RAW files: 1Ds3 and Phase P30+

[Ray]

Low noise at high ISO is a result of low noise in the circuitry involved in reading out the sensor to the VGA, it seems to me.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Emil,
If this is the case, then why does the low noise in the circuitry not improve S/N at base ISO?

My first DSLR was the Canon 6mp D60. I took the trouble to compare same exposures at various ISOs, simply because I was missing shots by wasting time in changing ISO to increase shutter speed as the lighting conditions changed. I wanted to see how much I would lose if I didn't bother to change ISO and just underexposed at base ISO in manual mode.

I discovered I would be losing very little with the D60. At ISO 400 and 800, the improvement was fairly slight and mainly confined to the deep shadows.

My next DSLR, the 8mp 20D was another kettle of fish entirely. Performance at base ISO of 100 was very similar to the D60; hardly more resolution and very similar DR. But noise at high ISO in the 20D was vastly improved. In fact image quality at ISO 1600 with the 20D appeared actually better than the D60 at ISO 400, in terms of color saturation, noise and resolution.

[BernardLanguillier]

I understand that. Nikon owners believe that Nikon Capture produces better results with Nikon RAW images. Some Canon owners prefer Canon's DPP to ACR and I used to prefer RSP. It would be no surprise if Capture One produces better results with Phase One files than ACR.

The question might be, is it just difficult to emulate the Capture One result in ACR or actually impossible?
[attachment=7152:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am now using C1 4.1 to process my ZD files, and I am impressed.

C1 was obviously developped from the ground up with AA filter less capturing devices in mind, and the gap with LR/ACR in terms of detail and lack of artifacts is pretty large. Even larger than the gap between LR and C1 on D3 files.

Therefore, I believe that a comparison based on ACR conversions will penalize the Phase more than the Canon. The best would be to use C1 to convert both files.

As a side note, I do feel that C1 does a better job than even NX2 on D3 files.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guy Mancuso]

I am now using C1 4.1 to process my ZD files, and I am impressed.

C1 was obviously developped from the ground up with AA filter less capturing devices in mind, and the gap with LR/ACR in terms of detail and lack of artifacts is pretty large. Even larger than the gap between LR and C1 on D3 files.

Therefore, I believe that a comparison based on ACR conversions will penalize the Phase more than the Canon. The best would be to use C1 to convert both files.

As a side note, I do feel that C1 does a better job than even NX2 on D3 files.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

C1 does a much better job processing the Phase files than ACR or LR also the same is true on the ZD back. Looking forward to the new Pro version when it comes out soon. Even more control with the Phase backs

[Panopeeper]

I see no advantage in post A/D ISO creation in place of pre-A/D analog boost.

The MFDBs in question (those which I looked at) do not carry out numerical adjustment of pixel values to imitate higher ISO like the DSLRs do. They always record at their maximum ISO gain. They can afford it with 16bit depth.

The P45+ behaves rather like the DSLRs in ISO, though it does not offer the fake high ISOs.

[203]

C1 does a much better job processing the Phase files than ACR or LR also the same is true on the ZD back. Looking forward to the new Pro version when it comes out soon. Even more control with the Phase backs
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree, I tried ACR with the Phase and it made a mess of the files - burned out highlights, etc. C1 is far superior for the Phase, and it does a good job with the Canons too. Though DPP shows less noise with the 1Ds3.
So I recommend C1 or DPP for the Canon, and C1 for the Phase for sure.
Interestingly, while C1 shows a bit more noise, it also does a better job with the jaggies than DPP does...

[Guy Mancuso]

I agree, I tried ACR with the Phase and it made a mess of the files - burned out highlights, etc. C1 is far superior for the Phase, and it does a good job with the Canons too. Though DPP shows less noise with the 1Ds3.
So I recommend C1 or DPP for the Canon, and C1 for the Phase for sure.
Interestingly, while C1 shows a bit more noise, it also does a better job with the jaggies than DPP does...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From my old days with the Canon's , red was the biggest issue of all orange red and C1 even back than did a much better job with them. I don't know how the newer version of DPP is working but that Nikon NX stuff , I hate the workflow. Threw it off the machine in a hurry. I may even be trashing LR pretty soon here. Someone at Adobe likes red a lot both my M8, D300 and Phase back always fighting red with LR. Seriously do not overlook C1 for many of the camera's . In my mind it is the most neutral. But I agree with you C1 is not the best with noise without a little work. 4.1 is a little better though

[203]

This RAW file comparison was started to see how much difference there is between 22mp Canon and 31mp Phase, since that's the obvious step-up camera. This week I will be testing either the Phase P30+ or the P21/P25+, in my studio during a shoot using models, probably with daylight and some flash.

The main areas which are said to be superior on the MF backs are:

1. shadow detail - looking at the above (somewhat lame) "coke can" test and some others I have done, I do not see a significant difference in shadow detail or noise *for my purposes.* (If anyone here knows of a more revealing side-by-side test, please post a link.)

2. dynamic range - hopefully will be tested for my practical purposes this week (as I did in the below shot between two Canons.) I know there are lots of anecdocal comments about the MF D.R. advantage, but are they true? (after all, there are lots claims about the shadow detail advantage, but for the most part I am failing to see it.) If I have to jack up curves in the shadows by +2 to see some advantage, then that's just plain silly.

I may end up buying another MF back regardless of the results (especially now that the H2 or Leaf kits can be had for approx. $18K!) But before I do, I will try to seperate fact from fiction as much as possible.

Below is a test I conducted with the 1Ds3 when I first got it, comparing it's highlight retention to the 5D, and I will do something similar with the Phase this week if I have time. (again, not strictly scientific, but good enough for my practical purposes.)

(though I may post the results on a blog which I have started, instead of over here, clogging up Michael's forum ;-)

[Chris Livsey]

(though I may post the results on a blog which I have started, instead of over here, clogging up Michael's forum ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Link ?

[James R Russell]

This RAW file comparison was started to see how much difference there is between 22mp Canon and 31mp Phase, since that's the obvious step-up camera. This week I will be testing either the Phase P30+ or the P21/P25+, in my studio during a shoot using models, probably with daylight and some flash.

The main areas which are said to be superior on the MF backs are:

1. shadow detail - looking at the above (somewhat lame) "coke can" test and some others I have done, I do not see a significant difference in shadow detail or noise *for my purposes.* (If anyone here knows of a more revealing side-by-side test, please post a link.)

2. dynamic range - hopefully will be tested for my practical purposes this week (as I did in the below shot between two Canons.) I know there are lots of anecdocal comments about the MF D.R. advantage, but are they true? (after all, there are lots claims about the shadow detail advantage, but for the most part I am failing to see it.) If I have to jack up curves in the shadows by +2 to see some advantage, then that's just plain silly.

I may end up buying another MF back regardless of the results (especially now that the H2 or Leaf kits can be had for approx. $18K!) But before I do, I will try to seperate fact from fiction as much as possible.

Below is a test I conducted with the 1Ds3 when I first got it, comparing it's highlight retention to the 5D, and I will do something similar with the Phase this week if I have time. (again, not strictly scientific, but good enough for my practical purposes.)

(though I may post the results on a blog which I have started, instead of over here, clogging up Michael's forum ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sometimes I think we all drink the Kool aid. Not that it's really important or not, but you don't have to live in NY and look very far down almost any avenue to see images that represent many milliions of dollars in production and about 2 dozen gallleries all hanging some beautiful imagery, all shot with every type of camera imagineable.

I can promise you that even the most astute observer will not care what camera, back, lens, or format it was shot with, though they will notice the photographs that they find personally interesting.

This isn't to say you shouldn't use the tools that best work for what you do and if you "believe" that one brand, or format makes your work better, then that is the only justification that you need.

Personally, I think it's time for a new format, something that is not legacy medium format or traditional 35mm because film sizes are gone and there is no real reason we are still strapped to frame sizes that few sensors really fill up.

I would love to see something between a 35mm camera and a P-30, but with a whole new size of lenses that really equate to the format.  Is an 80mm a normal lens on a P45, or A-65, or p-30?

Presently the only full frame cameras in the world are Canon and Nikon and I guess that should suffice, but  the issue I have with 35mm is the frame proportions.

Maybe it's just a film mindset from the past but for me I always shoot 35mm too tight, almost to the point that their is zero side room.  I tell myself a billion times to step back and I always find myself doing the opposite and moving forward.

With medium format I go the other way and once again it is probably just a mindset from the past thinking that there will be some room to crop if I'm too loose.

The only issue I have with medium format is to capture spontinaity.  It's just a more difficult format and I think if somebody had the resource to really devleope an in between system, probably 4x3 proportions that shot fast, focused fast, had good high iso and enough pixel count to to some cropping, then there probably would be a different professional format all together.

Then again, if I was a camera maker and read these forums I would think that most people only care about 100% crops of paint cans and eyeballs.

JR

[Panopeeper]

1. shadow detail

2. dynamic range

These are the same. High dynamic range means, that much can be made out of the underexposed spots.

If I have to jack up curves in the shadows by +2 to see some advantage, then that's just plain silly

Now, that is not silly. That is just high dynamic range.

Example 1:

Shooting on a sunny day with nice, bright clouds, but the frame contains dark foresty areas. If the clouds are supposed to be protected from burning, the dark areas will be underexposed.

The magenta in the sky indicates, that the green just started to clip; any higher exposure would burn the sky. The red, blue pixels show, that there "black clipping" occured already. Increasing the intensity by 5/3 EV brings the trees to enjoyable level, but it is noisy.



Example 2:

The setting does not allow for appropriate exposure, i.e. the shot will be underexposed and the intensity has to be increased in raw processing.

That is dynamic range. If you don't need this, then you are wasting lots of money if buying a camera with high dynamic range capability.

Below is a test I conducted with the 1Ds3 when I first got it, comparing it's highlight retention to the 5D

There is no such thing as "highlight retention" with digital. The highlights are there if you don't expose too high. That's it.

It has sense only in conjunction with metering, i.e. the issue is, how the evaluated exposure is positioned. This is a non-issue with a camera, which does not have ISO settings anyway. Moreover, even if teh camera is metering incorrectly, it does not matter, as ling as you are aware of that and bias the exposure accordingly.

Anyway, watch out for the Phase One back. The second raw file you posted is a wreck, any comparison with that file is senseless; I hope this won't be the case with the next combination you are trying.

[203]

Anyway, watch out for the Phase One back. The second raw file you posted is a wreck, any comparison with that file is senseless; I hope this won't be the case with the next combination you are trying.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I stated earlier, I will be using a different back. And for the record, when I did a similar test with a different P30+ back on a Phase/Mamiya camera, the shadows  looked the same as this one, even when boosted to +2.

unbroken P30 back post:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25937&view=findpost&p=202129]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=202129[/url]


Panopeeper, whatever you want to call it, I'll be seeing which one burns out the highlights faster this week (I hope.)

========================

And by the way James, don't knock the photos of paint cans and eyeballs!!! There are a lot of esthetic pleasures to be had there if you really look ;-)

But seriously, I agree that the long 35mm frame is a pain. And what I have done (which helps sometimes) is to buy one of those $35 Canon precision focusing screens (which really does help see what is and what is not in focus with the Canons) and then put fine lines on it with a sharp pencil - lopping off the top and bottom - effectively marking the 4x5 shaped area of the frame. It's a cheap and easy solution to better envision the crops, and it's a good reminder to back up.

re:

I can promise you that even the most astute observer will not care what camera, back, lens, or format it was shot with, though they will notice the photographs that they find personally interesting.

my writing from another thread:

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.*

[eronald]

Seriously do not overlook C1 for many of the camera's . In my mind it is the most neutral.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm waiting for C1 to stabilize, then I'll put out a new batch of profiles

Edmund

[eronald]

I disagree with "no highlight retention". One must separate what the engineer sees and what the photographer gets:

I have a Canon - I shoot at ISO 1250, I blow the highlights. Boom they're gone.
I have a Kodak/Dalsa chip. I shoot at ISO 800. The Raw processor is actually lifting the base ISO by 3-4 stops. The default rendering will kill the highlights, but they're still there in the file. Maybe the Raw processor will show them if I ask nicely - eg Shadow/hilite sliders in C1.

Of course if I overexpose the highlights at ISO 100 on the DB they are gone.

Edmund

That is dynamic range. If you don't need this, then you are wasting lots of money if buying a camera with high dynamic range capability.
There is no such thing as "highlight retention" with digital. The highlights are there if you don't expose too high. That's it.

It has sense only in conjunction with metering, i.e. the issue is, how the evaluated exposure is positioned. This is a non-issue with a camera, which does not have ISO settings anyway. Moreover, even if teh camera is metering incorrectly, it does not matter, as ling as you are aware of that and bias the exposure accordingly.

Anyway, watch out for the Phase One back. The second raw file you posted is a wreck, any comparison with that file is senseless; I hope this won't be the case with the next combination you are trying.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Panopeeper]

And for the record, when I did a similar test with a different P30+ back on a Phase/Mamiya camera, the shadows  looked the same, even when boosted to +2.

Well, it needs more boosting to show the differences.

These crops show the effect of that electric fault; not only the noise, but the color shift too is caused by the that:

P30+ on the Mamiya, NR off

P30+ on the H2, NR off

P30+ on the Mamiya, color NR=25

P30+ on the H2, color NR=25

They have been converted with identical adjustments (actually, everything zero except "exposure" and "fill light"), but WB picked separatedly on the white card.

[Panopeeper]

I have a Canon - I shoot at ISO 1250, I blow the highlights. Boom they're gone

You deserve it. There is no ISO 1250; that shot was made with ISO 1600 and reduced before recording the raw data. The in-between ISOs are for JPEG shooters.

Independently of that: this is a metering issue. If you figure out, that your camera meters incorrectly, apply a constant bias. The dynamic range is not meant as a reserve for metering error.

Of course if I overexpose the highlights at ISO 100 on the DB they are gone

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Now you need to recognize, that if it is *not* blown in the raw data, then it is useful.

Photographers, particularly the owners of those expensive machines need to learn the characteristics of their equipments, hardware as well as software, otherwise they throw away a large part of the capability of the expensive equipment.

There is no reason not to use the entire dynamic range of the camera. If an image *looks* overexposed but it is not, one can regain that without penalty, for example by reducing the intensity.

[eronald]

LOL

I'd say the sellers of the cheap machines have better explainers than the engineers of the expensive machines.

Maintaining my computer systems (hardware, profiles, installation, drivers, software, updates) is now soaking up at least 30% of the time I use them. There is a technology problem.

Edmund

You deserve it. There is no ISO 1250; that shot was made with ISO 1600 and reduced before recording the raw data. The in-between ISOs are for JPEG shooters.

Independently of that: this is a metering issue. If you figure out, that your camera meters incorrectly, apply a constant bias. The dynamic range is not meant as a reserve for metering error.
Yeah, yeah, yeah! Now you need to recognize, that if it is *not* blown in the raw data, then it is useful.

Photographers, particularly the owners of those expensive machines need to learn the characteristics of their equipments, hardware as well as software, otherwise they throw away a large part of the capability of the expensive equipment.

There is no reason not to use the entire dynamic range of the camera. If an image *looks* overexposed but it is not, one can regain that without penalty, for example by reducing the intensity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[STEVE K]

panopeeper, could you explain the no iso1250 to me. Thanks

[203]

Well, it needs more boosting to show the differences.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In my opinion this is not real world, it's treating the camera as a science project. I have never shot something where the shadows needed a 2 or 3 or 4 stop boost, so why even look into it?  Research for the sake of research is one thing, but what I want to look into is actual useful information which will help me in the studio. If I have to tweak the hell our of the file to see a difference between these two cameras, then forget it. Does anyone here actually shoot photos where they are bound to need to increase exposure by +3 or +4 after the fact? I know i don't

As you can see from the fashion images I have posted, I am a real photographer, trying to get the job done. At most, my files need minor tweaks in the shadows, so for me +2 is already extreme. Never mind +3, +4, etc. I mean why stop there, why don't we look into what the files look like at +10??

[Panopeeper]

In my opinion this is not real world, it's treating the camera as a science project. I have never shot something where the shadows needed a 2 or 3 or 4 stop boost, so why even look into it?

This is just what I meant above with

particularly the owners of those expensive machines need to learn the characteristics of their equipments

1. The shot in question has been metered for ISO 100, i.e. the metering calculated with +1 EV and that was compensated for by the raw processor. In other words, the three stops increase is only two stops.

If you make such a shot metered for ISO 800, then everything goes three stops lower, i.e. increasing the intensity by three stops is nothing extreme.

2. The pixel values on the softbox are in the 11th and 12th stop. Just that shot (the first one, on the Mamiya) shows, that the back does manage that.

If your typical work does not require the above, then you don't need a camera with such a dynamic range. Of course you may have other reasons for buying an MFDB, but DR is none of those.

[Panopeeper]

could you explain the no iso1250 to me

Canon cameras do not have particular ISO gains for the 1/3 stop or 1/2 stop settings. If you select a +1/3 ISO, then the next lower full-stop ISO will be applied and the result multiplied by about 1.27. This reduces the dynamic range without absolute any advantage if you are recording raw data.

If you select a -1/3 ISO, then the next higher full stop ISO will be applied, and the result divided by about 1.27. This at least does not reduce the dynamic range, only the number of levels, but with 16bit that should not be an issue. However, this too is only fooling yourself.

The Nikon D3 and D300 appear to have true fractional ISO gains, which is really strange, as these machines do not gain really much from the increased ISO anyway.