Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: fineartprint-nz on January 29, 2015, 09:35:13 am
-
Hi all,
I am new to the forum and from browsing around here, there are some super knowledgeable people about and we are trying to find out the ideal scenario for fine art digital capture. We are a small print studio here in NZ with an Epson 7900 and an Epson 9900 printers. We use Eizo monitors with a colour managed workflow using x-rite i1Pro2 publish.
When in the USA we had art work captured from a 8K HS BetterLight digital scanning back and the results were truly amazing, best I have ever seen really. However, being down this end of the world means that this sort of equipment starts to skyrocket in price once gone thru this persons hand to that persons hand etc and then duties and gst and all that wonderful guff gets added afterwards just to find out that you have paid a house deposit of 50k or more on a camera!
All jokes aside, what would be the most cost effective solution (camera or scanning back wise) for us as a small fine art print studio to get going with something decent? I know that with a scanning back you seem to have to buy a camera body as well to connect the thing up to, what would suffice in this case? Not knowing too much about these details, would someone here please assist us with as much advice as possible because we need to find a solution here.
We have access to a huge Cruse CS185 Large Format Scanner in the city here but when getting scans back of say an original oil painting with lots of glazing work on it, the scan picks up microscopic bits of dust etc by the millions that is trapped between the layers of the oil painting glazing and this shows very clearly in the scan. I have asked to have the lighting changed but this is not possible for some reason.
Anyways, enough said for now, there is a myriad of questions we have about all this and any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks All :)
-Barrie
-
Demosaicing sensors is not ideal for repro I think. I'd look into second hand multishot backs, can be a bit hard to find though. CF39-MS for example. I'm no repro expert though so I'll let others chime in :)
-
I agree with torger. In the old days, I setup a few studio's with Betterlight scanning backs. Amazing quality and I'll bet you can find them on the cheap.
-
If you can tell us what your output requirements are and roughly where your budget is then we could start throwing some ideas...for example if you need to reproduce large originals at 300 or 600 dpi at 1:1 on your 9900 then it is obvious that you will need something than can output large files. Does the camera need to be portable or attached to a repro-stand or both? What kind of lighting are you looking to use for studio and/ or location work?
If you look at the high-end repro market world wide: museums, galleries, fine art studios and repro houses, the majority of them use single shot digital backs with 33MP or more. Some of them also use multi-shot backs for certain jobs. Some use SLR bodies and some onto for view cameras or repro specific cameras.
large format scanners are still popular for document and book scanning but for for paintings they have some limitations beyond just resolution.
A high end DSLR can also be an option but as I said above the output size and budget should guide you.
BR
Yair
-
If you look at the high-end repro market world wide: museums, galleries, fine art studios and repro houses, the majority of them use single shot digital backs with 33MP or more. Some of them also use multi-shot backs for certain jobs. Some use SLR bodies and some onto for view cameras or repro specific cameras.
If maximal image quality is the objective, wouldn't a multishot MFDB such as the Hasselblads (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h5d-cmos-multi-shot.aspx)be a good option? Does your firm offer such backs?
Regards,
Bill
PS
I am not in the market for such a camera, but am merely interested in the options
-
Demosaicing sensors is not ideal for repro I think. I'd look into second hand multishot backs, can be a bit hard to find though. CF39-MS for example. I'm no repro expert though so I'll let others chime in :)
If maximal image quality is the objective, wouldn't a multishot MFDB such as the Hasselblads (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h5d-cmos-multi-shot.aspx)be a good option? Does your firm offer such backs?
Take a look at this list of Cultural Heritage (http://dtdch.com/page/clients) clients who are using single-shot backs from Phase One and Leaf, on Digital Transitions Division of Cultural Heritage rigs (http://dtdch.com/page/divison-of-cultural-heritage-products). They find the quality, color, and workflow absolutely excellent.
-
Take a look at this list of Cultural Heritage (http://dtdch.com/page/clients) clients who are using single-shot backs from Phase One and Leaf, on Digital Transitions Division of Cultural Heritage rigs (http://dtdch.com/page/divison-of-cultural-heritage-products). They find the quality, color, and workflow absolutely excellent.
That could be because you're excellent salesmen and have a lot of know-how in repro photography which makes buying from you better even if you're not having the best hardware. Multishot is better, and reproduction is the number one use case.
When it comes to multishot products there's Sinar and there's Hasselblad. Sinar CTM (dual filtering) with Sinar eXact multishot back (up to 192 megapixls 16 shot) is pretty high end. In second hand space you'd find some Hassy/Imacon multishot gear that handled well should give excellent results from what I've seen.
-
Multishot is better, and reproduction is the number one use case.
Fortunately we don't have to agree to disagree, since there are international standards for reproduction such as FADGI (http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/) which provide objective means of analyzing the quality of a reproduction system. These can be used to analyze any type of capture system, and we do (objectively) exceptionally well on all measures.
-
Fortunately we don't have to agree to disagree, since there are international standards for reproduction such as FADGI (http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/) which provide objective means of analyzing the quality of a reproduction system. These can be used to analyze any type of capture system, and we do (objectively) exceptionally well on all measures.
The standard is about establishing a sufficient level, not the best level. I'm sure your system is good enough, but that's not the same as being best. Also, if we step down to older gear I think multishot makes an even larger difference as you can make more use of your precious pixels.
-
Hi,
My take would be that it is best to start with an optimised setup and than finding the equipment that fills the bill.
What you need to consider are, among other things:
- Sensor plane parallell to subject
- Illumination
- Vibrations
- Focusing, best achieved with magnified live view I would say
Then you would choose lenses and sensors
- You really want to have a sensor that has higher resolution than the subject, so you can reproduce all detail
- You also really want a sensor that has higher resolution than the lens, to avoid aliasing artefacts
- You also want a lens suited to the subject size
- Obviously you want a lens with minimal distortion
Than we have this issue about cost. How much are you willing to pay?
A good DSLR with a macro lens will do a decent job. An MFDB with an adequate lens will do an even better job. You don't want to stop down a lot. For best results, you need f/5.6 (or so), but even f/16 will give decent results with adequate sharpening.
Best regards
Erik
-
Kia ora Barrie,
Some years ago I travelled around New Zealand photographing the works of the now late Ralph Hotere. At the time I used a Mamiya 645 AFDII camera system and a Leaf Aptus 75 back.
I now use a Nikon D810 camera attached to a Horseman VCC adaptor using Rodenstock Apo Rodagon lens. The Nikon is vastly superior to the old Leaf Aptus 75.
So in my opinion for what its worth the best solution would be a Nikon D810 and some good Nikon Macro or flat field lenses as you don’t need auto focus lenses. If you go Macro the Nikon 60mm G lens is outstanding.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-S-60mm-f-2-8G-ED-Macro-Lens-Manufacturer-Reconditioned-/171651110978?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27f7341842
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Ai-s-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f-2-8-from-Japan-21933-/301506829500?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4633351cbc
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-200mm-f-4-f-4-Ai-s-Lens-2090-au-/321647545774?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item4ae3b00dae
Cheers
Simon
-
Having been there and done that?
:-) Erik :-)
Kia ora Barrie,
Some years ago I travelled around New Zealand photographing the works of the now late Ralph Hotere. At the time I used a Mamiya 645 AFDII camera system and a Leaf Aptus 75 back.
I now use a Nikon D810 camera attached to a Horseman VCC adaptor using Rodenstock Apo Rodagon lens. The Nikon is vastly superior to the old Leaf Aptus 75.
So in my opinion for what its worth the best solution would be a Nikon D810 and some good Nikon Macro or flat field lenses as you don’t need auto focus lenses. If you go Macro the Nikon 60mm G lens is outstanding.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-S-60mm-f-2-8G-ED-Macro-Lens-Manufacturer-Reconditioned-/171651110978?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27f7341842
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Ai-s-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f-2-8-from-Japan-21933-/301506829500?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4633351cbc
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-200mm-f-4-f-4-Ai-s-Lens-2090-au-/321647545774?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item4ae3b00dae
Cheers
Simon
-
If you can tell us what your output requirements are and roughly where your budget is then we could start throwing some ideas...for example if you need to reproduce large originals at 300 or 600 dpi at 1:1 on your 9900 then it is obvious that you will need something than can output large files. Does the camera need to be portable or attached to a repro-stand or both? What kind of lighting are you looking to use for studio and/ or location work?
If you look at the high-end repro market world wide: museums, galleries, fine art studios and repro houses, the majority of them use single shot digital backs with 33MP or more. Some of them also use multi-shot backs for certain jobs. Some use SLR bodies and some onto for view cameras or repro specific cameras.
large format scanners are still popular for document and book scanning but for for paintings they have some limitations beyond just resolution.
A high end DSLR can also be an option but as I said above the output size and budget should guide you.
BR
Yair
Actually I find the situation with (major) museums exactly to the opposite... It's all "true colour" multishot backs and some "Cruse" (scanning back LF camera in reality) scanners with museums... If personel is not familiar or able to use the equipment, then it's photographers with such equipment employed... In the cases that the museum has a high resolution camera with interpolated colour, these are used only for minor documentation everyday work... Not for publications or reproduction.
-
Take a look at this list of Cultural Heritage (http://dtdch.com/page/clients) clients who are using single-shot backs from Phase One and Leaf, on Digital Transitions Division of Cultural Heritage rigs (http://dtdch.com/page/divison-of-cultural-heritage-products). They find the quality, color, and workflow absolutely excellent.
You may find them excellent Doug... but since I've many times tried and compared the equipment you propose (due to art repro being my occupation) it is far inferior than using an old Imacon 528c or Hasselblad 22MS/39MS OR the (even better) Sinarback 54H... Not to mention the ultimate "king" for the job... The Sinarback eXact... sorry!
-
If you're just a print studio at this point and have been getting by just printing, I'd recommend going humble, at first. I too would recommend a Nikon D810 with a 105mm macro lens. I would also recommend stitched images to enhance quality and correct for any perspective issues with Photoshop's Adaptive Wide Angle adjustment filter.
-
If you're just a print studio at this point and have been getting by just printing, I'd recommend going humble, at first. I too would recommend a Nikon D810 with a 105mm macro lens. I would also recommend stitched images to enhance quality and correct for any perspective issues with Photoshop's Adaptive Wide Angle adjustment filter.
Opinions... well, my (ex-friend -used for 4 years until 2 weeks ago - now sold) Imacon 528c and my current Sinarback 54H & CF-39MS both used on Contax 645 and Fuji GX-680 had my D800E for peanuts and now have my D810 for a laugh... Maybe I'm doing something wrong with the Nikons... ;D
-
I agree with torger. In the old days, I setup a few studio's with Betterlight scanning backs. Amazing quality and I'll bet you can find them on the cheap.
Hijack warning!
If anyone knows where I can get a Betterlight large format panoramic accessory, please PM me. Mike isn't making them anymore.
Jim
-
OK.... I think every body can understand why "true colour" backs (either multishot or scanning) are far superior than common Bayer pattern interpolation can ever be... There is no interpolation involved with true colour and resolution optimises since the eye interprets as resolution difference the colour difference between neighbouring pixels (where interpolation produces most of mistakes)... "No interpolation involved" also means that wrong colour "translation" can't exist... so colour accuracy is much higher... DR is considerably higher too (about 2 stops), simply because with "true colour" all R,G&B channels have to clip... with interpolation, if the pixel clips... it's "dead"...
Now, I guess there has to be a discussion on what is better... Scanning back or multishot? Personally, If I would rate them all, I would give 16x multishot (Hasselblad calls it microstep) shooting with 100 for score, I would then rate scanning backs with 88, 4x multishot shooting with 80 and highest resolution interpolated colour backs with ...40!
The reason I find 16X backs being better than Scanning backs, I can only apply to scanning backs having relevant movement to the subject... 16X multishot backs are in reality quadrabling the nyquist limit since one has 4 different areas shot with constant position of the lens and pixel size the same (9μm) on all the 16 shots, thus ending up with an equal of 10x74mm sensor which is the same as scanning backs, but with no relevant movement of subject or sensor... OTOH, 4X shooting is brilliant (when compared to interpolated colour backs) but Niquist limit is up to the size of the sensor...
But resolution is only one side of the coin... the other is colour processing and it is in this regard that Sinar is in a class of its own out of all makers for "true colour" reproduction... The colour calibration method of a Sinarback is far beyond anything else in the market... There is a factory set "white reference", there is a pre-shot "black reference" in the camera's "black box" which takes into account the temprature of the sensor and then one shoots his colour chart (preferably a new macbeth - xRite one) and the sensor is self calibrated for the lighting conditions of it, taking "black reference" into account before each shot... More than that, a Sinarback offers the ability for one to export the (calibrated) files in both RGB and/or Fogra 27 & 39 forms... Sinarback software maybe a PIN for one to approach its logic or to set it up... But if one understands the logic behind it and masters its philosophy, the results are both the most accurate and easier to produce! IMO there is no better than Sinar for art repro work... They are in a class of their own! That said, my (ex) 528c was never a slouch... but I had to do all the "homework" work with "specially developed" profiles and use an ultimately calibrated monitor to achieve the same... Now I can work with my laptop and don't worry anymore about what I see on the monitor... With Sinar it is Calibrate, capture and export... With 528c it was Capture, adapt image to calibration, use a (perfectly) calibrated monitor and then export... About 70% time saving with Sinar... A huge BRAVO on them... I can't wait to invest on their eXact!!!
P.S. Comparison between 528c and CF-39MS? ...528c "hands down" ...unless you already have a Sinarback 54H and need intermediate files for when 88mp "true colour" is an overkill... I also prefer 528c for single-shot but the cases where moire is present...
-
Hello,
If you add up the three lenses I listed from EBay plus and Nikon D810 the cost equals $4,510.00 NZ dollars.
Compare that to a digital back and it associated body and lenses you are not going to get any change from $30.000.00 NZ dollars plus the NZ distributor for Leaf and Phase couldn’t organize a piss up in a brewery and the NZ distributor for Hasselblad is pretty much the same
Cheers
Simon
-
Hello,
If you add up the three lenses I listed from EBay plus and Nikon D810 the cost equals $4,510.00 NZ dollars.
Compare that to a digital back and it associated body and lenses you are not going to get any change from $30.000.00 NZ dollars plus the NZ distributor for Leaf and Phase couldn’t organize a piss up in a brewery and the NZ distributor for Hasselblad is pretty much the same
Cheers
Simon
Obviously, if you have friends in a well-funded museum who are ready to pay you $1000 per image to do an exhibition catalogue, the price of equipment is not going to be an issue :)
Edmund
-
Multishot is better, and reproduction is the number one use case.
I've shot some reproduction jobs of very well known artwork with both my AFi-ii 12 and my CF 528 using the same exact lens, 90mm APO Rollei Schneider Macro.
I will not be allowed to share these images in any form so please don't ask, however my conclusion was that they are very close, however for sheer image quality the CF 528 was better. There are many facets to consider, color, detail, tonality, texture etc. In micro step mode the CF 528 has a higher resolution file and at true color (non interpolated). I had to run the Leaf files through a two step sharpening - first small amounts in C1, then again in LR4 with the detail slider up high - just to get the fine detail close between them. There's probably some math that shows what the resolution advantage true color has over bayer interpolated files, but needless to say its there. It's also there for lower contrast detail too - like fingerprints on scotch tape - single shot backs of the same resolution completely miss that stuff when it gets small enough, however multishots do pick that up. It's quite astonishing. This can be significant when you are trying to capture the brush work and other subtle nuances. With regard to color - that's tricky. I could see a case where one could argue either is better but out of the box for paintings and stuff, the Leaf and C1 is probably better than the CF 528 and Phocus in Reproduction mode, but there are noticeable differences. Obviously much less when you make your own profiles. Separation of color in small regions is better with multishot and tonality seems more real. But the work flow advantage of a single shot file is really quite significant. It's not just the time, but also the conditions required for micro step - even lighting, vibration free. Mostly I use the AFi-ii 12 when I can because its much faster and for many things quite close. With regard to color - that's tricky. I could see a case where one could argue either is better but out of the box for paintings and stuff, the Leaf and C1 is appears to be better match to original than the CF 528 and Phocus in Reproduction mode, but there are noticeable differences in color between the two set ups. But when you make your own profiles they get much closer.
-
Obviously, if you have friends in a well-funded museum who are ready to pay you $1000 per image to do an exhibition catalogue, the price of equipment is not going to be an issue :)
Edmund
Edmund
1000 per capture Edmund? Are you sure? :o That means if one does 20 paintings ...a 20K day income? ::) Where is this museum? Can you send me an address of it? :D
-
Yes single-shot is a great workflow advantage, that's one major reason I think people use them when it's become "good enough", and now 135 systems are good enough for some applications which can be a further workflow improvement although that is more debatable.
Concerning color on large fields the single-shot should not be worse than the multishot as the single-shot get sufficient sampling. But in pixelpeep the multishot has a clear advantage, especially if it's moving sub-pixel. Bayer singleshot demosacing is in fact a lot of guesswork, it's about making a pleasing and quite likely result, accuracy is not possible to achieve.
Here's a nice comparison between single shot 80 megapixels and 4-shot(?) 50 megapixel. Note that Hassy also have the 200MS version which is 6-shot subpixel. Now Hassy bases their multishot cameras on the CMOS sensor and the lower noise of that should further improve the multi-shot quality. I recently saw a H4D-50MS on ebay for £10k by the way.
https://captureintegration.com/leaf-aptus-ii-12-hasselblad-4d-50ms/
The worst problem as I see it with the single shot is that they create detail that's not there and false color on fine structured details. You can see it in this example crop, quite subtle but the grey textile has some colors in it in the single-shot which is not there in the real object, and the multishot captures that correctly. You can also see that the magenta color area does not match either but I don't know the reason for that.
https://captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-Shot-2013-04-15-at-4.14.37-PM.png
-
I could see a case where one could argue either is better but out of the box for paintings and stuff, the Leaf and C1 is appears to be better match to original than the CF 528 and Phocus in Reproduction mode, but there are noticeable differences in color between the two set ups. But when you make your own profiles they get much closer.
I don't see how can one use "out of the box" colour profiling for paintings Erik... It's a part of the job to achieve perfect profile calibration and 528c is perfect when you do... No interpolated colour can be better than "perfect true colour" ...can it?
-
More on single vs multishot using a bit older gear:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-103/Figure-2-full.jpg
From the review http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml
However that review also points out Quote "Based on the color “blotchiness” and the lack of resolution in single shot mode, I would not consider using this camera in anything other than Multishot mode. I hardly need to say this, but the PhaseOne System [P65+] is far superior to the H3D 50 II in single shot mode, as it never shows any “blotchiness” and has much higher resolution." End quote.
A comment on that is as the P65+ has microlenses it should show a bit less aliasing (samples more of the 6x6um square), but I would suggest that the difference seen there is more due to luck than other, as moire can disappear with slight defocusing, and perhaps Phase One bias, suggested by that 60 megapixels is considered "much higher resolution" than 50... Mark Dubovoy has had some strange things to say about dynamic range too so I would not take his words in that review too seriously.
-
No interpolated colour can be better than "perfect true colour" ...can it?
Nobody claimed that a Bayer CFA image is 'better' than a micro-step (or a color-wheel with a monochrome sensor) capture.
Tri-chromatic (R/G/B) color capture is still a relatively rough approximation of the full visible spectrum reflectance ...
In that sense, even micro-step sensor capture is also 'interpolated' color, although more predictable than from a single Bayer CFA. It does require extremely constant continuous lighting, where temperature and long exposure time are enemies of delicate artwork.
Of course, although it produces a more involved workflow, stitching with down-sampling can produce even better results. For recurring jobs, it will pay off to use a contraption like Ted describes here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83550.msg756133;topicseen#msg756133). One of the immediate benefits is the higher level of control over the lighting of the artwork, because only a part of the image needs to be lit and lighting angles are constant for that relatively small area of the total surface.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes single-shot is a great workflow advantage, that's one major reason I think people use them when it's become "good enough", and now 135 systems are good enough for some applications which can be a further workflow improvement although that is more debatable.
Concerning color on large fields the single-shot should not be worse than the multishot as the single-shot get sufficient sampling. But in pixelpeep the multishot has a clear advantage, especially if it's moving sub-pixel. Bayer singleshot demosacing is in fact a lot of guesswork, it's about making a pleasing and quite likely result, accuracy is not possible to achieve.
Here's a nice comparison between single shot 80 megapixels and 4-shot(?) 50 megapixel. Note that Hassy also have the 200MS version which is 6-shot subpixel. Now Hassy bases their multishot cameras on the CMOS sensor and the lower noise of that should further improve the multi-shot quality. I recently saw a H4D-50MS on ebay for £10k by the way.
https://captureintegration.com/leaf-aptus-ii-12-hasselblad-4d-50ms/
The worst problem as I see it with the single shot is that they create detail that's not there and false color on fine structured details. You can see it in this example crop, quite subtle but the grey textile has some colors in it in the single-shot which is not there in the real object, and the multishot captures that correctly. You can also see that the magenta color area does not match either but I don't know the reason for that.
https://captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-Shot-2013-04-15-at-4.14.37-PM.png
Thanks for posting this comparison... the advantage of "true colour" capture in both resolution and colour is pretty much obvious and this is only a 4x capture....
By the way, Hasselblad's 200MS uses the 4x true colour result as captured by 50MS and then it interpolates that colour to apply it on the rest of the resolution that it creates, while 528c/22MS and Sinarback 54H provide true colour capture in their full resolution 16x sub-pixel mode (Sinar's eXact too).
-
I recently bought a 645Z and do all my art repro with the FA 120mm Macro now, I used to stitch shots with a 5D before! But as far as printing on 44" canvas goes... it's not a particularly demanding medium in terms of resolution, nor does it have a particularly wide gamut, so a single shot is pretty much enough to reproduce a meter-wide painting in crisp detail, and going any bigger I would probably stitch two-three shots.
I think 80MP backs, scanning backs, and multi-shot systems may be nice for some real big artworks or getting that last 5% of image quality, but I tend to stop at the point where I can see bristle indents in the brush strokes, and the 645Z can do that for images up to around 1.2m.
-
1000 per capture Edmund? Are you sure? :o That means if one does 20 paintings ...a 20K day income? ::) Where is this museum? Can you send me an address of it? :D
Usually a personal recommendation is necessary for these jobs, which of course means they have already been in touch with you (http://www.fmbanier.com) :)
Edmund
-
I recently bought a 645Z and do all my art repro with the FA 120mm Macro now, I used to stitch shots with a 5D before! But as far as printing on 44" canvas goes... it's not a particularly demanding medium in terms of resolution, nor does it have a particularly wide gamut, so a single shot is pretty much enough to reproduce a meter-wide painting in crisp detail, and going any bigger I would probably stitch two-three shots.
I think 80MP backs, scanning backs, and multi-shot systems may be nice for some real big artworks or getting that last 5% of image quality, but I tend to stop at the point where I can see bristle indents in the brush strokes, and the 645Z can do that for images up to around 1.2m.
Now wait a minute.... 5% it may be when one uses an 80mp back with colour interpolation instead of 645Z... Why not have a look at Torger's post on how an 80mp back compares with any multishot and "only" at 4x? Besides, getting an old Sinarback 54H or Imacon 528c will be considerably cheaper than using a 645Z ...no? ...and the difference is no where near 5%! ...it's far, ...far more distant than that... Why not try one before you judge what is "good enough"? And more than that... what is not "particularly demanding nor has particularly wide Gamut"? Have ever tried some Caravaggio or a Byzantine Icon that uses gold or silver?
-
Usually a personal recommendation is necessary for these jobs, which of course means they have already been in touch with you (http://www.fmbanier.com) :)
Edmund
I still don't see the relevance of the link Ed... I can assure you prices are no where near to 1000/per item... It's not a fee that one can complain for (far from that), It rather is one of the best (if not the best) paying sections in photography, but one must consider that skills are too time consuming to be achieved and the judges of the job are not the ones that can be fooled.... You see, with art reproduction, the recipient wants exactly that... a reproduction... Not just a file or a photograph of a painting! And of course the recipients are far from being ignorants on if the codes of the piece of art under examination are "transferred" or not!
-
Now wait a minute.... 5% it may be when one uses an 80mp back with colour interpolation instead of 645Z... Why not have a look at Torger's post on how an 80mp back compares with any multishot and "only" at 4x? Besides, getting an old Sinarback 54H or Imacon 528c will be considerably cheaper than using a 645Z ...no? ...and the difference is no where near 5%! ...it's far, ...far more distant than that... Why not try one before you judge what is "good enough"?
I've tried lots of systems before buying, and the 645Z is good enough for practical real-world reproduction printing, the prints I do can sell for thousands and that's enough of a standard for me. Additionally, all other options would result in an application-specific camera that I wouldn't be able to use for anything other than shooting certain subjects in the studio, whereas instead I have camera that's as great in the studio as it is hand-held at ISO12,800, if I had bought two cameras for different subject matter, it would've ended up being more expensive. Maybe someone else may only need a camera that does only one thing well, and in that case perhaps the other options would be better.
And more than that... what is not "particularly demanding nor has particularly wide Gamut"? Have ever tried some Caravaggio or a Byzantine Icon that uses gold or silver?
...Obviously I meant the canvas you print on, not the medium you photograph, I don't think it's possible to source a printer and inks that can reproduce gold or silver ink on wood, if even accurately. But yes, there are some artworks out there that the best cameras have trouble with.
-
Actually to profile your camera to a reference works well enough for me when reproducing fine art. We also make pictures for an art gallery with a 5D Mark II and use a SpyderCheckr for color reproduction.
-
I still don't see the relevance of the link Ed... I can assure you prices are no where near to 1000/per item... It's not a fee that one can complain for (far from that), It rather is one of the best (if not the best) paying sections in photography, but one must consider that skills are too time consuming to be achieved and the judges of the job are not the ones that can be fooled.... You see, with art reproduction, the recipient wants exactly that... a reproduction... Not just a file or a photograph of a painting! And of course the recipients are far from being ignorants on if the codes of the piece of art under examination are "transferred" or not!
I must have included the link by mistake, while reading up on the trial of a photographer who *allegedly* extracted $500 million from his sponsor. I know the number seems strange, but my impression is that there is now a macroscopic world out there with giants who stand miles tall and count in large numbers, while we bacteria live in the economics of small numbers.
I would assume billing of around $1K per day here in northern Europe, for anyone with good connections to a major institution or a for a well-connected associate of an auction house. Of course someone working for "normal" artists may earn 20% of that, but can get part of his take in cash.
Edmund
-
I must have included the link by mistake, while reading up on the trial of a photographer who *allegedly* extracted $500 million from his sponsor. I know the number seems strange, but my impression is that there is now a macroscopic world out there with giants who stand miles tall and count in large numbers, while we bacteria live in the economics of small numbers.
I would assume billing of around $1K per day here in northern Europe, for anyone with good connections to a major institution or a for a well-connected associate of an auction house. Of course someone working for "normal" artists may earn 20% of that, but can get part of his take in cash.
Edmund
Yeap, that's more like it... although prices are always per piece photographed and the price varies with the size and if there is some complexity involved, usually the day income for a pro on the job is around 1500/per day of work (8 hours - the ones that can work more efficiently may sometimes exceed 2k/per day, or the opposite for the less capable ones). OTOH, "real connections" are more with private galleries or collectors those days and are based on fame, never the less, everybody is prepared to pay a little more (or less sometimes) and overcome the usual "connection" if quality offered by a new "contact" proves to be better... You see the better quality, directly affects the financial benefit of the recipient.
Usually, for major work with museums, there is an open competition announced and "standards" set for quality.... Then, there is an offering file applied and the best quality/price balance wins the competition... Where I live (the country that is blessed to be the undeniable world champion in civilisation treasures on the world), the directing committee for each of the thousands of museums and the preservation organisations that are responsible for ancient Byzantine monasteries and churches or other "open space" material, is aloud (under law) to only decide on giving a job directly to a photographer, if the total cost of the project comes down to under 20K... Anything above that, is an open competition...
-
Nobody claimed that a Bayer CFA image is 'better' than a micro-step (or a color-wheel with a monochrome sensor) capture.
Tri-chromatic (R/G/B) color capture is still a relatively rough approximation of the full visible spectrum reflectance ...
In that sense, even micro-step sensor capture is also 'interpolated' color, although more predictable than from a single Bayer CFA. It does require extremely constant continuous lighting, where temperature and long exposure time are enemies of delicate artwork.
+1
-
Hi,
Regarding multishot and one shot, I would make the point that Bart van der Wolf has made some calculations and found that loss of resolution due to Bayer interpolation is around 10%. If we look at 4X multishot we can thus gain about 10% in resolution. So a 50 MP 4X multishot back would correspond to a 60 MP one shot.
With 16X multishot the back will utilise the interpixel gap, and can reach 4x times the resolution, so it would correspond to 200 MP. With CCD sensors there is quite obviously an interpixel gap, else microlenses would give little sensivity gain.
Multishot obviously eliminates colour moiré. On the other hand, aliasing and moiré will not arise as long as the sensor outresolves the subject or the lens.
Resolution can be increased by stitching turning the camera vertical and stitching horizontally. That is another option.
Best regards
Erik
-
Regarding multishot and one shot, I would make the point that Bart van der Wolf has made some calculations and found that loss of resolution due to Bayer interpolation is around 10%.
Hi Erik,
For luminance resolution that's correct, although for an unlikely combination of particular colors (exact same luminance and perfect chrominance matching to the R/B filters transmission on the CFA) the resolution could be 50%. The demosaicing test can be found here (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/bayer/bayer_cfa.htm).
This is for the loss due to demosaicing only, the interaction between the optical system and the possibilities of the demosaicing algorithms will determine the actual loss of resolution after MTFs have been combined into a system MTF.
Stitching at a higher capture magnification (e.g. longer focal length) and down-sampling that, will solve most of the potential resolution issues and also reduce aliasing because original image detail is sampled at a larger magnification relative to the sensor's sampling pitch.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I've attached a sample crop from a 235 Megapixel stitched reproduction, the original painting's size of the crop would be some 73x73mm. I also added a 50% down-sampled crop from the same location (146x146mm) of the painting, which just loses more real luminance resolution than it gains color precision. Accurate color is a matter of profiling, which is a whole other can of worms.
-
In Art reproduction (not pictures of art) there is three factors that must be mastered...
ONE is setting up the subject and lighting it correctly.
TWO is having all the detail of it (for 1:1 print).
THREE is having all the tone and colour accuracy of it.
ONE differs between subjects and structure of the subject. TWO depends on the size and detail on the subject. THREE requires having absolute profiles... As far as "absolute" profiles are concerned, one can't have the required accuracy if colour interpolation is involved and "automatic" profiling "general" methods are not sufficient for having the term "reproduction" satisfied... Thus, the use of "true colour" is a necessity (to avoid an interpolation algorithm to interfere) and there is special knowledge required, where one has to "build" his own profiles for a particular project... That said, there are cases where one has to "group" the project in order to keep lighting and profile changes to a minimum.
Detail is of course as important as the other factors (but not more than the others), but one has to remember that resolution is only one part of detail (though important), the other parts of detail (tonality - DR), are equally important.
As far as resolution is concerned, the use of tri-colour capture clearly benefits than having a same size, same pixel density sensor with colour interpolation involved (since human eye "understands" as resolution the colour difference between pixels), but the advantage can't be measured in value... it can range from noticeable to huge depending on the complexity of the subject.
Of course tri-colour capture is not perfect... but it's the best we have available to work with and (most importantly) it has no disadvantage (only advantages with all factors involved) than the use of "normal" sensors. The longer exposure times and extensive lighting on the subject are factors that are "part of the job" for one to learn on how to control as to avoid harming the subject by emitting extensive IR on it.
-
Bart,
As a consumer it is easy to experimentally see the difference between a Bayer file and a non-Bayer file by just comparing a $400 Sigma file to an SLR.
I don't know why nobody makes a modern filter wheel camera for repro - with a mono version of a modern high-ISO CMOS sensor you'd just need to bring up a stabilised illuminant source for 5 seconds or so to get a good multispectral capture. Most display environments subject paintings to visible light :)
edmund
Hi Erik,
For luminance resolution that's correct, although for an unlikely combination of particular colors (exact same luminance and perfect chrominance matching to the R/B filters transmission on the CFA) the resolution could be 50%. The demosaicing test can be found here (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/bayer/bayer_cfa.htm).
This is for the loss due to demosaicing only, the interaction between the optical system and the possibilities of the demosaicing algorithms will determine the actual loss of resolution after MTFs have been combined into a system MTF.
Stitching at a higher capture magnification (e.g. longer focal length) and down-sampling that, will solve most of the potential resolution issues and also reduce aliasing because original image detail is sampled at a larger magnification relative to the sensor's sampling pitch.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I've attached a sample crop from a 235 Megapixel stitched reproduction, the original painting's size of the crop would be some 73x73mm. I also added a 50% down-sampled crop from the same location (146x146mm) of the painting, which just loses more real luminance resolution than it gains color precision. Accurate color is a matter of profiling, which is a whole other can of worms.
-
I've done a lot of repro work with Aptus and Credo.
I've had no problems getting lighting and resolution right.
But I was never able to get the colors right.
Nobody ever comoplained about the colors from these backs except for painters.
But pretty much every painter conplained.
With a lot of pushing and pulling colors in Photoshop, and choosing a different color profile for each picture, I was able to get close to the actual colors in most cases, but never a recipe that will give me the real colors for every picture out of the camera. The painters were not able to understand why, and frankly neither can I.
Talking to the company I was told this is the way it is, and that they don't handle color disputes.
In some cases the colors received were so drastically different it is hard to believe.
Can anyone explain to me what is a true color back - meaning what models on the market can do it if any, and what are the settings the photographer needs to use?
-
Hi,
I have seen a video with Ray Maxwell, a colour scientist, he said that you need to make a test chart with the actual pigments used in the paint and photograph it using the same illumination as used in reprography. You can build a profile from that test chart and use it for processing.
Best regards
Erik
I've done a lot of repro work with Aptus and Credo.
I've had no problems getting lighting and resolution right.
But I was never able to get the colors right.
Nobody ever comoplained about the colors from these backs except for painters.
But pretty much every painter conplained.
With a lot of pushing and pulling colors in Photoshop, and choosing a different color profile for each picture, I was able to get close to the actual colors in most cases, but never a recipe that will give me the real colors for every picture out of the camera. The painters were not able to understand why, and frankly neither can I.
Talking to the company I was told this is the way it is, and that they don't handle color disputes.
In some cases the colors received were so drastically different it is hard to believe.
Can anyone explain to me what is a true color back - meaning what models on the market can do it if any, and what are the settings the photographer needs to use?
-
I have seen a video with Ray Maxwell, a colour scientist, he said that you need to make a test chart with the actual pigments used in the paint and photograph it using the same illumination as used in reprography. You can build a profile from that test chart and use it for processing.
This is true, different types of paints and medium react differently to different types of light... what you see even under the same light is not what the camera sees, and lets not even get into varnish. While I personally haven't gone so far as to make a profile based on the pigments I capture, this is something I was considering doing, especially since all my work is supplied by regulars.
Of course this wouldn't work for historical paintings, since the pigments used are likely difficult to find or you have to mix them yourself, not to mention the effect of aging vs fresh paint.
-
Can anyone explain to me what is a true color back - meaning what models on the market can do it if any, and what are the settings the photographer needs to use?
If you mean a three-color back that has no -- or even negligible -- color errors, I don't think there are any. If two spectra that appear different to a person match upon capture, no profile can sort that out.
A three filter back that captures colors the way the putatively normal eye sees them would have spectral responses that are a 3x3 matrix multiply away from a standard observer. I know of no camera that meets the Luther condition. There are reasons for that that go beyond the mundane practicalities of what dye sets are available. The human eye has two greatly-overlapped channels (rho and gamma) and one that's offset towards short wavelength and plays almost no part in luminance (beta). That's a good strategy if you're stuck with a simple lens that can't bring many wavelengths into simultaneous focus, like the one in our eyes. However, it's a technique that can cause chroma noise as you try to sort out the overlap.
Even attempts to meet the Luther criterion are rare. I do have some experience with one.
When I was working at the IBM Almaden Research Laboratory in the early 90s as a color scientist, I consulted with Fred Mintzer (http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-mintzer) and his group in Yorktown Heights who developed a scanning camera with the objective that the wavelength-by-wavelength product of the camera's RGB filters, the IR-blocking filter, and the CCD's spectral response would be close to a 3x3 matrix multiply away from human tristimulus response. The camera (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july97/vatican/07gladney.html)was used to digitize Andrew Wyeth's work, to capture artwork in the Vatican Library, and for some other projects where color fidelity was important.
A more promising route is to capture more than three color planes.
In 1992, Michael Vrehl, a student of Joel Trussell (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~hjt/) at North Carolina State presented a paper at the SPIE Imaging Conference. I'm sorry I can't find a link to the paper itself, only one to the abstract (http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=986714).
"The quality of color correction is dependent upon the filters used to scan the image. This paper introduces a method of selecting the scanning filters using a priori information about the viewing illumination. Experimental results are presented. The addition of a fourth filter produces significantly improved color correction over that obtained by three filters."
I remember being quite impressed with the improvement in color accuracy afforded by the addition of the fourth filter. The common term for cameras that have more than three filters is multispectral cameras. The ones I've seen are for scientific use. You can turn a monochromatic camera into a multispectral camera with a color wheel.
-
As a consumer it is easy to experimentally see the difference between a Bayer file and a non-Bayer file by just comparing a $400 Sigma file to an SLR.
Hi Edmund,
I'm afraid that there are too many issues with the color of the Foveon for reproduction, and the lack of an OLPF with so few pixels will make the (luminance) aliasing an obvious discriminator when compared to a non multi-step Bayer CFA.
I don't know why nobody makes a modern filter wheel camera for repro - with a mono version of a modern high-ISO CMOS sensor you'd just need to bring up a stabilised illuminant source for 5 seconds or so to get a good multispectral capture. Most display environments subject paintings to visible light :)
Fully agree. A filter wheel will allow to even capture more than just R/G/B, it might as well allow to sample the Yellow and Cyan band-pass of the spectrum. That would allow to reduce metameric errors. The color conversion matrix down to RGB gets a bit more involved, but that's just math for which we can use computers...
Cheers,
Bart
-
A more promising route is to capture more than three color planes.
Jim, I'm sure that is a much better path for reproductions, where color can be so difficult to capture (IMO it's more of an issue than resolution).
I remember being quite impressed with the improvement in color accuracy afforded by the addition of the fourth filter. The common term for cameras that have more than three filters is multispectral cameras. The ones I've seen are for scientific use. You can turn a monochromatic camera into a multispectral camera with a color wheel.
Indeed, it becomes relatively easy to avoid metameric issues at the capture stage and potentially get a closer match to how our eyes see color (although our output modalities are commonly limited to 3 (RGB) color planes).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Edmund,
I'm afraid that there are too many issues with the color of the Foveon for reproduction, and the lack of an OLPF with so few pixels will make the (luminance) aliasing an obvious discriminator when compared to a non multi-step Bayer CFA.
Bart
Bart,
I meant that many have first-hand knowledge of the qualitative difference.
Single-capture Bayer files are like frozen food - they can be very good but one always does realize they are not the real thing.
Provided one has had access to the real thing once.
Edmund
-
Over the years there have been a number of multi-spectral imaging solutions based on monochromatic and achromatic cameras and an array of filters and/ or combination of bandpass filters and narrow-wavelength lights. They are used for reproduction but more-so for research and conservation/ restoration work of documents, manuscripts, maps, drawings, paintings and also for forensics work. Some of these products come for specialised companies and often they are based on existing digital cameras or backs.
However I somehow doubt that this is what the OP is looking for and my guess is that they will end up with a single-shot based solution, hopefully within their budget and suitable for their capabilities and needs. So while we are all trying to show off with our knowledge (or pseudo knowledge in some cases) I don't think we are being very helpful...
BR
Yair
-
Over the years there have been a number of multi-spectral imaging solutions based on monochromatic and achromatic cameras and an array of filters and/ or combination of bandpass filters and narrow-wavelength lights. They are used for reproduction but more-so for research and conservation/ restoration work of documents, manuscripts, maps, drawings, paintings and also for forensics work. Some of these products come for specialised companies and often they are based on existing digital cameras or backs.
However I somehow doubt that this is what the OP is looking for and my guess is that they will end up with a single-shot based solution, hopefully within their budget and suitable for their capabilities and needs. So while we are all trying to show off with our knowledge (or pseudo knowledge in some cases) I don't think we are being very helpful...
BR
Yair
I can see this conversation is not for the benefit of Leaf's/Phase One interest (or Pentax or DSLR) Yair... But (unfortunately) there is much truth that has been said here and is fully supported too... I happened to have access on an Aptus-12II (on P1 camera) out of the man that bought it from a friend's family who suddenly passed away at a young age (I believe you know who I'm talking about)... So I borrowed it for comparison (since the comparison I was offered with a Contax fit Aptus 12II never happened), at the days I was only using the Imacon 528c as my MFDB... The Aptus-12ii is a fine back for landscape, fine for fashion, fine for portraiture... but that's what it has been designed for (as the rest of the Leaf/P1 stuff)... No comparison whatsoever with a back dedicated to art reproduction... art reproduction is simply out of its target group. Nothing in this world has been designed to do everything... None buys a Ferrari to go hunting on mountains with it... or buys a Land Rover to race it... It's really that simple!
-
We make it with Pentax 645D or H3DII-39. Museums are happy with us, just enjoy www.endetail.fr ;D
-
Over the years there have been a number of multi-spectral imaging solutions based on monochromatic and achromatic cameras and an array of filters and/ or combination of bandpass filters and narrow-wavelength lights. They are used for reproduction but more-so for research and conservation/ restoration work of documents, manuscripts, maps, drawings, paintings and also for forensics work. Some of these products come for specialised companies and often they are based on existing digital cameras or backs.
However I somehow doubt that this is what the OP is looking for and my guess is that they will end up with a single-shot based solution, hopefully within their budget and suitable for their capabilities and needs. So while we are all trying to show off with our knowledge (or pseudo knowledge in some cases) I don't think we are being very helpful...
BR
Yair,
As my favorite Leaf rep, could you increase my pseudo-knowledge by telling me what "BR" means?
BTW, I did do some art repros for artists. back in the days. They were very sensitive , very vocal when it came to color hues, less interested in detail. As a friend of mine put it "when a guy has spent 20 years on his blue, and you copy his painting, he wants to see his blue". I find this interesting because every time I buy the book/catalogue from a BIG exhibition, eg. Monet, the colors are dreadful. So maybe institutions are more forgiving of the quality of the work :)
Edmund
-
Yair,
As my favorite Leaf rep, could you increase my pseudo-knowledge by telling me what "BR" means?
BTW, I did do some art repros for artists. back in the days. They were very sensitive , very vocal when it came to color hues, less interested in detail. As a friend of mine put it "when a guy has spent 20 years on his blue, and you copy his painting, he wants to see his blue". I find this interesting because every time I buy the book/catalogue from a BIG exhibition, eg. Monet, the colors are dreadful. So maybe institutions are more forgiving of the quality of the work :)
Edmund
It's not that they are more forgiving... Sometimes it is only that the committee that runs an institution ...just doesn't spent their own money (! ....That's why I said earlier that "open competitions" are a good thing! Look at that example above (surely that was no competition)! ...nice graphics work on the cover though!
-
Jim, I'm sure that is a much better path for reproductions, where color can be so difficult to capture (IMO it's more of an issue than resolution).
We're in complete agreement here, Bart. The only reasons that make sense to me as to why it hasn't happened in a big way are:
1) Most people want pleasing color, not accurate color.
2) You lose resolution in a CFA-filtered sensor.
3) The raw processors would have to be completely rewritten.
OTOH, profiling would get a lot easier. Done right, you wouldn't need different profiles for different illuminants.
Indeed, it becomes relatively easy to avoid metameric issues at the capture stage and potentially get a closer math to how our eyes see color (although our output modalities are commonly limited to 3 (RGB) color planes).
Maybe easy for you, Bart. I remember the math in Vrehl's paper as only easy for people like me when we're doing handwaving discussions in the bar after the session. Things that we so easy then appear in a different light when you're sitting at the keyboard trying to make the darn program work.
But sure, back away from the problem and you're right. The camera filters are basis functions, the eye's filters are basis functions, there needs to be a conversion from the first to the second that minimizes some error function over a sample set of reasonable illuminants and surface reflectance spectra. After that, it's a SMOP*.
Jim
*Small Matter of Programming
-
Get a Sinar 54H and don't look back.
-
Basis? can we really span the spectral space with 3 or 4 vectors? I think that statement is some handwaving too far. What we attempt to do with a small filter set is to span the "habitual" perceptual space.
To usefully discuss this topic further it would be useful to know what dispersion there is among real world observer-functions. I believe the usual assumption is that the retinal cone pigments define the functions, that these pigments are unique and thus the observer functions are known. But is that really true? Hint - there are actually some quadrichromats out there ...
An interesting workaround I have seen to the camera issue was an HP system that used a spectro to get a better handle on the pigments in the work of art ...unfortunately the software came with a dongle the precise size and weight of an HP Z printer :)
As far as SMOP goes, I think there are a lot of smart slaves H1B visa workers with a PhD out there. I've never yet seen a problem that could be mathematically defined that didn't get quickly programmed.
Edmund
We're in complete agreement here, Bart. The only reasons that make sense to me as to why it hasn't happened in a big way are:
1) Most people want pleasing color, not accurate color.
2) You lose resolution in a CFA-filtered sensor.
3) The raw processors would have to be completely rewritten.
OTOH, profiling would get a lot easier. Done right, you wouldn't need different profiles for different illuminants.
Maybe easy for you, Bart. I remember the math in Vrehl's paper as only easy for people like me when we're doing handwaving discussions in the bar after the session. Things that we so easy then appear in a different light when you're sitting at the keyboard trying to make the darn program work.
But sure, back away from the problem and you're right. The camera filters are basis functions, the eye's filters are basis functions, there needs to be a conversion from the first to the second that minimizes some error function over a sample set of reasonable illuminants and surface reflectance spectra. After that, it's a SMOP*.
Jim
*Small Matter of Programming
-
Sorry, I didn't read all the posts, so I maybe repeat ........
I make twice a year about 300 repros for a local auction house. There are 200 years old oil paintings,
aquarels, modern art.....behind glass, with frame, with gold, silver.........I have so many problems to solve.......
It often takes much more time for the job then I offered, but at the end it's okay.
In my opinion the light is one of the biggest problem to reach accurate color.
Of course, the sensor is important, but on a certain sensor level other problems become more important.
Out of my 12 Bron G 3200 I don't have 4 lamps with an identical flash color. They are all a little bit different.
All have the same protecting glass, all powered by Grafit A4 packs, but I think the age of the flash tube
determines.
Even the polarisation filters I use for certain pictures in front of my lamps change the colors a little bit. (I don't know why,
I'm not a physicist, but I've got eyes and a well calibrated monitor)
BTW: When the floor in a studio hasn't the same color as the ceiling, it's not worth talking about the sensor of the camera......
Regards,
Ben
-
Get a Sinar 54H and don't look back.
Ssssshhh.... they may hear you and raise the prices! Wait till I get a second one!
-
Basis? can we really span the spectral space with 3 or 4 vectors? I think that statement is some handwaving too far. What we attempt to do with a small filter set is to span the "habitual" perceptual space.
To usefully discuss this topic further it would be useful to know what dispersion there is among real world observer-functions. I believe the usual assumption is that the retinal cone pigments define the functions, that these pigments are unique and thus the observer functions are known. But is that really true? Hint - there are actually some quadrichromats out there ...
Even forgetting the variability of human vision by subject, we know we can't do a good job with three. I've seen some papers that said that you could with 6 or 8. The upshot was that you don't need 5 nm wide filters every 5 nm.
But that all assumes that there aren't arbitrary narrow spikes in surface color reflectances (florescence, anyone?) and/or illuminants.
In any event, it's a highly technical problem. Too technical to discuss here in any detail, IMHO. And maybe too hard for to pay for the R&D to solve it completely for a market as small as art reproduction.
Jim
-
Even forgetting the variability of human vision by subject, we know we can't do a good job with three. I've seen some papers that said that you could with 6 or 8. The upshot was that you don't need 5 nm wide filters every 5 nm.
But that all assumes that there aren't arbitrary narrow spikes in surface color reflectances (florescence, anyone?) and/or illuminants.
In any event, it's a highly technical problem. Too technical to discuss here in any detail, IMHO. And maybe too hard for to pay for the R&D to solve it completely for a market as small as art reproduction.
Jim
IMO, Sinar is far ahead than the rest when profiling comes into play, they don't "just" use the tricolour information from the sensor, but also have a reference factory set white and the sensor is self calibrated in (absolute) black automatically before each shot taking sensor temperature into account... The tricolour calibration (which is automatically adapted to the reference white and black) is done by shooting the well known Macbeth card (now x-rite). The method of course can't be absolute, but as long as one uses an extremely well calibrated external monitor that can cope well with proven materials manufacturer's profiles of a printer... (one has to let his printer work with the automatic profiles of the material maker for that printer), then he may find that the outcome (on the profiled monitor) is very close to the painting and all adaptation on the calibrated monitor to near perfection is both easier and time saving... Of course if the capture was by combining more colours, the accuracy would improve further, but for the moment and the technology available and provided that one has developed the skills to do everything correctly, the result can be breathtaking.
-
But that all assumes that there aren't arbitrary narrow spikes in surface color reflectances (florescence, anyone?) and/or illuminants.
Jim
Strictu sensu, I believe fluorescence is not really a reflection, it's a re-emission :)
Of course monochrome LEDs do have narrow peaks - so imaging a scene containing a display illuminated by RGB LEDs, or even a signboard might become an issue as well. I guess fish scales, butterflies, some flowers etc. ... but few of these are found in a museum.
Edmund
-
Here's a H4D-50 multishot available from UK, seems to be a decent price, £10k buy now: http://www.ebay.com/itm/281585779024
-
A used Hasselblad CF-39 MS is a good choice. So are the Sinar MS backs of the same vintage. Michael Ulsaker at Ulsaker Studio in Connecticut is a great contact. Stay away from Phase. Their present generation of single-shot cameras are fine, if you want to spend a zillion dollars. Most museums, archives, etc that use cameras are using multi-shot systems. A used CF-39 MS back should not be more than $7K.
-
Of coure they're better,
but reality isn't really like that. We're not always in our basement studio.
We carry our equipement on archeology sites, to old collectors in their even older castles, with centuries old wooden floors. Sometimes I just drive to a gallerist to take 5 paintings, in 1 hour and to drive back by time for the next shooting. So the 1-shot solution is a very good one. Last year I did a huge chinese porcelain collection in 16 hours. The collector and his gallerist were a bit sceptical: "Sir, last time, the photographer did 16 shots to a picture." Yeah, sure, but then I have to stay a week.
The perfect solution would be to have scanning back, a multi-shot, a 80MP back, a view camera and a DSLR available, all the time. For a 1 person studio, this is simply not possible. A 60-80 MP back can get a lot of thing done.
Tom
-
Using multishot or microstep can't be more than 5% of the time need if one was to use single shot and that applies only to captures... Setting up the capture is (obviously) the most time consuming part of the job.
In return, the time needed for processing the files to achieve colour accuracy, is much less with multishot, to an extend that one actually works much faster and has far superior results by using it (especially if one uses a Sinarback).
I have 100% success with all my 16x shots when using my Sinarback 54H on my Fuji GX-680 and (off course) with my Contax 645 too... Same happened with my previous Imacon 528c and same applies with my 4x shots with my CF-39MS... Learning to work around vibration and environmental limitations comes with the job... One must learn to work around the limitations and find solutions on how to overcome them.
-
Using multishot or microstep can't be more than 5% of the time need if one was to use single shot and that applies only to captures... Setting up the capture is (obviously) the most time consuming part of the job.
In return, the time needed for processing the files to achieve colour accuracy, is much less with multishot, to an extend that one actually works much faster and has far superior results by using it (especially if one uses a Sinarback).
I have 100% success with all my 16x shots when using my Sinarback 54H on my Fuji GX-680 and (off course) with my Contax 645 too... Same happened with my previous Imacon 528c and same applies with my 4x shots with my CF-39MS... Learning to work around vibration and environmental limitations comes with the job... One must learn to work around the limitations and find solutions on how to overcome them.
+1
I set the time between shots to 9 seconds on mine but that is just because I want to lower the draw that my powerpacks have on the wiring in my studio. With better wiring I'd be able to do a 16 shot image in less then a minute. Betterlight systems take much longer.
-
A more promising route is to capture more than three color planes.
I think this is a good way to go, very much like the lucky people (mostly women) that are Tetrachromats and have 4 cone classes instead of the normal three. Couldn't this be done with a sensor without a color filter array and either a filter wheel or a set of different illuminants? I think MegaVision is doing something like this now - I visited them recently - and doing it this way they time the capture of each color independently such that they get a full well. If I'm not mistaken they also use UV and IR illumination too if needed.
-
Hi,
The Bayer pattern has a pair of green pixels for each blue and red pixel. Those greens may or may not be different. I have the impression that raw converters have provisions for handling different G1 and G2 channels.
Sony had some models having green and "emerald" as G1 and G2, but I think the concept has failed.
(http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS560x560?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quadibloc.com%2Fother%2Fimages%2Fccurve2c.gif&signature=pZF%2FKSwuukdKJ5UUyy3PfXElY8U%3D)
CFA response curves. I don't know if those contain sensor spectral response and IR filters. Here is the link (http://www.quadibloc.com/other/cfaint.htm).
#2 Is Kodak CFA
#3 Is Philips (may be similar to DALSA, as DALSA has taken over Philips CCD development"
#5 Is Foven
#6 Is Sony Super HADII
Best regards
Erik
A more promising route is to capture more than three color planes.
In 1992, Michael Vrehl, a student of Joel Trussell (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~hjt/) at North Carolina State presented a paper at the SPIE Imaging Conference. I'm sorry I can't find a link to the paper itself, only one to the abstract (http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=986714).
"The quality of color correction is dependent upon the filters used to scan the image. This paper introduces a method of selecting the scanning filters using a priori information about the viewing illumination. Experimental results are presented. The addition of a fourth filter produces significantly improved color correction over that obtained by three filters."
I remember being quite impressed with the improvement in color accuracy afforded by the addition of the fourth filter. The common term for cameras that have more than three filters is multispectral cameras. The ones I've seen are for scientific use. You can turn a monochromatic camera into a multispectral camera with a color wheel.
-
Leaf has had a color wheel camera if I remember correctly. Today you can buy Sinar CTM which I think is a dual filter + the ordinary bayer sensor. Sinar eXact multi-shot + CTM maybe is the highest end among commercially available systems today, but yes the workflow is considerably more elaborate than firing away a singe shot...
/Anders
-
Erik,
For completeness you should add in the Cone sensor made by Evolution :)
Edmund
Hi,
The Bayer pattern has a pair of green pixels for each blue and red pixel. Those greens may or may not be different. I have the impression that raw converters have provisions for handling different G1 and G2 channels.
Sony had some models having green and "emerald" as G1 and G2, but I think the concept has failed.
(http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS560x560?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quadibloc.com%2Fother%2Fimages%2Fccurve2c.gif&signature=pZF%2FKSwuukdKJ5UUyy3PfXElY8U%3D)
CFA response curves. I don't know if those contain sensor spectral response and IR filters. Here is the link (http://www.quadibloc.com/other/cfaint.htm).
#2 Is Kodak CFA
#3 Is Philips (may be similar to DALSA, as DALSA has taken over Philips CCD development"
#5 Is Foven
#6 Is Sony Super HADII
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi Edmund,
It is number one...
Erik
Erik,
For completeness you should add in the Cone sensor made by Evolution :)
Edmund
-
Suggestions on how things may improve on "true colour" capturing are of course very interesting... but i think the O/P is asking for current solutions as to what can be achieved with available equipment.
I guess the single shot solution some suggested has been proved that is to be taken with some salt as being adequate... To my surprise though, there was no talking about lighting, or experience shared on how different lighting affects the process. The Cruse scanner is using fluorescent with high CRI (>97) valves at 45' for the job.
IMO, the Cruse is a good device, but can be beaten by a well thought and executed photographic process out of an experienced specialist photographer.
-
Theodoros
I tried to talk about the lighting...... but maybe my comment was not interesting
or out of topic.
Ben
In my opinion the light is one of the biggest problem to reach accurate color.
Of course, the sensor is important, but on a certain sensor level other problems become more important.
Out of my 12 Bron G 3200 I don't have 4 lamps with an identical flash color. They are all a little bit different.
All have the same protecting glass, all powered by Grafit A4 packs, but I think the age of the flash tube
determines.
Even the polarisation filters I use for certain pictures in front of my lamps change the colors a little bit.
BTW: When the floor in a studio hasn't the same color as the ceiling, it's not worth talking about the sensor of the camera......
-
Theodoros
I tried to talk about the lighting...... but maybe my comment was not interesting
or out of topic.
Ben
It is neither out of topic, nor out of interest... The thing is that especially with multishot sensors, constant lighting temperature is one of the fundamental requirements. You'll rarely find satisfactory results with strobes... In fact, if strobe use is combined with single shot capturing, there will be different interpolated processing from the processor between shots.... Strobes and single shot combined, maybe (just) acceptable for other still life work (jewelry, food, ...etc) where color is tuned to the likes of the recipient, it may also be applicable with statues or other art capturing that is not as important as far as color accuracy is concerned (though multishot is still much superior for all still life work). But for paintings, you'll find that the best photographers that are highly praised for their work. are not using strobes....
-
Fun thing, here's a new multishot camera in m4/3 format(!):
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA.HTM
-
It is neither out of topic, nor out of interest... The thing is that especially with multishot sensors, constant lighting temperature is one of the fundamental requirements. You'll rarely find satisfactory results with strobes... In fact, if strobe use is combined with single shot capturing, there will be different interpolated processing from the processor between shots.... Strobes and single shot combined, maybe (just) acceptable for other still life work (jewelry, food, ...etc) where color is tuned to the likes of the recipient, it may also be applicable with statues or other art capturing that is not as important as far as color accuracy is concerned (though multishot is still much superior for all still life work). But for paintings, you'll find that the best photographers that are highly praised for their work. are not using strobes....
Thanks, Theodoros
I didn't know that. With my work normally the print office and/or the graphic artist also have influence on the color,
so spending too much time on that would be a waste....
When I don't misunderstand, you say that the strobes are may be consistent but the interpolation of the light from the back can differ?
(Bron + Profoto praise themselves for absolute color accuracy with their most expensive power packs.) ::)
How about polarization filters in front of the light? I use them for old oil paintings or paintings behind glass to fight unwanted reflections.
Is this the way to go?
-
I just noticed there was an old similar discussion in the forums on using a Gigapan ($900) system for this, lots of good discussion to learn from there - notably the issue of using a panoramic head and panning/tilting for tile detail shots can distort pixels and leave some sections of the art out of focus (unless autofocus is used?). Taking flat direct photos by moving the camera or piece of art for each tile photo seems to be a "more perfect" yet also "more difficult and expensive" process. The detail from these Gigapixel images is amazing though!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=43793.40
I just added the following note:
Follow up to note that people are using the Gigapan system to document fine art:
http://gigapan.com/cms/about/success-stories-capturing-a-moment-in-time
The Gigapan EPIC Pro seems to be in use by the Cultural Heritage Science Open Source (CHSOS) organization in and around Italy to record the old artwork there and elsewhere. They teach classes on all of their techniques to train other art preservationists. http://chsopensource.org
Also the comparable Dr. Clauss systems were also highly recommended, and much more expensive:
Perfect Art Reproductions with RODEON Multi-Head solution
http://dr-clauss.de/en/applications/repro
-
35mm multishot might be good enough for some uses :)
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9437515928/olympus-announces-om-d-e-m5-ii-with-40mp-high-resolution-mode
The world is changing.
Edmund
-
35mm multishot might be good enough for some uses :)
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9437515928/olympus-announces-om-d-e-m5-ii-with-40mp-high-resolution-mode
The world is changing.
Edmund
I believe Torger posted the same earlier.... Olympus method applies only on resolution increase which is the minor benefit with multishot... It still uses interpolation to "produce" colour.
-
The Olympus is a m43 (17.3x13mm sensor), not a 135 camera. It's shoots 8 shots with 0.5 pixel steps so of course you get improved colors too, not only resolution, but yes luminance resolution increase is larger than color resolution increase, but afaik the moire issues are gone. Here's a video showing in which orders shots are made https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nejL7ZMPmUI
-
Thanks, Theodoros
I didn't know that. With my work normally the print office and/or the graphic artist also have influence on the color,
so spending too much time on that would be a waste....
When I don't misunderstand, you say that the strobes are may be consistent but the interpolation of the light from the back can differ?
(Bron + Profoto praise themselves for absolute color accuracy with their most expensive power packs.) ::)
How about polarization filters in front of the light? I use them for old oil paintings or paintings behind glass to fight unwanted reflections.
Is this the way to go?
Strobes are never consistent... even the best ones (Bron, profoto) can differ up to 100 (+/- 50) degrees of temperature between shots. OTOH, if colour balance is interpolated, different subject can produce a different balance between colours that doesn't (exactly) obey the same colour profile as before. Polarising filters on both lighting and/or lens are only used to control unwanted reflection (another part with painting reproduction that demands high skills to avoid), their use is sometimes necessary even if there is a "soft room" that has been set up to enclose the subject within, depending on the kind of varnish and the reflectability of it.
As far as output profile is concerned, my opinion is that there should be a perfectly calibrated monitor that should be used. My suggestion is that the monitor should be calibrated so that two different materials (a fine art matte paper and a high quality canvas) print consistently when they are printed on the same printer (automatic profile on the printer for the material used). There is no point in choosing more than two particular materials, as material profiling that are supplied from makers for each different printer are not as consisted as they should be. Personally, I use Hannemule Daguerre and Epson enhanced matte paper, both on MK black on Epson 9900 printer. Then, one can assure that if a printing lab or Offset are using their automatic profiles, results will be as accurate as possible! If they aren't, ...then it's not his fault and he can prove his case by providing his own prints for comparison.
I cannot help as to mention once more that Sinar's multishot backs, are in a class of their own for setting up a capture profile for the back and that they can output a Fogra 27 or 39 CMYK profile ready to be used on offset printing. To sum it up, lighting is very important for art reproduction, but if one uses an interpolation colour back/camera, perfect lighting isn't going to save things. There has to be a multishot back for the capture and then one has to work as to maximise the result with lighting.
-
Strobes are never consistent... even the best ones (Bron, profoto) can differ up to 100 (+/- 50) degrees of temperature between shots. OTOH, if colour balance is interpolated, different subject can produce a different balance between colours that doesn't (exactly) obey the same colour profile as before. Polarising filters on both lighting and/or lens are only used to control unwanted reflection (another part with painting reproduction that demands high skills to avoid), their use is sometimes necessary even if there is a "soft room" that has been set up to enclose the subject within, depending on the kind of varnish and the reflectability of it.
As far as output profile is concerned, my opinion is that there should be a perfectly calibrated monitor that should be used. My suggestion is that the monitor should be calibrated so that two different materials (a fine art matte paper and a high quality canvas) print consistently when they are printed on the same printer (automatic profile on the printer for the material used). There is no point in choosing more than two particular materials, as material profiling that are supplied from makers for each different printer are not as consisted as they should be. Personally, I use Hannemule Daguerre and Epson enhanced matte paper, both on MK black on Epson 9900 printer. Then, one can assure that if a printing lab or Offset are using their automatic profiles, results will be as accurate as possible! If they aren't, ...then it's not his fault and he can prove his case by providing his own prints for comparison.
I cannot help as to mention once more that Sinar's multishot backs, are in a class of their own for setting up a capture profile for the back and that they can output a Fogra 27 or 39 CMYK profile ready to be used on offset printing. To sum it up, lighting is very important for art reproduction, but if one uses an interpolation colour back/camera, perfect lighting isn't going to save things. There has to be a multishot back for the capture and then one has to work as to maximise the result with lighting.
I agree. Take 100 shots or so at equally spaced intervals say 5 sec. using your strobes as the only light source and play the shots back as a .mov (image sequence) chances are you will see slight variations in light intensity and / or color, very slight but I bet there are going to be some.
-
I cannot help as to mention once more that Sinar's multishot backs, are in a class of their own for setting up a capture profile for the back and that they can output a Fogra 27 or 39 CMYK profile ready to be used on offset printing. To sum it up, lighting is very important for art reproduction, but if one uses an interpolation colour back/camera, perfect lighting isn't going to save things. There has to be a multishot back for the capture and then one has to work as to maximise the result with lighting.
Crap!
I'll have to call up the head of the digitization programs at Standard, Harvard, Yale, the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, The Getty, the Frick, Duke and Drexel, FSU and the Church of Later Day Saints, Brown and the Universities of Michigan/Minnesota/Kansas/Alabama/Pennsylvania and the rest of the partial client list (http://www.dtdch.com/page/clients) here. All of them are producing the overwhelming majority of their FADGI guided (http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report) high-end preservation quality Cultural Heritage Imaging (http://www.dtdch.com/) using single shot solutions. They are doing it all wrong (according to you).
Seriously though, when was the last time you attended industry conferences like SAA (http://www.dtdch.com/event/event/2014-saa-annual-meeting-06032014), DLF (http://www.dtdch.com/event/event/dlf-forum-2013), or ACRL (http://www.dtdch.com/event/event/acrl-conference-portland-or-2015) and attended workgroups on art reproduction, color repro theory, archival imaging quality requirements? How many Heads of Digitization of major museums have you met with in the last year?
YaYa posted the first reply here (note he attends a large number of such conferences and has likely been boots-on-ground at more museum art digitization facilities and fine-art-repro shops than every other poster on this thread combined). The days where Multi-shot was the majority-use technology were over a decade ago. The advantage is resolution per-pixel is now minuscule when there is one at all (any slight vibration, or calibration issue and it swings sharply the other direction). And again, no need to take my word for it, there are objective guidelines (http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report) and objective targets and measurement software for cultural heritage imaging (http://imagescienceassociates.com/) with which to benchmark both technologies.
-
I agree. Take 100 shots or so at equally spaced intervals say 5 sec. using your strobes as the only light source and play the shots back as a .mov (image sequence) chances are you will see slight variations in light intensity and / or color, very slight but I bet there are going to be some.
One of the many, many reasons why Multishot is an amazing concept, but a very precarious practical application.
-
If an operator were to use constant illumination(LED/tungsten/quartz/halogen/etc) in place of strobes, wouldn't that eliminate the issue of frame-to-frame color inaccuracy that has potential to be problematic, especially if stitching multiple, overlapping frames?
-
Crap!
I'll have to call up the head of the digitization programs at Standard, Harvard, Yale, the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, The Getty, the Frick, Duke and Drexel, FSU and the Church of Later Day Saints, Brown and the Universities of Michigan/Minnesota/Kansas/Alabama/Pennsylvania and the rest of the partial client list (http://www.dtdch.com/page/clients) here. All of them are producing the overwhelming majority of their FADGI guided (http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report) high-end preservation quality Cultural Heritage Imaging (http://www.dtdch.com/) using single shot solutions. They are doing it all wrong (according to you).
Seriously though, when was the last time you attended industry conferences like SAA (http://www.dtdch.com/event/event/2014-saa-annual-meeting-06032014), DLF (http://www.dtdch.com/event/event/dlf-forum-2013), or ACRL (http://www.dtdch.com/event/event/acrl-conference-portland-or-2015) and attended workgroups on art reproduction, color repro theory, archival imaging quality requirements? How many Heads of Digitization of major museums have you met with in the last year?
YaYa posted the first reply here (note he attends a large number of such conferences and has likely been boots-on-ground at more museum art digitization facilities and fine-art-repro shops than every other poster on this thread combined). The days where Multi-shot was the majority-use technology were over a decade ago. The advantage is resolution per-pixel is now minuscule when there is one at all (any slight vibration, or calibration issue and it swings sharply the other direction). And again, no need to take my word for it, there are objective guidelines (http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report) and objective targets and measurement software for cultural heritage imaging (http://imagescienceassociates.com/) with which to benchmark both technologies.
No need to get upset Doug... are you claiming that Single shot is better or even equal to multishot? ...I'll be doing the "Gennadios library" (it's backed up by the American Archeological institution and supplies files to 187 American universities) in the following weeks... (About 4000 captures)... sent a (Contax fit) back to Regina so that I can compare it with my 54H & CF-39MS and you have a new customer if it proves better! ...as simple as that isn't it? ...but I have to warn you... whatever I've tried up to now (even Aptus-12) in single shot, was rubbish (for the particular job) ....up to now! I can see why you (and Yair) insist on "an alternative"... but it's not all sales in this world Doug... Some of us (photographers) insist on what does the job and what is incompatible... I'm sorry Doug, but Sinar has proved in a class of its own on the field for the particular job under discussion... Your "references" can't change own experience unless if they can do it on the field... Multishot is also much-much faster when one seeks perfection with his work...
-
If an operator were to use constant illumination(LED/tungsten/quartz/halogen/etc) in place of strobes, wouldn't that eliminate the issue of frame-to-frame color inaccuracy that has potential to be problematic, especially if stitching multiple, overlapping frames?
Hi Daniel,
Continuous lighting is a must for stitching/scanning backs. Stitching of separate offset-tiles is much more flexible and it is capable of neutralizing the exposure/color differences at the overlap of the tiles, just like it can adjust vignetting (if not already tackled by an LCC) and lens distortions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Theodoros it was a shame you couldn't make it when I brought that Credo 80 Contax to Greece a couple of years ago...and to be honest I don't see this discussion going anywhere and I already had a feeling at the time that you were not going to buy anything single shot.
If you and your clients are happy with what your camera produces then it's more power to you, but I don't see much point in trying to force your opinion on everyone else. The current reality of art reproduction and CH digitisation in the majority of institutes around the world is different than what you see from your position and there's nothing you could say to change that.
BR
Yair
-
Theodoros it was a shame you couldn't make it when I brought that Credo 80 Contax to Greece a couple of years ago...and to be honest I don't see this discussion going anywhere and I already had a feeling at the time that you were not going to buy anything single shot.
If you and your clients are happy with what your camera produces then it's more power to you, but I don't see much point in trying to force your opinion on everyone else. The current reality of art reproduction and CH digitisation in the majority of institutes around the world is different than what you see from your position and there's nothing you could say to change that.
BR
Yair
But i could make it Yair... I made it clear to you that I wanted the back for my work (which you insisted It was able to do) and I wanted to compare it with my (at the days) Imacon 528c... It was just that Regina called me last minute and "informed" me that I couldn't have a comparison (it was canceled) but I was only allowed to try it for half an hour for normal single shot back use... Nerver mind... I did have the comparison with the back (I believe) you know (although it was on Mamyia camera) and had my comparison results... Have no doubt... if it could do the job I would have got it...
-
Theo,
Doug is going ballistic because
a) Phase has no Multishot
b) As Olympus now has just released the OM-D 5II multishot for something like $1K, it is clear that Sony too are going to be using software for their in-camera stabilisers for multishot, and of course when Sony does multishot with its fullframe sensors life will get really hard for Phase, when selling to institutions with a smaller budget. A 50 Mp Sony multishot 24x36 50MP sensor can probably compete quite well with a Phase CFV-50 with a 32x44 sensor, but Sony has a $3K body price.
c) Hassy have multishot so they have no issue with the multishot SLRs. And they now have exactly the same Sony sensors as Phase so the only commercial defense Doug and Yair have against Hassy and a possible Sony product is to say that multishot is useless.
d) We have had several Sinar and Hassy users say they like their multishot results a lot. Just like the 645Z which was pooh-poohed by Doug as a toy has suddenly garnered stellar user reviews.
On a side-note this really puts Phase in the middle of the manure heap, because in addition to financing a new general-purpose body they now need to finance a way to do MS with their backs.
Edmund
Crap!
I'll have to call up the head of the digitization programs at Standard, Harvard, Yale, the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, The Getty, the Frick, Duke and Drexel, FSU and the Church of Later Day Saints, Brown and the Universities of Michigan/Minnesota/Kansas/Alabama/Pennsylvania and the rest of the partial client list (http://www.dtdch.com/page/clients) here. All of them are producing the overwhelming majority of their FADGI guided (http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report) high-end preservation quality Cultural Heritage Imaging (http://www.dtdch.com/) using single shot solutions. They are doing it all wrong (according to you).
Seriously though, when was the last time you attended industry conferences like SAA (http://www.dtdch.com/event/event/2014-saa-annual-meeting-06032014), DLF (http://www.dtdch.com/event/event/dlf-forum-2013), or ACRL (http://www.dtdch.com/event/event/acrl-conference-portland-or-2015) and attended workgroups on art reproduction, color repro theory, archival imaging quality requirements? How many Heads of Digitization of major museums have you met with in the last year?
YaYa posted the first reply here (note he attends a large number of such conferences and has likely been boots-on-ground at more museum art digitization facilities and fine-art-repro shops than every other poster on this thread combined). The days where Multi-shot was the majority-use technology were over a decade ago. The advantage is resolution per-pixel is now minuscule when there is one at all (any slight vibration, or calibration issue and it swings sharply the other direction). And again, no need to take my word for it, there are objective guidelines (http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report) and objective targets and measurement software for cultural heritage imaging (http://imagescienceassociates.com/) with which to benchmark both technologies.
-
Believe me... I do respect both Doug and Yair... but they also have to respect the opinion of a well known professional qualified for the job too... Especially for Doug, I would expect him to be more careful next time he will use the word "crap" against my knowledge on what I do and he doesn't! Us artists, do have a temper sometimes... and if it "explodes" against a salesman that doesn't watch his mouth can only be damaging to him...
-
I would expect him to be more careful next time he will use the word "crap" against my knowledge on what I do and he doesn't!
"Crap!" was meant to mean "O no!" or "Drat!".
In other words I was making a facetious statement that I was worried for the vast majority of institutions who are using single-shot, since you say that single-shot is not the way to go.
-
"Crap!" was meant to mean "O no!" or "Drat!".
In other words I was making a facetious statement that I was worried for the vast majority of institutions who are using single-shot, since you say that single-shot is not the way to go.
It isn't... so it is their "crap"... Unless if with "major institutions" you mean those that keep the "corner painter's" stuff...
-
Just like the 645Z which was pooh-poohed by Doug as a toy has suddenly garnered stellar user reviews.
O please. Show me one post, anywhere, where I've said anything of the kind. The only thing I ever done is list reasons why someone might consider a Credo/IQ/IQ2 over a 645Z. I'm a camera-phile and there are almost no cameras I would pooh-pooh (the Mamiya ZD I might take a few pot shots at every once in a while, but that back was just a dog! :)). Along with Phase/Leaf gear I've shot weddings with Canon, Nikon, and Fuji and have found things to love about each of them. There's a lot to like about the 645Z as well.
Likewise, for Multi-Shot, I've only pointed out that the advantages are demonstrably small, the workflow can be challenging, and the process can be error-prone.
The idea of an institution using an Olympus multishot for digitization work is... well, let's say that prospect does not keep me up at night.
Anyway, this gets tiring.
-
O please. Show me one post, anywhere, where I've said anything of the kind. The only thing I ever done is list reasons why someone might consider a Credo/IQ/IQ2 over a 645Z. I'm a camera-phile and there are almost no cameras I would pooh-pooh (the Mamiya ZD I might take a few pot shots at every once in a while, but that back was just a dog! :)). Along with Phase/Leaf gear I've shot weddings with Canon, Nikon, and Fuji and have found things to love about each of them. There's a lot to like about the 645Z as well.
Likewise, for Multi-Shot, I've only pointed out that the advantages are demonstrably small, the workflow can be challenging, and the process can be error-prone.
The idea of an institution using an Olympus multishot for digitization work is... well, let's say that prospect does not keep me up at night.
Anyway, this gets tiring.
I wouldn't disagree on anything on the above... Only that with multishot, it is as easy as a longer exposure (for those that need it and have worked on how it should be used correctly) and that the outcome workflow for the particular job under discussion makes multishot both (much) more accurate, (much) more reliable and (much) more fast to have an art reproduction result.
-
Doug,
I always thought dogs were faithful likeable animals :)
I agree that the Sony is a bit of a laugh - but the upcoming A7R-II is not going to make Canon or Nikon happy, is my feeling, and Phase may feel unhappy too if it can do multishot. Sony seem to have got into the habit of learning from their competitors customers.
As for your tech comments, I disagree about the advantages being small, but the workflow is doubtless challenging - but it might be less so if it were conveniently automated in some way ... our industry has been a bit slow to take up LED lighting, but if it is usable for video it can certainly useful to multishot. As for camera stability issues, well there is something called software, and if lighting is available one can shoot 30 images rather than 4 ... Incidentally astronomers love image superposition because it turns a decent sensor into a superb one, and a camera that could do this automatically would also be lovely for interior architecture and on-location cultural work in available light.
Edmund
O please. Show me one post, anywhere, where I've said anything of the kind. The only thing I ever done is list reasons why someone might consider a Credo/IQ/IQ2 over a 645Z. I'm a camera-phile and there are almost no cameras I would pooh-pooh (the Mamiya ZD I might take a few pot shots at every once in a while, but that back was just a dog! :)). Along with Phase/Leaf gear I've shot weddings with Canon, Nikon, and Fuji and have found things to love about each of them. There's a lot to like about the 645Z as well.
Likewise, for Multi-Shot, I've only pointed out that the advantages are demonstrably small, the workflow can be challenging, and the process can be error-prone.
The idea of an institution using an Olympus multishot for digitization work is... well, let's say that prospect does not keep me up at night.
Anyway, this gets tiring.
-
I believe that what Olympus or Sony does (currently) has little or nothing to do with the subject under discussion... Methods of sampling the subject to achieve higher resolution are not the same as using multishot (or scanning back). The main purpose to use tricolor capturing method is to avoid color interpolation which neither Olympus or Sony offer (yet).
-
I believe that what Olympus or Sony does (currently) has little or nothing to do with the subject under discussion... Methods of sampling the subject to achieve higher resolution are not the same as using multishot (or scanning back). The main purpose to use tricolor capturing method is to avoid color interpolation which neither Olympus or Sony offer (yet).
they can offer it with one firmware fix.. because as you understand they are able to shift the sensor precisely enough... but don't be upset - there is still naturally some market left for your beloved backs
-
I think you should think more before you post "whatever"... Olympus method can't do "true colour" at all and Sony doesn't (officially) have any sensor shift method or patent... it's only a rumour.
-
I think you should think more before you post "whatever"... Olympus method can't do "true colour" at all and Sony doesn't (officially) have any sensor shift method or patent... it's only a rumour.
Theo,
The way MS is done in backs AFAIK is that the sensor is mounted on a slightly mobile base that can be micro-shifted by means of super-accurate piezo actuators in the X and Y directions. Now in the last few years camera companies like Olympus and Sony have started to mount their sensors on mobile bases, although they may be using a different type of actuator that can do fast long runs. The actuators in SLRs have mainly been employed for real-time stabilisation, but with appropriate programming they can doubtless do Multi-shot, and I think we are seeing this with Olympus. Sony and I think Pentax have similar in-body stabilisation system, and barring patent issues I would expect them to follow suit. In the end the stabilisers will probably become an industry staple, just like rapid-return mirrorboxes and vertical-run shutters which once upon a time were specialty items.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Well, Sony has a sensor patent, and I also believe a commercial sensor that is doing just that. The sensor does three exposures storing the electron charge in three different storage areas and delivers a true RGB signal, without interpolation. That sensor is not multishot as the CFA is moved doing a single exposure. The Sony solution doesn't increase resolution.
The sensor they have is a smallish sensor with largish pixels and is not used in a "real" camera.
Best regards
Erik
I believe that what Olympus or Sony does (currently) has little or nothing to do with the subject under discussion... Methods of sampling the subject to achieve higher resolution are not the same as using multishot (or scanning back). The main purpose to use tricolor capturing method is to avoid color interpolation which neither Olympus or Sony offer (yet).
-
I asume all you guys have seen and read THIS (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml) article by Mark Dubovoy right here on LL.
-
Hi,
Yes I have. It seems that different authors have different experience with multishot techniques. Unfortunately very few posters post actual raw images which may serve the purpose of an objective comparison.
That said, some posters have positive experience with multishot. It is very clear that multishot has the advantage of uninterpolated colour and with 16X multishot also a resolution advantage. On the other hand, single shot is in all probability a simpler solution in most cases.
The good news is that some companies are working on implementing more practical multishot. A multishot device can also be used as a single shot device, but offers the option to use uninterpolated color.
Just to mention, there are also superresolution techniques that can gain resolution from multiple shots.
Personally, I would suggest that the gains from multishot are reduced with technologies increasing the fill factor, like shared transistor designs and gapless microlenses.
Best regards
Erik
I asume all you guys have seen and read THIS (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml) article by Mark Dubovoy right here on LL.
-
I think you should think more before you post "whatever"... Olympus method can't do "true colour" at all and Sony doesn't (officially) have any sensor shift method or patent... it's only a rumour.
it can because they have enough precision to shift sensor by sensel or fraction of sensel... so it is just the matter of them deciding let our firmware write true color ("RGB" per each sensel) raw file...
-
Theo,
The way MS is done in backs AFAIK is that the sensor is mounted on a slightly mobile base that can be micro-shifted by means of super-accurate piezo actuators in the X and Y directions. Now in the last few years camera companies like Olympus and Sony have started to mount their sensors on mobile bases, although they may be using a different type of actuator that can do fast long runs. The actuators in SLRs have mainly been employed for real-time stabilisation, but with appropriate programming they can doubtless do Multi-shot, and I think we are seeing this with Olympus. Sony and I think Pentax have similar in-body stabilisation system, and barring patent issues I would expect them to follow suit. In the end the stabilisers will probably become an industry staple, just like rapid-return mirrorboxes and vertical-run shutters which once upon a time were specialty items.
Edmund
What I say is different, the implementation that Olympus is currently using (a movement of the same pixel in a perimeter around its initial position at 8 different new ones, in a way that each one has some of the pixel covering space from the original pixel's area) is only to increase resolution... it doesn't prove that the method has the accuracy required as to move the pixel at exactly one or half a pixel pitch... so that it will be able to exactly match the same position for all three colors. This particular method would work even if the movement of the pixel is 80% inaccurate... (it would still cover the space between pixels). Sony is yet to be seen...
-
What I say is different, the implementation that Olympus is currently using (a movement of the same pixel in a perimeter around its initial position at 8 different new ones, in a way that each one has some of the pixel covering space from the original pixel's area) is only to increase resolution... it doesn't prove that the method has the accuracy required as to move the pixel at exactly one or half a pixel pitch... so that it will be able to exactly match the same position for all three colors. This particular method would work even if the movement of the pixel is 80% inaccurate... (it would still cover the space between pixels). Sony is yet to be seen...
Yes, any new method won't work and cannot be improved :)
Edmund
-
it doesn't prove that the method has the accuracy required as to move the pixel at exactly one or half a pixel pitch...
and let me ask how do you know (markering statements aside) that backs do exactly a precise shift ? do you have an ind. test (raw files available not from manufacturer) where you can see that multishot will really get a _1_ sensel wide line from the target projected on its sensor to raw file in the same manner (same sensels locations) as w/ the same setup in single shot mode - so we can compare 2 raw files and see that shift was exactly that precise... that in both raw files only exactly the same sensel locations are received exposure ( of it that is a black line - then not receiving :-) ) from that 1 sensel wide line... do you ?
-
Yes, any new method won't work and cannot be improved :)
Edmund
That's not what I say either... I say that for the moment it doesn't work (for true color) and remains to be seen if it (ever) will... I just don't like to make assumptions like "here is an alternative technology...", that refer to technologies which the maker themselves (Olympus in this case) have never claimed that they are after...
Sony OTOH, I believe they have a patent that involves moving the Bayer pattern (only) with respect to the (constant) sensor... I find this a brilliant idea, I could then mount it on a Campo Actus, use my C645 lenses on the Campus and get rid of the (bulky) Fuji.... Imagine that? There will be only the C645 lenses needed for all my Nikon cameras (via the JAS adapter I recently purchased), the Actus and the MF system and there will be true color and movement ability all in a bag! ...The photographer's dream if you ask me.
-
Hi,
check this http://petapixel.com/2014/08/20/hasselblads-new-h5d-200c-multi-shot-spits-massive-200-megapixel-files/
And also the image samples here: http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/08/multishot1.jpg
Don't forget to click on the image for full size
Best regards
Erik
-
Theo,
It's just a patent issue. Modern in-camera stabilisers can do this. And of course one needs to write the software to take the images, the software to assemble them, and and and -
Edmund
That's not what I say either... I say that for the moment it doesn't work (for true color) and remains to be seen if it (ever) will... I just don't like to make assumptions like "here is an alternative technology...", that refer to technologies which the maker themselves (Olympus in this case) have never claimed that they are after...
Sony OTOH, I believe they have a patent that involves moving the Bayer pattern (only) with respect to the (constant) sensor... I find this a brilliant idea, I could then mount it on a Campo Actus, use my C645 lenses on the Campus and get rid of the (bulky) Fuji.... Imagine that? There will be only the C645 lenses needed for all my Nikon cameras (via the JAS adapter I recently purchased), the Actus and the MF system and there will be true color and movement ability all in a bag! ...The photographer's dream if you ask me.
-
Hi,
This was posted by Quentin Bargate over ta GetDPI.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/598326-post1.html
Forum software resizes the images, click on the images for full size:
Single shot:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%20single%20shot.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%20single%20shot.jpg)
Multishot:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%20multi%20shot.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%20multi%20shot.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
-
Theo,
It's just a patent issue. Modern in-camera stabilisers can do this. And of course one needs to write the software to take the images, the software to assemble them, and and and -
Edmund
I don't think it's a matter of developing the technology as to achieve accuracy... the method that OLY choose to res up things suggests to me that they couldn't go for "dead on" control of accuracy... Don't forget that piezo crystal is a movement device... while image stabilisation is an oscillation damping device... i.e. the first one measures length, while the other accelerates dumbing around a centre... IMO the principal is different to an extend that one can't replace the other... Sony in the OH uses a stepping device to move the BP with respect to the sensor... not an oscillating one... (although they have one).
-
I don't think it's a matter of developing the technology as to achieve accuracy... the method that OLY choose to res up things suggests to me that they couldn't go for "dead on" control of accuracy... Don't forget that piezo crystal is a movement device... while image stabilisation is an oscillation damping device... i.e. the first one measures length, while the other accelerates dumbing around a centre... IMO the principal is different to an extend that one can't replace the other... Sony in the OH uses a stepping device to move the BP with respect to the sensor... not an oscillating one... (although they have one).
Theo,
With the greatest respect, we are here to learn from each other.
Stabilisation means choosing a reference and holding steady for the duration of the exposure. So to do multi-shot you tell the system to shift its reference by one pixel x, y, or xy and hold steady :) Of course you need to be able to tell the system how far one pixel absolute shift is, but that is ... engineering :)
Sony have a stabilizer in the A7II which is doubtless a voice coil-actuator system which can do this; they have a different sensor patent but that is in the future.
Edmund
-
Hi,
check this http://petapixel.com/2014/08/20/hasselblads-new-h5d-200c-multi-shot-spits-massive-200-megapixel-files/
And also the image samples here: http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/08/multishot1.jpg
Don't forget to click on the image for full size
Best regards
Erik
I am sorry - where are the raw files provided by a 3rd party :-) with the line in the image that we can judge upon the inspection of the said raw files (from a single shot) as being 1 sensel wide ? no such files... you posted a link to a webpage containing JPGs provided my a H. marketing department... hence the claim that in the actual field situation (not a staged shot by marketing department) multishot back can achieve a one sensel precions in sensor shift is yet to be proved/proven beyond words
-
You obviously haven't ever use a multishot back... They have complete accuracy down to half a pixel movement... Imacon/Hasselblad are self calibrated by taking leading shots and then have a failure massage in the software if something has gone wrong, Sinar provides a calibration method in its software and a specially designed card to check alignment for the user in case he detects misalignment of pixels... But the system is so accurate and stable that most users only rarely use it and only to check that the system performs under spec...
-
You obviously haven't ever use a multishot back... They have complete accuracy down to half a pixel movement... Imacon/Hasselblad are self calibrated by taking leading shots and then have a failure massage in the software if something has gone wrong, Sinar provides a calibration method in its software and a specially designed card to check alignment for the user in case he detects misalignment of pixels... But the system is so accurate and stable that most users only rarely use it and only to check that the system performs under spec...
Theo -
"A failure massage in the software when something has gone wrong "
I'm laughing so loudly, I'm waking up the rest of my household.
:)
Edmund
-
Hi,
I am aware of all that, but I wanted to find examples. I did recall that Quentin Bargate posted some samples of his own:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=97360.msg798077#msg798077
Quentin's samples also come without raw files. Quentin is one of those guys who share good info without the bragging factor.
I certainly advocate raw files and try to post raw files for all my articles. There are couple of leading advocates of multishot on these forums, but I never have seen raw images posted by them.
Anders Torger, who is doing some development work on raw conversion software (Lumariver HDR and RawTherapee) says that it is difficult to get raw samples from MFD equipment. Great pity.
Best regards
Erik
-
One of the many, many reasons why Multishot is an amazing concept, but a very precarious practical application.
Oh no! I must be more careful then! I have used the multishot and micro step with a pair of old Metz 60 CT-4 flash units, with all kinds of stuff really. I had no idea how dangerous this was. It just seems to work… I had no idea how I was living one the edge.
-
Hi Eric,
Doing multishot and microstep with the equipment Doug sells is clearly problematic, so I can see he has some reservations about the technique. Would you present some examples demonstrating the efficiency of technique, it would be nice. I have been able to dig up a vendor sample and a very good sample by Quentin Bargate over at GetDPI.
Best regards
Erik
Oh no! I must be more careful then! I have used the multishot and micro step with a pair of old Metz 60 CT-4 flash units, with all kinds of stuff really. I had no idea how dangerous this was. It just seems to work… I had no idea how I was living one the edge.
-
Theo -
"A failure massage in the software when something has gone wrong "
I'm laughing so loudly, I'm waking up the rest of my household.
:)
Edmund
Ι don't see why you laugh... Things can go wrong despite the perfect calibration that there is... If the photographer fails to eliminate vibration or lighting variations, the capture may fail, Hasselblad software can detect the failure and a "vibration detected" message appears on the software..
-
You obviously haven't ever use a multishot back... They have complete accuracy down to half a pixel movement... Imacon/Hasselblad are self calibrated by taking leading shots and then have a failure massage in the software if something has gone wrong, Sinar provides a calibration method in its software and a specially designed card to check alignment for the user in case he detects misalignment of pixels... But the system is so accurate and stable that most users only rarely use it and only to check that the system performs under spec...
I think you did use and you might be so kind as to put raw files behind your words ;) ... no ? no raw files ? only blah-blah-blah then... that we all can do ::)
-
Hi,
This was posted by Quentin Bargate over ta GetDPI.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/598326-post1.html
and none of which show that multi-shot has a 1 (one) sensel sensor shift precision ;D
there are just no details that you can isolate and with a clear conscience say - this detail was projected on 1 sensel (with) in a single shot and on the same 1 sensel all the times in multi-shot ::)
they only show the increased resolution, but that as we know can be achieved even w/o any precise shifts
-
I think you did use and you might be so kind as to put raw files behind your words ;) ... no ? no raw files ? only blah-blah-blah then... that we all can do ::)
You want me to post "raw" files for free? :o ...so that you can judge? :P Don't you know that art reproduction work, is work that somebody else has pay a lot for and can't be shared? ??? OK then... send me some paintings of yours, I'll sent you an invoice on the cost to do them for you and you can have all the raw files you want! ;D ;) :-* ::)
-
Or else pop in the nearest premium museum to you and ask them fot some "raw" files... ::) :D I bet they'll give you some PIΤA along with the files you ask... ;D But even if you could get some... :-\ what you would open them with? ??? :'( :P
ΕDIT: It's "T" ...not "N"!
-
You want me to post "raw" files for free?
blah-blah-blah = that's what I thought...
-
blah-blah-blah = that's what I thought...
Please tell us how you'll open them and test them? ;D
-
Hi,
I don't think this is about bragging rights, but about sharing information. Images are worth more than worths and raw images are worth more than processed images, it is simple as that.
Latest time I counted I have shared something like 200 raw images, admittedly they may not be easy to find.
But just as a sample, here are some test shots with the Hasselblad Planar 80/2.8: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Planar_80/
And this is a pointer to all those images: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/
The reason I posted these was that some reader was interested in old Hasselblad lenses and I have happened to make these shots to better understand some issues I have seen. Sharing raw images is of course much more helpful than posting processed JPEGs, as the reader cannot know how those images were processed. With raw mages the readers can apply their favourite processing methods.
Now, I don't pretend I am a great reproduction artist. My background is engineering and a bit science, where you share as much as feasible. You don't share trade secrets, or protect them before sharing, but without facts you don't have any credibility. Simple as that.
Just as a side note, Doug Peterson makes serious business. I am pretty sure he will be glad to send raw samples for anyone seriously asking. He needs that for credibility. But I don't think he would give away the profiles they created for free.
Best regards
Erik
Or else pop in the nearest premium museum to you and ask them fot some "raw" files... ::) :D I bet they'll give you some PINA along with the files you ask... ;D But even if you could get some... :-\ what you would open them with? ??? :'( :P
-
Μajor museum files, are mostly done with Sinar multishot equipment... Even if one would be able to exhibit the RAW material elsewhere than he has been paid for (which of course is impossible as he signs contract before - but still say if he could), one that doesn't own a sinarback can't open the files although he can download Sinar software for free... He can't activate the software if there is no "factory set white reference" which is supplied with the back... and he can't use the program unless there is a back to provide "black reference".
-
Thanks for explaining, sounds reasonable to me.
Best regards
Erik
Μajor museum files, are mostly done with Sinar multishot equipment... Even if one would be able to exhibit the RAW material elsewhere than he has been paid for (which of course is impossible as he signs contract before - but still say if he could), one that doesn't own a sinarback can't open the files although he can download Sinar software for free... He can't activate the software if there is no "factory set white reference" which is supplied with the back... and he can't use the program unless there is a back to provide "black reference".
-
Somebody who owns a back can put a cheap antique painting or poster and a colorchecker in front of it and take a shot in his studio - also i would be very surprised if Sinar and others didn't have a standard set of files for demo purposes, with all the reference files.
Edmund
Μajor museum files, are mostly done with Sinar multishot equipment... Even if one would be able to exhibit the RAW material elsewhere than he has been paid for (which of course is impossible as he signs contract before - but still say if he could), one that doesn't own a sinarback can't open the files although he can download Sinar software for free... He can't activate the software if there is no "factory set white reference" which is supplied with the back... and he can't use the program unless there is a back to provide "black reference".
-
Please tell us how you'll open them and test them? ;D
I will try rawdigger and if raw files are not yet supported then may be authors will add the support... and the file in question is just a shot of a white surface with a thin black line (for example) that takes ~1 (~one) sensel width-wise in the raw file (that you can see in rawdigger by examining the sensels) ... nobody is asking you to share your (art)work.... then comparing single shot vs multishot we can see if the system managed to shift the sensor precisely enough... but feel free to suggest anything that can backup the claim... so far JPG pictures referenced do not show anything close... more so they are not what I 'd consider sensel sharp at all for a camera w/o AA filter with optics that costs thousands and being shot in a lab conditions from a solid tripod to be used for marketing purposes :D
-
I will try rawdigger and if raw files are not yet supported then may be authors will add the support... and the file in question is just a shot of a white surface with a thin black line (for example) that takes ~1 (~one) sensel width-wise in the raw file (that you can see in rawdigger by examining the sensels) ... nobody is asking you to share your (art)work.... then comparing single shot vs multishot we can see if the system managed to shift the sensor precisely enough... but feel free to suggest anything that can backup the claim... so far JPG pictures referenced do not show anything close... more so they are not what I 'd consider sensel sharp at all for a camera w/o AA filter with optics that costs thousands and being shot in a lab conditions from a solid tripod to be used for marketing purposes :D
Good luck opening them... obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about since you think of them like being "common" RAW files that a program may break! ;) ::) ??? :o :-* :'( :-X :-[ :D :P
-
"obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about ...."
You have to love the community spirit here.
And since when is knowing what you're talking about a requirement for posting?
-
Good luck opening them... obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about since you think of them like being "common" RAW files that a program may break! ;) ::) ??? :o :-* :'( :-X :-[ :D :P
so again - no raw files, just excuses not to put them where your mouth is... that is so typical of you.
-
so again - no raw files, just excuses not to put them where your mouth is... that is so typical of you.
Send me your mail, I'll pass you some via "filemail"... they are of 508mb each... good luck in opening them... I'll include some pictures of a collection of Norwegian trolls (done with movements) too! ;D :-* :P
-
In Art reproduction (not pictures of art) there is three factors that must be mastered...
ONE is setting up the subject and lighting it correctly.
TWO is having all the detail of it (for 1:1 print).
THREE is having all the tone and colour accuracy of it.
ONE differs between subjects and structure of the subject. TWO depends on the size and detail on the subject. THREE requires having absolute profiles... As far as "absolute" profiles are concerned, one can't have the required accuracy if colour interpolation is involved and "automatic" profiling "general" methods are not sufficient for having the term "reproduction" satisfied... Thus, the use of "true colour" is a necessity (to avoid an interpolation algorithm to interfere) and there is special knowledge required, where one has to "build" his own profiles for a particular project... That said, there are cases where one has to "group" the project in order to keep lighting and profile changes to a minimum.
.......
Of course tri-colour capture is not perfect... but it's the best we have available to work with and (most importantly) it has no disadvantage (only advantages with all factors involved) than the use of "normal" sensors. The longer exposure times and extensive lighting on the subject are factors that are "part of the job" for one to learn on how to control as to avoid harming the subject by emitting extensive IR on it.
+1
-
In my humble opinion, I am ready to accept the quality of the watercolor reproduction made with an Aptus10 or similar one-shot back. In most cases the one-shot systems, if profiled, produce excellent results with books and and aliasing is easier controlled on flat paper artwork or books.
When we shoot paintings, such as oil on fine woven canvas, I wouldn't use a one-shot system, regardless of the megapixel count.
I will pay for a scanner and an experience operator or shoots myself with my ancient Sinar P2-converted-to-P3 with my Sinarback 54H and LC shutter. And I know several art museums in Europe and Russia and they use very similar Sinar setups. They are offered sponsored deals from the Digital backs manufacturers and some of museums want high volume workflow and they migrate to modern one-shot systems. Cannot discuss the details here, but I know that it is not a photographer who decide what equipment will be used in a museum.
-
Thank you all for the information on the continuous lighting for repro work. I shoot with Bron strobes and I will look into new LEDs.
-
Daylight Fluorescent at 5500K with OSRAM Dulux L valves (CRI>97) is also highly recommended to consider... It's the same effect as used on Cruse scanner.
-
Send me your mail, I'll pass you some via "filemail"... they are of 508mb each... good luck in opening them... I'll include some pictures of a collection of Norwegian trolls (done with movements) too! ;D :-* :P
are those files with the subject asked ? you can send me a PM on this forum with the link to download, thank you.
-
No... I want your mail and (real) name... even privately. PM them to me, There will be original RAW files captured with Sinarback 54H in 16x true colour capture, the subjects are Byzantine Icons out of my personal belongings that I use to calibrate and test things... You'll need Sinar software (6.1.2) to open them... which even if you download (it's free) you won't be able to activate unless if you own a Sinarback yourself.
-
Make it today... because tomorrow I'll start doing a major project and I won't have time to post here other than a couple (or three) posts and only during the weekends... Cheers. ;)
-
No... I want your mail and (real) name... even privately. PM them to me, There will be original RAW files captured with Sinarback 54H in 16x true colour capture, the subjects are Byzantine Icons out of my personal belongings that I use to calibrate and test things... You'll need Sinar software (6.1.2) to open them... which even if you download (it's free) you won't be able to activate unless if you own a Sinarback yourself.
I pm'd you my email address - not sure what do you want to achieve with that, because I do not ask for any valuable raw files from you - I am asking to place a white sheet of paper with a black line that takes _1_ (one) sensel width-wise in a single shot mode, make single shot and multishot of that target and share the raw files... now if I will not be able to open (or get help to open) the files that's a different story - my fault, not yours... but why do I need icons though ? if you own the camera and use it on a regular basis it is not a big deal to make such shots (2) and that will answer all questions...
-
I pm'd you my email address - not sure what do you want to achieve with that, because I do not ask for any valuable raw files from you - I am asking to place a white sheet of paper with a black line that takes _1_ (one) sensel width-wise in a single shot mode, make single shot and multishot of that target and share the raw files... now if I will not be able to open (or get help to open) the files that's a different story - my fault, not yours... but why do I need icons though ? if you own the camera and use it on a regular basis it is not a big deal to make such shots (2) and that will answer all questions...
You'll be able to open the single shot raw file with LR or other, but you won't be able to open the 4x or 16x file... not even if you download Sinar's 6.1.2 software... because you don't have the factory set "white reference" which accompanies the purchase of each back... ;) I've said that to you many times and you keep asking the same... still expect the info I asked you... (name and residence)... Why? ...it's because I don't like your attitude or arrogance (I think you are a double name troll)... You behave like some other "Einsteins" I've seen around and don't respect the unknown to you... 8)
-
still expect the info I asked you... (name and residence)...
you are way too unreasonable - if you can provide 2 raw files with the content that has no commercial value just do it and the ball is on my side... but you are instead attaching strings that are irrelevant, now I can understand if you are sharing the actual work of yours (which I specifically ask you not to, because I might need to share the files further with the purpose to try to examine those) instead of test files (which I ask for)... that simple.
-
Theodoros... the author of rawdigger code (and I asked him yesterday) will be glad to receive a multishot raw from Sinar to test and introduce the support (so far they don't have any samples - so while they have a code, they did not have a chance to test it w/ real files), so please share... you have a chance to make a positive contribution :) ... if you don't want to send it to me - send it directly to Alex Tutubalin (rawdigger, frv, libraw) - may be that will address your concerns :)
-
Ive been away for a while and was reading some of this to catch up to current levels of discussion
There were a number of points I would like to clarify (unless I didn't understand?)
Sinar captureshop latest and free download from sinar (http://www.sinar.ch/en/category/downloads-en/software-en/)takes by default dng format files
these files can be exchanged and used with captureshop software with or without a camera back or any other camera file
The best camera system in the world for accurate colour is the Sinar CTM system.
Reports with academic credibility (http://www.cis.rit.edu/DocumentLibrary/admin/uploads/CIS000129.pdf) confirm by actual measurement this to be so - Quote"The results for the Hasselblad and Phase One were especially disappointing"
If any London based members are involved in this field there is an open day with Sinar CTM and eXact Camera demonstration Wednesday 4th March (http://eepurl.com/bew7-b)
I can arrange sample images of non-commercial value
regards
Edwin
-
Ive been away for a while and was reading some of this to catch up to current levels of discussion
There were a number of points I would like to clarify (unless I didn't understand?)
Sinar captureshop latest and free download from sinar (http://www.sinar.ch/en/category/downloads-en/software-en/)takes by default dng format files
these files can be exchanged and used with captureshop software with or without a camera back or any other camera file
The best camera system in the world for accurate colour is the Sinar CTM system.
Reports with academic credibility (http://www.cis.rit.edu/DocumentLibrary/admin/uploads/CIS000129.pdf) confirm by actual measurement this to be so - Quote"The results for the Hasselblad and Phase One were especially disappointing"
If any London based members are involved in this field there is an open day with Sinar CTM and eXact Camera demonstration Wednesday 4th March (http://eepurl.com/bew7-b)
I can arrange sample images of non-commercial value
regards
Edwin
Hi Edwin... Sinar's superiority in true colour management has been discussed already (by me) and it is so... Sinar is in a class of its own as far as accurate colour management is concerned...
DNGs can be exported from Sinar software, but it is likely that the colour profile will suffer in the conversion... It's best for one that uses Sinar for Art reproduction (he better do...), to work on files with Sinar software and have direct TIFFs on both RGB & FOGRA by adapting his own profiles to be compatible with Sinar's idea on how profiles work correctly... Clearly if Sinar's colour profiling is compared with any other manufacturer, it's a huge defeat for that other maker... It's like comparing a qualified pilot with an elementary school student to pilot a combat aircraft... the difference is that much!
In fact, I've made a listing asking to trade my (very recently) purchased Hasselblad CF-39MS, with either a Sinarback 86H, or an eXact ( http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=98023.0 )... The decision was made just after I tried (correctly used) my Sinarback 54H in 16x mode... Hasselblad multishot backs are far superior than any single shot back for still work, but as far as colour accuracy is concerned, they pale if compared with Sinar's superiority!
-
Thanks for the update Theodoros,
If I can help with adaptors or cables when you exchange your parts pm me and I will try.
regards
Edwin
-
Theodoros, are you the photographer who goes around monasteries and takes high-quality pictures of Byzantine icons? I seem to remember someone here doing that, but I can't remember if it was you.
-
The best camera system in the world for accurate colour is the Sinar CTM system.
Reports with academic credibility (http://www.cis.rit.edu/DocumentLibrary/admin/uploads/CIS000129.pdf) confirm by actual measurement this to be so - Quote"The results for the Hasselblad and Phase One were especially disappointing"
Hi Edwin!
The study you link to was published in 2012 and the version of Capture One used was the general-purpose release. The commercial-photography color profiles in Capture One's general-purpose release were carefully crafted for pleasing color. As this paper shows they were not designed for, nor excelled at, preservation oriented color accuracy. In fact the sentence before the one you quoted sums this up quite well "Our hypothesis was confirmed: the commercial cameras with profiles optimized for subjective color reproduction produced large colorimetric errors."
However, a lot has changed since 2012!
DTDCH (http://www.dtdch.com/) / Phase One's very fast growth in the Cultural Heritage market opened the door for the creation of a new set of color profiles, built exclusively for accurate color in linear art reproduction. These new CH Color Profiles were painstakingly researched, developed, and field tested and were included in the first release of Capture One Cultural Heritage (http://www.dtdch.com/page/capture-one-ch) (Capture One CH) in late 2014.
The Getty, where the study you linked to was done, is now one of our largest clients. They are constantly pushing the boundaries of quality in Cultural Heritage imaging and do amazing work to further that community. It is largely because of feedback from The Getty and our growing list of Cultural Heritage Clients (http://www.dtdch.com/page/clients) that we made this investment in class-leading reproduction color profiles. I was honored to be invited to provide a (see also: training on Capture One CH at the Getty Research Institute (http://www.dtdch.com/blog/getty-research-institute-training)).
Speaking of... Will we be seeing you at IS&T Archiving conference, hosted this year at the Getty, in May? We'll be hosting a short course on Capture One CH and (pending acceptance) publishing a paper on Capture One CH. I'd love to buy you a drink.
-
Happy to see the then 6 yr old, out of production Aptus 75 coming 2nd with no information about the software/ profile/ curve that were used...
BR
Yair
-
Hi Edwin!
The study you link to was published in 2012 and the version of Capture One used was the general-purpose release. The commercial-photography color profiles in Capture One's general-purpose release were carefully crafted for pleasing color.
Yes... My impression when tried past P1 backs, was that they where "all over the place" as far as colour accuracy was concerned... IMO, the Dalsa 33mp backs (the Sinar Emotion 75/LV & Leaf 75/S) where by far more accurate for colour as far as single shot backs where concerned.
EDIT: That said, I always thought that "pleasing colour" is a personal matter that appeals different to different photographers and thus, always preferred as accurate colour as single shot backs can give... and then adapt it to my personal "pleasing colour" preferences for other purposes than art reproduction....
However, a lot has changed since 2012!
DTDCH (http://www.dtdch.com/) / Phase One's very fast growth in the Cultural Heritage market opened the door for the creation of a new set of color profiles, built exclusively for accurate color in linear art reproduction. These new CH Color Profiles were painstakingly researched, developed, and field tested and were included in the first release of Capture One Cultural Heritage (http://www.dtdch.com/page/capture-one-ch) (Capture One CH) in late 2014.
The Getty, where the study you linked to was done, is now one of our largest clients. They are constantly pushing the boundaries of quality in Cultural Heritage imaging and do amazing work to further that community. It is largely because of feedback from The Getty and our growing list of Cultural Heritage Clients (http://www.dtdch.com/page/clients) that we made this investment in class-leading reproduction color profiles. I was honored to be invited to provide a (see also: training on Capture One CH at the Getty Research Institute (http://www.dtdch.com/blog/getty-research-institute-training)).
Speaking of... Will we be seeing you at IS&T Archiving conference, hosted this year at the Getty, in May? We'll be hosting a short course on Capture One CH and (pending acceptance) publishing a paper on Capture One CH. I'd love to buy you a drink.
Glad to hear that...but still, there is no way a single shot back can match a multishot back for resolution and absence of artefacts, as well as for colour depth for art reproduction work... Provided of course, that the aim is "faithful reproduction" and that correct calibrating of colour profiling for the particular subject to be reproduced is used... (The previous is exactly where Sinarbacks excel....) ;)
-
I'm sure RIT considers any new offerings, I don't think anything stands still, Sinar has never waited for its competitors to catch-up.
Thank's for the offers of a drink but the £2k round trip to get it makes it a bit pricey
Anyone in London is welcome to the Mayfair studios on 4th March but it will just be coffee and business ;-)
best regards
Edwin
-
Theodoros, so you decided not to put the words where your mouth was :-)... and talked your way of providing any raw files - that was expected
-
Theodoros, so you decided not to put the words where your mouth was :-)... and talked your way of providing any raw files - that was expected
Provide them to who?
-
Hi Doug,
I am not in the reproduction business, but I have some amateurish interest in colour reproduction, and I would say that profiles are very important for colour reproduction. So it is quite possible that a camera profile regarded good for studio shots would give faulty reproduction while a profile intended for good reproduction may yield a bit boring colour.
The samples below were shot for an article I was writing. The subject was a simple flower, but it was chosen to demonstrate the effect of profiles on two natural colours I found tricky. Before taking the picture I cut away some small samples and measured it with ny ColorMunki spectrometer.
The flower blades were deep purplish blue, like this:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/Violet_vsmall.jpg)
While green variation was more like this:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/GreenBlade_spectrum_vsmall.jpg)
The bluish purple was identified by Photoshop as Pantone 268 C. The greenish blades had more variation.
Capture One gave this image with it's default profile:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-CF046070_C1_vsmall.jpg)
Lightroom using Adobe Standad Profile gave another image with much better reproduction of the "bluish purple":
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-CF046070_AdobeStandard_vsmall.jpg)
The profile I normally use with my P45+ in Lightroom gave this image:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-CF046070_DI13125_vsmall.jpg)
My Sony camera using Adobe Standard Profile gave this reproduction:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-_DSC6397_AdobeStandard_vsmall.jpg)
The same camera using Capture One's default profile gave this image:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-_DSC6397_C1_vsmall.jpg)
What I may think this shows that profiles may matter more than sensors. There is probably some intrinsic colour rendition on a sensor, relating to its spectrum response and also on UV and IR filtration.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Edwin!
The study you link to was published in 2012 and the version of Capture One used was the general-purpose release. The commercial-photography color profiles in Capture One's general-purpose release were carefully crafted for pleasing color. As this paper shows they were not designed for, nor excelled at, preservation oriented color accuracy. In fact the sentence before the one you quoted sums this up quite well "Our hypothesis was confirmed: the commercial cameras with profiles optimized for subjective color reproduction produced large colorimetric errors."
However, a lot has changed since 2012!
DTDCH (http://www.dtdch.com/) / Phase One's very fast growth in the Cultural Heritage market opened the door for the creation of a new set of color profiles, built exclusively for accurate color in linear art reproduction. These new CH Color Profiles were painstakingly researched, developed, and field tested and were included in the first release of Capture One Cultural Heritage (http://www.dtdch.com/page/capture-one-ch) (Capture One CH) in late 2014.
The Getty, where the study you linked to was done, is now one of our largest clients. They are constantly pushing the boundaries of quality in Cultural Heritage imaging and do amazing work to further that community. It is largely because of feedback from The Getty and our growing list of Cultural Heritage Clients (http://www.dtdch.com/page/clients) that we made this investment in class-leading reproduction color profiles. I was honored to be invited to provide a (see also: training on Capture One CH at the Getty Research Institute (http://www.dtdch.com/blog/getty-research-institute-training)).
Speaking of... Will we be seeing you at IS&T Archiving conference, hosted this year at the Getty, in May? We'll be hosting a short course on Capture One CH and (pending acceptance) publishing a paper on Capture One CH. I'd love to buy you a drink.
-
What I may think this shows that profiles may matter more than sensors.
Hi Erik,
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I agree that the profiles are an important factor in how colors are converted/rendered.
There is probably some intrinsic colour rendition on a sensor, relating to its spectrum response and also on UV and IR filtration.
Silicon based image sensors basically have the same spectral sensitivity, but it is modified by the channel filters, implemented either as a filter wheel on a 'monochrome' sensor, or as a Bayer CFA (single-shot or multi-shot) full color/colour device. Since the filter channels do not correspond to the sensitivities of the cones of our eyes, there will always be some issues in accurate reproduction of color.
I've followed your flower issue in other threads with interest, but do not want to derail this thread by rehashing everything here. However, did you ever attempt to modify the color profile in Capture One (in the Color editor you can tweak color conversion and rewrite the settings as a new profile)? I'm not saying that it's the same as generating a dedicated profile from scratch, based on specific color pigment/dye input with a specific lens using a specific illuminant (lightsource), but it does offer a certain level of influence. Just pick the flower petal color with the advanced color editor's sampler, and see if it can be selectively changed to something that looks more purple, without affecting true blues. That could perhaps tell you whether it is the CFA demosaicing, or the profiling that turns your purples to blue, without having to generate your own profile from scratch (which is not easy).
Cheers,
Bart
-
In addition to the above, any profile is further influenced by the sensor's temperature of operation at the moment of capturing an image.... Sinar's method of taking a "black reference" before each shot, is taking even that into account and automatically adjusts the profile to the "new" black reference with respect to the factory set (or user preset) white reference and automatically adjusts the rest of the colour chart that has been shot for calibration purposes and memorised, to be compatible with the white and black reference.
-
Hi,
Yes, I tried it and it was easy. On the other hand all other conversions I did got the colours almost exactly right, without any tweaking and that is the reason I am pretty sure this a profile issue and not a CFA issue.
When doing repro work, I would presume that a profile is needed that reproduces the colours without need for tweaking.
Here are a bunch of conversions: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/
Best regards
Erik
I've followed your flower issue in other threads with interest, but do not want to derail this thread by rehashing everything here. However, did you ever attempt to modify the color profile in Capture One (in the Color editor you can tweak color conversion and rewrite the settings as a new profile)? I'm not saying that it's the same as generating a dedicated profile from scratch, based on specific color pigment/dye input with a specific lens using a specific illuminant (lightsource), but it does offer a certain level of influence. Just pick the flower petal color with the advanced color editor's sampler, and see if it can be selectively changed to something that looks more purple, without affecting true blues. That could perhaps tell you whether it is the CFA demosaicing, or the profiling that turns your purples to blue, without having to generate your own profile from scratch (which is not easy).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Love this subject! Great reading thru all the posts, good info for anyone just getting involved in this biz for sure
I have dedicated a large portion of my life and experience to art repro capture, and run a very successful group of studios one of which is entirely dedicated to this very subject. Not our bread and butter, but enough to employ 3 highly skilled and experienced craftsmen, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and studio space.
My firm belief is that info gleaned from art repro capture research is immediately applied to our commercial work and vice versa.
I don't think the initial question "Best camera setup for art repro...?" is a serious one.
Analogous to a question like "what is the best car for driving on mountain roads?"
-Are we racing? Is speed an issue? whats our budget? Will there be weather? who are our passengers? Is comfort an issue? Are they paying for the trip? will there be sand, or water, or rocks on our path? How much gas do we need?...etc
We have many clients for art repro capture and reproduction but most are private collections, large museums, some really high end well heeled artists, and insurance companies.
One of the posts earlier in this discussion stated that $1000 for a single image was very high. I can assure you that $1000+/image is not considered crazy expensive, in fact, its fairly commonplace. We just completed a single capture for a museum reproduction for over $10k. Mind you we are not just one photographer with a bitchin camera and a computer, but a highly skilled team of specialists who have all been doing this for major museums and artists since the 70’s and film days. So though $10K might seem like a bundle, it is very small compared to value of the painting we were hired to capture...and we were hired to do it twice! (before and after restoration) The restoration work on this single painting alone cost over $100K. Just the scaffolding costs were close to that.
We have most if not all of the gear mentioned in this thread but over 50% of the time we have found that a highly skilled and experienced operator who knows how to properly light, expose, post-proc using C1 with an 80MP CCD MFD back and corresponding lenses is our go to system.
Recently (Fall 2014) we went up against a skilled competitor who uses the Sinar system and we bid using our Credo80 system and our team. We both had to show accuracy and competence on a smaller piece about 6ft x 9ft (valued at $12 million!)
In the end, we won the contract based on a variety of factors but our color accuracy was said to be the most important factor.
So although, on paper, I agree that a true-color type system with multi-pop or scan back should be more accurate, there are many more factors that go into the equation and should be considered.
For instance, we tested out the Hassy 200MP MS and though on paper it looked like a winner, in real world testing, the 6pop multistep tech did not work so good, suffered from misregistration, and was extremely susceptible to even the most minute vibrations. Even when bolted to a concrete floor we had problems with it.
-
Hi,
Thanks for the info! Could you tell us a little bit on colour reproduction, like do you use a specific colour profile or are you tweaking individual colours for correct reproduction?
Best regards
Erik
Love this subject! Great reading thru all the posts, good info for anyone just getting involved in this biz for sure
I have dedicated a large portion of my life and experience to art repro capture, and run a very successful group of studios one of which is entirely dedicated to this very subject. Not our bread and butter, but enough to employ 3 highly skilled and experienced craftsmen, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and studio space.
My firm belief is that info gleaned from art repro capture research is immediately applied to our commercial work and vice versa.
I don't think the initial question "Best camera setup for art repro...?" is a serious one.
Analogous to a question like "what is the best car for driving on mountain roads?"
-Are we racing? Is speed an issue? whats our budget? Will there be weather? who are our passengers? Is comfort an issue? Are they paying for the trip? will there be sand, or water, or rocks on our path? How much gas do we need?...etc
We have many clients for art repro capture and reproduction but most are private collections, large museums, some really high end well heeled artists, and insurance companies.
One of the posts earlier in this discussion stated that $1000 for a single image was very high. I can assure you that $1000+/image is not considered crazy expensive, in fact, its fairly commonplace. We just completed a single capture for a museum reproduction for over $10k. Mind you we are not just one photographer with a bitchin camera and a computer, but a highly skilled team of specialists who have all been doing this for major museums and artists since the 70’s and film days. So though $10K might seem like a bundle, it is very small compared to value of the painting we were hired to capture...and we were hired to do it twice! (before and after restoration) The restoration work on this single painting alone cost over $100K. Just the scaffolding costs were close to that.
We have most if not all of the gear mentioned in this thread but over 50% of the time we have found that a highly skilled and experienced operator who knows how to properly light, expose, post-proc using C1 with an 80MP CCD MFD back and corresponding lenses is our go to system.
Recently (Fall 2014) we went up against a skilled competitor who uses the Sinar system and we bid using our Credo80 system and our team. We both had to show accuracy and competence on a smaller piece about 6ft x 9ft (valued at $12 million!)
In the end, we won the contract based on a variety of factors but our color accuracy was said to be the most important factor.
So although, on paper, I agree that a true-color type system with multi-pop or scan back should be more accurate, there are many more factors that go into the equation and should be considered.
For instance, we tested out the Hassy 200MP MS and though on paper it looked like a winner, in real world testing, the 6pop multistep tech did not work so good, suffered from misregistration, and was extremely susceptible to even the most minute vibrations. Even when bolted to a concrete floor we had problems with it.
-
I’ll try
For printing its a mixed bag as well, and factors are if we are printing in-house or on someone else’s equipment.
We print profile using a combination XRITE ProfileMaker hardware/software and sometimes older legacy Heidelberg PrintOpen software comboned with tweaking of profiles using ORIS ColorTuner software
Basically it depends on whether we are targeting a standard web or sheetfed press that uses AM screening or an inkjet FM press that uses stochastic (FM screening) and High Fidelity ink sets.
In either case, we profile/fingerprint the press. In-house we print on a Epson 11880
The camera sensors are a different story. We have tried using a wide variety of profiling software and hardware but have found the best results for MFD and scan backs is using certain canned profiles and tweaking results directly in C1 or ACR.
The canons and small dslrs are easy to profile but the big guns just aren’t.
We output drum scanned files into Linocolor CieLab, and most camera captures into Adobe 1998 or ProPhoto RGB colorspace. Sometimes 16bit (when there is a reason to take highlight detail or shadow detail that needs bumping.
In the end, we do our best to profile thru the whole process but it really is just a start point because each job is different and has different colors and densities that are targeted. We almost always go 3-4 rounds of tweaking with a high dollar job for reproduction even with all the profiling and calibrated systems, its just never an “exact science” it seems.
We had a job that required a huge capture and then reproduction on a single piece of canvas over 12ft x 15ft. We had to take a machine that ordinarily prints billboard signage that size, and re-calibrate it to our giclée print standards. That took 2 months! Then we had to have a single roll of ink jet receptive canvas made just for this machine and its special latex ink sets and profile all over again. That took an extra month. There were so many variables you just wouldn’t believe it, but in the end, came out great and the client was extremely happy. One for the record books because much of what we did from capture to finished stretched piece required adventure into uncharted territory.
The attached iPhone shots of what we did don't really do it justice. But gives some idea of scale. The 2nd iPhone shot is of us doing the actual capture. The 1st image is over 3months after the capture when the original and our reproduction were , for a brief moment, side by side as they took down the original and put up our giclée reproduction.
The capture was done using 6 frames on a Sinar 4x5 using our venerable Credo80 back and C1 LCC frames and color profile targets for each and every frame/exposure. Each exposure was a minute suspended over 25 ft in the air on rickety scaffolding. I only bring it up because the capture part of the job was every bit as hard as the print part, but we only had one shot at it in one evening and no second chances! Pretty cool, huh?
-
Hi,
Thanks for sharing! Some good insight in high level reproduction work!
Some small reflections on your writing:
- No real surprise that tweaking is needed. A profile is always generic and there will always be metameric issues with natural pigments, I guess. There was a very entertaining interview here at LuLa with Ray Maxwell, who is a colour scientist, I think. He sad, that for correct reproduction a profile is needed built patches using the same pigments as in the original. That would reproduce the painting ideally in the same light as used for taking the picture.
- Something that came as a bit of surprise that 8-bit colour can be used with wide gamuts. It may be that we use 16 bits a bit habitually, but using a wide colour space in 8-bits may not be the ultimate sin I would have believed.
Best regards
Erik
I’ll try
For printing its a mixed bag as well, and factors are if we are pronting in-house or on someone else’s equipment.
We print profile using a combination XRITE ProfileMaker hardware/software and sometimes older legacy Heidelberg PrintOpen software comboned with tweaking of profiles using ORIS ColorTuner software
Basically it depends on whether we are targeting a standard web or sheetfed press that uses AM screening or an inkjet FM press that uses stochastic (FM screening) and High Fidelity ink sets.
In either case, we profile/fingerprint the press. In-house we print on a Epson 11880
The camera sensors are a different story. We have tried using a wide variety of profiling software and hardware but have found the best results ofr MFD and scan backs using certain canned profiles and tweaking results directly in C1 or ACR. The canons and small dslrs are easy to profile but the big guns just aren’t.
We output drum scanned files into Linocolor CieLab, and most camera captures into Adobe 1998 or ProPhoto RGB colorspace. Sometimes 16bit (when there is a reason to like highlight detail or shadow detail that needs bumping.
In the end, we do our best to profile thru the whole process but it really is just a start point because each job is different and has different colors and densities that are targeted. We almost always go 3-4 rounds of tweaking with a high dollar job for reproduction even with all the profiling and calibrated systems, its just never an “exact science” it seems.
We had a job that required a huge capture and then reproduction on a single piece of canvas over 12ft x 15ft. We had to take a machine that ordinarily prints signage that size and re-calibrate it to giclee print standards. That took 2 months! Then we had to have a single roll of ink jet receptive canvas made just for this machine and its special latex ink sets and profile all over again. That took an extra month. There were so many variables you just wouldn’t believe it, but in the end, came out great and the client was extremely happy. One for the record books because much of what we did from capture to finished stretched piece required adventure into uncharted territory.
-
He sad, that for correct reproduction a profile is needed built patches using the same pigments as in the original. That would reproduce the painting ideally in the same light as used for taking the picture.
Hahaha...My favorite thing to tell clients with super high expectations of reproductions is: "If you want a perfect copy, then let us make two copies and throw away the original!" ;)
- Something that came as a bit of surprise that 8-bit colour can be used with wide gamuts. It may be that we use 16 bits a bit habitually, but using a wide colour space in 8-bits may not be the ultimate sin I would have believed.
As previously stated, I am less interested in what "should be better" and test to see what actually works more often than not. 16bit has its uses in some cases but is rarely needed, imo. It can be a crutch for poor exposure or proc skills like some friends of mine always ranting about needing more and more dynamic range so they can pull detail out of under or overexposed areas. I think it can be of help in many situations but in a studio controlled lighting and exposure situation I don't think its needed. And it uses up a lot of disc space and proc power. Now the conversion from 16bit to 8bit is very important I have found, but thats another variable...
-
Hi,
Comments, see below!
Best regards
Erik
Hahaha...My favorite thing to tell clients with super high expectations of reproductions is: "If you want a perfect copy, then let us make two copies and throw away the original!" ;)
Erik: I really liked this one!
As previously stated, I am less interested in what "should be better" and test to see what actually works more often than not. 16bit has its uses in some cases but is rarely needed, imo. It can be a crutch for poor exposure or proc skills like some friends of mine always ranting about needing more and more dynamic range so they can pull detail out of under or overexposed areas. I think it can be of help in many situations but in a studio controlled lighting and exposure situation I don't think its needed. And it uses up a lot of disc space and proc power. Now the conversion from 16bit to 8bit is very important I have found, but thats another variable...
Erik: Conventional wisdom, or at least my reading of it, says that more bits are needed to represent a larger colour space as each change of bit represents a larger shift in hue and density. I got this from one of the writings of Karl Lang, cannot find it right now, of course. Well, if 16 bits are not needed for ProPhoto RGB than we can just work with smaller files, a good thing.
-
I feel it depends upon output. 8bit vs 16bit or Lab vs sRGB vs ProPhoto RGB vs Adobe RGB gamuts are all well and fine if your output is RGB transmissive light like a well calibrated computer monitor. But if you are printing something, It all becomes subtractive light model for reflective and standard print gamuts of CMYK or Hex or some other variation. Basically, imo, you are taking a color range the size of Nebraska and fitting it into a coke can. So unless you have some detail that really needs exaggeration so it shows on a print somewhere in this process, what is the point?
OTOH, if you are shooting for detective, forgery, or restoration work or something that requires serious pixel peeping on a monitor by experts, it can be totally justified.
-
Love this subject! Great reading thru all the posts, good info for anyone just getting involved in this biz for sure
I have dedicated a large portion of my life and experience to art repro capture, and run a very successful group of studios one of which is entirely dedicated to this very subject. Not our bread and butter, but enough to employ 3 highly skilled and experienced craftsmen, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and studio space.
My firm belief is that info gleaned from art repro capture research is immediately applied to our commercial work and vice versa.
I don't think the initial question "Best camera setup for art repro...?" is a serious one.
Analogous to a question like "what is the best car for driving on mountain roads?"
-Are we racing? Is speed an issue? whats our budget? Will there be weather? who are our passengers? Is comfort an issue? Are they paying for the trip? will there be sand, or water, or rocks on our path? How much gas do we need?...etc
We have many clients for art repro capture and reproduction but most are private collections, large museums, some really high end well heeled artists, and insurance companies.
One of the posts earlier in this discussion stated that $1000 for a single image was very high. I can assure you that $1000+/image is not considered crazy expensive, in fact, its fairly commonplace. We just completed a single capture for a museum reproduction for over $10k. Mind you we are not just one photographer with a bitchin camera and a computer, but a highly skilled team of specialists who have all been doing this for major museums and artists since the 70’s and film days. So though $10K might seem like a bundle, it is very small compared to value of the painting we were hired to capture...and we were hired to do it twice! (before and after restoration) The restoration work on this single painting alone cost over $100K. Just the scaffolding costs were close to that.
We have most if not all of the gear mentioned in this thread but over 50% of the time we have found that a highly skilled and experienced operator who knows how to properly light, expose, post-proc using C1 with an 80MP CCD MFD back and corresponding lenses is our go to system.
Recently (Fall 2014) we went up against a skilled competitor who uses the Sinar system and we bid using our Credo80 system and our team. We both had to show accuracy and competence on a smaller piece about 6ft x 9ft (valued at $12 million!)
In the end, we won the contract based on a variety of factors but our color accuracy was said to be the most important factor.
So although, on paper, I agree that a true-color type system with multi-pop or scan back should be more accurate, there are many more factors that go into the equation and should be considered.
For instance, we tested out the Hassy 200MP MS and though on paper it looked like a winner, in real world testing, the 6pop multistep tech did not work so good, suffered from misregistration, and was extremely susceptible to even the most minute vibrations. Even when bolted to a concrete floor we had problems with it.
It must have been a faulty 200MS... did you check it for malfunctioning? :D
-
Hi Theodoros
Yes, we considered that possibility at the time. I felt bad for our Hasselblad rep at the time (who was fantastic).
In the end, there were other system-wide implementation considerations that led us to choose PhaseOne/Leaf over the Hasselblad solution.
I couldn't help but feel that if that problem occurred with a demo model and rep right there, that it could, and would, occur to us on the job at some point.
Because of the nature of how this work is performed in real-world scenarios, I did not see enough advantage over the existing scan back solution to justify the purchase; whereas I did with the PhaseOne/Leaf systems. That having been said, the Hasselblad MS is a hell of a nice machine and system and it was a close call.
-
Hi,
I guess I see your point. I made a small experiment, taking one of my P45+ shots of an IT8 target in Prophoto RGB 16 bits. I opened the image in Photoshop CS and saved as a TIFF, than I converted it to 8-bits and back to 16-bits and save that image. After that I read both images using the scanin program from Argyll CMS and compared the resulting CGATS files using BabelColors Patchtool.
The errors resulting from the roundtrip to 8 bits were ignorable (DE*) <= 0.55 and all differences occured in the darks.
Learning all the time...
Best regards
Erik
I feel it depends upon output. 8bit vs 16bit or Lab vs sRGB vs ProPhoto RGB vs Adobe RGB gamuts are all well and fine if your output is RGB transmissive light like a well calibrated computer monitor. But if you are printing something, It all becomes subtractive light model for reflective and standard print gamuts of CMYK or Hex or some other variation. Basically, imo, you are taking a color range the size of Nebraska and fitting it into a coke can. So unless you have some detail that really needs exaggeration so it shows on a print somewhere in this process, what is the point?
OTOH, if you are shooting for detective, forgery, or restoration work or something that requires serious pixel peeping on a monitor by experts, it can be totally justified.
-
Hi Theodoros
Yes, we considered that possibility at the time. I felt bad for our Hasselblad rep at the time (who was fantastic).
In the end, there were other system-wide implementation considerations that led us to choose PhaseOne/Leaf over the Hasselblad solution.
I couldn't help but feel that if that problem occurred with a demo model and rep right there, that it could, and would, occur to us on the job at some point.
Because of the nature of how this work is performed in real-world scenarios, I did not see enough advantage over the existing scan back solution to justify the purchase; whereas I did with the PhaseOne/Leaf systems. That having been said, the Hasselblad MS is a hell of a nice machine and system and it was a close call.
I guess with so much reputation in your work, you also own a Sinarback eXact.... I wonder why you didn't choose that instead... You see... as I said before, after Yair refused me to compare the Leaf 12II (which you choose to use) with my (at the dates) 528c, I did try the Aptus out of another owner (who had the back after the original owner died at the age of 42 - Yair knows the case) and I must say, although lenses where different, the results where so much in favor of the 528c that even a "blind" man could see... OTOH, the Sinarback 54H is even better than the 528c....
I wonder... surely if you do such a great job, have all these studios and charge all that money, you surely have a web page... what is it? You may also contact me privately via PM with your mail address... We are both at the same subject with not much (serious) competition around and knowledge on that (very difficult) part of photography is developing all the time... We may benefit both after we get to know each other... ;)
P.S.... Aaaah! ...welcome to the forum!
-
I guess with so much reputation in your work, you also own a Sinarback eXact.... I wonder why you didn't choose that instead... You see... as I said before, after Yair refused me to compare the Leaf 12II (which you choose to use) with my (at the dates) 528c, I did try the Aptus out of another owner (who had the back after the original owner died at the age of 42 - Yair knows the case) and I must say, although lenses where different, the results where so much in favor of the 528c that even a "blind" man could see... OTOH, the Sinarback 54H is even better than the 528c....
I wonder... surely if you do such a great job, have all these studios and charge all that money, you surely have a web page... what is it? You may also contact me privately via PM with your mail address... We are both at the same subject with not much (serious) competition around and knowledge on that (very difficult) part of photography is developing all the time... We may benefit both after we get to know each other... ;)
P.S.... Aaaah! ...welcome to the forum!
Sorry, Theodoros, you sound kind of defensive, and I am not a fan of peeing contests. Forgive me if I am wrong in that assessment.
If you disagree with anything I have said, thats fine. I'm good with that. I am just a working pro who's been doing this a long time.
Thanks for the welcome to the forum! I joined recently to answer a question for someone else who asked me to. I saw this subject and thought I'd chime in. I have no interest in debating what and who is better at any particular aspect of art repro. There are many factors that determine success in this field.
Yes, I have multiple web pages, but no interest in advertising here.
I am; however always interested in how other people do the same job, as well as new ways to accomplish the same goals.
From what I gather, you like to use the Sinar 54H and have had good results with it that you feel are superior to a Leaf Aptus (why the Aptus?, btw?, I never mentioned using an Aptus. I use a Credo80....or is that what you are challenging Yair with?)
My retort is simple. A scan back like a Betterlight or PhaseOne scan back, or multi shot MFD are marvelous tools for art repro capture. On paper, they are better color and resolution than single pop modern single capture backs like the Credo and IQ250 CMOS backs. But in my real world experience it is more about skill, lighting, knowledge of the client's goals, budget and experience. The "big picture" pardon the pun.Just my 2 cents.
-
Sorry, Theodoros, you sound kind of defensive, and I am not a fan of peeing contests. Forgive me if I am wrong in that assessment.
If you disagree with anything I have said, thats fine. I'm good with that. I am just a working pro who's been doing this a long time.
Thanks for the welcome to the forum! I joined recently to answer a question for someone else who asked me to. I saw this subject and thought I'd chime in. I have no interest in debating what and who is better at any particular aspect of art repro. There are many factors that determine success in this field.
Yes, I have multiple web pages, but no interest in advertising here.
I am; however always interested in how other people do the same job, as well as new ways to accomplish the same goals.
From what I gather, you like to use the Sinar 54H and have had good results with it that you feel are superior to a Leaf Aptus (why the Aptus?, btw?, I never mentioned using an Aptus. I use a Credo80....or is that what you are challenging Yair with?)
My retort is simple. A scan back like a Betterlight or PhaseOne scan back, or multi shot MFD are marvelous tools for art repro capture. On paper, they are better color and resolution than single pop modern single capture backs like the Credo and IQ250 CMOS backs. But in my real world experience it is more about skill, lighting, knowledge of the client's goals, budget and experience. The "big picture" pardon the pun.Just my 2 cents.
No defense at all (how did this come to you?)... I don't mind at all to disagree with people, I'm still interested to see your page... I'm only doing "small jobs" myself (I'm currently doing the Academy of Athens (5200 pieces), then I have to do the Gennadios library (2400 pieces) and then the Acropolis Museum this year) in a small country, that its monuments are of minor importance for world culture... So what do I know?
But what I do, I have no problem in posting (because ....I do it) ...see? I do believe that you have nothing to learn from me, but please, let me have a taste on that page of yours... If you don't want to share it with the rest on the forum, please do it privately... I promise not to reveal it.... It's the word of a pro, that finds the Sinarback 54H far superior than Leaf's 12ii back... (which I believe has minor IQ differences than Credo?) ....regards, Theodoros.
-
Just wondering if any of the experts on here is coming to the 2D/3D conference at the Rijkmuseum in April? We could all sit around the dinner table and discuss this subject until we drop...
And welcome to LuLa Eric! Hope you brought your helmet along?
BR
Yair
-
Just wondering if any of the experts on here is coming to the 2D/3D conference at the Rijkmuseum in April?
For those interested:
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/2and3dphotography (https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/2and3dphotography)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just wondering if any of the experts on here is coming to the 2D/3D conference at the Rijkmuseum in April? We could all sit around the dinner table and discuss this subject until we drop...
And welcome to LuLa Eric! Hope you brought your helmet along?
BR
Yair
Thanks, Yair
I would absolutely love to attend such a conference and am very fond of Amsterdam!
Unfortunately, won't be able to attend for usual reasons like work, family, and budget.
I'd send one of my assistants but she'd just hang in the cafes and get stoned all day....She told me as much.
Unlike some others here, I seem to have my hands full with only a few hundred art captures per year ;)
Our next fun project is some cave art with no available electricity or platform to shoot from. Should be fun!
Thanks for the welcome to LuLa, I only have my bicycle helmet, I hope it is enough ;)
e
-
Hi Egor,
I also wanted to thank you for sharing your experience! Carry on, Sir!
Best regards
Erik
Thanks, Yair
I would absolutely love to attend such a conference and am very fond of Amsterdam!
Unfortunately, won't be able to attend for usual reasons like work, family, and budget.
I'd send one of my assistants but she'd just hang in the cafes and get stoned all day....She told me as much.
Unlike some others here, I seem to have my hands full with only a few hundred art captures per year ;)
Our next fun project is some cave art with no available electricity or platform to shoot from. Should be fun!
Thanks for the welcome to LuLa, I only have my bicycle helmet, I hope it is enough ;)
e
-
Hello,
I constructed a combination to reproduce the artworks which are oilpaint on wood whose dimensions are changed between 10x15 cm and 100x200 cm. What do you think, is this set up sufficient? Is there any equipment that I have to add or change? Nevertheless, is there any equipment that incompatible with each other?
Sinar rePro RC or Sinar p3-df
Apo-Sironar digital 55 mm f/4,5 with eShutter + polarizer filter + UV filter
Betterlight Super 8K-HS Digital Scanning Back
North Light HID Copy Lights (2 X 600 + 2 X 300) + polarizer filter
Sinar parallel (for parallel alignment)
X-Rite Digital ColorChecker SG Card
sekonic l-758dr light meter
Sekonic Prodigi Color C-500 Color Meter
Betterlight ViewFinder Digital Scanning Camera Software
EquaLight 3.1.1
Mac Pro + Eizo CG276
Thank you
-
Hello,
I constructed a combination to reproduce the artworks which are oilpaint on wood whose dimensions are changed between 10x15 cm and 100x200 cm. What do you think, is this set up sufficient? Is there any equipment that I have to add or change? Nevertheless, is there any equipment that incompatible with each other?
Sinar rePro RC or Sinar p3-df
Apo-Sironar digital 55 mm f/4,5 with eShutter + polarizer filter + UV filter
Betterlight Super 8K-HS Digital Scanning Back
North Light HID Copy Lights (2 X 600 + 2 X 300) + polarizer filter
Sinar parallel (for parallel alignment)
X-Rite Digital ColorChecker SG Card
sekonic l-758dr light meter
Sekonic Prodigi Color C-500 Color Meter
Betterlight ViewFinder Digital Scanning Camera Software
EquaLight 3.1.1
Mac Pro + Eizo CG276
Best regards
-
The colorchecker is a good choice, but many people we work with have built in color swatches directly into the table/shooting surface. That way you can have the color reference in every frame, and then just crop it out later. Saves you the hassle of having to get out a passport or worry about that.
-
Hello,
I constructed a combination to reproduce the artworks which are oilpaint on wood whose dimensions are changed between 10x15 cm and 100x200 cm. What do you think, is this set up sufficient? Is there any equipment that I have to add or change? Nevertheless, is there any equipment that incompatible with each other?
Sinar rePro RC or Sinar p3-df
Apo-Sironar digital 55 mm f/4,5 with eShutter + polarizer filter + UV filter
Betterlight Super 8K-HS Digital Scanning Back
North Light HID Copy Lights (2 X 600 + 2 X 300) + polarizer filter
Sinar parallel (for parallel alignment)
X-Rite Digital ColorChecker SG Card
sekonic l-758dr light meter
Sekonic Prodigi Color C-500 Color Meter
Betterlight ViewFinder Digital Scanning Camera Software
EquaLight 3.1.1
Mac Pro + Eizo CG276
Best regards
If you insist on the Betterlight, it is best to use a 5x4 camera, with the P3 (or the repro) it is best to use one of the multishot Sinarbacks... I wouldn't use a WA lens either...
-
Chris and Theodoros make excellent points.
A linear color reference chart that is always on the shoot table is our preference.
Theodoros' point about the 4x5 is a good one, we used a Sinar P2 with the same Betterlight 8K and it was a good combo. Like Theodoros said, I don't know why you would use a WA, either. I would recommend at very least a 120 APO Digitar or more appropriately for the originals sizes you describe a 240mm.
Otherwise, looks like a very good, dare I say "world class" set up you would have for this. :)
I would wonder how much distance you will have in front and to the sides of your originals?, how many are there? What are the expectations of the client? and what is your deadline? The BL is a great system but very slow and deliberate. Also, you mentioned that you will be "reproducing" these so does that mean you will be printing them as well?
In any case, good luck with the project!
-
Chris and Theodoros make excellent points.
A linear color reference chart that is always on the shoot table is our preference.
Which one?
Including a linear colour chart in the shot with a multishot Sinarback, is about the most reliable method to achieve superb colour accuracy. As I said before, with Sinarbacks one calibrates the back for the particular capture by shooting a Colour chart card before the shot and the back is self calibrated to the particular lighting by referring the chart to its white reference as well as the black reference it creates taking into account even the sensor's temperature. As a consequence, if one includes the same colour chart in the shot, or if he includes a linear one that matches colours perfectly, he can have a fantastic reference for printing or to be used on publications... That said, using a multishot back to avoid colour interpolation in the process, is absolutely essential as to avoid the camera's processor interfering with the process. The better resolution, absence of artefacts and much greater colour depth of "true colour" shooting, only comes as a most welcomed bonus to add in the above.
Theodoros' point about the 4x5 is a good one, we used a Sinar P2 with the same Betterlight 8K and it was a good combo. Like Theodoros said, I don't know why you would use a WA, either. I would recommend at very least a 120 APO Digitar or more appropriately for the originals sizes you describe a 240mm.
Otherwise, looks like a very good, dare I say "world class" set up you would have for this. :)
I would wonder how much distance you will have in front and to the sides of your originals?, how many are there? What are the expectations of the client? and what is your deadline? The BL is a great system but very slow and deliberate. Also, you mentioned that you will be "reproducing" these so does that mean you will be printing them as well?
In any case, good luck with the project!
Personally, I don't see the point of using a view camera at all to shoot paintings, the 120macro lenses of all Contax, Mamiya or Hasselblad are among the most resolving lenses on the market and have a neutral colour character.... A view camera would be a good choice for wall paintings in Byzantine monasteries where one can't set up his lens against the centre of the painting unless he makes a special construction. However, one may also consider the Fuji GX680 if a scanning back is to be used, he may still throw away some 25% of the image area but lets not forget that the Fuji is able to deliver a 7.6x7.6cm image area and the back is easily rotatable. The Fuji is excellent with the Sinarback 54H too for multishot, with the Sinarback one can increase the gap between 16X shooting and thus avoid any vibration issue, although the Fuji can't keep the mirror locked through the whole process. Additionally, one may use Sinar's LC shutter via an adapter on a Fuji GX-680 lens and have superb accuracy when focusing using LV.
-
We use GATF standard strip and sometimes a couple of Macbeth/Kodak charts (see example)
Depends on what the end use of the capture is. Some are for reproduction, some are for restoration, some are for forensics...etc. So final analysis may be print or monitor reference. In either case, helpful to have permanently mounted on shoot board.
4x5 or any tech cam can be very handy with any artwork as they are many times not flat at all and over years (and sometimes centuries) their original mounts warp. So the ability to change the plane of focus can help especially with flat field lenses that have very shallow dof.
-
If you're looking to take direct measurements of the pigments used in the artwork, try ColorPony by ColorYoke Software.
It's similar to the ColorSage solution that HP had, but you can use any printer and lights you like. They have some stock measurements for pigments (acrylics, oils, the Macbeth chart) but you can create your own measurements from each artwork.
It also has a function built in to even out lighting, similar to Equalight.
I use it with my Eye-One Pro spectro, SpectraShop for measuring lights and pigments, 5Dmk2 and Canon IPF printers.
-
Hello,
I'm new to the forum and very interested in Sinar topics. I hope I am not too far off topic in the current thread. I have operated a Sinarback 57H since 2003, adding a 75H to my workflow in 2007 shooting primarily commercial projects. Sinar sent an eXact back to test last week. I am very impressed with the back, very clean colors and multiple options of capture size. "File Sizes 36 MB (RGB / 8 bit) up to 1.152 MB (RGB / 16 bit)". One thing I learned is that there are two versions of the back. One for the CTO workflow that has a clear glass mounted on the sensor and the standard version with a coated glass filter for studio work. I tested the standard back, has anyone tried the CTM version or compared both versions?
The primary camera/work station configuration used to test the eXact was: Sinar P3, 100mm cmv Sinaron HR lens, and a 27" iMac using a Lindy FW 800 Hub connected to the Apple FW 800 to Thunderbolt adapter.
Thanks,
Michael Jones
-
Hello,
I'm new to the forum and very interested in Sinar topics. I hope I am not too far off topic in the current thread. I have operated a Sinarback 57H since 2003, adding a 75H to my workflow in 2007 shooting primarily commercial projects. Sinar sent an eXact back to test last week. I am very impressed with the back, very clean colors and multiple options of capture size. "File Sizes 36 MB (RGB / 8 bit) up to 1.152 MB (RGB / 16 bit)". One thing I learned is that there are two versions of the back. One for the CTO workflow that has a clear glass mounted on the sensor and the standard version with a coated glass filter for studio work. I tested the standard back, has anyone tried the CTM version or compared both versions?
The primary camera/work station configuration used to test the eXact was: Sinar P3, 100mm cmv Sinaron HR lens, and a 27" iMac using a Lindy FW 800 Hub connected to the Apple FW 800 to Thunderbolt adapter.
Thanks,
Michael Jones
Is the back you refer to the Sinarback eXact Michael?
-
Yes, i requested a demo of the Sinarback eXact and learned about the two versions. Since I am working with the P3 in a commercial studio I tested the "standard" version. Apparently the clear glass allows an expanded spectrum of light for the CTO workflow.
-
Yes, i requested a demo of the Sinarback eXact and learned about the two versions. Since I am working with the P3 in a commercial studio I tested the "standard" version. Apparently the clear glass allows an expanded spectrum of light for the CTO workflow.
I'm really interested on what you think of the "standard" version when compared to the 54H... Can you comment on the differences? ...other than resolution of course.
EDIT: Also... how does the 4x 48mp mode compares with the respective 33mp one from the 75H?
-
Theodoros,
I'll try. My experience comes from a practical approach and is just one persons view. The Sinarback eXact I tested has the advantage of finer color transitions, less noise in the blacks at higher ISO values, and the calibration of the new Captureflow software. Looking into the future the fact that Captureflow will be updated for the new Mac OS versions will also be a benefit. The eXact appears to be very well built. The sensor is the same as the Sinarback 86H so any decision I make to upgrade to either back will need to be based on cost versus the added features the eXact offers and my clients needs. The 57H remains an impressive back, it has worked flawlessly for 12 years. I've kept the 57H because of it's 16 exposure capabilities, image quality, reliability and as a back up, like an old friend. In my opinion, the fact that I have been able to use the same camera platform and lenses since 2003 while having the ability to upgrade digital backs speaks well to the Sinar system basic design.
Edit: At first look the 4XL mode seemed to not be as sharp as the 16 capture mode or the 4x capture of the eXact, I'd say the same thing when comparing the 4XL to the 4x capture of the 75H. It's intended use seems to be one of saving time, or for use if there is a situation that doesn't allow a 16 exposure capture. I'll need to look more closely at the exported files to be certain and again it's just my opinion.
-
Theodoros,
To clarify, the 4-shot mode of the eXact is superior to the 4-shot mode of the 75H.
It's a bit confusing to describe. The eXact offers: Preview, 1-shot S, 1-shot M, 1-shot, 4-shot, 4-shot XL, and 16-shot XL. While the 75H and 86H offer: Preview, 1-shot, and 4-shot.
-
Theodoros,
To clarify, the 4-shot mode of the eXact is superior to the 4-shot mode of the 75H.
It's a bit confusing to describe. The eXact offers: Preview, 1-shot S, 1-shot M, 1-shot, 4-shot, 4-shot XL, and 16-shot XL. While the 75H and 86H offer: Preview, 1-shot, and 4-shot.
The 4-shot XL should be the same as the with 4-shot on the 86H ...no? Is it better than the 75H when combined with movements? ...A friend of mine does own the 75H with Sinar P3 (all digital) and LC shutter, so I'm quite familiar with the 75H and the Captureflow software, he also has the adapter for Contax 645 from his 54m (which is compatible with 75H, 86H & eXact), so I had a chance to try the 75H on both the Contax and the P3 (and on my Fuji GX680 which is permanently fitted with a Contax plate) using both Captureflow & Captureshop 6.1.2. I must say it is better than the Hasselblad CF-39MS I have (easier and more accurate color calibration), but I do prefer the 54H (because of the 16x mode) over the 75H (although it only works with Caprureshop). That's why I want to know if the 4-shot mode is better with movements than the 75H... Obviously resolution is more, but what about movement limitations due to smaller pixels?
P.S. I've listed my CF-39MS to trade it with an 86H or an eXact here on Lula, that's why I ask so much... I will keep my 54H (much like you do) for back up of course. http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=98023.0
-
Here's what Sinar says about the eXact:
4-shot = 48 MP, exports a 144mb file in 8 bit, 288mb file in 16 bit
4-shot XL = 192 MP, exports a 576mb file in 8 bit or a 1152mb file in 16 bit
16-shot = 192 MP, exports a 576mb file in 8 bit or a 1152mb file in 16 bit
The 86H:
4-shot = 48 MP, exports a 144mb file in 8 bit or a 288mb file in 16 bit.
So the 4-shot/48MP image is the same from both backs. There has to be some math or a matrix shift or both that happens for the 4-shot XL to produce the larger image file from the eXact. There must be someone on the forum that can explain it.
Movements don't seem to matter between the two backs. The optics seem to make the difference there.
I've rented the 86H from Dodd in Chicago and it is an excellent back.
-
Here's what Sinar says about the eXact:
4-shot = 48 MP, exports a 144mb file in 8 bit, 288mb file in 16 bit
4-shot XL = 192 MP, exports a 576mb file in 8 bit or a 1152mb file in 16 bit
16-shot = 192 MP, exports a 576mb file in 8 bit or a 1152mb file in 16 bit
The 86H:
4-shot = 48 MP, exports a 144mb file in 8 bit or a 288mb file in 16 bit.
So the 4-shot/48MP image is the same from both backs. There has to be some math or a matrix shift or both that happens for the 4-shot XL to produce the larger image file from the eXact. There must be someone on the forum that can explain it.
Movements don't seem to matter between the two backs. The optics seem to make the difference there.
I've rented the 86H from Dodd in Chicago and it is an excellent back.
I bet it is an excellent back (and the same sensor eXact even more so), but is as 75H with movements?
It seems that the eXact has its traditional "true color" modes in 4x or 16x and then has some other methods that involves interpolation for whenever color accuracy is not critical... IMO it would be best if they offered a second version of the 75H with 16x capability. That would give 132mp in "true" color 16x mode which is more than enough for everyone (given the quality of the file), but it would also be a much cheaper back given the age of Dalsa's 33mp sensor. I love the balance of this sensor, I believe it is the best MF sensor out even in single shot. Once I tried the Sinarback 75LV (on HY6) in single shot and was thrilled with the sensor's (interpolated) color accuracy and tonality. About close also was my first (single shot) back I started with... the Sinarback 22 (awful higher ISO though and prone to moire). It seems that in Sinar they have their own way that is far ahead from the rest of the makers as far as color accuracy is concerned.
-
I'm just catching up with this interesting thread. Some of you guys are doing really high end stuff, but I'm at a less rarified level. I photograph artwork professionally for local artists here in the UK, and make prints for them on an Epson 9890.
I started quite a few years ago with a 5D Mk 2, learning from my mistakes, and it was all a bit hit and miss. After a good deal of experience and investment, and having used a D800 for a while with significantly better results than the Canon, I now use a Pentax 645Z, usually with the excellent 120mm lens, and ColorYoke Color Pony (mentioned by DRGonzo on 10 March) with an EyeOne Pro and Spectrashop.
ColorPony is a fantastic platform and I highly recommend it. It incorporates Robin Myers Equalight, which means you can use strobes and soft boxes without worrying too much about the lighting pattern. ColorPony automatically compensates for any fall off and evens everything out, as well as matching the colours to the spectrometer values. It combines your raw file of the image, a lighting pattern raw file, the spectrometer readings (or some standard colour files for different media if you don't need/don't want to spend the money for the accuracy you get from your own readings), and readings from the foam core/white board that you use for the Equalight stage. Invariably I find that the first combined TIFF from ColorPony is ready to print a client proof without any adjustments. ColorPony is not cheap, but a great investment considering the time saving and accuracy. I have no connection with ColorYoke other than being a very satisfied customer.
The resolution of the Pentax 50mp sensor is superb.
If there are any newbies to art photography reading this, the other thing you really, really need to invest in is Zig-Align. If you don't get the image plane exactly parallel with the image, the best sensors and lenses in the world won't put it right.
-
I'm just catching up with this interesting thread. Some of you guys are doing really high end stuff, but I'm at a less rarified level. I photograph artwork professionally for local artists here in the UK, and make prints for them on an Epson 9890.
I started quite a few years ago with a 5D Mk 2, learning from my mistakes, and it was all a bit hit and miss. After a good deal of experience and investment, and having used a D800 for a while with significantly better results than the Canon, I now use a Pentax 645Z, usually with the excellent 120mm lens, and ColorYoke Color Pony (mentioned by DRGonzo on 10 March) with an EyeOne Pro and Spectrashop.
ColorPony is a fantastic platform and I highly recommend it. It incorporates Robin Myers Equalight, which means you can use strobes and soft boxes without worrying too much about the lighting pattern. ColorPony automatically compensates for any fall off and evens everything out, as well as matching the colours to the spectrometer values. It combines your raw file of the image, a lighting pattern raw file, the spectrometer readings (or some standard colour files for different media if you don't need/don't want to spend the money for the accuracy you get from your own readings), and readings from the foam core/white board that you use for the Equalight stage. Invariably I find that the first combined TIFF from ColorPony is ready to print a client proof without any adjustments. ColorPony is not cheap, but a great investment considering the time saving and accuracy. I have no connection with ColorYoke other than being a very satisfied customer.
The resolution of the Pentax 50mp sensor is superb.
If there are any newbies to art photography reading this, the other thing you really, really need to invest in is Zig-Align. If you don't get the image plane exactly parallel with the image, the best sensors and lenses in the world won't put it right.
Hi Bruce, welcome to the forum.
The question here under discussion is set from the O/P, it asks for "Best camera setup...", I believe it must be common sense to everybody, that taking color interpolation out of the equation improves color accuracy and eliminates possible artifacts as well as maximizes DR & resolves more... I would also expect the MF sensor to improve on your previous DSLRs and your experience (and work you've put on) for accurate color management, will certainly be beneficial information to this thread.
Never the less, it's difficult (and unfair) to compare equipment that is specifically designed to perform one task (like a tricolor capturing device), with good equipment that aims for general use and is adapted to do the same task... That said, a S/H multishot back would also be significantly cheaper than the 645z and it would integrate perfectly to the rest of the process you have worked on to adapt on your work.
-
ColorPony is a fantastic platform and I highly recommend it. It incorporates Robin Myers Equalight, which means you can use strobes and soft boxes without worrying too much about the lighting pattern. ColorPony automatically compensates for any fall off and evens everything out, as well as matching the colours to the spectrometer values. It combines your raw file of the image, a lighting pattern raw file, the spectrometer readings (or some standard colour files for different media if you don't need/don't want to spend the money for the accuracy you get from your own readings), and readings from the foam core/white board that you use for the Equalight stage. Invariably I find that the first combined TIFF from ColorPony is ready to print a client proof without any adjustments. ColorPony is not cheap, but a great investment considering the time saving and accuracy. I have no connection with ColorYoke other than being a very satisfied customer.
Dredging this old thread doing some research, and came across the above reference to ColorPony. Not sure how I never heard of ColorPony before. So of course I went to the company website, downloaded the trial (installs, but doesn't open). Cameras haven't been updated. Website is still dated 2014. I'm guessing the company or the software may be dead? Too bad, because it certainly looked promising. Anyone ever use ColorPony? Still using it? Anything out there similar?
-
I'm still using ColorPony, and it's working well. As you say, the business seems to be inactive, but the server on which the platform runs is up and running. I think their Windows application is way out of date (I seem to remember the system requirements refer to XP), and my experience with the Mac app is that it's fine up to and including Catalina but doesn't launch on Big Sur - so I run it on an old Mac that I won't upgrade beyond Catalina. I haven't needed tech support from them for a long time, so don't have any contact with them. They carried out a big migration to AWS some years ago, and the platform has been stable since then. I don't know, but I suspect they took a business decision to keep supporting existing customers, but not to develop the business any further. Everything works for me, but because of the lack of development I don't see it as being attractive to a new user. Presumably they're not answering emails?
-
I'm still using ColorPony, and it's working well. As you say, the business seems to be inactive, but the server on which the platform runs is up and running. I think their Windows application is way out of date (I seem to remember the system requirements refer to XP), and my experience with the Mac app is that it's fine up to and including Catalina but doesn't launch on Big Sur - so I run it on an old Mac that I won't upgrade beyond Catalina. I haven't needed tech support from them for a long time, so don't have any contact with them. They carried out a big migration to AWS some years ago, and the platform has been stable since then. I don't know, but I suspect they took a business decision to keep supporting existing customers, but not to develop the business any further. Everything works for me, but because of the lack of development I don't see it as being attractive to a new user. Presumably they're not answering emails?
Thanks. So it works well for you? Because it seems like an interesting idea, perhaps a bit too "pie in the sky" and maybe that's why it appears to have not gained a user based and died an early death. Can't really find any substantial reviews of ColorPony anywhere. Probably would not work so well for a lot of the work our studio does, but if it helped speed up the process on some of the less critical pieces it would still perhaps be a worthy addition to the toolbox. I was looking forward to taking it for a spin, but the software didn't work on either workstation I tried it on (both Windows 10). Too bad, because if it worked as well as the demo videos show, the price seems reasonable, even for limited use on less critical pieces. Although for those pieces if you have a good workflow and profiling in place (we do) we usually get an really good proof on the first or second go anyway. Perhaps that explains the lack of demand as well. I still would like to see them revive their project. Easy for me to say from this keyboard of course! :)