Significant improvement with C1Pro 9 Processing IQ160 files, anyone else notice?

[Ken R]

I recently made some test shots with my Arca RM3DI and IQ160 using both the 70mm HR-W and the 40mm HR-W. I did some LLC shots as well. Tried the built in lens correction in C1p9 and they work very well also.

I noticed much cleaner (noise free) results with all exposures but noticeably much better results (than previous C1pro versions) with longer exposures (tried up to 30 seconds) without loss of detail and without funky artifacts or anything. Super clean and crisp.

Here are two shots:

The first using the 70mm HR-W at f5.6 (wide open, stunningly sharp edge to edge) at iso 50 and 30 sec. exposure. I adjusted colors somewhat wildly to see how maleable the file was and how much it could take. Toned it down a bit here but you get the idea. I am more interested in practical applications rather than scientific tests.

The second shot is a 2 shot flat stitch using 15mm shift (L-R) with the 40mm HR-W at f8 and iso 50 (15 sec exposure)

Temp was about 80º F with little wind and 65% humidity. Not exactly ideal CCD weather but no problems at all.

Of course these JPGs look like junk compared to the TIFF or even the full size JPG files.

[tjv]

After spending years analysing the way I shoot and coming to the conclusion that I very rarely need to make exposures longer than 4 seconds for my work, I bought a Credo 60 knowing it isn't regarded as a good long exposure camera. I use it on my Linhof Techno. True to form, I'm now making many 30 second plus exposures...

I haven't had your length of experience with my back, but I've been extremely impressed with the performance in this exposure range and sense that after the last upgrade noise performace has improved, especially when doing long exposures or when pushing the shadows. I woudn't call it night and day, but certainly better. It could just be wishful thinking related to CMOS envy, but I agree that things seem better.

[Theodoros]

It happens most times an improved version of a developing software appears.., If one tries an old Nikon D700's Raws on the latest LR its clearly better in both DR and sharpness than the respective images one could get developing with the respective LR version back in 2008.... The same applies to MFDBs and their respective software... It happens with C1, phocus, all of them! It is true to the extend that if one tries his old P-25+ on the latest software he may be amazed on the improvements in quality he may have memorized from past experience...

How good do older backs look? Well... opinions differ, but many pros consider it worthless to upgrade for modern backs as they find not much in it... With a 60mp back one may find that with the extra detail he gains over software upgrate, he doesn't need to upgrade for more mp either... (but many feel the same with even lower res backs too)

[Ken R]

It happens most times an improved version of a developing software appears.., If one tries an old Nikon D700's Raws on the latest LR its clearly better in both DR and sharpness than the respective images one could get developing with the respective LR version back in 2008.... The same applies to MFDBs and their respective software... It happens with C1, phocus, all of them! It is true to the extend that if one tries his old P-25+ on the latest software he may be amazed on the improvements in quality he may have memorized from past experience...

How good do older backs look? Well... opinions differ, but many pros consider it worthless to upgrade for modern backs as they find not much in it... With a 60mp back one may find that with the extra detail he gains over software upgrate, he doesn't need to upgrade for more mp either... (but many feel the same with even lower res backs too)

True, but having used my IQ160 with v7 and 8 there was not much difference at all but with v9 there was a noticeable jump in quality overall besides the additional features (which are significant as well).

The improvements with Lightroom have been pretty gradual as well and more about the added features and subtle changes in the existing tool set.

[Theodoros]

True, but having used my IQ160 with v7 and 8 there was not much difference at all but with v9 there was a noticeable jump in quality overall besides the additional features (which are significant as well).

The improvements with Lightroom have been pretty gradual as well and more about the added features and subtle changes in the existing tool set.

Yeah, but LR was well behind (still is) for image quality.... so there was more room for improvements... with C1, phocus and the rest of MF software the advancement can't be as substantial or obvious for each upgrade... It's still there though and from time to time it can be more obvious (as the maker finds crucial parameters that can be improved) ...how great an improvement can be, it is a matter of hard work, continuous testing and (of course) ...luck! Sometimes in engineering one is in front of two or more paths he may follow... where each path leads the long term is not at all obvious or easy to see. (exactly the reason why many engineers trust their sense above all...)

[Steve Hendrix]

I recently made some test shots with my Arca RM3DI and IQ160 using both the 70mm HR-W and the 40mm HR-W. I did some LLC shots as well. Tried the built in lens correction in C1p9 and they work very well also.

I noticed much cleaner (noise free) results with all exposures but noticeably much better results (than previous C1pro versions) with longer exposures (tried up to 30 seconds) without loss of detail and without funky artifacts or anything. Super clean and crisp.

Here are two shots:

The first using the 70mm HR-W at f5.6 (wide open, stunningly sharp edge to edge) at iso 50 and 30 sec. exposure. I adjusted colors somewhat wildly to see how maleable the file was and how much it could take. Toned it down a bit here but you get the idea. I am more interested in practical applications rather than scientific tests.

The second shot is a 2 shot flat stitch using 15mm shift (L-R) with the 40mm HR-W at f8 and iso 50 (15 sec exposure)

Temp was about 80º F with little wind and 65% humidity. Not exactly ideal CCD weather but no problems at all.

Of course these JPGs look like junk compared to the TIFF or even the full size JPG files.

Hi Ken -

This wouldn't surprise me, but I'm curious if you feel the results are better than similar captures in the past where the same capture duration was shot in the same or lower temp ambient conditions? I think that one of the coolest things about Capture One is taking older files and updating them for use with the latest version/algorithms, especially files from P1 backs many generations ago.


Steve Hendrix
CI

[jsiva]

I recently made some test shots with my Arca RM3DI and IQ160 using both the 70mm HR-W and the 40mm HR-W. I did some LLC shots as well. Tried the built in lens correction in C1p9 and they work very well also.

Ken, for sure I have noticed a marked improvement in C1P 9.x processing.  Combined with lens profiles for most Rodies now available, it has forced me to reprocess a ton of stuff...

[Ken R]

Hi Ken -

This wouldn't surprise me, but I'm curious if you feel the results are better than similar captures in the past where the same capture duration was shot in the same or lower temp ambient conditions? I think that one of the coolest things about Capture One is taking older files and updating them for use with the latest version/algorithms, especially files from P1 backs many generations ago.


Steve Hendrix
CI

IIRC the results are even better than Captures at cooler temps and shorter exposures. Say 10 seconds at 60º compared to what I did yesterday which was 15-30s at 80º. (I also used the Live View)

I might have to revisit some files to verify and compare the results to the processed TIFF's (from C1p v7). But right away from memory (nothing remotely scientific obviously) the results with v9 were awesome. I did use a bit of noise reduction like before (including single pixel NR) but noticed much natural look to the file and less loss of detail. The NR is less "destructive" now for sure while being very effective.

I don't really enjoy spending time doing thorough testing I just do it to test my workflow and check that everything is aligned and working properly. So I would leave it to others to do it. I know you guys, the guys at DT and other posters here do a great job finding the limits of gear.

[Steve Hendrix]

IIRC the results are even better than Captures at cooler temps and shorter exposures. Say 10 seconds at 60º compared to what I did yesterday which was 15-30s at 80º. (I also used the Live View)

I might have to revisit some files to verify and compare the results to the processed TIFF's (from C1p v7). But right away from memory (nothing remotely scientific obviously) the results with v9 were awesome. I did use a bit of noise reduction like before (including single pixel NR) but noticed much natural look to the file and less loss of detail. The NR is less "destructive" now for sure while being very effective.

I don't really enjoy spending time doing thorough testing I just do it to test my workflow and check that everything is aligned and working properly. So I would leave it to others to do it. I know you guys, the guys at DT and other posters here do a great job finding the limits of gear.

Hi Ken -

Thanks, that's good to know. Revisiting older images is often a pleasure, this just adds to it. I find the refinement of the grain structure to be one of the biggest and most welcome improvements I've seen.


Steve Hendrix
CI

[Paul2660]

Hi Ken,

I recently just got around to 9.0.2.  However I have to agree with you, the images are impressive from the IQ260, at base iso and 100.  Smoother tones and much better shadows, both in noise and transition. 

Paul C