Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?  (Read 5729 times)

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3805
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2018, 06:43:09 PM »

But for someone who wants to compare an IQ3 100 to an IQ3 100 Trichromatic, I am saying it is possible to arrive at a true and accurate conclusion without objective measurements if the devices and conditions are optimal and consistent. That's the whole point of you showing the image samples, is it not?

Yes. I agree with that.

Other then an unimportant semantic distinction I would make between "objective" and "numerical". I don't consider them synonyms.

Sky blue in LA in late afternoon for example, is pretty darn objective. It's true there is variation from day to day or hour to hour, but it's really impossible to look at the IQ3 100mp Trichromatic and the IQ3 100mp rendering of the sky in our direct comparison raw files and come to a conclusion other than the Trichromatic is rendering it more accurately. A numerical delta E value can quantify that difference or comparative spectral response charts might help explain the technical cause of that difference, but for the purpose of directly comparing two cameras looking at both images on a decently calibrated monitor is a pretty good proxy.

I can't wait for a bunch of posts with scientific analysis of the spectral characteristics of sky blue in the western hemisphere at midday with consideration to water vapor levels.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2018, 06:48:55 PM by Doug Peterson »
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 701
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2018, 04:07:13 AM »

But for someone who wants to compare an IQ3 100 to an IQ3 100 Trichromatic, I am saying it is possible to arrive at a true and accurate conclusion without objective measurements if the devices and conditions are optimal and consistent. That's the whole point of you showing the image samples, is it not? We produced our own image samples and from our own CI samples, I could see the difference and the difference was in favor of the IQ3 100 Trichromatic, as your article did, just with different data.

You can arrive at any number of accurate conclusions about what a percentage of viewers will find more or less 'pleasing'.  On the other hand there is no tone 'accuracy' without quantitative objective measurement.  One may not care about accuracy and that's perfectly fine. But semantically equating the words 'pleasing' and 'accurate' is misleading.  In fact we know based on experience that a percentage of viewers will often prefer an image rendered to show pleasing colors vs one rendered to show accurate ones.

So based on the available objective data (a scant one set, feel free to produce more) Erik and Alexey are correct.  And there is nothing there that contradicts what you and Doug are maintaining.

It seems the old CFA design is more accurate, but the new design gives colours more pop...

Jack
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11091
    • Echophoto
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2018, 04:10:27 AM »

Hi Steve,

Just to put things in perspective. I am mostly a landscape photographer. It may be that a lot of landscape photographers adjust colours, but I don't have the slightest idea what colours look like. So, I want to have the colours of the camera as close as possible to reality.

I had some discussions with a guy in GB called Tim Parkin, he has a landscape photography site called OnLandscape. He is a photographer, writer, painter and mathematician.

Tim found that the P45+ had about the worst colour of any camera. Tim works often with Joe Cornish and they had long discussions about fixing color coming of the P45+. I was suggesting that the issue could be handled by profiles, but Tim did not agree. I did dig into that a bit.

One of the aspects I stumbled on was that vegetation has high content of IR. The ColorChecker vegetation patch has no IR. So a weak IR filtering would have an effect real vegetation images but no effect at all on the vegetation patch on the ColorChecker.

Later, I have noticed that the P45+ has some tendency to browns on perfectly black cloths, also indicating weak IR-filtering.

When Joe Cornish started shooting with DALSA based backs the issues went away. I still have my P45+ back. At one time I was preparing an article for OnLandscape and made some test shoots. With some interesting results. I used a deep blue purple flower as a subject, as I knew that it was a kind of difficult colour and it also had green leaves.

The P45+ delivered this image:


I of course also shot it on my Sony Alpha 99, yielding this image:


One may be better or worse... But, those images were processed in Lightroom using colour profiles generated by Adobe DNG Profile Editor.

So, what did we get using Capture One, this was P45+:


And this is what Capture one made of the Alpha 99 image:


What did that flower look like. Here are the correct colours for the petals:


And for the leafs:


So, I guess that Capture One missed on that scene miserably.

Now, getting back to the IQ Thrichromatic. Phase One published some info about the Thrichromatic that made a lot of colour scientist raise their hair in astonishment. So much that Jim Kasson and Jack Hogan developed a set of programs for comparing CFA designs.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60253992
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60278621

One of the early findings was that this response curve was optimal:


Well, that is the response curve of human vision. For some technical reasons, it is not very practical.

Now that Jack Hogan had some emulation software for analysing data he did some analysis based on two sample image from "DChew" and found that the IQ3100MP back is more colour accurate, but the Thrichromatic has a compromise matrix that is more ideal.

In DChew's images I have seen the brownish contamination of leafs I would attribute to IR in the IQ3100MP, while the IQ3 Thrichromatic had cleaner greens. That may indicate that IR cut off frequency is steeper on the IQ3 Trichromatic.

Usman Dawood published some comparisons between the IQ3100 and the Thrichromatic and showed that the IQ3100 had bokeh fringing that the Thrichromatic did not display. That is a strong indication of a different IR/UV filtering strategy.

If the Thrichromatic has more accurate colour, I would assume that "Digital Transitions's Cultural Heritage division" would switch over to it. That may of course be the case they do.

Doug indicated that "lime greens" are better handled by the Thrichromatic, and that is indeed visible also in "DChew's" test. I bought some limes and green peppers etc and made a set up with some similarity to Doug's and shot it with three cameras I have:

- P45+ - that was known to have problematic colour
- Sony Alpha 900- same generation as the P45+, but known to have excellent colour renditon
- Sony A7RII - my most used camera right now

All three handle lime greens perfectly well, providing perfect match with measured data from the limes themselves. So, yellow contamination was no issue under the test illumination that was studio flash.




So, to sum up. The improved IR and UV filtering are probably useful. The only real world data that we have indicates that the IQ3100 MP is the one that yields the more accurate colour.

Best regards
Erik




Yes, but what I am saying is that there are a ton of photographers who will never utilize objective - based color measurements on the way to final production. In fact, probably the majority of photographers evaluate color visually, and that's it. Certainly this leaves room for error, given the wide variety of devices and conditions all these photographers render and view in (not to mention their own visual acuity). And they'll never change.

But for someone who wants to compare an IQ3 100 to an IQ3 100 Trichromatic, I am saying it is possible to arrive at a true and accurate conclusion without objective measurements if the devices and conditions are optimal and consistent. That's the whole point of you showing the image samples, is it not? We produced our own image samples and from our own CI samples, I could see the difference and the difference was in favor of the IQ3 100 Trichromatic, as your article did, just with different data.


Steve Hendrix/CI
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Alexey.Danilchenko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • Spectron
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2018, 05:28:46 AM »

it is possible to produce color with reasonably good devices and very similar conditions and determine subjectively that one color is more accurate than another.
This very statement contradicts itself. It may subjectively look that way to you but the very act of observation is subjective. For example, I do not know whether your perception deviates from mine (or even average observer) sufficiently to make a definitive conclusion from your statement. The fact that you and Doug keep discarding "numbers" and yet make your observations based on the very numerically calibrated monitors or prints produced by again very numerically calibrated printers is also quite interesting.

Your bias against the presenter of the information is coloring your response to it. While there was a semi attempt (perhaps poorly executed by Phase One) to describe this scientifically, there were also images that were captured which are not intended for objective measurement, and that is what I am ascribing my position to. I myself performed comparative testing. On a certain level I could give a flip how they did it. I'm not interested in selling more of these, I'm interested in finding out if it truly holds any value for my clients. And the results showed me that the performance was superior (the value is a different story).

You right I am sceptical. And I don't trust the arguments "trust me it's better because I/Phase One/Dealer/Doug/etc said so".

Let me recap what we have so far:
    manufacturer releases a new back that they say is more accurate then previous one;
    the explanations to what was improved specifically resembled children's book;
    the existing comparisons all use manufacturer's software and profiles;
    the only explanations you given when ask Phase One about details/spectral data etc is "it's secret but trust us - it's more accurate".

Where in all of that is you find anything objective and unbiased? Lets consider a claim that the new TC back does better colour reproduction than the old ones - all the examples given so far to support that were processed in C1 with Phase One profiles. To me that can mean a few things:
  • the back is genuinely better in colour reproduction
  • the profiles for the older backs were not as good as they could have been and new back better in that area only thanks to better profiling
and the fact is I do not know which of the above is correct. And I do not trust Phase One marketing on this - they are in business of making money selling these backs.

Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 701
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2018, 10:12:35 AM »

Nice work there with the violets Erik, I should try it on my cameras.

As for the perfect CFA combo, I actually gave it a bit more thought and wrote a dedicated article about it here.

Jack
Logged

Steve Hendrix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://www.captureintegration.com/
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2018, 10:27:40 AM »

You can arrive at any number of accurate conclusions about what a percentage of viewers will find more or less 'pleasing'.  On the other hand there is no tone 'accuracy' without quantitative objective measurement.  One may not care about accuracy and that's perfectly fine. But semantically equating the words 'pleasing' and 'accurate' is misleading.  In fact we know based on experience that a percentage of viewers will often prefer an image rendered to show pleasing colors vs one rendered to show accurate ones.

So based on the available objective data (a scant one set, feel free to produce more) Erik and Alexey are correct.  And there is nothing there that contradicts what you and Doug are maintaining.

Jack


But I never brought up the term "pleasing", you have introduced that term. The example I am bringing up is - let's say we have a vase on a table. It is lit with strobe lighting. We are shooting with an IQ3 STD and an IQ3 TRI, tethered to a computer, displayed on an Eizo monitor. The people assembled in the room are standing around this table, they're looking at this vase, they are forming an opinion on what color this vase appears to be. There are certainly variances in their opinions of this color, based on many things, including their own vision of course. Nonetheless, it is highly likely that once captured, they will as a group be able to point to the IQ3 TRI as more accurate to what they thought they saw. This has been my experience - in this specific instance. Certainly people viewing as a group can often and do often come to variable conclusions, we've seen it time and again. But the specifics of the comparison matter and impact how much variance in group viewing we will see.

Regardless of what is objectively measured, in the real world, in many if not most instances, visually arriving at a judgement of more accurate or not is part of the end use equation. And if the objective measurements seem at odds with the visual judgement, the visual judgement holds more weight. Whether it is more accurate or not, it has to appear to be more accurate, and yes, in a variety of viewing conditions.

Now in another example, I have shot landscapes side by side with these 2 products, and to your point about pleasing - which I was not referring to - I actually found the IQ3 100 more pleasing. But the IQ3 100 Trichromatic was more accurate.


Steve Hendrix/CI
Logged
Steve Hendrix • 404-543-8475 www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Alpa | Cambo | Sinar | Arca Swiss

Steve Hendrix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://www.captureintegration.com/
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2018, 10:38:40 AM »

This very statement contradicts itself. It may subjectively look that way to you but the very act of observation is subjective. For example, I do not know whether your perception deviates from mine (or even average observer) sufficiently to make a definitive conclusion from your statement. The fact that you and Doug keep discarding "numbers" and yet make your observations based on the very numerically calibrated monitors or prints produced by again very numerically calibrated printers is also quite interesting.

You right I am sceptical. And I don't trust the arguments "trust me it's better because I/Phase One/Dealer/Doug/etc said so".

Let me recap what we have so far:
    manufacturer releases a new back that they say is more accurate then previous one;
    the explanations to what was improved specifically resembled children's book;
    the existing comparisons all use manufacturer's software and profiles;
    the only explanations you given when ask Phase One about details/spectral data etc is "it's secret but trust us - it's more accurate".

Where in all of that is you find anything objective and unbiased? Lets consider a claim that the new TC back does better colour reproduction than the old ones - all the examples given so far to support that were processed in C1 with Phase One profiles. To me that can mean a few things:
  • the back is genuinely better in colour reproduction
  • the profiles for the older backs were not as good as they could have been and new back better in that area only thanks to better profiling
and the fact is I do not know which of the above is correct. And I do not trust Phase One marketing on this - they are in business of making money selling these backs.

When the end use relies on a subjective assessment of accuracy, then the subjective view of the end result has to be taken into account in some way to arrive at a determination of accuracy with regard to the final presented appearance. This differs perhaps from a historical object, in that case, the objectively measured numbers are more important than the results that appear. So - the use matters.

Regarding Phase One, since 90 + percent of all Phase One users utilize Phase One software, the weight of the abundance of evidence for accuracy must be revealed there. And since they can only control the preparation of the file - they cannot control how Adobe or other programs choose to convert and present their raw file data, it is valid that the results as produced and presented in the Phase One software are completely legitimate in terms of how accurate it appears (again for end use). And yes there are downstream variables after the fact (monitor display, print profiles, viewing light, etc.) But neither measured date nor presented data has any control over that anyway. For end use, where the appearance matters more than the documentary recording, there has to be some point at which a visual assessment is made.


Steve Hendrix/CI
Logged
Steve Hendrix • 404-543-8475 www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Alpa | Cambo | Sinar | Arca Swiss

Alexey.Danilchenko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • Spectron
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2018, 10:53:15 AM »

Regarding Phase One, since 90 + percent of all Phase One users utilize Phase One software, the weight of the abundance of evidence for accuracy must be revealed there. And since they can only control the preparation of the file - they cannot control how Adobe or other programs choose to convert and present their raw file data, it is valid that the results as produced and presented in the Phase One software are completely legitimate in terms of how accurate it appears (again for end use). And yes there are downstream variables after the fact (monitor display, print profiles, viewing light, etc.) But neither measured date nor presented data has any control over that anyway. For end use, where the appearance matters more than the documentary recording, there has to be some point at which a visual assessment is made.
If you have not had complete control over the whole process - how can you even begin talking about any accuracy? You definition of that relies in half on some black box (P1 profiles) and in half on measured data (say monitor calibration) and then your perception of the output. Where is the accuracy in that?

If you really want accuracy - define methodology (colours compared, measurement approach, delta measurements etc) and process and apply it to the whole chain so there is no unknown variables. I.e build your own profiles following the same methodology, use the same raw conversion, lighting for the shots, delta calculations etc. Then the accuracy talk will be more convincing and objective
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11091
    • Echophoto
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2018, 11:01:24 AM »

Hi Steve,

You are talking to engineers not artists (*). My understanding is that Alex is a contributor to LibRaw development and that he has built his own monochromator/spectrometer. Alex and Iliah Borg also published an open source solution for CFA measurements. Those guys know a lot of things and have been in raw conversion at least as long as Phase One, with a small difference in that they don't make any money.

The term accurate is quite simple. It means that measured values on a flower or a flag are reproduced correctly. So, you take sample readings of a colour:



These were converted jpg presuming D50 illuminant, as far as I can recall.

Now you take an image of the same flower (or flag):



Now, you take a reading of that image and check against some well known colour data base:



And compare that with:



OK, I admit I am cheating. I take an experiment with known results. On the other hand, I made this just a few times but the result is pretty typical.

In this case, I would say the colour reproduction is fairly accurate under D50 (or was it D55?) lighting conditions.

The C1 rendition of the same flower was significantly different:

Best regards
Erik

(*) My understanding is that Iliah Borg is also fine landscape photographer. I have used some of his stuff since 2006.






But I never brought up the term "pleasing", you have introduced that term. The example I am bringing up is - let's say we have a vase on a table. It is lit with strobe lighting. We are shooting with an IQ3 STD and an IQ3 TRI, tethered to a computer, displayed on an Eizo monitor. The people assembled in the room are standing around this table, they're looking at this vase, they are forming an opinion on what color this vase appears to be. There are certainly variances in their opinions of this color, based on many things, including their own vision of course. Nonetheless, it is highly likely that once captured, they will as a group be able to point to the IQ3 TRI as more accurate to what they thought they saw. This has been my experience - in this specific instance. Certainly people viewing as a group can often and do often come to variable conclusions, we've seen it time and again. But the specifics of the comparison matter and impact how much variance in group viewing we will see.

Regardless of what is objectively measured, in the real world, in many if not most instances, visually arriving at a judgement of more accurate or not is part of the end use equation. And if the objective measurements seem at odds with the visual judgement, the visual judgement holds more weight. Whether it is more accurate or not, it has to appear to be more accurate, and yes, in a variety of viewing conditions.

Now in another example, I have shot landscapes side by side with these 2 products, and to your point about pleasing - which I was not referring to - I actually found the IQ3 100 more pleasing. But the IQ3 100 Trichromatic was more accurate.


Steve Hendrix/CI
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 11:09:06 AM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Steve Hendrix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://www.captureintegration.com/
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2018, 11:10:18 AM »

If you have not had complete control over the whole process - how can you even begin talking about any accuracy? You definition of that relies in half on some black box (P1 profiles) and in half on measured data (say monitor calibration) and then your perception of the output. Where is the accuracy in that?

If you really want accuracy - define methodology (colours compared, measurement approach, delta measurements etc) and process and apply it to the whole chain so there is no unknown variables. I.e build your own profiles following the same methodology, use the same raw conversion, lighting for the shots, delta calculations etc. Then the accuracy talk will be more convincing and objective


I understand where you are coming from. And I completely share your description of what is required to determine the objective accuracy of a capture device. Agree completely. But - you and I are simply approaching this from a different perspective. I know that you are identifying accuaracy as only one thing - objective, measured accuracy. It is determined to be more accurate or not, based o the objective measured data. I get that. But when Eric Kaffehr says that the IQ3 100 is more accurate, then I don't really care how he objectively arrived at that conclusion with whatever objective measurement process. For subjective evaluation it is not more accurate. I know that is a contradiction. But if you measure the results pre-Capture One, for most photographers those results don't matter.

What is going to matter is what they see in Capture One. In my world, where users of the product overwhelmingly use Capture One as the software, and who evaluate imagery visually, this matters much more to them than whatever objective methodology is used to determine accuracy. I can see more accurate results with the IQ3 100 TRI, and in a variety of conditions, that's what matters. What you're able to measure before that doesn't matter to a photographer who is visually evaluating their photographs in Capture One.


Steve Hendrix/CI
Logged
Steve Hendrix • 404-543-8475 www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Alpa | Cambo | Sinar | Arca Swiss

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11091
    • Echophoto
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2018, 11:18:06 AM »

Hi Steve,

Just to say, anything you see on screen is a bit clouded. Adobe RGB truncates a lot of colours. If you print from Prophoto RGB you will get much more vibrant colours. Looking at images on screen may be a decent approximation of colour, but Adobe RGB is sort of history.

This is 2018, and we have Rec 2020. It is probably not that well implemented. But take 2-3 years and Adobe RGB will get it's well deserved place on the scrapheap of image processing history.

Best regards
Erik


I understand where you are coming from. And I completely share your description of what is required to determine the objective accuracy of a capture device. Agree completely. But - you and I are simply approaching this from a different perspective. I know that you are identifying accuaracy as only one thing - objective, measured accuracy. It is determined to be more accurate or not, based o the objective measured data. I get that. But when Eric Kaffehr says that the IQ3 100 is more accurate, then I don't really care how he objectively arrived at that conclusion with whatever objective measurement process. For subjective evaluation it is not more accurate. I know that is a contradiction. But if you measure the results pre-Capture One, for most photographers those results don't matter.

What is going to matter is what they see in Capture One. In my world, where users of the product overwhelmingly use Capture One as the software, and who evaluate imagery visually, this matters much more to them than whatever objective methodology is used to determine accuracy. I can see more accurate results with the IQ3 100 TRI, and in a variety of conditions, that's what matters. What you're able to measure before that doesn't matter to a photographer who is visually evaluating their photographs in Capture One.


Steve Hendrix/CI
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Alexey.Danilchenko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • Spectron
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2018, 11:28:29 AM »

You are talking to engineers not artists (*). My understanding is that Alex is a contributor to LibRaw development and that he has built his own monochromator/spectrometer. Alex and Iliah Borg also published an open source solution for CFA measurements. Those guys know a lot of things and have been in raw conversion at least as long as Phase One, with a small difference in that they don't make any money.
Almost - two different Alex's ;). My contribution to LibRaw was only a small one (Fuji Xtrans compression decoding) - it is mostly maintained by Iliah and Alexey Tutubalin.

Logged

Steve Hendrix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://www.captureintegration.com/
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2018, 12:02:46 PM »

Hi Steve,

Just to say, anything you see on screen is a bit clouded. Adobe RGB truncates a lot of colours. If you print from Prophoto RGB you will get much more vibrant colours. Looking at images on screen may be a decent approximation of colour, but Adobe RGB is sort of history.

This is 2018, and we have Rec 2020. It is probably not that well implemented. But take 2-3 years and Adobe RGB will get it's well deserved place on the scrapheap of image processing history.

Best regards
Erik


Hi Eric -

Yes I am aware of this.

But for now Adobe in the commercial space is probably dominant, and ProPhoto in the fine art space more dominant. But regardless of the murkiness, it is what photographers use in overwhelming numbers.

I know that I am talking to engineers (and extremely accomplished ones) and not artists, but artists do read these forums, it is called Luminous Landscape after all, and I like to present the perspective from their end as a story that needs to be told, with regard to how they are going to assess an image.

I initially found the IQ3 100 Trichromatic too accurate compared to the IQ3 100 for landscape scenes, the IQ3 100 was warmer and brought out more tones in yellow, green grasses, for example. But then I realized at 12:30pm and the scene should not look like "magic hour" and the IQ3 100 Trichromatic rendered it visually closer to what mid day should look like. So my choice was to cool down the IQ3 100 image if I didn't want magic hour at mid day, or to warm up the IQ3 100 Trichromatic if I did. I decided if I shot at mid-day, or in the morning (or the afternoon for that matter), that I would want to shoot with the IQ3 100 Trichromatic to more accurately render the time of day and if I chose for it to look different, I would make an adjustment to the file afterward.


Steve Hendrix/CI
Logged
Steve Hendrix • 404-543-8475 www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Alpa | Cambo | Sinar | Arca Swiss

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 701
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2018, 03:50:11 PM »

Now in another example, I have shot landscapes side by side with these 2 products, and to your point about pleasing - which I was not referring to - I actually found the IQ3 100 more pleasing. But the IQ3 100 Trichromatic was more accurate.

Steve ... how to put this tactfully ... errr (trying to channel my inner eronald)... nice try but no :)  In English accurate has a very precise meaning and you are using the word inaccurately.

But hey! I have an idea.  You and Doug are dealers, right?  Why don't you shoot the same exact scene including a target of known colorimetry with both the Tri and the Standard Back - and publish the raw files.  Each of us here can then look at the raw files and understand what accurate means to you.  Better yet, shoot them in daylight and throw in a couple of violets.  I am now really curious to see whether Erik's right about the IQ3-100 Standard Back having that inadequate hot mirror shown in Phase One's marketing material.

No?  Well, no surprise and no hard feelings.  All the best,
Jack
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 04:22:00 PM by Jack Hogan »
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3805
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2018, 05:02:04 PM »

Steve ... how to put this tactfully ... errr (trying to channel my inner eronald)... nice try but no :)  In English accurate has a very precise meaning and you are using the word inaccurately.

You and Doug are dealers, right?  Why don't you shoot the same exact scene including a target of known colorimetry with both the Tri and the Standard Back - and publish the raw files.  Each of us here can then look at the raw files and understand what accurate means to you....

No?  Well, no surprise and no hard feelings.

We did exactly this months ago. Trichromatic Test

Exact same scene with both backs: Yes. Two indoor studio scenes and one outdoor scene. Identical body, lens, settings, and lighting.
Targets of known colorimetry: Yes.  ISA Golden Thread target and color checker SG
Publish the raw files: Yes. Free download link emailed to anyone who wants it.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 05:34:55 PM by Doug Peterson »
Logged

DougDolde

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
    • Images of the American West
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2018, 05:56:34 PM »

I'm staying out of this one. I just upgraded my IQ180 to a Nikon D850.  And an upgrade it is !
Logged

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2018, 08:47:58 PM »

Steve ... how to put this tactfully ... errr (trying to channel my inner eronald)... nice try but no :)  In English accurate has a very precise meaning and you are using the word inaccurately.

But hey! I have an idea.  You and Doug are dealers, right?  Why don't you shoot the same exact scene including a target of known colorimetry with both the Tri and the Standard Back - and publish the raw files.  Each of us here can then look at the raw files and understand what accurate means to you.  Better yet, shoot them in daylight and throw in a couple of violets.  I am now really curious to see whether Erik's right about the IQ3-100 Standard Back having that inadequate hot mirror shown in Phase One's marketing material.

No?  Well, no surprise and no hard feelings.  All the best,
Jack

If you guys wait until spring in Ohio, the leaves in those test scenes will include purplish-blue flowers. And this time I will leave some separation so the ColorChecker isn’t contaminated by the surrounding green.
 :)

Dave
Logged

Gigi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 507
    • some work
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2018, 09:05:01 PM »

An engineer talking with a salesperson about accuracy in color. The mind boggles. That is just not going to be successful!  :)
Logged
Geoff

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 701
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2018, 03:08:22 AM »

...
Publish the raw files: Yes. Free download link emailed to anyone who wants it.

Excellent Doug.  Let's start with the two captures of the "Appetizing Fruits and Veggies" scene with the ColorChecker in it, I've PM'd you my email address.  If you happen to have measured the spectral data of the illuminant and ColorChecker Passport used send those along too.

Much appreciated.

Jack

Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3805
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Did anyone cross-grade IQ100 > Trichro 100 ?
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2018, 07:56:50 AM »

Excellent Doug.  Let's start with the two captures of the "Appetizing Fruits and Veggies" scene with the ColorChecker in it, I've PM'd you my email address.  If you happen to have measured the spectral data of the illuminant and ColorChecker Passport used send those along too.

The link to receive raw files is self serve. No need to wait until I’m at a computer.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up