Iq3 100 and Technical camera

[wing1]

Hello, Do you know if with the new Capture One 9.03 the wide angles on technical cameras  and iq3 100 are full employable? It seem that possible shift is less than the ccd back!

[torger]

Hello, Do you know if with the new Capture One 9.03 the wide angles on technical cameras  and iq3 100 are full employable? It seem that possible shift is less than the ccd back!

You won't get as robust performance as with the CCD-based IQ3 60MP. The IQ3 100MP performance with technical lenses is highly similar to the IQ250. If you use longer lenses you're fine, if you use wider lenses you will get significant crosstalk but if that matters or not is subject-dependent and also a matter of taste, but it is about fitting a square peg into a round hole. You rely on the huge capacity of this sensor in dynamic range and color separation to cover up the fact that the tech wides were not designed for this sensor.

Personally I don't think it's advisable to buy such an expensive digital back and not have lenses designed for it, but for sure some will do it anyway.

[AreBee]

torger,

You won't get as robust performance as with the CCD-based IQ3 60MP. The IQ3 100MP performance with technical lenses is highly similar to the IQ250. If you use longer lenses you're fine, if you use wider lenses you will get significant crosstalk but if that matters or not is subject-dependent and also a matter of taste, but it is about fitting a square peg into a round hole.

Honestly, I think it has been about fitting a square peg into a round hole ever since the 40MP backs or your own play-nice 50MP back...it's simply that with time the peg has only increased in size.

[torger]

Honestly, I think it has been about fitting a square peg into a round hole ever since the 40MP backs or your own play-nice 50MP back...it's simply that with time the peg has only increased in size.

I agree, the Rodenstock probably did not predict the microlens ripple or tiling issues with the Dalsa sensors (and Schneider wides weren't designed for the 6um Dalsa's at all), but I think if you use Rodenstocks and Capture One you get pretty robust performance which is good at cleaning up those issues. Unfortunately the larger crosstalk issue is not as easily fixed, but you can indeed hide it better than they do it currently by smearing the green channel. They never did for the IQ250 though, and as far as I know they don't do that in 9.0.3 either.

It's true that the peg has increased in size with time, moving a little bit up in size for each new generation. The 80MP Dalsa made the peg a little bit larger, and now the 100MP Sony a bit larger still. If you went from P45+ to P65+ to IQ180 and now to IQ3 100MP you have enlarged the peg just a little between each previous generation so perhaps you haven't noticed the huge gap between P45+ and IQ3 100MP...

The Kodaks were the last sensors that were actively designed for symmetric wide lenses and therefore had light shielded pixels and lacked microlenses. Then it became the other way around Rodenstock made the Digaron series for 6um sensor without light shields (obviously they did not calculate for microlens artifacts though), and then with smaller pixel sizes and still no light shields the situation has degenerated gradually.

But kept within limits it will work, and you can push a fair bit past the limit to most of the time. Just don't ask me exactly where the limits are, because it's subjective. For me personally it's past the messiness limit and I just don't think it would be enjoyable having to worry about these things.

If you want to shoot high end wide angle photography today there's no system without significant compromise. You can't have it all. You just need to choose which tradeoff that suits your shooting style the best.

[Paul2660]

On the Capture Integration site, there are some early testing examples:

https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-technical-camera-testing/

They sampled with both the 32mm and 40mm.  The files are a bit underexposed to my eyes, but that just helps with the testing both of the shadow recovery and recovery of the colors.  One visual test for me is work up the files with movements without the LCC applied first and look to see just how much saturation and color is lost.  To my eyes, and based on the IQ150 testing I did last year, the 100MP at 10mm or so of movement shows a bit less color cast than the IQ150 did.  Again, something that everyone can test out for themselves and see if they find it to me an issue.

I tend to agree with Torger on the grounds that outwardly it appears the 100MP and 50MP both respond to movements the same way, i.e. visually you see quite a bit of red color cast on movements.  But when you work the files in C1 9.0.3, you can easily see just how well the cast is removed.  Then look at the shadow recovery and details in these areas.  CI only tested the 100MP with the 32mm and 40mm but they did a comparison with the 60XL using the 280 3100 and a 60MP back.  So you can download these files and take a look.

I have worked them all up now, and to me the corrections of the LCC help a lot, but on the shifts with the 32mm and 40mm, you can see the possible need to do a bit of color/sat work in the extreme corner to balance out the range. 

I don't think Phase will be bringing anything else to the table, i.e. a separate tech camera designed back, but anything is possible.  It seems that they would need a newer tech like BSI, or something similar.  Anything is possible and Phase One tends to keep such info close to the vest.  I will also say, based on the IQ250/150, what we see now, is pretty much what we will get later.  Phase did not really make any huge changes to output (via firmware) to the 50MP backs, again at least to me.  I am hoping that on the IQ100 files Phase will eventually create a LCC solution to remove the blothcy banding that still shows up on the 100MP backs, with movements.  Visible in all the Alpa outdoor testing with the blue skies.  You can't see it on the Capture Integration testing.

Best solution is keep looking for new downloadable files, hopefully some taken outdoors in natural light, and or locate a dealer and setup a demo of the back with your gear. 

As someone who has waited for this solution for 4 years now, and made a huge wrong turn on the digital upgrade path by investing in an IQ260 (from a 160), I believe that this 100MP back could definitely get the job done. 

Paul C

[jsiva]

I waited patiently for a full-frame CMOS back, and was super excited when this was announced.  However, after looking at files, I have decided to hold off.  There additional tests DT is supposed to be posting so will wait and see the results of that as well.

Main issues are:
Performance of wides - 32HR in particular.
Performance of some not so wides (symmetric) like 60XL
Blotchy patterns in skies (at least in the samples I have seen so far)
Some differences in specular highlights, but I need to play with this further

[Doug Peterson]

However, after looking at files, I have decided to hold off.  There additional tests DT is supposed to be posting so will wait and see the results of that as well.

Was traveling to and attending a funeral this week, but should be able to post early next week.

Basic summary is "About the same as the 80mp regarding color cast and range of movement allowed, but with much better live view, more resolution, HDMI option, and better dynamic range."

[jsiva]

Was traveling to and attending a funeral this week, but should be able to post early next week.

Basic summary is "About the same as the 80mp regarding color cast and range of movement allowed, but with much better live view, more resolution, HDMI option, and better dynamic range."

Thanks Doug, looking forward to your tests.  Based on what I have seen so far, the 32HR is significantly better on the 80MP.  In the CI tests, the right side was quite bad.  Could have been a lens issue?

[Kumar]

I agree, the Rodenstock probably did not predict the microlens ripple or tiling issues with the Dalsa sensors (and Schneider wides weren't designed for the 6um Dalsa's at all)

The Kodaks were the last sensors that were actively designed for symmetric wide lenses and therefore had light shielded pixels and lacked microlenses. Then it became the other way around Rodenstock made the Digaron series for 6um sensor without light shields (obviously they did not calculate for microlens artifacts though), and then with smaller pixel sizes and still no light shields the situation has degenerated gradually.
think it would be enjoyable having to worry about these things.

I'm wondering about this. Doesn't everyone involved - the sensor manufacturers, the back manufacturers, the lens manufacturers - okay now only Rodenstock - discuss the parameters within which a given product will work? Is it left to individual photographers to find out if something works or not? DT and CI do their tests - but that's after the deal is done.

[voidshatter]

I'm wondering about this. Doesn't everyone involved - the sensor manufacturers, the back manufacturers, the lens manufacturers - okay now only Rodenstock - discuss the parameters within which a given product will work? Is it left to individual photographers to find out if something works or not? DT and CI do their tests - but that's after the deal is done.

Just like Nikon is not obliged to support Sigma lenses, why should Phase One bother to push the sales of Rodenstock?

[torger]

Another way to put it is "either you upgrade to the IQ3 100 and accept the limitations, or you're stuck in that CCD dead end"

Waiting for a new sensor generation that reverses the trend is probably going to be a looooong wait. If we're lucky MFD sensor technology will start moving faster than it did in the CCD days, otherwise this CMOS will be reused in new products the coming 6-8 years.

If the trend is not reversed real soon I think people will start looking for other wide angle solutions, as live view and other CMOS features are just too sexy to ignore.

Will Rodenstock make a new lens line? I don't think so. Partly because return of investment is a problem, and partly because adding even more retrofocus makes it difficult to retain the desired "large format" qualities, lenses would just be unreasonably complex or otherwise not significantly outperform the standard SLR lenses.

It's hard to predict the future though.

If I was Phase One I'd invest in a crazy wide (20mm?) crazy sharp lens for the XF system, let it be the heaviest most complex and most expensive lens and then add digital correction on top. You get a one-size-fits-all for the architecture photographer that just crops as needed from the high resolution sensor.

[torger]

Just like Nikon is not obliged to support Sigma lenses, why should Phase One bother to push the sales of Rodenstock?

Well, they have the A system in their lineup, Alpa plus Rodies.

I think it's not that much up to Phase One. They get what they get with little ability to customize.

Sony makes sensor technology that it can reuse in many markets and sell to many manufacturers. Making a tech cam compatible sensor with current technology means ditching microlenses and adding light-shields, which means losing some DR, losing quite significant high ISO, and increase aliasing. That is worsen performance for probably 98% of the sensor sales to satisfy 2%.

[Paul2660]

I'm wondering about this. Doesn't everyone involved - the sensor manufacturers, the back manufacturers, the lens manufacturers - okay now only Rodenstock - discuss the parameters within which a given product will work? Is it left to individual photographers to find out if something works or not? DT and CI do their tests - but that's after the deal is done.

The 32mm HR-W was designed especially for the 80MP Dalsa sensor, optimized at F8, this you can find on the Rodenstock main page.  It takes some digging but when you find the literature on the 32mm, you will see specific mention to this.  Optimization was at F8 as I understand it to handle diffraction issues past this due to the pixel size on the 80MP chips.

The bigger issue to me is that in 3 almost 4 years, the 100MP CMOS response to movements is basically the same as the 50MP, Net if you shift your shifted area goes red, very red, and this is not like the response the 80MP chips or 60MP chips give.  So yes, either the glass or chip needed to change, and it's apparent that the chip did not change too much, it's yet to be seen if the glass will change, but I doubt it.  Not sure how you would get around the issues already in place? i.e. retrofocus wides on tech cameras have to come in very close to the sensor to reach infinity which seems to induce a pretty harsh red color cast. 

This screen shot shows the effect of 18mm of shift on the 60XL, untreated LCC's straight from the camera, and you can clearly see the red cast.  To me this is outwardly an identical response that the 50Mp chips have.  And unless a tweak to the chip has been made since announce it's fair to say this is the response you can expect from the 100MP chip  To me it's not same as the 80Mp or 80Mp CCD chips and this really should be explained as each photographer needs to determine if they can work within these confines.

Paul C

[torger]

The 32mm HR-W was designed especially for the 80MP Dalsa sensor, optimized at F8, this you can find on the Rodenstock main page.  It takes some digging but when you find the literature on the 32mm, you will see specific mention to this.  Optimization was at F8 as I understand it to handle diffraction issues past this due to the pixel size on the 80MP chips.

I haven't succeeded digging that out. When you dig out the press release for the 32HR it says: "A breathtaking super wide-angle lens with an image circle
for sensor up to 40x54 mm and even larger stitch formats and a resolution up to 60 megapixels (pixel pitch ≈ 6 μm)".
http://www.digitalback.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HR_Dig-W_32_Neuh_2010_e_9930.pdf
But as it was released before the IQ180 they wouldn't mention that there I suppose.

If they did design it for the Dalsa 80MP they surely ignored the microlens ripple and indeed also the crosstalk which becomes pretty bad with the 32HR with large shift, I've studied this closely a couple of years back. I remember one user that actually downgraded to a 60MP back because of this.

So indeed I have about the same question as Kumar, what do the lens manufacturers actually know about coming sensor technology properties when they make the lenses? You get the feel that they design for some coarse spec they got from a phone call and then hope for the best.

[Paul2660]

I haven't succeeded digging that out. When you dig out the press release for the 32HR it says: "A breathtaking super wide-angle lens with an image circle
for sensor up to 40x54 mm and even larger stitch formats and a resolution up to 60 megapixels (pixel pitch ≈ 6 μm)".
http://www.digitalback.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HR_Dig-W_32_Neuh_2010_e_9930.pdf
But as it was released before the IQ180 they wouldn't mention that there I suppose.

If they did design it for the Dalsa 80MP they surely ignored the microlens ripple and indeed also the crosstalk which becomes pretty bad with the 32HR with large shift, I've studied this closely a couple of years back. I remember one user that actually downgraded to a 60MP back because of this.

So indeed I have about the same question as Kumar, what do the lens manufacturers actually know about coming sensor technology properties when they make the lenses? You get the feel that they design for some coarse spec they got from a phone call and then hope for the best.

They have totally redone their site and the wording is a bit different, but they still refer to the pixel pitch of the 80Mp back,  but I might have that wrong. If so and the 32mm HR-W was designed for 60MP, then the situation is worse than expected.
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/products/professional-lenses-digital/hr-digaron-w

Personally, I would be surprised to see a total redesign, however if it did happen, the cost and weight would be extreme.  Look the mass and weight of Phase/Schneider's 40-80 and 35LS, lenses, albeit designed around a mirror box, but the 32mm is approaching the weight limit for a copal shutter anyway.  So I guess you can add some form of e shutter to the laundry list.

Paul C

[DanielStone]

To be honest, I can't understand how anyone lives with "accepting" what the manufacturers really should be taking care of BEFORE they put a product out on the market...

I mean, why not shoot film and scan it? Film's cheap, especially when you consider the depreciation factor of the technology you're willing to spend huge amounts of capital on...
You won't have to worry about doing LCC's, color shifts due to moving a lens 5mm too far to the right or left, or all this hullabaloo mumbo jumbo hoops y'all seem to enjoy jumping through...

Perhaps I'm simply not seeing it, or choosing to not "see it", but I can output a 150+ "megapixel" file from a 4x5 piece of well-exposed film, without much effort whatsoever. No dynamic range bracketing needed with today's color negative films either. Portra and Ektar are amazing, especially when used with "technical" lenses designed for systems such as the ALPA.

-Dan

[Ken R]

To be honest, I can't understand how anyone lives with "accepting" what the manufacturers really should be taking care of BEFORE they put a product out on the market...

I mean, why not shoot film and scan it? Film's cheap, especially when you consider the depreciation factor of the technology you're willing to spend huge amounts of capital on...
You won't have to worry about doing LCC's, color shifts due to moving a lens 5mm too far to the right or left, or all this hullabaloo mumbo jumbo hoops y'all seem to enjoy jumping through...

Perhaps I'm simply not seeing it, or choosing to not "see it", but I can output a 150+ "megapixel" file from a 4x5 piece of well-exposed film, without much effort whatsoever. No dynamic range bracketing needed with today's color negative films either. Portra and Ektar are amazing, especially when used with "technical" lenses designed for systems such as the ALPA.

-Dan

Scanning has a HUGE range of issues in itself. But yeah, for very low volume and artistic reasons large format film is still a VERY viable choice. Glad it is still being made.

Also, some people that post in this forum will ALWAYS find something to complain and worry about, its what they do.

Rather than see what the gear can do they look for what it can't.

[Paul2660]

Scanning has a HUGE range of issues in itself. But yeah, for very low volume and artistic reasons large format film is still a VERY viable choice. Glad it is still being made.

Also, some people that post in this forum will ALWAYS find something to complain and worry about, its what they do.

Rather than see what the gear can do they look for what it can't.

I guess that can mean me, if so sad statement.  I don't see anything wrong with allowing a person wanting to use a tech camera have a full understanding of the optical issues that they will have to contend with.  They were pointed out during the 50MP chip rollout, and I made the decision to purchase, but due to the crop factor returned the back.  I am in line for this back, along with lots of other folks, however I am going into the purchase with both feet wet.  I would hope that you would want the same level of understanding before making such a purchase.  The are many positives to full frame CMOS, but the user of a tech camera does need to really demo this back or do a lot of research before making this back a purchase. 

Each technology here will have issues with a tech camera, CCD has it's own set of problems, CMOS fixes some of those but then creates others. 

And I will go on the record with saying that I am seeing the pretty much the exact same response as with the 50Mp chip, and after 3 years of general knowledge of this, I had hoped that a better solution for movements with wide lenses would be  developed.  But it does appear that for now that is not going to happen at least from Phase One.

I sure don't see that as complaining. 

Paul C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Paul,

I would guess that you are not the one addressed, could be me…

I would guess that we are living in a changing world with users having different requirements depending on things like shooting conditions, travel and wallet dimensions.

Anyway, I am most thankful for folks sharing experience!

Best regards
Erik

I guess that can mean me, if so sad statement.  I don't see anything wrong with allowing a person wanting to use a tech camera have a full understanding of the optical issues that they will have to contend with.  They were pointed out during the 50MP chip rollout, and I made the decision to purchase, but due to the crop factor returned the back.  I am in line for this back, along with lots of other folks, however I am going into the purchase with both feet wet.  I would hope that you would want the same level of understanding before making such a purchase.  The are many positives to full frame CMOS, but the user of a tech camera does need to really demo this back or do a lot of research before making this back a purchase. 

Each technology here will have issues with a tech camera, CCD has it's own set of problems, CMOS fixes some of those but then creates others. 

And I will go on the record with saying that I am seeing the pretty much the exact same response as with the 50Mp chip, and after 3 years of general knowledge of this, I had hoped that a better solution for movements with wide lenses would be  developed.  But it does appear that for now that is not going to happen at least from Phase One.

I sure don't see that as complaining. 

Paul C

[Gigi]

I wonder if it would be possible to put a couple of different scenarios together for the tech camera users of how to deal with the current set of choices out there. For example -

- say you want workable live view, then its CMOS,  which works well really with these lens groups, and moderately so with this other group (say super wides, or symmetrical lenses) ...
- or if those  other lenses are of import, then go this way....
- and if shifting is important within a modest range, then...
- unless  full range shifting (say 15-20mm on wide angle lenses) is key, then these are your choices....

There's some pretty good knowledge posting here, and getting some summary opinions would be real useful to those of us who struggle with all the different parts and pieces.

Thanks.