Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: P65+  (Read 123188 times)

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
P65+
« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2008, 05:58:48 pm »

Quote
not total 200mb, but each layer 200mb,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why is each layer 200MB? It appears that each layer covers a small percentage of the whole image area, e.g. a plane or a man. This does not result in 200MB layers if some of the layer is transparent. If you are superimposing full images on each other but masking 90% of each layer out, then you can create much smaller files by deleting most of the unused parts of each layer. Hope that makes sense.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 05:59:47 pm by foto-z »
Logged

AndrewDyer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 125
    • http://www.andrewdyer.com
P65+
« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2008, 06:07:10 pm »

Quote
I guess it's the plugins, coz everytime I run out of memory I'm trying to do something with the plugins.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep. That's probably the problem.
Unfortunately all or most filters rely on RAM to apply the effect, and then this gets saved to the
scratch disk... so a big scratch disk may not help your particular filter problem.
Good luck
A
Logged
Andrew
 ht

dustblue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://www.moko.cc/dustblue
P65+
« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2008, 06:18:33 pm »

yes of coz, sorry I should elaborate more. the final psd file which contains the big original file generally end up with the size of 3-6G. 8bit half that size(which I have to usually do on behalf of speed...)

Quote
Why is each layer 200MB? It appears that each layer covers a small percentage of the whole image area, e.g. a plane or a man. This does not result in 200MB layers if some of the layer is transparent. If you are superimposing full images on each other but masking 90% of each layer out, then you can create much smaller files by deleting most of the unused parts of each layer. Hope that makes sense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
P65+
« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2008, 06:20:18 pm »

Quote
Why is each layer 200MB? It appears that each layer covers a small percentage of the whole image area, e.g. a plane or a man. This does not result in 200MB layers if some of the layer is transparent. If you are superimposing full images on each other but masking 90% of each layer out, then you can create much smaller files by deleting most of the unused parts of each layer. Hope that makes sense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, that's true, but only after you have flattened the image (or merged visible) to remove all the duplicated areas on the image. I have intermediate images of around 1.5-2Gb, which (seem to) require a scratch file of some 4-5Gb (don't ask me why, but that's what I'm seeing in the scratch files sizes in the status bar). With extra layers, for pp, I've even got over the 4Gb max file size limit, and had to complete the processing, rather than saving and finishing later, even after using a compressed save algorithm. A set of 60Mpixel files would be interesting(!) to work on.

This is when using PS CS3; I have ptgui, but haven't investigated whether it might be more conservative in it's use of ram, during this sort of process.

Oh, and I'm not saying that it is *necessary* to always work with files of this size!

Hope this helps
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

paulmoorestudio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://paulmoorestudio.com
P65+
« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2008, 06:31:56 pm »

Quote
For the work I do, medium format really needs to write some presets or change their color response.

All of digital is somewhat flaky compared to film in the way it picks up ambient color and all of digital is so tilted towards holding the highlights and shadows even the dslrs look somewhat flat, but  this (and I'm not a color scientist) makes for a lot of color contamination (or better put it digital sees everything and the medium format backs see too much for what I do).

Film was different in the fact it was kind of dumb, it didn't seem to see everything.  With film I was always adding fill and with digital I would rather start in black and work my way to white.

The medium format files are the most problematic.  When they are on they are completely amazing and if your working with controlled lighting under the conditions they seem to be designed for they hold detail, highlights, shadows like no dslr can, but when you are working with mixed lighting, like sunlight and hmi fill, or your working with very hard direct light in studio, they cast and require a lot of post work to get skin colors to the look you remembered in film.

Little things like high key, extreme low key and back light going to flare seem to make digital go crazy. 

I assume that whoever writes the software/firmware/grey balances . . . whatever, is shooting color charts and vegtables but they really need to shoot under a lot of conditions and skin tones in almost every kind of light.

Last night I was putting together some pre production materials for a project and went onto the servers and pulled down images from the 1ds1, 1ds2, A-22, p30 and p30+.

Some were amazingly on, others were almost impossible to get that great skin color without working in photoshop.  Once again when the medium format was ON it was amazing, but when off it requires selecting and almost painting the skin.

The most uniform of all the cameras was the original 1ds1.  It had it's issues, but is was the most consistent.

As far as 60mpx, well that's up to whoever buys it.  Personally I think it's just easier and sound bites better to claim more megapixels than it does to mention stable software, or show beautiful skin tone color, but these companies will do what they want and I guess there is value in bigger is better.

Regardless, why none of these companies have not hired some kid out of Art Center, send him on a week long shoot of 5 skin tones, all types of lighting, clothes and locations and had him shoot their digital backs, next to film and compared the results is beyond me.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know about you but I was very tuned-in to my film back in the day, and I shot only a few types because I knew what I wanted and what would deliver..now if someone handed me a back or holder with something else and I shot it and got it back from the lab I would have not liked it..

my point is that it took a lot of shooting and processing to dial in the desired film look. So too do I have to shoot and tweek to get the look I need with a digital workflow.. It was my experience with film, that unless I was shooting the same stock, the same lights, and the same set, all parameters would be different.. I never did a big shoot with out running some film first.

The biggest difference now is that I know a lot more about post and prepress..I know what will print and what won't..before I'd hand them a lovely(to my eye) velvia transparency and say "have fun matching this" and know that it was't my problem..and knew as well that there were masters in the prepress industry who could tweek their system and even improve on what I gave them.  It has been a lot of work to try to get up to their knowledge level as all of us need to be delivering a finished image.. not prepress ready, but damn good so it can be converted by joeblow print guy. Do I wish I could go back to dropping the film at the lab and editing on the light table.. sometimes.  However, I now deliver a better, printable file than I did a sheet of film 5 years ago.  Hey we were spoiled then, kodak, fuji and the lab determined everything, our curves,hue/sat, levels,iso, etc...we just shot into their predetermined conditions.
I wouldn't mind if the next back I got had a preset for astia100, then I could tweek from there if needed. However I am happy now shooting a bit flatter & processing a flat raw file and adjusting to the look I want, more work but worth it.

Regarding flakyness of digital with mixed lights..I tend to think that my small digital camera which I use in mixed light situations handles it better than transparency film ever did.
Logged

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
P65+
« Reply #45 on: July 11, 2008, 06:48:55 pm »

Quote
I don't know about you but I was very tuned-in to my film back in the day, and I shot only a few types because I knew what I wanted and what would deliver..now if someone handed me a back or holder with something else and I shot it and got it back from the lab I would have not liked it..

my point is that it took a lot of shooting and processing to dial in the desired film look. So too do I have to shoot and tweek to get the look I need with a digital workflow.. It was my experience with film, that unless I was shooting the same stock, the same lights, and the same set, all parameters would be different.. I never did a big shoot with out running some film first.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207424\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


We don't prior test digital like we did film but there isn't a lot of point.  It's not like your going to add 10cc of cyan over the lens, or even start gelling the lights, especially with mixed daylight, hmi.

I guess we could, but we all know it will fix in post.

The point is I do shoot a lot of different work and I see a big difference in how all of these cameras react.

Shooting a Nikon, Canon, Phase and Leica and put them in their native processor, or even a 3rd party parocessor and you will see a great deal of difference in the way they respond to colors, the the difference is not global, where adding some cyan cleans it up.

Some of these cameras just respond funky.  I just shot a hmi, daylight situation and the beautiful darker toned models went magenta red on some of the cameras, fine on others (no reason to say which), but it wasn't a global red/magenta it was in the curves.

I fixed, heck we're always fixing it, but it would be easier if they started out more stable or at lease were more adjustable before it came out of camera.

JR
Logged

paulmoorestudio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://paulmoorestudio.com
P65+
« Reply #46 on: July 11, 2008, 07:09:57 pm »

Quote
We don't prior test digital like we did film but there isn't a lot of point.  It's not like your going to add 10cc of cyan over the lens, or even start gelling the lights, especially with mixed daylight, hmi.

I guess we could, but we all know it will fix in post.

The point is I do shoot a lot of different work and I see a big difference in how all of these cameras react.

Shooting a Nikon, Canon, Phase and Leica and put them in their native processor, or even a 3rd party parocessor and you will see a great deal of difference in the way they respond to colors, the the difference is not global, where adding some cyan cleans it up.

Some of these cameras just respond funky.  I just shot a hmi, daylight situation and the beautiful darker toned models went magenta red on some of the cameras, fine on others (no reason to say which), but it wasn't a global red/magenta it was in the curves.

I fixed, heck we're always fixing it, but it would be easier if they started out more stable or at lease were more adjustable before it came out of camera.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I guess I have simplified to the point of using one manufacture, well at least a combo of kodak/hasselblad on both my small (leica) and larger (hasselblad) cameras  .. so I don't see the variety of backs you do..or skin tones! with all there was and is to learn digitally I had to keep the variables down to a minimum.. I don't even what to think about a 60mp back at this point,
unless it had much larger sensor (real estate)
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13280
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
P65+
« Reply #47 on: July 11, 2008, 07:14:00 pm »

As well as Mamiya.

Other than that look at what Nikon did with the D3. They decided to stick to a low pixel count to provide optimal DR and noise... some brands seem to understand our needs better.

Cheers,
Bernard

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
P65+
« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2008, 08:36:51 pm »

Quote
As well as Mamiya.

Other than that look at what Nikon did with the D3. They decided to stick to a low pixel count to provide optimal DR and noise... some brands seem to understand our needs better.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207435\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Only that phase has the option to give us a back with a larger sensor which can have both sides. More px and lower noise.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[[email protected]

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
P65+
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2008, 10:00:09 pm »

Quote
Only that phase has the option to give us a back with a larger sensor which can have both sides. More px and lower noise.
Well, Phase gives you more and more pixels for sure; however, they are far from the noise level of the D3. Apparently their customers appretiate the pixel count higher than DR.
Logged
Gabor

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
P65+
« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2008, 10:46:06 pm »

Quote
Well, Phase gives you more and more pixels for sure; however, they are far from the noise level of the D3. Apparently their customers appretiate the pixel count higher than DR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207470\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the snide comment regarding the wants, needs and desires of Phase owners.  If you read the posts from Phase owners you will see that not many, if any, Phase customers want more pixels.  We do want more DR and what we understand to be fatter pixels in a close to real full frame 645 chip.  Many posts in this thread question the product managers' decision process that has led to a 60 Mpix back.  It might be that the pixels can be binned for better noise performance and smaller files, which would be cool.  We will all find out Monday.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 10:49:39 pm by TMARK »
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
P65+
« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2008, 11:25:34 pm »

Quote
If you read the posts from Phase owners you will see that not many, if any, Phase customers want more pixels
I read them. However, I don't start out with the assumption, that Phase One's decision makers are dumb and made such a decision without having conducted a market research.

Binning is a half-solution for double price.
Logged
Gabor

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2610
    • Rolleiflex USA
P65+
« Reply #52 on: July 12, 2008, 01:09:13 am »

Quote
We do want more DR and what we understand to be fatter pixels in a close to real full frame 645 chip.  Many posts in this thread question the product managers' decision process that has led to a 60 Mpix back.  It might be that the pixels can be binned for better noise performance and smaller files, which would be cool.  We will all find out Monday.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes - this phase shooter wants fat pixels and more real estate.  I care less about how many pixels than I do about DR and color.  But I don't want a 645 or a rotating back. Forget that - what I want is 6x6 and I want it to fit on either my 6008 or the new Hy6.

So I guess we have some overlap but not all of us want exactly the same set of features.   I'll bet there are a few shooters that at least think they want 60 mpix.   The big question I have is will it work with smaller apertures than f/8 or will you just be getting 30mpix worth of detail with a 60mpix back at that point?

Whose to say that they don't have any more new products in the works?   I sure hope they have something that will go to like ISO 3200 in the pipeline.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2008, 01:14:25 am by EricWHiss »
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
P65+
« Reply #53 on: July 12, 2008, 03:07:48 am »

Quote
I read them. However, I don't start out with the assumption, that Phase One's decision makers are dumb and made such a decision without having conducted a market research.



Binning is a half-solution for double price.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think big megapix are aimed at current owners. Lureing people from canon and competeing with blad for those canon shooters is probably the target market. I asked about twenty people I know who own or regularly shoot mfdb about 60 megapix. No one wants it and no one was asked by Phase if they wanted 60.

I work for ad agencies. I take part in the process of selling things to people. I know what is the result of good market research and I can tell you only blad has a real idea and vision. So assuming that Phase did not do market research is a reasonable assumption.
Logged

free1000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
    • http://www.foliobook.mobi
P65+
« Reply #54 on: July 12, 2008, 03:12:03 am »

If there was a 33Megapixel upgrade to a nearly full frame crop, I'd be very keen on it. If it requires a huge expense and double the pixels, I'd might not do it. My workflow is good right now in terms of the processors handling 33Mp files, the storage requirements and so on.

A days shoot for me can already be 24-30Gb for the 33 megapixel camera. I really don't want to see that go up to 50Gb a day. And I don't want to sit at my computer for 30% longer watching the spinning ball while they are processed.

Image quality is pretty fantastic already, its the usability I'd like to see improved (live view improvements, screen improvements, speed) and higher ISO.

I can understand that for marketing purposes, the vendors probably all need 'the high end' 60Mp etc as their flagship. But realistically, isn't that a toy for a rich amateur rather than a person who shoots several days a week?

When I need to I can stitch a 55-60Mp file easily enough. I can think of maybe 2-3 jobs where I could have used this. But last year when I shot images used for this billboard campaign, some of the other source images were shot on DSLR's and my files were much bigger than everyone expected.  So even for billboards of a massive size, I might have got away with the 1DsII if I'd wanted.
Logged
@foliobook
Foliobook professional photo

markowich

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • http://www.peter-markowich.net
P65+
« Reply #55 on: July 12, 2008, 03:25:24 am »

were the images for the billboard campain shot with a view camera or with medium format reflex?
peter


Quote
If there was a 33Megapixel upgrade to a nearly full frame crop, I'd be very keen on it. If it requires a huge expense and double the pixels, I'd might not do it. My workflow is good right now in terms of the processors handling 33Mp files, the storage requirements and so on.

A days shoot for me can already be 24-30Gb for the 33 megapixel camera. I really don't want to see that go up to 50Gb a day. And I don't want to sit at my computer for 30% longer watching the spinning ball while they are processed.

Image quality is pretty fantastic already, its the usability I'd like to see improved (live view improvements, screen improvements, speed) and higher ISO.

I can understand that for marketing purposes, the vendors probably all need 'the high end' 60Mp etc as their flagship. But realistically, isn't that a toy for a rich amateur rather than a person who shoots several days a week?

When I need to I can stitch a 55-60Mp file easily enough. I can think of maybe 2-3 jobs where I could have used this. But last year when I shot images used for this billboard campaign, some of the other source images were shot on DSLR's and my files were much bigger than everyone expected.  So even for billboards of a massive size, I might have got away with the 1DsII if I'd wanted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1303
P65+
« Reply #56 on: July 12, 2008, 07:37:45 am »

Quote
Thanks for the snide comment regarding the wants, needs and desires of Phase owners.  If you read the posts from Phase owners you will see that not many, if any, Phase customers want more pixels.  We do want more DR and what we understand to be fatter pixels in a close to real full frame 645 chip.  Many posts in this thread question the product managers' decision process that has led to a 60 Mpix back.  It might be that the pixels can be binned for better noise performance and smaller files, which would be cool.  We will all find out Monday.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
calm down there!

it's simple - there's lots of different Phase owners out there with different needs, just like there are different photographers some using Leicas, some MF, some prefer a wooden 4x5", some an 8x10 view camera. So... Phase make a range of backs for different needs - there's faster 31Mp ones and slower but higher res higher res ones too. hurrah!

I'm a Phase owner (my 3rd back now) and welcome the 60Mp, and will upgrade almost certainly - its not too big for my needs. However I respect that for others it may not be their first choice, and expect another sensor with faster shoot rates and higher ISO is in the pipes - CHOICE is good, choice is welcome, we've been starved of it in the pro digital market, so be happy!
Logged

free1000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
    • http://www.foliobook.mobi
P65+
« Reply #57 on: July 12, 2008, 07:57:04 am »

Quote
were the images for the billboard campain shot with a view camera or with medium format reflex?
peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mamiya 645 for the skyline with the eye and the longer of the zooms. Battersea power station was with the Cambo Wide handheld 72mm Schneider lens. Thames pano is a crop of a single shot with the Cambo Wide and Schneider 35mm lens.

Plenty of pixels, and if you use the zoomify, even with the Mamiya zoom shot there is tons of detail.
Logged
@foliobook
Foliobook professional photo

Tim Lüdin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://www.timage.ch
P65+
« Reply #58 on: July 12, 2008, 08:59:04 am »

I dont get it. They are entering the 60MP zone without real improvements of the pixels, DR, LCD, colors or speed.

There should be more reps reading this forum so they would know what photographers realy want at the moment.

Just give us around 40 MPs with big pixels, real fullframe, 5D type LCD, more DR and more usable iso. That should be possible within a heartbeat with todays technology. Look at RED.

Damn, so we will have to wait another 18 month till some real improved stuff is coming.

When will they ever learn.

Tim
Logged
Cinematographer & Photographer
[url=http

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
P65+
« Reply #59 on: July 12, 2008, 09:13:50 am »

If 60MP is too many, you could always downsize your files to 30MP, with the attendant improvements in DR, tonality, noise, and color accuracy...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17   Go Up