Can Stitching 1DsMk3 files = Med Format Quality?

[snickgrr]

I guess the MFDB owners of this forum wouyld be laughing their heads off comparing what you achieved with what they can achieve by one click.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I was doing that with a "medium format" chip but I got so fed up with the limitations of the 2X3 chip proportion I bought an A75.

But you didn't answer my question.

[EricWHiss]

There are several recent articles/tutorial/reviews that can be found on the main page of LL that go over why the newer high pixel count DSLRs are more diffraction limited due to smaller pixel wells.

As mentioned you can do all kinds of tricks with the DSLR's to get a better image - blending 2 exposures for more dynamic range, then stitching these HDR sets together but its a lot of work.  Well you can go even further and stack f/5.6 shots at different focal distances to get more DOF.  How much work do you want to do?  And what is moving in your scene while you take all these shots?  

With the MFDB you don't even necessarily need a tripod....  much much easier.

[mtomalty]

Perhaps,you should rephrase your initial question to "by stitching multiple frames
can I stretch the 'enlargeability',and get more bang for my buck,from  my 1Ds3 ? '

If you are  'budget-limited'  then this is a good way to enlarge a scene to a higher degree
before it starts to fall apart.
There's the inconvenience factor but there are no free rides

In my opinion,a properly executed 3-4 image stitch will get you somewhat closer to
a single frame 39Mp capture factoring out,of course, that now famous 3D effect and
enhanced shadow detail that the MFDB's bring to the table.

If budget isn't a factor and you have clients who are willing to pay for prints of this size
then,really,there should be no reason to consider the stitched 35mm option as the best
of what you can offer.

If you're prepared to stitch 35mm then stitching,even 2, 39Mp captures will set your bar
much higher.

Mark

[skid00skid00]

Henry, you NEED to read this article.  It will also be useful to the couple MFDB shooters with an open mind.

http://clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics/index.html

[paul_jones]

Henry, you NEED to read this article.  It will also be useful to the couple MFDB shooters with an open mind.

http://clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics/index.html
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

59 images! that guy has too much time on his hands.

now 4 images stiched with a 39mp back is easier way-

[a href=\"http://www.kapturegroup.com/quad/quad.html]http://www.kapturegroup.com/quad/quad.html[/url]

paul

[MichaelEzra]

Here is 32325x8829 image from 22 captures using ZD camera + 150mm AF lens + B&W polarizer. Shot with ZD mounted on a spherical bracket, mirrror lockup for each shot. Buffer wasn't an issue, shooting RAW + smallest jpg-s. Stitched using AutoPano Pro. Final file size 3.1 GB, PSB format.

(100% crops included - 1.9 MB)
In the first crop - I did not even see that very sad looking person during shooting!
The last crop - small pebbles from the mountain wall in the center of the image. This MF system is a microscope!

[Ray]

I think some MFDB users in this thread still haven't grasped the relationship between sensor size and resolution.

If you are stitching together two or three 1Ds3 images in order to get an image as detailed as a single shot from a P45 (for example), then you should use the same focal length of lens at the same f stop for both shots.

If you were to use the actual same lens on both cameras (using an adapter for the 35mm), there's no reason why the resulting images would be different in any respect, outside of differences in RAW converters and other peculiarities of design such as the differences between the CCD and the CMOS and AA filter issues.

The fundamentals with regard to resolution, DoF and even dynamic range are the same in the sense that a P45 is basically two 1Ds3 sensors joined together.

If the resulting image comes from two sensors stitched together, or two images from the separate sensors stitched together, the result is basically the same, provided the same lens is used

Whilst it's true that a P45 has 16 bit processing, considering all the puzzlement about the expected improvement of 14 bit over 12 bit in recent 35mm DSLRs, it's doubtful that the 16 bit of the P45 compared with the 14 bit processing of the 1Ds3 would be noticeable.

All of the above is based on the assumption that the objective in stitching is to get the same file size and aspect ratio as the single shot from the P45. If you change the aspect ratio of the stitched 1Ds3 image, as in a panorama, then clearly the 1Ds3 resulting stitch will be superior to the single P45 shot in every respect since you would have to use a wider angle lens with the P45 and crop to the aspect ratio of the 1Ds3 stitch.

[elitegroup]

Here is 32325x8829 image from 22 captures using ZD camera + 150mm AF lens + B&W polarizer. Shot with ZD mounted on a spherical bracket, mirrror lockup for each shot. Buffer wasn't an issue, shooting RAW + smallest jpg-s. Stitched using AutoPano Pro. Final file size 3.1 GB, PSB format.

(100% crops included - 1.9 MB)
In the first crop - I did not even see that very sad looking person during shooting!
The last crop - small pebbles from the mountain wall in the center of the image. This MF system is a microscope!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Man! the crop of the lonely figure is just so forlorn. in comparison to the vast expanse of the landscape it only enhances the isolation of the subject.

What the heck is some one doing walking on that mountain with no pack? going to get some milk and sugar at the closest ezy-mart 5000 Kilometers away  

[jing q]

My subject will for this camera will be landscapes. They are mostly static.
Great idea. I will do that!
I wonder how the anti-alias (AA) filter affects the image. I would guess it would cause softness. Both cameras have IR filters, but only the Canon has an AA filter. I guess  MF camera sensors are less prone to moire and therefore don't require an AA filter?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201426\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

from my experience with a 1ds mk ii and a leaf 75s on a mamiya AFd, I find that the AA filter does cause a certain amount of softness and flatness that I haven't been able to overcome happily in photoshop...but that's only because I'm doing big prints for exhibiting so I get really close up.

I think part of the reason why people state this "3-d" look with MFDB is that with MFDB shots I get really defined edges on my subjects whereas with the Canon there's a feeling that the edges are abit smudged and blend in with the background. Very subtle but it's there.

I really wouldn't worry about moire. it's a very over-rated fear.

"At wider angles of view stitching really starts to come into it's own and I think lenses are going to have much more of an impact on the image quality than the details of the sensors. Here a stitched image can dramatically improve overall image quality by allowing longer focal lengths and allowing you to use the best lenses for the subject rather than selecting a lens purely for adequate field of view. "

I agree with the above statement. for the MF 35mm lenses, most are pretty poor.

[Toby1014]

Here is 32325x8829 image from 22 captures using ZD camera + 150mm AF lens + B&W polarizer. Shot with ZD mounted on a spherical bracket, mirrror lockup for each shot. Buffer wasn't an issue, shooting RAW + smallest jpg-s. Stitched using AutoPano Pro. Final file size 3.1 GB, PSB format.

(100% crops included - 1.9 MB)
In the first crop - I did not even see that very sad looking person during shooting!
The last crop - small pebbles from the mountain wall in the center of the image. This MF system is a microscope!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is all very impressing and boring too, always talking about resolution and MP, I am not sure if all of you "Fine Art Stitching Photographers" knows the work of Thomas Kellner. Sorry I forgot this is a MF forum, but I could not resist. T.


[attachment=7038:attachment]
[attachment=7039:attachment]

[Tim Lüdin]

How many stops does a "blad" 39MP have?
And how many stops does the new canon 1DS3 have?

Dynamic range is the most important thing for me. Now that we are above 22Mps I dont care about them anymore. DR and real 16bit is what makes files sing.
I got the canon 1DS3 and I like it. The files are a bit stronger than the 1DS2 files.
Everytime a rent a Hassy I'm surprised how strong the files are. There is much more flesh on the bone for heavy color grading. I'm not talking about resolution here. Just the file quality.
I'm right on the fence on buying into a DMF system because of that.

So what's the DR difference between the canon and the hassy?
Is it realy that big?

Thanks
Tim

[BernardLanguillier]

The basic answer is clearly yes.

The only question is whether you would need 3 or 6 1ds3 files.

I find my D3 stitched images to be totally superior to my ZD files whatever the print size.

I am at a loss as to why anybody who has done an actual comparison with real world images would answer something different.

Cheers,
Bernard

[203]

The german magazin profifoto did an extensiv comparison between hasselblad H3II 31/ 39 backs and a canon 1dsmk3 in their january issue.

Here are their findings:

dynamic range in f stops

iso 100
1Ds3: 11,4
h39: 12
h31: 11,4

iso 400
1Ds3: 11
h39: 10,5
h31: 10,6

resolution in lines / height + USM

1ds3 with 70-200/4 3467
h31 HC120 3344
h39 HC120 4145

Has anyone seen any other actual side-by-side test of D.R. between these cameras? (I am not talking about 14 vs. 16 bit conjecture, but Actual Tests...)

[Ray]

The basic answer is clearly yes.

The only question is whether you would need 3 or 6 1ds3 files.

I find my D3 stitched images to be totally superior to my ZD files whatever the print size.

I am at a loss as to why anybody who has done an actual comparison with real world images would answer something different.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
I don't own a DB to do comparisons, but I see nothing in principle why a single DB shot would have any advantage over a stitched 35mm image of equal pixel count. unless the MF lens used were a better lens.  If the resulting stitched 35mm image were of significantly greater pixel count than the single DB shot, then there would be no contest. The 35mm stitch would be better in all respects.

[hdomke]

I invited a good friend of mine to enter in to this discussion. He happens to be an art school professor that teaches photography at a college in Texas. This was his answer:

it seems to me to be very much like the forums regarding speaker cable, "i can hear a difference, i don't care what the science is!"

I don't know. It seems to me that much of what is being discussed here is boils down to physics and optics. There should be a right answer. But it is interesting to compare high-end audio to high-end photography. I'm don't see photographers using the weird tweaks that audiophiles use (like thousand dollar speaker cables) but I wonder if he has a point.

Is this discussion of MF images being more "3D" really just an illusion? If it is real, can it be measured?

[Morgan_Moore]

I invited a good friend of mine to enter in to this discussion. He happens to be an art school professor that teaches photography at a college in Texas. This was his answer:

it seems to me to be very much like the forums regarding speaker cable, "i can hear a difference, i don't care what the science is!"

I don't know. It seems to me that much of what is being discussed here is boils down to physics and optics. There should be a right answer. But it is interesting to compare high-end audio to high-end photography. I'm don't see photographers using the weird tweaks that audiophiles use (like thousand dollar speaker cables) but I wonder if he has a point.

Is this discussion of MF images being more "3D" really just an illusion? If it is real, can it be measured?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The '3d effect' is the narrower DOF for a given aperture and angle of view caused by a large sensor that some perceive to'pop' the subject off the background (typically fashion and potraits)

It is not a myth but it is debatable whether the look can be replicated by choosing a wider ap on a smaller format - the answer - sometimes

However if you were stitching you have a larger sensor and the effect is the same !

IMO the blur filter on the canon makes it not as good pixel per pixel

so as BL says the question is "do I need 3 or 6 canon images to equal an MF capture"

Somewhere between I would imagine

Obviously 50 images from a canon are better than MF

Of course single shot capture is simple , allows for subject movment and minimises your time in front of the computer

S

[hdomke]

Thanks to everyone on this forum for the comments!
It has been very educational. After reflecting on this I have decided to hold off on upgrading to a MF system. Here is my thinking:
-  It is not much better (as I said, viewing big prints at a typical viewing distance showed no difference)
-  Stitching three Canon images together should approach the 39 MP MF quality for landscapes.
-  My clients will not see the difference anyhow since they don't do pixel peeping.
-  Carrying two systems will be a pain

Also one experienced commercial photographer told me:  "Buying that Hasselblad digital camera with three lenses was the worst business decision in my entire career" He does almost all his commercial work with his Canon.

And, as another photographer, one who has used a MF system for years said to me "I think you will have buyers remorse". He is thinking of getting rid of his 22 MP Phase One MF camera system and switching to Canon.

[BernardLanguillier]

I don't own a DB to do comparisons, but I see nothing in principle why a single DB shot would have any advantage over a stitched 35mm image of equal pixel count. unless the MF lens used were a better lens.  If the resulting stitched 35mm image were of significantly greater pixel count than the single DB shot, then there would be no contest. The 35mm stitch would be better in all respects.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

That's exactly what I mean.

Cheers,
Bernard

[snickgrr]

Also one experienced commercial photographer told me:  "Buying that Hasselblad digital camera with three lenses was the worst business decision in my entire career" He does almost all his commercial work with his Canon.

And, as another photographer, one who has used a MF system for years said to me "I think you will have buyers remorse". He is thinking of getting rid of his 22 MP Phase One MF camera system and switching to Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is silly to say something so broad.

[hdomke]

This is silly to say something so broad.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree that those are broad statements, but those are not my words. Those are quotes from two friends of mine, both of whom are experienced professional photographers. The one thinking of getting rid of his MF system is a professional nature photographer.