Phase One IQ4-150 RAW files to download

[narikin]

2 raw files can be downloaded HERE
you need to have C1 11.2.1 on your system of course (DB version is free, if needed)

Pretty disappointed in the samples:

First one uses the 80mm LS at f16, which is plain silly - hello, diffraction?
The other uses the zoom with a 2 minute exposure, and is... no surprise, quite soft.

Neither of these are going to show off what 150mp is capable of.
Surely Phase can find people who know what they are doing technically?!

[DougDolde]

gotta wonder why they'd use a 2 min exposure to show how much detail the back can produce

I am not impressed either

[Rainforestman]

I'm also terribly disappointed by these samples.  It seems the dock scene is not sharp.  There is a lot of diffraction - and ok Capture One can correct largely for that, but it leaves you with the feeling how much image quality is being destroyed through diffraction. 

The lower contrast areas of the image particularly along the boards on the wharf turn to mush. 

Unfortunately the test image just raises a whole lot of doubts about the system.  Will look forward to the US dealers getting hold of the cameras to shoot some better real life examples.  I also hope that firmware can improve upon this situation.

[vjbelle]

Very poor examples. A two minute exposure can be exceptionally sharp so I think something else is going on.   What are they thinking??

Victor

[BernardLanguillier]

There is just no way this is representative of what an IQ4 can produce.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Doug Peterson]

*shrugs*

I don’t disagree at all. But I’m also not at all surprised. It’s rare that any camera company provides great raw files alongside their product launch.

DT will be doing a battery of technical tests (iso sweeps, aperture sweeps, hand hold tests, tech cam lens tests, XF lens tests, tethering speed tests etc) starting as early as next week. I won’t claim to expect them to be beautiful artful pieces but I do expect them to show where the performance envelope to be.

[JoeKitchen]

The reality is, the people at Phase One are not photographers, just camera makers.  FYI, I did not bother downloading the files since the talk is all pretty negative. 

It's like expecting the people who actually work at DeWalt or Milwaukee to be able to construct a set of cabinets as good as a professional cabinet maker.  It's not going to happen.  Sure, they may fool around with their tools from time to time, but it is not something they do professionally, 24/7. 

How could you ever expect the quality to be nearly as good as what a professional could deliver?  Just wait until the back is in the hands of someone who is actually a professional. 

PS, I just now read the two images provided were shot by a professional.  I have to assume it probably was not under the most ideal conditions with trying to be secretive.  Perhaps it was windy that night as well.

[Gerd_Peters]

One picture is from Paul Reiffer and he had other thoughts about the picture.

Here is the link CLICK:

Greeting Gerd

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

You may ask why camera vendors publish crappy images. The buildings don't move and f/11 isn't too bad regarding diffraction.

It could be that they failed to achieve correct focus.

Yeah, I have downloaded latest version of C1 and looked at those images. Not so impressed...

Going from 100 MP to 150 MP is not a giant leap. Interesting to see how 100 MP on 44x33 will compete. We will find out in a couple of months.

Best regards
Erik

Very poor examples. A two minute exposure can be exceptionally sharp so I think something else is going on.   What are they thinking??

Victor

[Gerd_Peters]

I have not said that these pictures are good or bad (but they are awkward for such a publication). I just said that Paul Reiffer has changed his mind about the picture - as you can read.

What do I have to do with Donald Trump and alternative facts? I think you shoot over the target.

What is the fickleness, I have done something to you or I understand you wrong.

with unfriendly greetings Gerd

[alan_b]

One picture is from Paul Reiffer and he had other thoughts about the picture.

Here is the link CLICK:

Greeting Gerd

LOL at the "pseudo medium format" line in that blog post.  Back in my day, we called 645 Pseudo MF! #getoffmylawn

There’s been a recent influx of “pseudo medium format” cropped-sensor cameras – from Fuji’s GFX 50S to Hassleblad’s compact X1D-50c, and many more in the works – each using what I consider to be a loophole in the industry to claim that “anything bigger than 35mm is therefore Medium Format”.

[siddhaarta]

LOL at the "pseudo medium format" line in that blog post. 

Yes, seems this is the new marketing line of Phase One and ambassadors: aggression against the so called loophole pseudo medium format offerings. Sounds desperate to me.

As has been pointed out, the downloadable raw file from Nyhavn/Copenhagen (boats) has been shot by a Pro-photographer with the 40-80mm zoom at 45mm, f/11, ISO 50 (I assume, not that far away from optimal aperture). This lens has been rated by DT as extraordinary (A++), a recent design, launched in 2014.

My preliminary conclusion from all this is that there is a problem with the imaging chain here, and it seems, that the weak link may be the lenses.

I am curious to see real world tests with several of the SK lenses.

[Christopher]

I was never a huge fan of the 40-80, but I have no doubt at all all of my lenses will make an angibt job with the new back. The only one I might be worried about is the older SK 55 lens.

I will not comment on the article or the samples, as that’s not needed..... I really don’t get why it’s so hard to produce great quality samples. That is the case for nearly EVERY manufacturer... I don’t even bother with samples anymore because I have nearly never seen any good ones... which is kinda sad isn’t it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

2 raw files can be downloaded HERE
you need to have C1 11.2.1 on your system of course (DB version is free, if needed)

Pretty disappointed in the samples...

For us without C1, can someone post a small jpegs to show what 2 files you guys are talking about?

[paulreiffer]

If I maaaay.... 

So, first off - I've just downloaded the raw set that's posted in the pack and there is one immediate issue, in that the ICC Profile is blank for some reason (no idea why it's that way on the version that's up there).

If you go to the "Base Characteristics" panel of the EIP, you'll see a blank ICC profile and "No Value" under Curve.  Switching this to "Phase One IQ4 150MP > Outdoor Daylight", to begin with makes a huge difference to the image in general, even if applying a simple "Auto" Curve to go with that. I have no idea why it's fallen off of the files they've put to download (but I've just mentioned it to the guys now).

Then we come to the sharpness issue.  In reality, the focus point is bang on - and we can see that for verification by turning on the focus mask on the image.

The slight softness out towards the edges on the 40-80 Blue Ring actually surprised me at the time (and the tech I was shooting with), and is something that may need a little more work in lens calibration perhaps - but at f/11 with diffraction correction turned on in Capture One it sharpens up just fine for now. In terms of the final image, more than happy to share the 850MB TIF for people to play with too.

As someone's alluded to here, shooting "secret products" comes with a whole bunch of challenges when thinking about pre-production functionality (and sometimes lack of), along with the need to experiment as we go with extremely limited time.  That said, there were a series of 5 images shot across the city, which I'm happy to provide flattened versions of for those who want a look at the others too. In all honesty, the 150 back delivers great images, and there are other examples from that same shoot which show this off perhaps to a better extent 


Anyway, hope that helps (at little, at least!).



PS...

LOL at the "pseudo medium format" line in that blog post.  Back in my day, we called 645 Pseudo MF! #getoffmylawn

I quite agree - but nobody's quite managed to get even a true 645-sized sensor out of Sony yet...! 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Slobodan,

Here is file one in C1, with no sharpening, at actual pixels.

Best regards
Erik

For us without C1, can someone post a small jpegs to show what 2 files you guys are talking about?

[BobShaw]

2 raw files can be downloaded HERE
First one uses the 80mm LS at f16, which is plain silly - hello, diffraction?

This should not be a problem.
On the H series the 80mm goes to f32 and I expect P1 is similar.
I regularly shoot product work at f18 -20. You need this for depth of field.

The thing I noticed was the images were 150-200MB each. I wonder how many professional photographers need 150MP?
Even non pros are buying the 50MP mirrorless MF cameras out now because they are high quality at an affordable price.
50MP is plenty for most people and 150MP is targeting a very small subset of a small market anyway. The price will continue to reflect that.

I was shooting some large travel bags and had the X1D camera set up for that when then the customer bought out some accessories that were very small. Not wanting to move the camera because there were more large bags coming I tried the existing setup and just cropped the results. Even seriously cropping the image I was still able to get great results at the required 2400 pixels wide.

[eronald]

This should not be a problem.
On the H series the 80mm goes to f32 and I expect P1 is similar.
I regularly shoot product work at f18 -20. You need this for depth of field.

The thing I noticed was the images were 150-200MB each. I wonder how many professional photographers need 150MP?
Even non pros are buying the 50MP mirrorless MF cameras out now because they are high quality at an affordable price.
50MP is plenty for most people and 150MP is targeting a very small subset of a small market anyway. The price will continue to reflect that.

I was shooting some large travel bags and had the X1D camera set up for that when then the customer bought out some accessories that were very small. Not wanting to move the camera because there were more large bags coming I tried the existing setup and just cropped the results. Even seriously cropping the image I was still able to get great results at the required 2400 pixels wide.

On the rumor/announcement thread, I've just linked to the Hartblei adapter for Canon tilt/shift lenses for the Fuji. For me it's the Fuji announcement of the show, and it's already happened: Pros are going to want that for product shots and architecture, and they're all gonna get it; 100MP you don't need but SHIFT, now that is really really useful.

Btw, I'm sure Stefan could be persuaded to make an adapter for the XD as well, but it looks as if the Fuji has substantially more working shooters.
Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I looked a lot at the harbour image.

One of the benefits of having more pixels is that we get a better resolution of fine detail. But, increasing resolution would also make the picture look softer. If we look at an image at 1:1 pixels, it will be more magnified on a 150 MP back than on a 100 mp back.

In the enclosed sample I show a small crop from the harbour image. On the top it is the original image, without sharpening in C1. Left below is same crop, but from the image downsized to 100 MP. Just downsizing the image makes it sharper. The image on the right size is the "100  MP" crop sharpened with focus magic. That is pretty sharp.

It may also be possible that atmospheric disturbances affect the image.

Best regards
Erik

2 raw files can be downloaded HERE
you need to have C1 11.2.1 on your system of course (DB version is free, if needed)

Pretty disappointed in the samples:

First one uses the 80mm LS at f16, which is plain silly - hello, diffraction?
The other uses the zoom with a 2 minute exposure, and is... no surprise, quite soft.

Neither of these are going to show off what 150mp is capable of.
Surely Phase can find people who know what they are doing technically?!

[eronald]

It may also be possible that atmospheric disturbances affect the image.

Best regards
Erik

Let's not go for complicated first. I suggest diffraction.

Edmund