Can Stitching 1DsMk3 files = Med Format Quality?

[hdomke]

Hello Henry. Were you at the Frans Lanting seminar in St. Louis back in March?

...I feel that if it weren't for the AA filter, the latest high-end DSLRs would essentially match the pixel quality of MFDBs. The two big advantage MFDBs still have over high end DSLRs is resolution (due to the MPs) and crispness (due to the lack of an AA filter). For me at least, those two advantages, plus the issues with stitching, makes the P45+ a no-brainer for those high detail shots.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mort,
Thanks for your thoughts.

You are right, I was at the Frans Lanting and the Art Wolf seminars. Interestingly Frans Lanting creates huge prints from his Nikon 35mm DSLRs. They look great! I've seen prints of his 20-feet wide.

You mention the impact of the lens quality on the image. Since all wide-angle lenses are inferior to normal focal length lenses (chromatic aberration, contrast, softness at the edges) could it be argued that stitching together 3 images from a normal focal length lens (say a 50mm on my Canon) would have better lens quality than shooting a single image with a wide-angle lens with the Hasselblad (say the Wide Angle 50mm f/3.5 HC)?

[Ray]

Ok, that's the theory - now how about you check that it is really so in practice ?

I've tested the 1Ds3 and found that cropping *pixel to pixel* (same image features on same pixels) my Mamiya beat it. Not only on file quality (color and DR) but also on actual detail !

The Canon sensor is a compromise design - CMOS, microlenses, low-pass filter, small cells, NR etc all suck detail and DR away.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, Edmund, I stand corrected. But I'd still like to see the actual comparison you are referring to. Are we talking about same pixel pitch, pixel to pixel, or different pixel pitch, pixel to pixel?

I would not argue that a P21 or P25 pixel has greater dynamic range than a 1Ds3 pixel. The pixels are bigger than the 1Ds3 microlens. Bigger wells can hold more electrons. A single P25 image should have greater DR than a single 1Ds3 image.

But does half a P45+ image have greater DR than a full 1Ds3 image (same FoV), and if so, is it significantly greater?

We should also bear in mind, when DR is an issue with a stationary subject that lends itself to the stitching procedure, it's easy to increase DR either by varying exposure from frame to frame, or as Bernard suggests, bracketing the exposure of each frame. Not only does PTgui merge to HDR and stitch in the one procedure, but also Autopano Pro.

Also, when taking shots for stitching, the resulting image will usually exceed the size of any single shot from a DB. The additional file size will likely more than compensate for that slight extra crispness that is charcteristic of the sensor without AA filter.

[Panopeeper]

it's not the sensor size that matters, but the size of the photosites within the sensor. MFDBs have bigger photosites and thus need a bigger area to contain whatever number of them. This is what gives them the DR advantage, not the overall dimensions of the sensor

This is common place; the D3 vs 1DsMkIII demonstrates this. However, now the MFDBs too have smaller sensels, so this is not the only, not even the main consideration.

The "secret" of the higher DR of MFDBs is in the larger bit depth and the different way the raw data is constructed.

Imagine following:

- make a shot with the 1DsMkIII
- preserve the state of the entire sensor
- create a raw file with ISO 200, 13bit
- create another raw file with ISO 400, 13bit
- create one more raw file with ISO 800, 13bit
- and one more, with ISO 800, 13bit

Now integrate the data in one image file with 16bit depth.

Got it?

Of course, the extra steps are not required: the MFDB creates a single raw file with ISO 800, 16bits - and it contains the entire dynamic range of the several shots with different ISO.

Note, that the P45+ is somewhat different from most other MFDBs in this relation.

[eronald]

Let me be clearer: If the 1Ds3 had the Kodak chip in it it would be a much better studio and landscape camera. The Canon's chip is an unsharp compromise design. As it stands, a center crop of 24x36mm out of the P45+ will beat the full frame of the 1Ds3 in file quality and detail. So anyone staring from a Canon for stitching is already at a disadvantage.

Edmund

But does half a P45+ image have greater DR than a full 1Ds3 image (same FoV), and if so, is it significantly greater?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201697\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[MichaelEzra]

For 35mm stitching applications I would recommend Fuji S5 at base ISO. The dynamic range of this camera is on par wih MFDB. However, the crispness in S5 files is absent. Stitching many S5 RAF files will allow to create a print comparable to one from MFDB in terms of DR and smoothness of tones. Loss of sharpness due to interpolations in S5 RAW files reconstruction will need to be compensated with higher pixel count. "3D look" would be achieved to some degree in this case with proper aperture setting.

I have made many panoramas with S3 camera, capturing images in JPG format (as buffer limitations do not allow more than 3 raw files). Dynamic range captured in these JPG files rivals most DSLR's RAW formats. Processing images further in 32 and 16 bit allowed me to create panoramas in 200-600 megapixels. I carry all printing at 720 DPI, manually interpolating files to the output resolution. having greater pixel count, panoramas made from Fuji S3 jpgs do not require as much enlargement as single shot ZD. The print quality can be made extremely close.

Of course now that I stitch ZD images in the same procedure that applied to Fuji S3, ZD stitches win hands down!

[203]

What this often comes down to for me is, look in publication - any publication - billboards, magazines, point of purchase display, etc. -  and tell me which camera was used for which image. For the most part, it's impossible to tell.

You can look in National Geographic and see images which look like they have amazing dynamic range, , colors, saturation and then you see that the story was shot by some dude who uses Canon 5Ds exclusively. Or it was shot on a Nikon D2x, which has pretty shitty dynamic range, noise issues, etc.

And then you walk into CVS and see some 2 foot beauty shots in the makeup aisle, and they look fuzzy and low resolution, even though they were shot with on a 39 mp back, or on 4x5 film. And you see Annie Leibowitz shooting ads for Disney, American Express, etc. with her Canons, *with zoom lenses attached.*

So I tell myself, while it can be fun to come on these forums and debate until we are all blue in the face, I see the biggest photographers in the world grabbing which ever camera they want to use that day and they shoot the job, take home huge pay checks, and spend no time on web sites like LL defending their decisions. Does anyone out in the real world know which cameras were used? No. Do they care? No. Could they have gotten the job done with 90% of the pro cameras available today? Yes. (I understand showing up with certain equipment in order to impress art directors & retouchers, but that's another story...and if you are shooting for galleries and making The World Largest Prints, then that might be another story too)

Of course these forum arguments are never going to go away. The only way to get beyond them is, like my heroes, you step away from the forums and focus on getting your work done, and stop to smell the flowers when you can.

[James R Russell]

Of course these forum arguments are never going to go away. The only way to get beyond them is, like my heroes, you step away from the forums and focus on getting your work done, and stop to smell the flowers when you can.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with some of what you say, especially in the pixel peeping type of arguments.  They border on insanity and never seem to go away.  Same with the brand war discussions, they seem to come from people with a vested interest in a specific brand, or in plain terms, they have an interest to sell you something.

Still, I do disagree that only good photographers stay away from forums or blogs like this.

Actually some photographers do share and they are on a lot of forums like aphotoeditor.com.

I've been a member of almost every photographers' organization on the planet and though I'm not much of a club joiner, I find the people that share usually get ahead because just the process of responding to someone's question will force you to  analyze why and what you personally do.

I also find that all groups get splintered into different factions, some of it is everybody smacking each other on the back and saying well done, (and there is nothing wrong with positive reinforcement), but the other side is the  small percentage that join just for personal gain.

The secret is learning how to filter out the good from the bad the selfish from the giving.


JR

[203]

Still, I do disagree that only good photographers stay away from forums or blogs like this.

Actually some photographers do share and they are on a lot of forums like aphotoeditor.com.

Hi James, I did not mean to imply that good photographers don’t blog. After all, I’m here ;-) When I said my heroes, I was referring to some specific photographers who are in fact, my heroes, and whom I have never seen on any forum to date (though they may be on some private ones…)

The secret is learning how to filter out the good from the bad the selfish from the giving.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201746\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed.

[hdomke]

What this often comes down to for me is, look in publication - any publication - billboards, magazines....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

203,
I appreciate your healthy skepticism and I agree with a lot of what you have said.

However, the reason I started this discussion was not because I am creating images for magazines. MF is vast overkill for that.

I am selling fine art prints that are very large. Now that I have an Epson 11880 (which can print 64-inches wide), I am offering 5 x 8-foot prints to my commercial clients.

When I sell something that size, I want to be sure that I get the best quality. I'm not talking about pixel peeping here, I'm talking about the general viewing public (my clients). I need to make sure that with these huge prints that I am offering the best that is practical.

That is why I am seriously considering going to Medium Format (or stitching 35mm).

[203]

203,
I appreciate your healthy skepticism and I agree with a lot of what you have said.

However, the reason I started this discussion was not because I am creating images for magazines...I am selling fine art prints that are very large. Now that I have an Epson 11880 (which can print 64-inches wide)...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

hdomke, I understand what you are asking about. (which is why I included the disclaimer: "and if you are shooting for galleries and making The World Largest Prints, then that might be another story too"

My dissertation above was in reference to the underlying discussion which has broken out here, which, it seems, (unfortunately) has little to do with your original question, and everything to do with fruitless pixel peeping.

Anyway I will stop distracting, and let you get back to the business of getting some answers ;-)

[Nick Rains]

That is why I am seriously considering going to Medium Format (or stitching 35mm).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Henry

I can quite categorically state that 5x8 foot images from a P45 or H3D2 will be visually better than from 3 stitched 1DsM3 images. It's subtle, but it's there in the shadows if you look for it and also in the overall accutance of the image.

But...

Will your clients see the difference? Even in side by side tests it's hard to see.

Does your business model enable you to spend the big dollars - i.e. will 1% extra quality earn you more money?

Better yet, shoot film. Seriously, unless you stitch MFDB images 6x12 roll film will produce a superiour print at that size. I know because I too make 4x8 foot prints and bigger, and over enlarged film always looks more satisfying to the eye than overenlarged digital files. You need a 23000px wide image to make an 8' print at 240dpi so even an MFDB will need a lot of interpolation. Film enlarges much better past native resolution limit. IMHO at least...

Also, why not stitch MFDB images for even greater quality? if your goal is the ultimate quality prints then this will get you there.

Ultimately only you can work out if the slight quality gain is worth it - but I assure you it is there. I did have some test images shot on a 1DsM3 and a H2D3 side by side but I can't lay my hands on them for some reason. Anyway, the Hassy did have better shadow detail - you'll just have to take my word for it.

[hdomke]

Will your clients see the difference? Even in side by side tests it's hard to see.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nick,
Thanks for the comment. You are right. I'm confident that my clients WON"T see the difference.

My business model would allow me to get the MF gear if there were any chance of a return on the investment.  From what I can tell so far, that just won't happen.

Regarding your suggestion to shoot film; not in a million years. If I had to go back to film I would stop using a camera!  I don't agree with you that "Film enlarges much better". I can always tell scanned film; it's the grain. Those great big chunks of grain. I love smooth, clean digital files.

Incidentally, I greatly enjoyed your recent review on this website: [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d-review.shtml]Hasselblad H3D On Location[/url].

[Nick Rains]

I don't agree with you that "Film enlarges much better". I can always tell scanned film; it's the grain. Those great big chunks of grain. I love smooth, clean digital files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I reckon grain is more attractive ( or maybe less unattractive) than the plastic look of a digital file when enlarged too much. It's a value judgement I know, but overenlarged digi files just look awful. Given the choice of two less than optimal 'looks', I'd go with film every time.

However, print within the file's resolution limits and, yes, I'd never shoot film either.

[BernardLanguillier]

Also, why not stitch MFDB images for even greater quality? if your goal is the ultimate quality prints then this will get you there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201803\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The main reasons are weight, bulk and above all shutter induced vibrations. The gap in terms of detail between the ZD and the D3 is much smaller once the ZD is mounted on a pano head...

I personnally feel that the Hassy H is the only credible platform for MFDB stitching thanks to their very stable leaf shutter lenses. I have not tried the latest Mamiya III body, but my ZD is not very satisfactory from that standpoint.

Besides, the overall slowness and shallow buffer of MFDB equipment is also often a problem when stitching dynamic subjects like a cloudy sky. The D3 is just much better at shooting many frames in a row.

I am not even going to discuss wide angle shooting since the quality of the wide Nikkors is clearly better than anything in MF world except the Schneiders and Roidenstock digital lenses. The only lens that might be close is the Hassy 28mm, but then again you end up being forced to buy a H3D.

My personnal view is that the Nikon D3x might become the best stitching camera, but we'll have to check the DR. If it is reasonnably close to the D3, then I'll give up my plans to go invest more in MF...

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

I reckon grain is more attractive ( or maybe less unattractive) than the plastic look of a digital file when enlarged too much. It's a value judgement I know, but overenlarged digi files just look awful. Given the choice of two less than optimal 'looks', I'd go with film every time.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are probably familiar with this, but I think that this is where dedicated plug ins like Genuine fractal do a better job since they manage to preserve a little better the acutance of edges after enlargement.

Another way to mitigate the softening of digital files after very large extrapolations is to add some form of film grain. By playing with the scale of the grain relative to the scale of the details I feel that one can convey a better impression of sharpeness. I am only starting to experience with this, but it seems promising.

I am sure that you know these techniques better than I do, but just in case this simple PS tutorial provides a good overview:

[a href=\"http://www.i-marco.nl/weblog/archive/2007/09/22/realistic_film_grain_for_digit]http://www.i-marco.nl/weblog/archive/2007/...grain_for_digit[/url]

Among the various plug-ins that are now showing up, this one seems to have good potential but more investigation is needed:

http://www.imagenomic.com/rg.aspx

DxO film pack is another candidate, but I have not tried it on very large files yet.

Regards,
Bernard

[Murray Fredericks]

I reckon grain is more attractive ( or maybe less unattractive) than the plastic look of a digital file when enlarged too much. It's a value judgement I know, but overenlarged digi files just look awful. Given the choice of two less than optimal 'looks', I'd go with film every time.

However, print within the file's resolution limits and, yes, I'd never shoot film either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nick,

I am running tests right now on a series of stitched MFDB files - landscape work.

We are finding that at 5m the MFDB quality is 'better' than the 8 x 10 at 1.5m. There is none of the 'plasticity' I had feared (and you mentioned) and all involved have been nothing short of awed at the quality. The transitions and detail rendition are beautiful.

The place where film takes over, however, is in long exposure land. As soon as long exposure noise from the chip appears - the interpolation turns the file to mush...

Murray

[Murray Fredericks]

The main reasons are weight, bulk and above all shutter induced vibrations. The gap in terms of detail between the ZD and the D3 is much smaller once the ZD is mounted on a pano head...

I personnally feel that the Hassy H is the only credible platform for MFDB stitching thanks to their very stable leaf shutter lenses. I have not tried the latest Mamiya III body, but my ZD is not very satisfactory from that standpoint.

Besides, the overall slowness and shallow buffer of MFDB equipment is also often a problem when stitching dynamic subjects like a cloudy sky. The D3 is just much better at shooting many frames in a row.

I am not even going to discuss wide angle shooting since the quality of the wide Nikkors is clearly better than anything in MF world except the Schneiders and Roidenstock digital lenses. The only lens that might be close is the Hassy 28mm, but then again you end up being forced to buy a H3D.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,

I am stitching with an Alpa, Digitar lenses and a Sinar back. There are NO shutter vibrations and the lack of distortion in the lenses really aids the stitching process when you re dealing with straight lines. I am shooting 24mm, 35mm (the 24mm is more problematic)  and others - so very, very wide.

The results are incredible....

The problem is the slow buffer, and clouds do move, but 'smartbelnd' features in the programs seem to help...

Cheers

Murray

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,

I am stitching with an Alpa, Digitar lenses and a Sinar back. There are NO shutter vibrations and the lack of distortion in the lenses really aids the stitching process when you re dealing with straight lines. I am shooting 24mm, 35mm (the 24mm is more problematic)  and others - so very, very wide.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I would expect this indeed. Many people try to do the same with medium format cameras though.

Regards,
Bernard

[Ray]

Let me be clearer: If the 1Ds3 had the Kodak chip in it it would be a much better studio and landscape camera. The Canon's chip is an unsharp compromise design. As it stands, a center crop of 24x36mm out of the P45+ will beat the full frame of the 1Ds3 in file quality and detail. So anyone staring from a Canon for stitching is already at a disadvantage.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is interesting, Edmund. Pity most of us never get a chance to see such comparisons. You seem to be implying that a P21 would still provide a better quality image than the 1Dsd3 even if it were the same size sensor as the 1Ds3 (cropped to the P21 aspect ratio).

One wonders why some people who attempt 1Ds3/P21 or ZD comparisons find it necessary to put the 1Ds3 at a disadvantage by using the same F stop with both cameras.

[hdomke]

Nemo,
Thanks for the link to the article. It looks very impressive! However, it is a bit overwhelming for someone who is not an academic deeply versed in statistics. Perhaps you (or someone else) could summarize the take-home points from this article. After skimming the article, here are some specific questions:
1. In the real world, will prints from a 16-bit capture show more dynamic range than from a 14-bit capture?
2. What are the implications of this paper on "Expose to the Right"?
3. What are the implications of this paper on selecting the right ISO in low-light situations?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I contacted Dr. Emil Martinec  about his fascinating paper: [a href=\"http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html]Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs[/url] to see if he would answer the questions. He was kind enough to email this reply to me:

1. In the real world, will prints from a 16-bit capture show more dynamic range than from a 14-bit capture?
I know of no DSLR that would benefit from 16-bit capture.  There are some MFDB's that use 16-bit capture, and I have read that they use the extra bits not because of increased dynamic range, but rather to do ISO settings in software after capture rather than via amplification in hardware during capture.

The problem is that current DSLR's have dynamic range that is limited by noise in the camera electronics.  The best-in-class, the Nikon D3, is one the verge of meriting more than 12 bits, but certainly not more than 14.

2. What are the implications of this paper on "Expose to the Right"?
Expose to the right is a good mantra for better image quality (assuming it is done with proper attention paid to preserving those highlights one wants to preserve).  It is shorthand for "higher signal with less noise is better", or even more succinctly, "the more light, the better".  The point is that the more light the camera captures, the less apparent the effects of noise are going to be.  For fixed ISO, this means that slower shutter speed/wider aperture allow more light to be captured, and this pushes the histogram to the right.  If shutter speed/aperture are determined (say by DOF considerations, or freezing motion), then there is an advantage (mostly at low ISO, and especially on Canon DSLR's) to using higher ISO to push the histogram to the right, but the effect is less pronounced than using shutter speed/aperture to push the histogram to the right at fixed ISO.

3. What are the implications of this paper on selecting the right ISO in low-light situations?
I would say that for most DSLR's and raw capture, there is no point in going above ISO 1600; there is little difference between underexposed ISO 1600 (with exposure compensation during raw conversion) vs. proper exposure at higher ISO, assuming the raw converter being used properly implements exposure compensation (sadly, not all do).  There is almost no penalty as far as noise is concerned.  And a benefit is increased highlight headroom.

cheers, emil

Note: Dr. Martinec is a Physics Professor at the University of Chicago.