| A 99 SLT 2.5s exposure | http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/NativeRaws/_DSC4758.ARW | Windows not clipped |
| A 99 ALT 8s exposure | http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/NativeRaws/_DSC475.ARW | Windows clipped |
| P45+ 7.5s exposure | http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/NativeRaws/CF045286.IIQ | Windows clipped |
| P45+ Lumariver HDR multiple exposures fused | http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/NativeRaws/20140617_lumariver.dng | HDR, Windows not clipped |
one should not sacrifice image quality in the main body of the composition in order to preserve irrelevant detail in small areas of brightness.
Hello Eric:
I worked with both files, and to me, the P45+ is the better file overall. The only problem with the P45+ is as you noted, the light coming in the windows is too harsh to really capture much of information outside, whereas with the Sony, you can pull down the windows and still hold some image.
However.
1. I thought that C1 worked much better on the overall image of the p45+, especially shadow recovery, both overall and on the roof. The Sony file I added an adjustment layer to pull up the roof, I did not need this on the P45+
2. I did a keystone adjustment to the Sony just for looks, I left the P45+ as is was.
3. P45+ image had a good bit of CA around the windows, but that cleaned up in C1, Sony image did not
4. Sony image loaded too red to me especially on the bricks, but no knowing what the interior really looked like, I sided with the P45+ as it gave a much better tone to the bricks
5. P45+ easily wins on details, I did add a bit of structure to the P45+ as the image seemed just a bit dulled down, I saw it was 7 seconds. When you look at the seating in the background, wood details stand out much better in the P45+ file
Both files are clean, and I assume both were at base iso, I saw the P45+ was at 50. It would be very interesting to try the same test, at a shorter shutter speed with higher iso, and see if the same holds true. In this test, you have proven to me that the CCD can do excellent work, when given enough light and time.
I have attached a side by side of both images in C1, I used Capture 1 vr8 as it's much better than 7 in so many areas.
Edit: I could not have gotten such a clean transition with my P45+, the roof area would have looked much worse and the seats. After looking that this image the first one you posted from the dock scene, I am quite sure that Phase One made some changes to the P45+, in the later models, and or Kodak was able to change something in the chip fab (which I doubt). I have been of the belief that most camera companies do this, (under cover improvements), and looking at your P45+ images really convinces me of that. Keep that back as it's a winner for sure.
Sincerely
Paul
The first point I would make here, Erik, is the importance of using equal ETTR exposures when comparing the dynamic range of two images.
In the examples you've shown, the P45+ image shows no detail through the small windows. That part of the scene through the windows is blown. If you were comparing 2 shots from the same camera, one would expect to see better shadow detail in the shot with the greater exposure, that had blown highlights.
The P45+ shot shows better shadow detail than the A99 as one would expect, because of that greater exposure. Attached is a 100% crop comparison, after interpolating the A99 shot to the same size. Notice the blotchy noise in the A99 image on the left, the one that has been exposed for the highlights.
The second point I would make is, this is not an ideal scene to demonstrate the importance of using a camera with a high DR. The details of the scene out of the small windows are not relevant to the composition. The windows are simply a light source. If the hall were lit by artificial lighting, you wouldn't expose for the electric light bulbs so that you could see the filaments inside the bulbs, would you? ;)
What these shots of yours demonstrate is a principle of ETTR that is sometimes overlooked, that is, one should not hesitate to blow certain highlights in a scene if detail in such highlights is largely irrelevant to the general appeal and impact of the composition. In other words, one should not sacrifice image quality in the main body of the composition in order to preserve irrelevant detail in small areas of brightness.
Another example which would illustrate this point would be to expose for the small patches of sky visible through the branches and foliage of a tree when photographing a bird, or other creature, sitting in the shade of the tree. Which is more important, the bird or the small patches of sky? If the patches of sky were large patches with interesting cloud formations, that would be another matter.
I understand that C1 V8 has introduced some "tone mapping" functionality, that was one of the functions I was missing in V7. I would suggest it is needed to bring out details without making for boring image.and also a new C1 OEM camera profile for your A99
Erik,
I processed both files in C1P V7 and believe me when I say this, there is absolutely no comparison between the images. The P45+ image has better color separation, cleaner shadows, overall integrity and so on. Attached are two screenshots of areas where I think these are demonstrated well.
If you sell that back, you will be making a very big mistake. Instead of trying to equalize everything, please invest more time to improve your processing skills with respect to the Phase files. There's a lot more that can be done with them if you put in a bit more effort.
Erik,
I understand that you are coming to this in a technical and graphic way, so please don't take my impressions the wrong way...
This post, taken with your post on a previous thread about tech aspects you showed both cameras and concluded from the graphs that it could be "lens flare" causing what you see in the graph. I think I understand the graph but I'm not the Engineer you are...obviously
However I can see...
Whatever you see in the graphs, the +45 clearly takes MUCH better, MUCH richer files and colors than the Sony. It's not even close to my eye and I'll bet some others here too. The other post showed crystals that appeared to be sprinkled ON the photo with the +45 and a pale comparison in the Sony. Same with the rocks and stones. We see the same thing in these examples too
I'm not telling a person with your experience what to like or not... but at some point the image speaks for itself, no?
Hello Eric:
I worked with both files, and to me, the P45+ is the better file overall. The only problem with the P45+ is as you noted, the light coming in the windows is too harsh to really capture much of information outside, whereas with the Sony, you can pull down the windows and still hold some image.
However.
1. I thought that C1 worked much better on the overall image of the p45+, especially shadow recovery, both overall and on the roof. The Sony file I added an adjustment layer to pull up the roof, I did not need this on the P45+
2. I did a keystone adjustment to the Sony just for looks, I left the P45+ as is was.
3. P45+ image had a good bit of CA around the windows, but that cleaned up in C1, Sony image did not
4. Sony image loaded too red to me especially on the bricks, but no knowing what the interior really looked like, I sided with the P45+ as it gave a much better tone to the bricks
5. P45+ easily wins on details, I did add a bit of structure to the P45+ as the image seemed just a bit dulled down, I saw it was 7 seconds. When you look at the seating in the background, wood details stand out much better in the P45+ file
Both files are clean, and I assume both were at base iso, I saw the P45+ was at 50. It would be very interesting to try the same test, at a shorter shutter speed with higher iso, and see if the same holds true. In this test, you have proven to me that the CCD can do excellent work, when given enough light and time.
I have attached a side by side of both images in C1, I used Capture 1 vr8 as it's much better than 7 in so many areas.
Edit: I could not have gotten such a clean transition with my P45+, the roof area would have looked much worse and the seats. After looking that this image the first one you posted from the dock scene, I am quite sure that Phase One made some changes to the P45+, in the later models, and or Kodak was able to change something in the chip fab (which I doubt). I have been of the belief that most camera companies do this, (under cover improvements), and looking at your P45+ images really convinces me of that. Keep that back as it's a winner for sure.
Sincerely
Paul
A couple of issues I considered were:As I see it, photographic DR can be defined in two ways:
- Some people talk about photographic DR, something like SNR = 10.
- I would suggest that photographic DR is essentially a function of exposure.
- Readout noise affects the darkest part of the pictures. How relevant is that?
An interesting question is if your suggestion of PDR being essentially a function of exposure holds water. I assume your arbitrary SNR=10 floor is for pixel SNR. As N(total)=sqrt(N(shot)^2 + N(read)^2), we can easily see that for small read noises on most modern sensors read noise is indeed irrelevant for PDR. Without any read noise a signal of 100 photons (or electrons) would create SNR=10. With most sensors the read noise at base ISO is about 3 or 4 electrons, so to have SNR=10 we'd need about 109 to 114 photons. Unforunately there are also sensors - notably from Canon - which has much higher base ISO read noise. The new 7DII has ISO 100 read noise in the ballpark of 13 electrons. Thus to have SNR=10 you'd need to collect about 190 photons!
| A 99 SLT 2.5s exposure | http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/NativeRaws/_DSC4758.ARW | Windows not clipped |
| A 99 ALT 8s exposure | http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/NativeRaws/_DSC475.ARW | Windows clipped |
| P45+ 7.5s exposure | http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/NativeRaws/CF045286.IIQ | Windows clipped |
| P45+ Lumariver HDR multiple exposures fused | http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/NativeRaws/20140617_lumariver.dng | HDR, Windows not clipped |
...
- Readout noise affects the darkest part of the pictures. How relevant is that?...
I am pretty sure that for PDR pattern noises is quite irrelevant.
As a photographer, it is quite relevant for me. I think the best answer why and best visual example was provided by CptZar in this thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94928.msg777628#new) (post #68).
Another option would be to have the back mount changed to Mamiya then invest in a used DF or AFDIII. they come on the market quite often. This would give you AF and a very wide range of lenses. I don't know how much the Hasselblad AF camera and lenses are.
From what I have seen from your back provides very nice images. You also might want to invest later in a tech camera. You back will allow a lot of shift before color cast comes into play.
On the flip side, Sony is working on a new 35mm camera in the 40 to 50MP range but it seems to be a way off. Bigger issue with that will be lenses that can resolve to the sensor.
Paul
From where I stand, it seems quite form that Sony will introduce new cameras with 46 and 54 MP in February 2015. I would expect lenses to work decently well, based on my testing with a 3.8 micron APS-C body
Regarding sensor resolution vs. lenses, I made some experiments and I certainly feel that 54 MP has it's benefits: /index.php/photoarticles/78-aliasing-and-supersampling-why-small-pixels-are-good
Of course, this precisely why the user community would prefer a well documented standard RAW file than the camera maker proprietary ones.
After having pondered this thread, I can easily say that Dynamic Range is not important, unless it is. All else equal, I will take more DR than not.
There are many images to be made that easily fit in the DR of almost any modern camera. And when the important areas fall to one end or the other, blowing the highlights or blocking up the shadows is a good trade off. However, when important aspects fall at both extremes, then there are issues. Classic example being sunrise/sunset images or inside/outside images like that posted where important details exist in both areas. In fact, excluding the garish (or artistic) over saturation of some HDR images, we often think they look unnatural because for so long we were used to blowing out the top end or silhouetting something against the bright sky. To be able to preserve detail in both violates our traditional expectations, not necessarily the real world or eye's ability to adjust to it.
Having additional 'headroom' though is always a benefit. It makes pushing and pulling the data around in post processing easier and allows for ETTR when clean shadow areas are desired. And if we are talking about our ability to composite multiple exposures, that is a 'hack' that is very useful, but also has limitations, especially with dynamic subjects and lighting.
Finally, it is impossible to to judge DR and quality of the RAW data from 2 cameras based on RAW conversion because of the unknown assumptions built into the conversion engines and our lack of confidence that the propriety file was correctly decoded as intended by the manufacturer. Take the same raw image and decode in multiple engines and while you can get close, very rarely can you get to the point of eliminating visual differences, let alone be able to duplicate the numerical results. But at the end of the day, a photographer will have a set of tools and set of skills which may be better suited to a particular type of image or images from a particular camera than some other types of images or other cameras. Of course, this precisely why the user community would prefer a well documented standard RAW file than the camera maker proprietary ones.
Here is an example of needing more DR. The camera was already set for snow shots at I'm guessing +1.5ev. I had < a second to see, frame, capture, as the couple of birds came to be fed. There was no time for multi-frame capture of the same scene.
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6177/6267411629_614a279ff3_b.jpg)
To be able to capture the low sun on the water, unblown, while capturing the snow near white, I would probably need several more stops beyond what cameras currently provide.
To be able to capture the low sun on the water, unblown, while capturing the snow near white, I would probably need several more stops beyond what cameras currently provide.
Just curious -- Have you tried processing for the reflections, processing for the snow separately, and then merging with exposure fusion or blending?