Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?  (Read 8473 times)

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2247
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2019, 05:42:49 pm »

Congrats to Jim Kasson (often contributes here) who finally has his GFX-100, hurrah.

His blog provides many technically details insights here

Including:
the dual gain bump is at 500iso, not 640 or 800.
the sensor is GBRG array rather than the classic RGGB
the Phase Detect AF pixels are positioned 18 pixels apart over Red positions.
very little LoCA shift, at least with the 110mm/f2 lens.

Some of his posts are of detailed technical interest, others, like recognising the 500asa gain bump, are relevant to regular use of the camera. Maybe Jim himself can emphasize any essential details, but my thanks for his research.

Thanks for the shout-out. If anyone has any questions, please post them here. I may start other threads that are dedicated to specific interesting findings, but I'll be looking at this one, too. 

Working on the sharpness issue now.

Jim

SrMi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2019, 05:54:51 pm »

Thanks for the shout-out. If anyone has any questions, please post them here. I may start other threads that are dedicated to specific interesting findings, but I'll be looking at this one, too. 

Working on the sharpness issue now.

Jim

Thank you for the articles, Jim. Looking forward to more of them.
I am wondering about 16-bit vs 14-bit raw format in GFX 100S. Is it worth it to shoot in 16-bit?

- Srdjan
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2247
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #42 on: August 06, 2019, 06:22:55 pm »

Thank you for the articles, Jim. Looking forward to more of them.
I am wondering about 16-bit vs 14-bit raw format in GFX 100S. Is it worth it to shoot in 16-bit?

Doesn't look like it so far, but I've got more testing to do on that.

mtakeda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 116
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2019, 07:47:58 pm »

I shoot raw + Super Fine jpeg for exactly this reason.   And... the jpegs make terrific targets for comparison when processing.  Often, the jpeg w/ some VERY MINOR adjustment is equal to or better than what I can achieve.  Fujiís jpegs are famous for a reason, Iíve found.

Rand

I do not see any difference of the raw image and jpeg whe they are imported into Lightroom. And Fuji tech. Support told me that is the way it is. Your statement the jpeg is good comparison as a target of raw processing and I wonder what I am missing. Any advice appreciated.
Logged

Waker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #44 on: August 06, 2019, 08:18:26 pm »

Thank you for the articles, Jim. Looking forward to more of them.
I am wondering about 16-bit vs 14-bit raw format in GFX 100S. Is it worth it to shoot in 16-bit?

- Srdjan

This has been covered many times for Phase backs, and I doubt there's much difference here.
The answer is: almost never.
It only really matters where you have very dark shadow detail, and only then if you are shooting at base ISO (100, in this case)
Shoot at 200asa or above, and you have lost the Dynamic Range for 16bit to make any difference.

I never bother myself. It is near impossible to see any difference on screen or in print. But if you want to and can afford the extra write time/ loss of buffer/ extra SD card storage, then it may be worth your peace of mind.  We all have different needs.


Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6633
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #45 on: August 07, 2019, 08:29:12 am »

Doesn't look like it so far, but I've got more testing to do on that.

The question is whether it might make sense some time in the future when processing the files with future algorithms.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2247
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #46 on: August 07, 2019, 09:59:49 am »

The question is whether it might make sense some time in the future when processing the files with future algorithms.


I think that question, as stated, is unanswerable. So far, all the analysis that I've done is on the raw planes, so it's independent of what processing comes after that, but who can say what cleverness awaits over the eons ahead. Uh, assuming the files can still be read.

Waker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #47 on: August 07, 2019, 04:15:58 pm »

From DPreviews (Gold Award) review of Fuji GFX-100:

"Our testing shows there to be less than a 0.1EV difference in DR between 16-bit and 14-bit mode, because the camera's pixels aren't producing a signal that warrants the additional encoding precision. So while there is, in principle, a <0.1EV difference between 14 and 16-bit modes, this will only exist at base ISO and will only come into play in tones already impacted by the PDAF striping. In short: we could not find any reason to use 16-bit mode."

DPreview is not the greatest review site out there, but in this case, I agree. The trade off is not worth it for me.

I bought the Fuji because it was the first fast, agile, PDAF, IBIS, Focus tracking, digital MF.  To trade a lot of that away for a non existent bit depth difference, (theoretically better, but not in reality) is really not worth it  for me.  You may feel different, of course.
Logged

SrMi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #48 on: August 07, 2019, 05:14:27 pm »

From DPreviews (Gold Award) review of Fuji GFX-100:

"Our testing shows there to be less than a 0.1EV difference in DR between 16-bit and 14-bit mode, because the camera's pixels aren't producing a signal that warrants the additional encoding precision. So while there is, in principle, a <0.1EV difference between 14 and 16-bit modes, this will only exist at base ISO and will only come into play in tones already impacted by the PDAF striping. In short: we could not find any reason to use 16-bit mode."

DPreview is not the greatest review site out there, but in this case, I agree. The trade off is not worth it for me.

I bought the Fuji because it was the first fast, agile, PDAF, IBIS, Focus tracking, digital MF.  To trade a lot of that away for a non existent bit depth difference, (theoretically better, but not in reality) is really not worth it  for me.  You may feel different, of course.

Bill Claff's measurements were also pointing into the same direction (16-bit not wort it).
The question is, why does GFX100 offers 16-bit mode? Is it marketing or is there something that we are missing?
Logged

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1484
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #49 on: August 07, 2019, 05:25:36 pm »

And the question is why Phase One gets more DR from the same sensor technology. Is it because of PDAF?
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2247
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #50 on: August 07, 2019, 06:51:23 pm »

And the question is why Phase One gets more DR from the same sensor technology. Is it because of PDAF?

Are you talking about Bill's PDR? If so, it's because the P1 150 MP 3.76 um sensor has a greater picture height in pixels, and thus the normalization step inherent in Bill's PDR gives it a greater benefit. Whether there's anything else going on to put a thumb on the scale, I can't say. The OSPDAF technology in the GFX 100 will reduce usable dynamic range, but it doesn't seem to greatly affect the PDR as calculated from photon transfer curves, which doesn't care about periodicity.

Jim

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #51 on: August 08, 2019, 04:46:24 am »

Are you talking about Bill's PDR? If so, it's because the P1 150 MP 3.76 um sensor has a greater picture height in pixels, and thus the normalization step inherent in Bill's PDR gives it a greater benefit. Whether there's anything else going on to put a thumb on the scale, I can't say. The OSPDAF technology in the GFX 100 will reduce increase usable dynamic range, but it doesn't seem to greatly affect the PDR as calculated from photon transfer curves, which doesn't care about periodicity.

Jim

FYP
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #52 on: August 08, 2019, 05:37:42 am »

I think that question, as stated, is unanswerable. So far, all the analysis that I've done is on the raw planes, so it's independent of what processing comes after that, but who can say what cleverness awaits over the eons ahead. Uh, assuming the files can still be read.

It would be interesting to know how well the 16bit interchannel correlation is. It may not provide increased DR per channel, but it may provide increased precision. If the interchannel correlation becomes more precise, it will help even current Raw converters to produce more stable color with less noise. Not sure how to test that, though. Maybe graypatches gaussian distribution comparison?
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2247
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #53 on: August 08, 2019, 10:08:30 am »


"Are you talking about Bill's PDR? If so, it's because the P1 150 MP 3.76 um sensor has a greater picture height in pixels, and thus the normalization step inherent in Bill's PDR gives it a greater benefit. Whether there's anything else going on to put a thumb on the scale, I can't say. The OSPDAF technology in the GFX 100 will reduce increase usable dynamic range, but it doesn't seem to greatly affect the PDR as calculated from photon transfer curves, which doesn't care about periodicity."

FYP

You didn't fix it. You made it say exactly the opposite of what I meant it to say. OSPDAF, in the GFX 100's implementation, reduces usable DR.

Jim

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8382
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #54 on: August 08, 2019, 01:39:50 pm »

Doesn't look like it so far, but I've got more testing to do on that.

Hi Jim,

I remember that, when I first looked at the Phase One 16 vs 14-bit ADC implementation, the engineering DR was indeed significantly better at 16-bits and as such the files were more robust when editing the Raw conversions. Haven't tested the Fuji files yet, so I don't know if the same applies to these.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6633
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #55 on: August 08, 2019, 01:44:56 pm »

Hi Jim,

I remember that, when I first looked at the Phase One 16 vs 14-bit ADC implementation, the engineering DR was indeed significantly better at 16-bits and as such the files were more robust when editing the Raw conversions. Haven't tested the Fuji files yet, so I don't know if the same applies to these.

Cheers,
Bart

Fuji are a very outgoing company. I'm sure they would say whether there is extra info in the extra bits, and how they believe one can best filter out the PDAF pixels or whatever is causing that periodicity one sees in some tests.

Although I suspect the people who really have data on this are Sony.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2247
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #56 on: August 08, 2019, 01:47:41 pm »

Hi Jim,

I remember that, when I first looked at the Phase One 16 vs 14-bit ADC implementation, the engineering DR was indeed significantly better at 16-bits and as such the files were more robust when editing the Raw conversions. Haven't tested the Fuji files yet, so I don't know if the same applies to these.


I've already done the EDR testing, and 16 bits doesn't help:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/gfx-100-edr-vs-iso/

In visual tests, the OSPDAF banding drowns out any significant difference that might accrue to 16 bit precision:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/visual-comparisons-of-fuji-gfx-100-14-and-16-bit-raw-precision/

Jim

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6633
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #57 on: August 08, 2019, 03:30:14 pm »

I've already done the EDR testing, and 16 bits doesn't help:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/gfx-100-edr-vs-iso/

In visual tests, the OSPDAF banding drowns out any significant difference that might accrue to 16 bit precision:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/visual-comparisons-of-fuji-gfx-100-14-and-16-bit-raw-precision/

Jim

Maybe these images look the same to your eyes, not to mine. I used to be a color consultant. The two redbook crops look markedly different even on my notebook. Of course, this does not mean that the files would not be identical in ideal test circumstances, it is possible the light, or the operator's reflection, changed between test frames. Also, one should compare after using a debanding filter, as clearly this camera's files can only be optimally used with the aid of such a filter.

Going by my own experience, I would expect differences in real world usage to be most visible in neutrals and gradients. Also, in my experience the debayer algorithms have color issues in deep shadows, so a slight divergence there might cause strong chroma changes in deep shadow objects. The degree one sees this depends on the orthogonality of the CFA, and a result for Phase would not necessarily carry over to a Fuji version.

You are free as usual to consider the above as my usual incompetent rambling.
Edmund
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 03:38:45 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

SrMi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #58 on: August 08, 2019, 03:38:33 pm »

I've already done the EDR testing, and 16 bits doesn't help:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/gfx-100-edr-vs-iso/

In visual tests, the OSPDAF banding drowns out any significant difference that might accrue to 16 bit precision:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/visual-comparisons-of-fuji-gfx-100-14-and-16-bit-raw-precision/

Jim

Jim, I assume that you are using Adobe raw converters to analyze GFX100 images. Have you tried using Capture One instead (I believe there is a 30-day demo)?
Apparently, DPR uses Adobe raw converters for all its camera tests but uses Capture One for GFX100 studio scene instead.
I am not interested in switching to C1 but wonder if Adobe can improve its support of GFX100 files (currently marked as preliminary support).
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2247
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #59 on: August 08, 2019, 03:40:00 pm »

Maybe these images look the same to your eyes, not to mine. I used to be a color consultant. The two redbook crops look markedly different even on my notebook. Of course, this does not mean that the files would not be identical in ideal test circumstances, it is possible the light, or the operator's reflection, changed between test frames. Also, one should compare after using a debanding filter, as clearly this camera's files can only be optimally used with the aid of such a filter.

Edmund

Lightroom's profiles for the two cameras yield markedly different results. The GFX 100 profile is probably not the one they'll end up with. I believe that's the source of the color differences.

As to the debanding filter, I know of now commercial debanding filter at present. Do you have a link to one? Has RT maped the PDAF rows for the GXF100?

Jim
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up