Phase One IQ3 100mp. Shipping now.

[gdh]

Chris Barrett and I will be shooting tomorrow with the ALPA system and numerous lenses.  I just did some tests shots with the 23mm Schneider and they are pretty damn nice.  It's a problem putting RAWs up on the Luminous-Landscape site because of the size.  Our download file system has a max of 100MB and the RAWs exceed that.  Our IT guys are looking into seeing if it is possible.  Chris and I will report back plus we'll have a more in depth report in the weeks to come.  If you can make it to Indianapolis and I'm around you're welcome to give it a try with me.

Would you be able to post on Drop Box and simply provide the link for anyone interested?

[AlterEgo]

Team,

I have been playing with the city raw sample image in C1 Pro 9.02. I'd be curious to hear what settings you guys are using for the IQ3 100 files?

Personally, here is what I did:
- ICC profile: IQ3 100mp Outdoor daylight
- Curve: High contrast
- WB: 7750, Tint: 24
- exposure: +0.3
- Contrast: 15
- Brightness: 20
- Saturation: 5
- Hilight recovery: 60
- Shadow: 30
- Clarity: 30
- Structure: 5
- Sharpening: amount 400, Radius 0.3, Threshold: 0.8

I did also apply verticals correction and a few layers to selectively darken the sky.

It looks much better to me than the initially provided settings. What did you guys do if I may ask?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard

 so much contrast 

[BernardLanguillier]

so much contrast 

I know, I hardly ever add any when processing D810 + Otus images in C1 Pro.

I was surprised I had to add this much to get the image to pop.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Doug Peterson]

Would you be able to post on Drop Box and simply provide the link for anyone interested?

I'm not Kevin, but I can answer as a guy whose professional life involves managing a collection of 20,000 sample raw and TIFF files and providing them to a large number of clients.

Each raw is around 100MB. Sharing 10 raws to 20 people, or 100 raws to 2 people, or 8 6-shot stitch 16-bit TIFFs to one person via dropbox will hit Dropbox's bandwidth limit. You can get away with 10 times more with a business account, but even that falls well short of the demand we commonly see for these files, especially if they are reposted on more general purpose forums or news sites.

[Theodoros]

Hi,

You take make posting the wrong way. Doug said that the Hasselblad lenses were not good enough for the new sensor. So I made the point that they worked fine with multishot, which yields 200 M. But you are dead wrong that if a lens is good enough for 50 MP it will also be good enough for 200 MP multishot. The other way around is quite true.

No... it's not (the other way around)...

Just consider this, you cannot resolve something by multishoot that is not projected by the lens.

You don't count the (physical) sampling... (meaning that you think of it as if it was a single shot)... With multishot you practically quadrable the Niquist limit... (because you are shooting on 4 image areas that are in different position to each other...) For example, if one is using a Sinarback 54H in 16X mode and uses the Zeiss Contax 120mm Apo micro with it, the result (if one masters the process well) should be the same as if shooting (a single shot) on a 10x7,5cm (aprox) image area, but with 9μm pixels of true color (88mp in total) and has used a 240mm lens that is of the same LPM resolution & contrast as the 120mm has (but with an image circle as to cover the whole 10x7.5cm image area)....

EDIT: Imagine the above? ...you then know what "jaw drop quality" really is....

[Manoli]

@DT
[\* hypothetical mode on]

Doug,

Assuming I'd bought your IQ380 XF a few months ago (packaged as a kit with the release of the XF) , how much would it cost me today to crossgrade /upgrade to a CMOS IQ100 ?

[Theodoros]

@DT
[\* hypothetical mode on]

Doug,

Assuming I'd bought your IQ380 XF a few months ago (packaged as a kit with the release of the XF) , how much would it cost me today to crossgrade /upgrade to a CMOS IQ100 ?

I remember others asking the same... I believe there will be no answer on this other than the usual... (POA kind...). Now, why do I have the impression that the sensor (and hence the back) costs less than an IQ-160 to make but the "pricing according to resolution" policy of P1 (and others to be fair) won't change?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am not a Hasselblad Multishot expert, but my understanding is that for 200 MP you do 16 exposures while shifting the sensor a half pixel. Now shifting the sensor a half pixel between exposures gives you for point samplings per pixel. So, what happen is that you split the pixel in four subpixels, each half the size of the original pixel. You don't loose full well capacity as you shoot four different exposures.

But, what happens is that you effectively reduced pixel size. You actually gain a lot, because you also take 16 exposures and can eliminate much of the Bayer interpolation, definitively a good thing.

Yes, you double Nyquist limit, but it is by virtue of emulating half the pixel size. So, to deliver 200 MP, your lens actually need to resolve those 200 megapixels, it is as simple as that, and if they do that, they will work just fine with an 100 MP back.

Best regards
Erik

No... it's not (the other way around)...

You don't count the (physical) sampling... (meaning that you think of it as if it was a single shot)... With multishot you practically quadrable the Niquist limit... (because you are shooting on 4 image areas that are in different position to each other...) For example, if one is using a Sinarback 54H in 16X mode and uses the Zeiss Contax 120mm Apo micro with it, the result (if one masters the process well) should be the same as if shooting (a single shot) on a 10x7,5cm (aprox) image area, but with 9μm pixels of true color (88mp in total) and has used a 240mm lens that is of the same LPM resolution & contrast as the 120mm has (but with an image circle as to cover the whole 10x7.5cm image area)....

EDIT: Imagine the above? ...you then know what "jaw drop quality" really is....

[torger]

Some more user-contributed tech cam samples over at getdpi. Large shifts on the 32HR is certainly a no-go due to residual color cast. But due to the offset microlenses it's not possible to state an exact limit without stepping, eg try 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 20mm. The limit may also be different in portrait and landscape orientation.

If you have a IQ260 now with your 32HR upgrading to a IQ3 100 will for sure strongly reduce the shift range. Center frames is probably without any significant issue as the offset microlenses will do their job optimally when the lens center matches sensor center.

There were those that kept their SK35 after upgrading to 80MP Dalsa they just stopped shifting or shifted with very small amounts, just like SK28 actually despite its huge problems with Dalsa is used by some for center frame and like 5mm shifted shots. How much shift is actually needed for the 32HR to keep its relevance as a 645-fullframe architecture lens? I guess Chris or any other experienced architecture photographer can give some good insights on that.

My own guess is that 12mm in landscape orientation would be a suitable target for some sort of lowest acceptable minimum, that is what I would want for my landscape photography at this focal length. Unfortunately the indications so far is that we need to settle with less.

[adammork]

How much shift is actually needed for the 32HR to keep its relevance as a 645-fullframe architecture lens? I guess Chris or any other experienced architecture photographer can give some good insights on that.

If the 32HR had a bigger imagecircle I would for sure use it - The amount of shift I can get on my iQ160 is just sufficient - the amount I can get on a 80mp back without banding, tilling and destroyed colours is not sufficient for my use.... and yes I have only Rodenstocks below 72mm.

/adam

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Some more user-contributed tech cam samples over at getdpi. Large shifts on the 32HR is certainly a no-go due to residual color cast. But due to the offset microlenses it's not possible to state an exact limit without stepping, eg try 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 20mm. The limit may also be different in portrait and landscape orientation.

If you have a IQ260 now with your 32HR upgrading to a IQ3 100 will for sure strongly reduce the shift range.

Hi Anders,

But less shift is required because of the wider angle of view on the IQ3 100MP, isn't it?

How much shift is actually needed for the 32HR to keep its relevance as a 645-fullframe architecture lens? I guess Chris or any other experienced architecture photographer can give some good insights on that.

We'll learn about that soon enough I imagine. And different lens designs will affect the result differently, depending on the degree of asymmetrical or retro-focus optical design.

Cheers,
Bart

[Manoli]

I remember others asking the same...

Well, I don't, and now I'm asking! 
It's a perfectly reasonable question, pricing probably set by Phase One and certainly 'relevant' .

My inbox today is inundated with emails from dealers offering upgrades on the new Nikon D5/D500 with clear upgrade pricing - no reason why Phase or their dealers should be recalcitrant.

Over to you, Doug.

[jsiva]

But less shift is required because of the wider angle of view on the IQ3 100MP, isn't it?

That would be true if the IQ3 100MP was a larger sensor but it is not.  It is 54x40mm, same as the IQx60 and IQx80 backs.

[jsiva]

Well, I don't, and now I'm asking! 
It's a perfectly reasonable question, pricing probably set by Phase One and certainly 'relevant' .

My inbox today is inundated with emails from dealers offering upgrades on the new Nikon D5/D500 with clear upgrade pricing - no reason why Phase or their dealers should be recalcitrant.

Over to you, Doug.

Likely not too many people cross-shopping a D5 with IQ3 100MP XF kit, so you might not be on their "call-out" list.  My dealer called me Monday AM regarding the Phase upgrade.  I suggest you get on a list quickly.  Cheers.

[torger]

But less shift is required because of the wider angle of view on the IQ3 100MP, isn't it?

It depends on how you see it. The way I see it a lens with a certain sensor size provides a certain field of view, and for that combination to be used to its fullest in terms of image composition it must be able to make certain amount of shifts relative to the sensor size so the "horizon" can be placed low/high enough => larger sensor larger shift, but you can also use longer focal lengths. The 32mm is very wide, I'd satisfy with 40mm as the widest for my landscape, but architecture photographers needs really wide stuff.

If you instead just see the image circle as a place to stitch any area you want it is like you say.

If you have a lens with small shift range in relation to the compositions you want to make you can feel limited when you use it. As a comparison you can look at the relative shift range you get with a 5Ds and a TS-E 17II or 24II, it's huge relative range which the 645 tech cams aren't close to. The 645 tech cams have killer resolving power of course, but if shift range becomes very limited that could hurt their relevance as tools for architecture photographers.

I'm seeing Dalsa becoming the new Kodak behind Sony, and Rodenstock wides the new Schneider Digitar wides behind -- nothing -- and that's the worrying part.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That would be true if the IQ3 100MP was a larger sensor but it is not.  It is 54x40mm, same as the IQx60 and IQx80 backs.

Ah, I thought they were physically smaller, my bad.

Cheers,
Bart

[jsiva]

Ah, I thought they were physically smaller, my bad.

Cheers,
Bart

Yup.  That was one of the main attractions of this new DB.  It is the same size as the best CCD's but in CMOS form.  We'll wait for more samples to see how things play out.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It depends on how you see it. The way I see it a lens with a certain sensor size provides a certain field of view, and for that combination to be used to its fullest in terms of image composition it must be able to make certain amount of shifts relative to the sensor size so the "horizon" can be placed low/high enough => larger sensor larger shift, but you can also use longer focal lengths. The 32mm is very wide, I'd satisfy with 40mm as the widest for my landscape, but architecture photographers needs really wide stuff.

Got it, and I agree mostly (although I do not like straight captures with such wide angles of view). I was thinking more of a comparison with a physically smaller sensor, like the IQ250 has. In that case one would not need as much shift due to the larger area of the image circle that's used by a physically larger sensor.

Cheers,
Bart

[torger]

In architecture photographers use ultrawide not because they want to, but because they must due to limited space.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In architecture photographers use ultrawide not because they want to, but because they must due to limited space.

Yes I understand, but there are other possibilities than using optics that create issues that cannot be accommodated for. A simple stitch of two or three images can sometimes solve a lot. It allows to use the center of the image circle (is better quality), perhaps use longer focal length (is usually better image quality), and the stitching software can allow to use a projection method that preserves certain straight lines/edges, yet compress the extreme stretching to a perceptually more normal proportion. Leveling and squaring surfaces is also much easier and more accurate than possible with a limited preview screen size, and saves time on location (less variation in outside light conditions).

So maybe a slightly different workflow can also be an alternative.

Cheers,
Bart