key word is quality. I would disagree on people seeing this level of quality.
I also think this varies between people in how quality is perceived, and there is the rub on measuring such a mix of esthetic and technical info. Meaning you are right in one sense, but I would disagree in another sense of looking at this file. This comes from something Jerome pointed out....The noise in shadows are not misinformation, they are simply luminosity from the true data. This is NOT seen easily in 10 years of files.
Sigma sabotaged the SD1 by overpricing it; I hope at some point they will make larger sensors and provide programming help so their usage spreads.
I hope you're right and they be a bit more quick about it! :-)
The one thing which everyone here prefers to forget is that Sigma is a lens manufacturer, and they "donate" a really good lens with each DP camera; An equivalent lens for an M series Leica or a dSLR or an MF camera would cost several times the price of the whole DP package.
Good point!
Erik: just an oddball camera with a small market share that needs a lot of development effort.
Maybe Oddball, but with proper foundation and potential to dominate. Yes, a lot of dev needed. FF at the minimum, and they should partner up as they need the leverage.
Hulyss:Just open the files and then only batch export ProPhoto Tiff 16bit and you are done
(even at 16 bit TIFF you lose data compared to the original raw file).
I'm surprised you'd accept this.
This I agree with Doug, and not JUST because you can't do 16bit TIF and get "the job" done, but more so in principal of the raw info as an archival data(for the "photographer", not production content producer) vs cooked.
I too think of all the possibles Sigma can do with a FF sensor, a true 40+mp, but they are moving very slow, and making baby steps. They need rocket fuel! And yes, they should be on the forefront helping other Dev apps with their RAW file type.
As far as the file on first impression.....I think it is a WOW! Look at the white area of the eyes. I have not see such true information in this area on so many camera types. There is NO color guess work pixels to be found!!! Lips, no color bleed guessing. It looks like someone took a Scotchgaurd pad on the glass and removed a thin layer of haze "film" of misinformation. Jerome is rather harsh on this to even compare to a Point and shoot.
Have you worked with a Phase file in Capture One v7??
It's incredibly sharp at 100% and it uprez's phenomenally well.
Loss of sharpness due to Bayer pattern used to be a big deal. That's just not the case anymore. I'd rate it as 10-15% depending on the subject.
The idea of Sigma advertising the SD1 as a 46mp system is a bad joke.
I agree with Doug. Yet I wouldn't dismiss or underplay(not that Doug is doing that) the different "level" or rather approach to clarity the Foveon produces.
If you let the $ difference get in your way, it is easy to try and dismiss. but if you look at the file and result, you will be hard pressed to dismiss it.
Yes, 46mp is simple dishonest advertising. It is the worst point of the commercial market game to play.
Phase One supports nearly all commonly used professional cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Samsung, Leica, Mamiya Leaf, Olympus, Panosonic.
I can't speak for them, but I'm quite sure the reason this camera isn't supported is because it has a very unusal sensor which would require a lot of custom work to support, and there are very few pros using it. Very poor return on investment for their time.
Very true about C1, and I shouldn't has stated it that way. I was thinking more that they have their own priority before others, yet they HAVE extended C1 to meet so many others. I hope SigmaFoveon is in the works, A7R too :-) But very poor return on investment perhaps you are referring to when they fist launched it. It is now $1699! If it had a Canon or Nikon mount, I would have easily had one in my arsenal.
We are between people who know what we are talking about, that for sure. To not mess around, some of us are very intrigued by this foveon technology. It is not mature, some said this is the future of photography
I maybe one of those people, but I always have a back up(funny how what I use as the main I refer to as a backup) :-)
We all seek the perfect Camera/software line for our specialized or generalist work but it do not exist. Even when we put large amount of money, deep in us, even if we do not say it, we are not THAT happy sometimes.
Yes, even if we are, when you see such greatness from something so unexpected into such an open large and able market, it can make a lot of waves.
Jerome : I am sorry, but in my opinion this is a bit overexposed on the skin (can't recover all highlights), does not react very well to processing, shadows are very noisy (but it is only luminance noise) and some bands appear on the top if try to process the file. As to the colors, I suppose that this woman wears make-up, so it is difficult to judge: it looks like make-up foundation color, not skin color.
I mean: it is very, very good for a point and shoot and at present price it is almost a steal. But is shows clear limits and I am not so sure what you are trying to prove with that picture.
It is a raw file. Are you saying the highlight a touch on her forehead and under her right eye are blown out and cannot "pull back" in the dev? I highly doubt this. Hulyss, please test.
Not reacting very well to processing? (this maybe a 16bit vs 12 or 14bit issue I would guess. I know the MF files are meaty and have mass info to push around. But this you can't tell unless you have the RAW!
Why would you try and process this cooked file? That is not a apples to apple comparison! Hulyss saying to do this in my opinion is something he was referring to for his own needs, and not something to use as a baseline of measure!
Yes she wears makeup, this file is screaming that at you. Its the first thing I noticed. You can actually see the cake layer vs thin areas. Look at how clear the lips are with the rouge! The best part is, no matter how far you zoom in, the color information is not a blurry mess. it stops where the reality of the subject stops...No interpolated info!
With all this said, you can't ignore how our brain functions. It in of itself fills gaps and information and interprets color differently in situations we are faced with. If you watch this video it has some great examples of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzZVzzgTxys
To compare this to a point and shoot is not just wrong, but dismissing a great deal of information.
I think you maybe looking at certain numbers and charts to make up for a calculation. I have used a lot of gear and seen many files from many sources, MF and others. There is no doubt in my mind that IIIIFFFFF(big "IF") Foveon can get a FF or more, and at least double the resolution, AND get the dev/raw ironed out, it will be the next industry shifter.
Until then(and further on), we will have these conversations.
Indeed, and it also shows that there is hardly any color separation between the channel responses. There is more overlap than separation, which also shows when examining the Raw data (which almost looks like a monochrome RGB image). There is significant mathematical separation and amplification required to produce (saturated) color, which also explains the relatively poor high ISO performance of Foveon sensors. Also skin tone color in the shadows is pretty poor.
It is almost surprising how a color image can be calculated from that source data, but it also demonstrates that with clever post-processing almost any Raw data can be made more acceptable. So I'm still not sold on the skin color from e.g. Leaf backs being caused by the sensor. It's more likely a combination of CFA filter choices and an IR filter to match, and a Demosaicing that favors skin tones. The latter is just software doing its job.
Cheers,
Bart
I think its a mistake to compare things looking at the TIF file, as I think Doug would agree. We should be looking at the RAW. Without that, we can't conclude things.
Look at the improvements C1 made from earlier versions to the way v7 processes. Sigma is still at the first stages.
BTW: Skin tone in the shadows is great to me. This is often where sensors add misinformation.
Regarding the Leaf back... Thats why I think Foveon is a great sensor technology, it takes the sensor out of the equation. But you not liking the colors your subjective preference.
The interesting question with Foveon is how much software improvement can be done, compared to all the work which has already been done with Bayer
yes Edmund!
Seeing Bernards pix, I'm kinda surprised I don't have one of these cams! I don't have any point and shoot sized camera yet :-\
-
It is not colour response, it is spectral response. The moment one stops thinking of the Foveon response in terms of colour and starts thinking in terms of luminosity and colour difference he is half-way to making it right.
Point of view is 30 points IQ. (ascribed to Alan Kay)
Edmund
-
"We haven't gotten any smarter, we've just changed our representation system. We think better generally by inventing better representations'.
-
Having said this, I'm still surprised the Sd1 wouldn't work for you.
No leaf shutter, absolutely no resale possibilities here, lenses not as tightly integrated into the system as the Dp series lenses are and so on.
Basically, I'd be selling my 35mm system to get another 35mm system from scratch (Yes, with a sensor more suited to my needs), but that doesn't offer me enough differentiation.
Another way to look at it is, the DP3m can act as a great second cam for me, but the SD1 doesn't work as a great first cam.
-
It is not colour response, it is spectral response. The moment one stops thinking of the Foveon response in terms of colour and starts thinking in terms of luminosity and colour difference he is half-way to making it right.
Indeed, should the scientist change her point of view, she will gain more satisfaction by this greater abstraction of the variable depth of penetration
;D
More seriously, the parsimony achieved by adopting the spectral point of view obscures the physics; it helps hugely for modeling, but the depth of penetration physics provides immediate insight into the likely sensor characteristics. I prefer going back to the simple physics (http://www.aphesa.com/downloads/download2.php?id=1)rather than read the spectral curves which offer no clue as to how the technology might evolve.
Edmund
-
I think my thread has gone further and further away from the topic for one reason or another.
To re-iterate, I have been doing strobe lit portraiture for quite some time now. I am quite comfortable doing this genre of photography and I would like to improve the technical quality of my work (My vision has always been the same, it's not gonna change no matter what tool I use).
The first question was, whether or not it's worth spending money on a medium format setup. To me, it is. I shoot medium format film on occasion. I like that experience much more than when I use 35mm cameras. Now medium format digital is another beast altogether; I agree; but it is closer in ideology to medium format film than 35mm digital will ever be, 36 megapixel sensor or not (Remember, I have been working with one for quite some time now). Before I started this thread, I examined a whole lot of MFDB files and the quality I desire is there. After I started this thread, I did get even more files from various resources including Mr. Doug Peterson, which reaffirmed my beliefs. I don't spend a whole lot of time looking at MTF charts, histograms and whatnot. I am a photographer, not a mathematician or physicist. And what I have discovered is that MFDB delivers what I want.
So yes, it is worth it for me.
In the meantime, thanks to the input from several gentlemen in this thread, I have also learned how to improve my post production of 35mm files. Neither the D800 or the D7100 that I have are a match to the MFDB files I worked on, but now I feel more comfortable using them as secondary cameras for my projects in situations where MFDB might not be viable. So, I thank you for that. When the Sony A7R is out, I will be testing that too to see how much closer it gets to my needs as a secondary camera.
Another strong reason why I will be getting an MFDB is because I am eventually planning to use it on a technical camera platform (A Cambo Wide RS, maybe) for product photography (A genre I have always been interested in, but never really made the time to practice heavily) and the occasional landscape and architecture shot.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8458/8015981650_0c25f5f73d_b.jpg)
One of the few product shots I did. This one is with the D800 and the lowly 70-300 G lens.
At first, I was thinking of going with the cheapest setup I could get, with an older gen back, but I realize that I will be using this new setup a LOT and hence, it is better to invest in something that fits my vision and lasts me a good 6-7 years with the freedom of upgrading the body in the meantime, if need be. The older gen PhaseOne backs are out of contention because of this. Those screens are simply not adequate for my on-location shoots. The Pentax is out of contention because it locks me into a camera/ back combo and has no leaf shutters. I do not like the Hasselblad strategy of a lock in either (With phaseOne, I could get an AFD III as a backup body for not too much money eventually). So yes, I am more or less on board the team PhaseOne train.
Between the newer PhaseOne and Leaf backs, I really like the Leaf rendition of colors better and their pricing is more digestible too.
Therefore, my final toss-up is between either the Aptus II 8 or the Credo 40.
I understand the general difference in user experience between the two (Better and more responsive screen being the top feature), but I am also interested in the finer points such as start up time, battery efficiency and (if there is any), image quality differences between these two backs.
If any member with experience using the two backs in question could comment on these points based on their real life experience, that would be very helpful. I would also really appreciate some examples in the form of actual images rather than charts and graphs as I, as mentioned before is more of a visual person than an analytical one.
Thanks in advance,
Sandeep
-
For product an old multishot Imacon back might be best and cheapest ($2K).
Edmund
I think my thread has gone further and further away from the topic for one reason or another.
To re-iterate, I have been doing strobe lit portraiture for quite some time now. I am quite comfortable doing this genre of photography and I would like to improve the technical quality of my work (My vision has always been the same, it's not gonna change no matter what tool I use).
The first question was, whether or not it's worth spending money on a medium format setup. To me, it is. I shoot medium format film on occasion. I like that experience much more than when I use 35mm cameras. Now medium format digital is another beast altogether; I agree; but it is closer in ideology to medium format film than 35mm digital will ever be, 36 megapixel sensor or not (Remember, I have been working with one for quite some time now). Before I started this thread, I examined a whole lot of MFDB files and the quality I desire is there. After I started this thread, I did get even more files from various resources including Mr. Doug Peterson, which reaffirmed my beliefs. I don't spend a whole lot of time looking at MTF charts, histograms and whatnot. I am a photographer, not a mathematician or physicist. And what I have discovered is that MFDB delivers what I want.
So yes, it is worth it for me.
In the meantime, thanks to the input from several gentlemen in this thread, I have also learned how to improve my post production of 35mm files. Neither the D800 or the D7100 that I have are a match to the MFDB files I worked on, but now I feel more comfortable using them as secondary cameras for my projects in situations where MFDB might not be viable. So, I thank you for that. When the Sony A7R is out, I will be testing that too to see how much closer it gets to my needs as a secondary camera.
Another strong reason why I will be getting an MFDB is because I am eventually planning to use it on a technical camera platform (A Cambo Wide RS, maybe) for product photography (A genre I have always been interested in, but never really made the time to practice heavily) and the occasional landscape and architecture shot.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8458/8015981650_0c25f5f73d_b.jpg)
One of the few product shots I did. This one is with the D800 and the lowly 70-300 G lens.
At first, I was thinking of going with the cheapest setup I could get, with an older gen back, but I realize that I will be using this new setup a LOT and hence, it is better to invest in something that fits my vision and lasts me a good 6-7 years with the freedom of upgrading the body in the meantime, if need be. The older gen PhaseOne backs are out of contention because of this. Those screens are simply not adequate for my on-location shoots. The Pentax is out of contention because it locks me into a camera/ back combo and has no leaf shutters. I do not like the Hasselblad strategy of a lock in either (With phaseOne, I could get an AFD III as a backup body for not too much money eventually). So yes, I am more or less on board the team PhaseOne train.
Between the newer PhaseOne and Leaf backs, I really like the Leaf rendition of colors better and their pricing is more digestible too.
Therefore, my final toss-up is between either the Aptus II 8 or the Credo 40.
I understand the general difference in user experience between the two (Better and more responsive screen being the top feature), but I am also interested in the finer points such as start up time, battery efficiency and (if there is any), image quality differences between these two backs.
If any member with experience using the two backs in question could comment on these points based on their real life experience, that would be very helpful. I would also really appreciate some examples in the form of actual images rather than charts and graphs as I, as mentioned before is more of a visual person than an analytical one.
Thanks in advance,
Sandeep
-
For product an old multishot Imacon back might be best and cheapest ($2K).
Edmund
Perhaps, but do note that it is ONE of the many uses I want out of my back and not even the primary one. On location portraiture will always be my main genre.
-
Perhaps, but do note that it is ONE of the many uses I want out of my back and not even the primary one. On location portraiture will always be my main genre.
Ah. I think you want a shmoocam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo).
Edmund
-
I am not sure what you're aiming at Edmund, but I would appreciate serious replies to the questions I asked before. If you do not have anything on those lines to contribute, might I humbly ask that you leave the topic to those who do?
Thank you.
-
Hi,
I appreciate the sample. As I am essentially a landscape shooter I know little about skin colors, but the tonal scale looks good to me, at least when I open the file in Photoshop.
There are some comments on noisy shadows, and I would agree I see some noise.
What I am at odds with is the hair rendition.
I also made a small experiment, I read a small sample of my hand using my Color Munky Photo.On your picture I selected a small area and replaced 'a' and 'b' channels in Lab mode with measured value from my hand. So I keep structure which is mainly in the L-channel but replace color with color of my hand. It's interesting how well they mix.
Best regards
Erik
Here we go for DP3m sample. Large file, 80+ Mo (ProPhoto RGB). Simple settings, neutral color mode under flash (Elinchrom + Octa 100cm), no reflector, just a shoot. So you can manipulate it, PP it, and up-size it if you want to see how big it can be printed. Foveon skin tones are right. I mean, it is what you see and not a guestimate of the camera. Under correct lighting results are more than awesome. Might give some more later in the week. The amplitude of HL/LL recovery is very large on this imagers, close to what you can do with a D800 (in the HL).
www.hulyssbowman.com/tempo/Lula/Test.tif
For sure, if SIGMA come up one day with a FF sensor ... I think it can be just Wow.
-
I do not like the Hasselblad strategy of a lock in either (With phaseOne, I could get an AFD III as a backup body for not too much money eventually).
My understanding about "Hasselblad lock-in" is that the camera are locked, but not the backs. Wouldn't a Hasselblad back work with an old H1/H2 used as a backup body?
-
My understanding about "Hasselblad lock-in" is that the camera are locked, but not the backs. Wouldn't a Hasselblad back work with an old H1/H2 used as a backup body?
Hi Jerome,
My understanding is that (correct me if I am wrong), if you want a backup body for an H3/H3II/H4/H5, the backup body must be from the same generation and has to be sent back to the factory along with the back for calibration.
-
I do not like the Hasselblad strategy of a lock in either (With phaseOne, I could get an AFD III as a backup body for not too much money eventually). So yes, I am more or less on board the team PhaseOne train.
Thanks in advance,
Sandeep
To my knowledge, AFD III does not support SK leaf shutter lenses, so it is not a good backup body if your main work is flash with those lenses. Basicaly there is no combination of film back and SK leaf shutter lens on Phase One that works.
I'd love to be proven wrong however.
-
From the get go I had little sense that you were convinced you needed a MF, and all this talk to test that notion at least gives you assurance you're on the right track.
I think it would be a great choice, and it is a different way of working that I think makes photography more pleasurable in some ways. I hope people can provide you with the samples for you to make your final pick.
I'm a product shooter myself and why I always look for the smaller sensor out of MF is the DOF :-) But I have been so happy with the results, I keep on with it.
When you decide, I would highly recommend Doug for your purchase, as you end up getting a part of Doug to take home. That's how dedicated and supportive he is. Which will prove priceless. Best of luck. I know a lot of people have learned one or two things from this thread, I know I have, and will be looking at a DP1/2/3 for my point and shoot travel camera real soon! :-)
-
I'm simply saying thinking of Foveon (and Bayer, for that matter) in terms of colour response is tried and tired approach. Yes, spectral response was for illustration purpose only.
-
I'm simply saying thinking of Foveon (and Bayer, for that matter) in terms of colour response is tried and tired approach. Yes, spectral response was for illustration purpose only.
I was partly trying to be funny.
As *you* know that depth of penetration is the key to color separation in the Foveon, you also certainly know that a given spectrum projected on a ray will get trapped closer -frequency by frequency, and in terms of probability - to the surface if the light ray impacts at an angle, ie you may (will) see the equivalent of a red-shift for diagonal rays. So ideally a raw converter now needs to invert both the depth-exponential channel crosstalk (overlay actually), the geometry of the stacked sensor wells, the geometry of the projected rays, including the effects of the lens f-stop. That is forgetting about the interesting effects of chromatic aberration. I wonder whether Foveon really have a nicely written up recipe for handling all of this perfectly in the raw converter? And whether Sigma provide detailed information about their lenses and the sensor which guarantee the algorithms will work? It sounds like a horrid inverse problem - the sort of problem only an applied mathematician can love.
I believe that this is what actually stopped brands N, C etc from investing in Foveon technology - too many variables, the maths is really involved, it's not just a 14 year old let loose on a computer shifting bytes, you need accurate experimental data for each sensor, and in the end only lens-sensor codesign will give you good results, or rather a system easy to invert. In contrast, Bayer technology is a really good fit for reusing existing lenses and a fairly simple solution to the inverse problem for Bayer gives results acceptable to most users, with little computational effort, and no real necessity for characterising lens or sensor, as ACR and Lightoom's initial versions have demonstrated ;D. History has shown that Foveon may be better but Bayer is good enough. And so, I am afraid is Lightroom ;)
Edmund
-
I was partly trying to be funny.
As *you* know that depth of penetration is the key to color separation in the Foveon, you also certainly know that a given spectrum projected on a ray will get trapped closer -frequency by frequency, and in terms of probability - to the surface if the light ray impacts at an angle, ie you may (will) see the equivalent of a red-shift for diagonal rays.
Hi Edmund,
Exactly, and probably one of the reasons that larger dimensions of the sensor are even more problematic, unless coupled with (dedicated) telecentric lens designs.
So ideally a raw converter now needs to invert both the depth-exponential channel crosstalk (overlay actually) and the effects of the lens at the given f-stop. I wonder how you you are handling this in the raw converter?
Well, it's all a matter of processing the Raw sensor data, number crunching, but combine angle of incidence (with wider apertures potentially projecting a multitude of ray angles), combined with many more channels than just R/G/B only to derive multi-channel color with a matrix multiplication, and we're talking about a dedicated convertor that will take its sweet time to churn out one image at a time in a pace comparable with e.g. DxO's PRIME noise reduction.
Doable, but not fun when time is an issue.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Edmund,
Exactly, and probably one of the reasons that larger dimensions of the sensor are even more problematic, unless coupled with (dedicated) telecentric lens designs.
Hi Bart -
I'm happy you agree with my abstract analysis.
An interesting experiment would be to take an image wide open and at F8 on the existing cameras, and see what happens to color rendering at the field edges :)
Edmund
-
SD1 metadata contains experimental data for flat field (luma and chroma) for 3 focal lengths at 4 aperture values each. The rest is to be covered by interpolation and extrapolation. The shortest length is 30mm, that is nearly 50 mm equivalent. It is not very useful for extrapolation for wider lenses, say, 24 mm equivalent. Also the data is obtained from select lenses and does not work very well with other lenses. Sigma are making a mistake by not providing end user with calibration procedures. Even their service facilities can't calibrate for a lens. The algorithms they use achieve nice results for those select lenses, but that can be improved grossly if red shift factor would be taken into account. In fact, the calibration quality and algorithmic improvement between pre-Merrill metadata and Merrill is very substantial; and the Merrill sensor structure is a gigantic step forward in terms of colour consistency compared to pre-Merrill. I think there is a possibility that current price drop is to clear the stock a little to make room for some new camera models. However I'm not so sure going to larger sensor format will not bring old issues back. Even with 1.6x crop Merrill the 3D-map of the sensor field looks ugly. If I would be working on the sensor first thing to consider is to improve noise so that 14-bit for at least 2 upper layers start to make sense. Second, a flat field calibration device for at least 2 colour temperatures, available at service facilities is a necessity. Third, lens mount rigidness and sensor-to-mount parallelism tolerance need to be improved (and that is from just a month of shooting).
-
They must be on their 5th gen or so design by now - maybe they have some new structural mitigation eg. microlenses/light-pipes for the red-shift?
I guess this conversation will explain to Sigma lovers why there is a lack of widespread software support, and why new models appear slowly.
Maybe they are waiting for us to design cheap test devices.
Edmund
SD1 metadata contains experimental data for flat field (luma and chroma) for 3 focal lengths at 4 aperture values each. The rest is to be covered by interpolation and extrapolation. The shortest length is 30mm, that is nearly 50 mm equivalent. It is not very useful for extrapolation for wider lenses, say, 24 mm equivalent. Also the data is obtained from select lenses and does not work very well with other lenses. Sigma are making a mistake by not providing end user with calibration procedures. Even their service facilities can't calibrate for a lens. The algorithms they use achieve nice results for those select lenses, but that can be improved grossly if red shift factor would be taken into account. In fact, the calibration quality and algorithmic improvement between pre-Merrill metadata and Merrill is very substantial; and the Merrill sensor structure is a gigantic step forward in terms of colour consistency compared to pre-Merrill. I think there is a possibility that current price drop is to clear the stock a little to make room for some new camera models. However I'm not so sure going to larger sensor format will not bring old issues back. Even with 1.6x crop Merrill the 3D-map of the sensor field looks ugly. If I would be working on the sensor first thing to consider is to improve noise so that 14-bit for at least 2 upper layers start to make sense. Second, a flat field calibration device for at least 2 colour temperatures, available at service facilities is a necessity. Third, lens mount rigidness and sensor-to-mount parallelism tolerance need to be improved (and that is from just a month of shooting).
-
My understanding is that (correct me if I am wrong), if you want a backup body for an H3/H3II/H4/H5, the backup body must be from the same generation and has to be sent back to the factory along with the back for calibration.
I don't think so, but I am not entirely sure. I think what you are saying is true for the H3DII, H4D and H5D bodies, which are locked to a specific back (so you need to send them to be unlocked for another back). I don't think it is true for the bodies which can use a film magazine: H1, H2, H3 and H4X.
-
Indeed, and it also shows that there is hardly any color separation between the channel responses. There is more overlap than separation, which also shows when examining the Raw data (which almost looks like a monochrome RGB image). There is significant mathematical separation and amplification required to produce (saturated) color, which also explains the relatively poor high ISO performance of Foveon sensors. Also skin tone color in the shadows is pretty poor.
It is almost surprising how a color image can be calculated from that source data, but it also demonstrates that with clever post-processing almost any Raw data can be made more acceptable.
Thanks for the spectral response plot, Bart. Is that for the current Foveon sensors in the DP3 and SD1 camera range? Presumably their IR-blocking filters would not significantly alter the visible light response in that plot.
A few things strike me about this:
- The Total spectral response at each pixel is admirably high. This sensor collects photons like no other found in a "regular" photographic camera. So luminance noise should be very low.
- The maths involved in extracting "normal" colours, and the resulting chroma noise issues you predict, remind me of the similar issues with my old Kodak DCS 720x. That had a CMY CFA, so each pixel received two colours - the Foveon receives three, a normal RGBG Bayer receives one. Designed for high q.e. and hence high ISOs, the 720x did have less accurate colours and a tendency for sometimes strange chroma noise thanks to the maths involved in disentangling the RGB signals from the recorded CMY signals.
- B&W images should be fantastic - especially at high ISO, with all that q.e. pulling in light. B&W requiring no colour-disentangling maths and no Bayer interpolation should be really clean and sharp.
- Narrowband imaging would also be highly profitable with this camera. Normally if you put e.g. a red nebula filter over a DSLR, you only get signal in 1 out of every 4 pixels (the R in RGBG). With the Foveon, you'd get signal in every pixel, and at a high q.e. as well!
My only doubt - what are the long exposure dark current characteristics of the Foveon?
Ray
-
Thanks for the spectral response plot, Bart. Is that for the current Foveon sensors in the DP3 and SD1 camera range? Presumably their IR-blocking filters would not significantly alter the visible light response in that plot.
http://www.avcemporium.com/foveon-f13-and-dp13-cmos-layered-color-image-sensors/
-
Thanks for the spectral response plot, Bart. Is that for the current Foveon sensors in the DP3 and SD1 camera range? Presumably their IR-blocking filters would not significantly alter the visible light response in that plot.
Hi Ray, I repeated the plot that Iliah attached to reply #135. I remembered something similar from an older PDF on the Foveon website (http://www.foveon.com/files/CIC10_Lyon_Hubel_FINAL.pdf) from the early Foveon days. I do not know if there has been fundamentally much development since Foveon sold their technology to Sigma.
A few things strike me about this:
- The Total spectral response at each pixel is admirably high. This sensor collects photons like no other found in a "regular" photographic camera. So luminance noise should be very low.
Well, it helps that there are no CFA filters to absorb part of the luminance, but the total number of photons that do get converted (in an efficient way it seems) for 3 'channels' have to be stored in roughly the same area as a single channel for a CFA filtered sensel. However, simplistically one could say that only 1/3rd of a well depth is available for storage of each channel of a Foveon chip. In practice it's more complex than that, but the limit on total recorded photons remains (roughly the same per unit area), and thus shot noise per channel remains an issue (as evidenced by the higher ISO perfomance). It also produces huge Raw files with R+G+B-ish data per pixel, and slower per image write speeds.
- The maths involved in extracting "normal" colours, and the resulting chroma noise issues you predict, remind me of the similar issues with my old Kodak DCS 720x. That had a CMY CFA, so each pixel received two colours - the Foveon receives three, a normal RGBG Bayer receives one. Designed for high q.e. and hence high ISOs, the 720x did have less accurate colours and a tendency for sometimes strange chroma noise thanks to the maths involved in disentangling the RGB signals from the recorded CMY signals.
That's correct. The C/M/Y filtration helps with capture sensitivity because the individual filters are roughly 2/3rd transparent for the visible spectrum instead of 1/3rd of the R/G/B filters, but the subtraction required to separate RGB from CMY adds noise.
- B&W images should be fantastic - especially at high ISO, with all that q.e. pulling in light. B&W requiring no colour-disentangling maths and no Bayer interpolation should be really clean and sharp.
Yes, they produce good Black and White images, but aliased due to the absent OLPF. With a small enough sensel pitch and a large enough sensor array that would not necessarily be a major hurdle, and diffraction kind of helps to reduce some of it.
- Narrowband imaging would also be highly profitable with this camera. Normally if you put e.g. a red nebula filter over a DSLR, you only get signal in 1 out of every 4 pixels (the R in RGBG). With the Foveon, you'd get signal in every pixel, and at a high q.e. as well!
Yep.
My only doubt - what are the long exposure dark current characteristics of the Foveon?
I don't recall specifics, but the complexity of the production process may create some issues which surface when pushed into warmer operating temperatures and longer integration times.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't think so, but I am not entirely sure. I think what you are saying is true for the H3DII, H4D and H5D bodies, which are locked to a specific back (so you need to send them to be unlocked for another back). I don't think it is true for the bodies which can use a film magazine: H1, H2, H3 and H4X.
Yep, that's correct. I didn't consider the H1 and H2 as they are too old while the path to the H4x is needlessly complicated and more expensive than the alternative.
-
From the get go I had little sense that you were convinced you needed a MF, and all this talk to test that notion at least gives you assurance you're on the right track.
I think it would be a great choice, and it is a different way of working that I think makes photography more pleasurable in some ways. I hope people can provide you with the samples for you to make your final pick.
I'm a product shooter myself and why I always look for the smaller sensor out of MF is the DOF :-) But I have been so happy with the results, I keep on with it.
When you decide, I would highly recommend Doug for your purchase, as you end up getting a part of Doug to take home. That's how dedicated and supportive he is. Which will prove priceless. Best of luck. I know a lot of people have learned one or two things from this thread, I know I have, and will be looking at a DP1/2/3 for my point and shoot travel camera real soon! :-)
Thank you. I do look forward to it too!
-
Why are Sigma landscape images so good? After inspection, I see no haze. Maybe the Sigma sensor is highly resistant to lens flare, and/or has low reflectivity resulting in less camera flare. And maybe the Sigma bodies are better baffled against camera flare.
I would expect the Sigma sensor to be engineered for flare rejection (oblique ray rejection) , because crosstalk is highly destructive of color information. Conventional sensors do not have this issue.
Maybe someone here could shoot a test eg. a medium sized black square printed on white paper, with both a sigma and some other camera?
Edmund
SD1 metadata contains experimental data for flat field (luma and chroma) for 3 focal lengths at 4 aperture values each. The rest is to be covered by interpolation and extrapolation. The shortest length is 30mm, that is nearly 50 mm equivalent. It is not very useful for extrapolation for wider lenses, say, 24 mm equivalent. Also the data is obtained from select lenses and does not work very well with other lenses. Sigma are making a mistake by not providing end user with calibration procedures. Even their service facilities can't calibrate for a lens. The algorithms they use achieve nice results for those select lenses, but that can be improved grossly if red shift factor would be taken into account. In fact, the calibration quality and algorithmic improvement between pre-Merrill metadata and Merrill is very substantial; and the Merrill sensor structure is a gigantic step forward in terms of colour consistency compared to pre-Merrill. I think there is a possibility that current price drop is to clear the stock a little to make room for some new camera models. However I'm not so sure going to larger sensor format will not bring old issues back. Even with 1.6x crop Merrill the 3D-map of the sensor field looks ugly. If I would be working on the sensor first thing to consider is to improve noise so that 14-bit for at least 2 upper layers start to make sense. Second, a flat field calibration device for at least 2 colour temperatures, available at service facilities is a necessity. Third, lens mount rigidness and sensor-to-mount parallelism tolerance need to be improved (and that is from just a month of shooting).
-
Hi,
What I think we may see is the effect of the slope of red transmission curve. If the slope is very steep, it will give good separation in red content. On the other hand it is possible that it will shift tones. As that curve is very steep small differences in the curve give large variation.
I also enclose some spectral plots of some spots of my skin (58 years old caucasian male with low UV exposure). You can see that the steep slope of the red on the Dalsa sensor seems to coincide with the steep slope on reflectivity of caucasian skin, this may also apply to other skin types.
Just to make clear, these sensivity curves are much different to human vision:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/stories/bild%2025.png)
I sort of plan to dig a bit deeper into this when I get time…
Best regards
Erik
One thing I have noticed from using the IQ160 (compared to Nikon and Canon DSLRs) is that it seems to show a wider range of hues. It shows differences in hues that the dslrs do not. Also all colors seem to have more "depth" to them. I do not know if I am using the right terminology but what happens is that there might be three slightly different reds in a scene for example and the dslr shows them as the same red color (even when taking care not to clip any channel) while the IQ160 will show three, slightly different reds, just like in reality. I do not know why that is but I believe it happens with all colors.
-
Erik, I'm not feeling very smart so I'm having trouble figuring out your post. could you rescale your two last curves (not the cones) so they match, maybe put one below the other? and could you provide labels so we know what they are.
Hi,
What I think we may see is the effect of the slope of red transmission curve. If the slope is very steep, it will give good separation in red content. On the other hand it is possible that it will shift tones. As that curve is very steep small differences in the curve give large variation.
I also enclose some spectral plots of some spots of my skin (58 years old caucasian male with low UV exposure). You can see that the steep slope of the red on the Dalsa sensor seems to coincide with the steep slope on reflectivity of caucasian skin, this may also apply to other skin types.
Just to make clear, these sensivity curves are much different to human vision:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/stories/bild%2025.png)
I sort of plan to dig a bit deeper into this when I get time…
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Sorry! I am working on it!
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I'm not feeling very smart so I'm having trouble figuring out your post. could you rescale your two last curves (not the cones) so they match, maybe put one below the other? and could you provide labels so we know what they are.
-
Hi,
I had a hunch that shadow detail in my Sony Alpha 99SLT images are cleaner than in my Phase One P45+ images. Today I shot two quite comparable high contrast images, and try to push shadow detail. Exposure was quite similar on both, according to RawDigger.
Sony Alpha image has been upscaled to P45+ image size.
Actual pixel detail is enclosed below, P45+ left and Sony Alpha right.
Both images processed in LR5.3 RC
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
-
From the two histograms, it seems that the Sony exposes 1/2 to 2/3 EV hotter, see the position of the peaks in relation to EV1-EV2.
As to the shadows sample: the Sony has less chroma noise, but lacks all detail. It would thus seem that the "raw" data from the Sony sensor already includes some noise reduction, possibly at the sensor level.
-
Hi,
Sony doesn't expose hotter, I do. This was about the best I could do in the field. Keep in mind that this is not a test, it is observation on two images shot under field conditions, based on in camera histograms and my experience. Doing an 1/3 bracket I could get within 1/6 stop.
The Phase One P45+ has 39 MP while the Sony Alpha has 24 MP so it is expected to have less detail.
Best regards
Erik
From the two histograms, it seems that the Sony exposes 1/2 to 2/3 EV hotter, see the position of the peaks in relation to EV1-EV2.
As to the shadows sample: the Sony has less chroma noise, but lacks all detail. It would thus seem that the "raw" data from the Sony sensor already includes some noise reduction, possibly at the sensor level.
-
Sony doesn't expose hotter, I do. This was about the best I could do in the field. Keep in mind that this is not a test, it is observation on two images shot under field conditions, based on in camera histograms and my experience. Doing an 1/3 bracket I could get within 1/6 stop.
You are not within 1/6 stop, the Sony is 1/2 to 2/3 hotter than the P45+. If you have a whole series of exposures, I think you could find two pairs which would be better matched. In any case, I think that the overexposure on the Sony falsifies the comparison of the shadow detail considerably.
The Phase One P45+ has 39 MP while the Sony Alpha has 24 MP so it is expected to have less detail.
Sure, but the Sony details look smudged as if there was some hidden noise reduction at play.
-
Hi,
I did no 1/3 stop brackets, tried to expose HTTR according to histogram.
I did find a higher exposed P45+ image and reposted under this thread:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84192.msg680710#msg680710
The image below is the new one.
Thanks for input. I think that improved the new posting.
Best regards
Erik
You are not within 1/6 stop, the Sony is 1/2 to 2/3 hotter than the P45+. If you have a whole series of exposures, I think you could find two pairs which would be better matched. In any case, I think that the overexposure on the Sony falsifies the comparison of the shadow detail considerably.
Sure, but the Sony details look smudged as if there was some hidden noise reduction at play.