Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?  (Read 7925 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto
Banding in DPR ISO invarience Studio shot
« Reply #100 on: August 13, 2019, 01:47:20 am »

Hi,

I downloaded the -6EV image from DPR ISO Invarience studio shot

Banding is clearly visible when developed in LR or C1

Full size

Full size

If it is relevant, it is up to the reader to decide.

My understanding is the the PDAF on the sensor can cause striping under rare conditions. This was first observed on the Sony A9, I think. Nikon and Fuji seems to use camera firmware to mitigate the effect, causing this banding.

I think that feature should be user selectable. Why?

  • There are other means to mitigate striping.
  • We exchange a rare artifact for a less visible one that is always part of the image.
  • I essentially think that raw files should be raw.

Hopefully, Fujifilm keeps an eye on Jim's blog and releases a firmware update making striping mitigation user selectable.

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2210
    • The Last Word
Re: An article by Jim Kasson, settings things in some perpective...
« Reply #101 on: August 13, 2019, 09:59:32 am »

This article by Jim Kasson is worthwhile reading...

There are certainly similarities between the PDAF banding in the GFX 100 and that in the Z7, but there are differences. In the Z7, it appears to be triggered when the camera senses that there might otherwise be PDAF striping. Otherwise it leaves the file alone. The reason the cure is worse than the disease in the Z7 is that the camera is overly quick to see the possibility of striping. With the GFX 100, it looks like the camera applies the "fix" all the time, which is even worse.

Jim

Waker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #102 on: August 13, 2019, 11:00:47 am »

Jim, I humbly submit that you might change your mind on C1 workflow if presented with a wholistic soup-to-nuts deep dive on how to get the most out of C1 workflow wise. Some software is pretty easy to self-teach and end up the same place as a formal walk through, but I don't find C1 to fit in that category. We teach a C1 Masters Class and I'd be very glad to comp a seat for you in recognition of your contributions to the community over the years.

I suspect you'd come away from the class enjoying working with C1 a great bit more. But also, if you still don't like C1 after that class, you can be very confident it's not worth further effort :). Win:Win.

Have to admit I'm also a bit shocked that anyone is using Lightroom over C1 for serious MF work. The profiles in Capture One are far better than Lightroom, and surely color quality is one of the principle reasons people use MF digital.

Whatever, no wish to offend, maybe it's my history as an (now ex) Phase user, I grew familiar with that RAW converter, and if you came to this point through on another path, (starting with CaNikon FF cameras on Lightroom, or whatever) then your familiarity is undoubtedly different.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8295
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #103 on: August 13, 2019, 11:16:52 am »

Have to admit I'm also a bit shocked that anyone is using Lightroom over C1 for serious MF work. The profiles in Capture One are far better than Lightroom, and surely color quality is one of the principle reasons people use MF digital.

Whatever, no wish to offend, maybe it's my history as an (now ex) Phase user, I grew familiar with that RAW converter, and if you came to this point through on another path, (starting with CaNikon FF cameras on Lightroom, or whatever) then your familiarity is undoubtedly different.

I think that Jim is more used to Lightroom than Capture One, but I would also not be surprised if PhaseOne and Fujifilm worked closely together to produce excellent Raw conversions. So it might be something worth to explore in the quest for ultimate results.

However, I think that many of Jim's analyses are based on Raw, undemosaiced, data. In that respect, I find the DR of the GFX-100 a bit underwhelming, but that doesn't mean that it will produce less than stunning images if exposed and focused correctly and converted by either Raw converter.

It would be interesting to see some comparisons between Lightroom and Capture One conversions though.

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

Waker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #104 on: August 13, 2019, 11:22:32 am »

Love Jim's comment on the slow ES scan speed he finds in the GFX here:
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/how-fast-is-the-gfx-100-electronic-shutter/

1/6th of a second in 14 bit and double that- 1/3 sec in 16bit!
as Jim clearly says, using ES for anything but fixed tripod work on static subjects:
"You have been warned"
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2210
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #105 on: August 13, 2019, 12:39:04 pm »

The profiles in Capture One are far better than Lightroom, and surely color quality is one of the principle reasons people use MF digital.


My tests indicate that the C1 profiles are somewhat less accurate than Adobe Standard. I think that Adobe introduced Adobe Color and made it the Lr default to try to get closer to the C1 default profile, kind of like New Coke vs Pepsi. They sacrificed accuracy when making that change.

Jim

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2210
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #106 on: August 13, 2019, 12:41:58 pm »

Love Jim's comment on the slow ES scan speed he finds in the GFX here:
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/how-fast-is-the-gfx-100-electronic-shutter/

1/6th of a second in 14 bit and double that- 1/3 sec in 16bit!
as Jim clearly says, using ES for anything but fixed tripod work on static subjects:
"You have been warned"

The quote is right, but the context isn't. I did not say anything warning people about hand holding with ES. I do it a fair amount, mostly successfully.

Jim

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2210
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #107 on: August 13, 2019, 12:44:08 pm »

I think that Jim is more used to Lightroom than Capture One, but I would also not be surprised if PhaseOne and Fujifilm worked closely together to produce excellent Raw conversions. So it might be something worth to explore in the quest for ultimate results.

We'll have to wait a bit on that. Adobe says that current Lr support is preliminary, and, to some extent, it shows.

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4112
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #108 on: August 13, 2019, 01:16:14 pm »

My tests indicate that the C1 profiles are somewhat less accurate than Adobe Standard.

C1's general-purpose profiles are not intended for absolute color accuracy. They are designed for overall balance between accuracy, pleasing color, and robust response under different illuminants. Having a lot of experience with accurate color reproduction, I can say confidently that most users would not enjoy if they got truly accurate color. Most photographers, if you ask them, will say they want an "accurate/neutral starting point" so they can add their own salt and pepper, but only because they've never seen a truly scientifically accurate color profile applied to a general-purpose scene.

P1 does produce some extraordinarily high-quality profiles designed exclusively with accuracy in mind (for art reproduction and other cultural heritage and scientific use) that are part of the Capture One Cultural Heritage Edition. In such applications, aesthetics and human preference are irrelevant; it's the mission of the process to exactly reproduce the physical object. You can, of course, also make and use your own profiles either by starting with the canned profile and modifying it using Color Editor and then resaving it (as an ICC profile) or by third-party software. Our Reflective Digitization Guide covers doing so with BasIIColor (our suggestion) or there is also a version of X-Rite software now that can do this for C1. But as you know making your own profiles is a process fraught with false-positives and prone to create fragile profiles that test well, but do less well in the real world.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 01:21:41 pm by Doug Peterson »
Logged

Waker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #109 on: August 13, 2019, 02:26:24 pm »

The quote is right, but the context isn't. I did not say anything warning people about hand holding with ES. I do it a fair amount, mostly successfully.

Jim

Me too Jim, I hand hold ES on many occasions. It's useful for the silent shutter if nothing else.

I meant more to alert people that rolling shutter can be a real issue with ES, and if you are trying to freeze a moving object (walking person, car, train, etc) in fore or mid-ground of your image, then you need to use EF, not ES.
Logged

SrMi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #110 on: August 13, 2019, 02:27:38 pm »

My tests indicate that the C1 profiles are somewhat less accurate than Adobe Standard. I think that Adobe introduced Adobe Color and made it the Lr default to try to get closer to the C1 default profile, kind of like New Coke vs Pepsi. They sacrificed accuracy when making that change.

Jim

Both Adobe Color and increase of default sharpness from 25 to 40 are seen as Adobe's answer to C1. IMO, this is an example of the negative effect of online media.
Logged

SrMi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #111 on: August 13, 2019, 02:31:35 pm »

The quote is right, but the context isn't. I did not say anything warning people about hand holding with ES. I do it a fair amount, mostly successfully.

Jim

I think this is based on the misconception that a sensor readout of 1/6 sec is the same as shooting with the shutter speed of 1/6 sec. Which is not (and you have never claimed that it is).

Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2210
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #112 on: August 13, 2019, 03:00:44 pm »

Both Adobe Color and increase of default sharpness from 25 to 40 are seen as Adobe's answer to C1. IMO, this is an example of the negative effect of online media.

I mostly agree. Here's a plot for the Z7 showing the differences between Adobe Color and Adobe Standard with a CC24 target:



You could argue that the increased chroma of Adobe Color is a better starting point. I'm not buying that argument in general, but it's not off-the-wall.

But it's hard for me to accept that a sharpening strength of +40 is good for anybody. Oversharpening is already rampant, and making oversharpening the default in Lr is going to (mis)train a whole new cohort of photographers to turn the sharpening up to stun.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/power-tools-are-dangerous/

Jim

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2210
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #113 on: August 13, 2019, 06:28:03 pm »

C1's general-purpose profiles are not intended for absolute color accuracy. They are designed for overall balance between accuracy, pleasing color, and robust response under different illuminants. Having a lot of experience with accurate color reproduction, I can say confidently that most users would not enjoy if they got truly accurate color. Most photographers, if you ask them, will say they want an "accurate/neutral starting point" so they can add their own salt and pepper, but only because they've never seen a truly scientifically accurate color profile applied to a general-purpose scene.

P1 does produce some extraordinarily high-quality profiles designed exclusively with accuracy in mind (for art reproduction and other cultural heritage and scientific use) that are part of the Capture One Cultural Heritage Edition. In such applications, aesthetics and human preference are irrelevant; it's the mission of the process to exactly reproduce the physical object. You can, of course, also make and use your own profiles either by starting with the canned profile and modifying it using Color Editor and then resaving it (as an ICC profile) or by third-party software. Our Reflective Digitization Guide covers doing so with BasIIColor (our suggestion) or there is also a version of X-Rite software now that can do this for C1. But as you know making your own profiles is a process fraught with false-positives and prone to create fragile profiles that test well, but do less well in the real world.

Doug, I can't quarrel with anything you said there. For serious work, I do like to start with a fairly accurate image (with the cameras available to us, near-perfect accuracy is beyond our reach no matter how good the profiles), but I realize that I'm in the minority.

And you are entirely correct to point out the importance of the illuminant in profile making -- and photography in general.

But I brought up accuracy in the context of the assertion that C1's profiles were "far* better" than Lr's. Once you say that you're not trying to produce accurate colors, or even accurately viewing-conditions-adapted colors, but are trying to make pleasing colors, the definition of whether you succeeded will depend on the viewer. So saying without defining the test methodology that one raw developer's profiles are better or worse than another's is meaningless.

It seems like there is a race to ever more chromatic default profiles, and I think that's a step in the wrong direction. Most of the amatuer images that I see in photo fora are way too punchy for me, and it seems to get worse with each passing year.

Jim

*Italics from the original poster of the phrase.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #114 on: August 13, 2019, 07:04:48 pm »

Hi,

It may make some sense to get color that is pretty accurate for the illuminant and apply a 'look' to that color.

Best regards
Erik


Doug, I can't quarrel with anything you said there. For serious work, I do like to start with a fairly accurate image (with the cameras available to us, near-perfect accuracy is beyond our reach no matter how good the profiles), but I realize that I'm in the minority.

And you are entirely correct to point out the importance of the illuminant in profile making -- and photography in general.

But I brought up accuracy in the context of the assertion that C1's profiles were "far* better" than Lr's. Once you say that you're not trying to produce accurate colors, or even accurately viewing-conditions-adapted colors, but are trying to make pleasing colors, the definition of whether you succeeded will depend on the viewer. So saying without defining the test methodology that one raw developer's profiles are better or worse than another's is meaningless.

It seems like there is a race to ever more chromatic default profiles, and I think that's a step in the wrong direction. Most of the amatuer images that I see in photo fora are way too punchy for me, and it seems to get worse with each passing year.

Jim

*Italics from the original poster of the phrase.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #115 on: August 14, 2019, 05:38:58 am »

Most photographers, if you ask them, will say they want an "accurate/neutral starting point" so they can add their own salt and pepper, but only because they've never seen a truly scientifically accurate color profile applied to a general-purpose scene.

Generally agreed, Doug.  One theory of why that might be is that the accurate starting point is often shown before the application of a Tone Mapping Operator.  TMOs are needed to squeeze a larger captured DR into the typically substantially smaller contrast ratio that can be displayed.  Unless viewed in true 16000+:1 contrast ratio conditions, images viewed before TMO will look bland, veiled and uninspiring.  Though after TMO they will necessarily be heavily influenced by perceptual effects, thus no longer be quite accurate.

Perhaps the solution is to give folks an 'accurate' starting point and a choice of TMOs, one of which chosen as a generic industry standard (lots of papers on the subject, though the state-of-the-art seems to be in continuous flux).  This may not be easy to do with current raw-conversion architectures.  As demonstrated by Adobe apparently retiring the naive 'tone' curve TMO last year and replacing it with what appears to be Torger's reverse engineered 'look' approach.  One major change in their recent Profile redo.

Jack
Logged

jinsonkv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #116 on: August 15, 2019, 08:15:34 am »

Here is a pic taken using my Fujifilm GFX-100

Pic details Fujifilm GFX100 at 1/125 sec, 11, ISO 100 with Fujinon GF 63mm / 2.8 R WR

I made a detailed review of this device here. https://unknownguides.com/fujifilm-gfx-100-review/
Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1558
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2019, 08:30:28 am »

Quote
It seems like there is a race to ever more chromatic default profiles, and I think that's a step in the wrong direction. Most of the amatuer images that I see in photo fora are way too punchy for me, and it seems to get worse with each passing year.

I sometimes lead image review sessions for a local camera club.  One of my oft repeated comments is:  Step away from the saturation slider!  And, as Charlie Cramer says, once you see lots of saturation and contrast in an image file, it is impossible to un-see-it. 

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2210
    • The Last Word
Re: Fujifilm GFX-100 actual *user* experience, tips, setup, please?
« Reply #118 on: August 15, 2019, 09:53:28 am »

I sometimes lead image review sessions for a local camera club.  One of my oft repeated comments is:  Step away from the saturation slider!  And, as Charlie Cramer says, once you see lots of saturation and contrast in an image file, it is impossible to un-see-it. 

Rand

'Twas ever thus. I remember John Sexton telling me in the early 80's to sneak up on the right contrast grade from below, because once you've seen a print that's too contrasty, the print that's right will look flat.

Jim

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2210
    • The Last Word
Testing the OOC JPEGs for PDAF banding
« Reply #119 on: August 15, 2019, 02:23:06 pm »

Not a claim. It had a question mark behind it. Perhaps Fuji internals does compensate for the pixels. Perhaps not. If it does, these pixels effectively become like the ones on the ancient SuperCCD, therefore my remark about increased DR, not decreased DR.


I got around to testing your supposition:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/pdaf-banding-in-gfx-100-in-camera-jpegs/

There is still banding, but not in the deepest shadows, since the in-camera JPEG crushes the blacks enough to make it virtually invisible there.

Jim
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up