Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!  (Read 58055 times)

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2005
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #80 on: April 27, 2009, 08:15:28 am »

Quote from: carstenw
Well, no. If you shoot at "fake" ISO 100 or 200 or 400, you are under-exposing, in effect, and thereby reducing the quality of the image.
I know, but according to the ISO plots from DxO Mark and what Gabor commented (fake ISOs in this back are not software corrected, i.e. they are just metadata), the RAW data captured is the same at ISO50 as at ISO100, so the area analysed was actually 9 stops below sensor saturation, no matter what ISO was set in the camera.

David Grover / Capture One

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1324
    • Capture One
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #81 on: April 27, 2009, 08:16:59 am »

Quote from: GLuijk
Brilliant.

I do my best.

But rather than take my word for it, simply try a test for yourself on a high (fake fake fake!) ISO shot.

Best,


David
Logged
David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2442
    • Pepperanddust
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #82 on: April 27, 2009, 08:53:14 am »

If anything, you would want to test on a genuine Raw file wouldn't you, instead of something that is a conversion from the real thing? (where just about everyone that is using/involved with Hasselblad knows by now that DNG conversion results in loss of quality.)

Logged

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2005
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #83 on: April 27, 2009, 09:15:08 am »

Quote from: Dustbak
If anything, you would want to test on a genuine Raw file wouldn't you, instead of something that is a conversion from the real thing? (where just about everyone that is using/involved with Hasselblad knows by now that DNG conversion results in loss of quality.)
Yes and no. If a genuine file from the back produces a better result when processed with the camera software, is because software corrections are being applied, not because there was a loss of quality when converting to DNG (or you think that for some strange reason noise will increase in the conversion?).
In addition to this the comparision to any other camera would not be fair since not the same RAW developer would have been used for both. That is why I always use DCRAW and ignore any metadata found in the RAW file.

Anyway I don't have any other file from a Hasselblad. Those who have are invited to show.

BR

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #84 on: April 27, 2009, 02:28:33 pm »

Quote from: carstenw
If you shoot at "fake" ISO 100 or 200 or 400, you are under-exposing, in effect, and thereby reducing the quality of the image. This is not irrelevant at all
If the analogue gain is identical for different ISOs, then the ISO selection is only for metering, thus the shot gets underexposed with higher ISO.

However, when you measure the noise relative to the pixel intensity, then the exposure of  the image as a whole plays no role. One selects untextured, smooth, uniform, evenly lit patches and measure the noise on them. The intensity of the selected patch is of relevance.

Following is a crop from a 5D2 shot woth ISO 1600 (created by out fellow poster Marc specifically for the measurement). I did not want to make huge captures, so this shows only six of the 24 patches of a color checker (printed by Marc). This shows the measured average intensities of the patches and the noise in percentage of the average intensity (the selection is on the first patch). Note, that the noise measurement has nothing to do with how bright the patch is displayed here.

The other captures show only the red, the green and the blue components, to give a feeling how much noise for example 43.4% is. Of course the appearance depends on how much the intensity is boosted. The paper The Source Of Noise contains samples brought closely to the same intensity to give a better feeling.







Logged
Gabor

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #85 on: April 27, 2009, 02:49:10 pm »

Quote from: GLuijk
Yes and no. If a genuine file from the back produces a better result when processed with the camera software, is because software corrections are being applied, not because there was a loss of quality when converting to DNG (or you think that for some strange reason noise will increase in the conversion?).
In addition to this the comparision to any other camera would not be fair since not the same RAW developer would have been used for both. That is why I always use DCRAW and ignore any metadata found in the RAW file
This is not a straightforward issue.

1. Most cameras do some adjustment of the raw data, usually with the aim of reducing the noise. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as those adjustments do not occur on the cost of some other aspect. For example the Sony noise reduction on the raw data greatly reduces the resolution; that is not acceptable without the user wanting that.

2. The technologies are different; there is no reason to declare that Canon's or Nikon's approach is the way to go. For example Canon keeps the negative pixel values as well, leaving it to the raw processing to remove as much as it wants to, with the algorythm it decides for. Nikon's do that in-camera. If Nikon did not carry out the adjustment in-camera but it passed the related info in a separate file, would you reject that because it can not be converted in DNG format?

3. The DNG format is not up to the job; so plain and simple. There is no basis to say that if something can not be converted in DNG, then it should be disregarded.

On the other hand, I do not accept blindly that the Hasselblad raw files could not be converted in DNG; perhaps they are not converted properly, because Hasselblad and/or Phocus don't give a damn for their customers' workflow. For example the Sinar files (multiple files for one raw image) are converted in DNG by two non-Adobe converters, differently but resulting largely in the same final output except for colors (which is the issue of the converter, not of DNG).

Keep in eyes, that Phocus does not make business by creating input files for Adobe.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 03:03:25 pm by Panopeeper »
Logged
Gabor

David Grover / Capture One

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1324
    • Capture One
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #86 on: April 27, 2009, 03:46:40 pm »

Quote from: Panopeeper
On the other hand, I do not accept blindly that the Hasselblad raw files could not be converted in DNG; perhaps they are not converted properly, because Hasselblad and/or Phocus don't give a damn for their customers' workflow. For example the Sinar files (multiple files for one raw image) are converted in DNG by two non-Adobe converters, differently but resulting largely in the same final output except for colors (which is the issue of the converter, not of DNG).

Keep in eyes, that Phocus does not make business by creating input files for Adobe.

Hasselblad files can be and are converted by Phocus to DNG.  I am simply saying that using Phocus you will get a better result - plain and simple.

However, if you want the benefit of our lens corrections, the way we handle noise and color and other aspects of Phocus then it is there for use, for free.

We write a DNG file conforming to the spec as anyone else would.  What happens after that point it beyond our control.

I am not sure I understand the venom towards us in this respect.  Already, 3F/3FR files are supported by Aperture and we hope the same for Adobe as well.  In the meantime there is the DNG option or simply to use Phocus and get a better result than above.

If there is an impression that we fudge the DNG conversion to make us look favorable, then I am afraid in our evil underground lair, we are not that clever.

Best,


David


Logged
David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #87 on: April 27, 2009, 05:16:25 pm »

About digital camera exposure index settings (a.k.a. ISO speeds, though they are not at all the same thing as the ISO speed rating of a film): there is no point applying different analog gain to different photographs once a single choice of gain achieves two things:
a. full well signals are converted to a voltage that is within what the subsequent processing can handle without clipping
b. the dark noise level in the signal is amplified to a level comfortably above all subsequent noise sources, including quantization error in A/D conversion, so that the amplified signal is strong enough to not be significantly affected by downstream noise sources.

Both conditions are are probably met by a MFDB with a good 16-bit or even a true 14-bit A/D convertor, because the gain amplification is done just before A/D conversion, so that the A/D convertor is the only downstream noise source to worry about, and the DR of such an A/D convertor should be far greater than the DR of the signal being converted. Amplifying a low light (high exposure index) signal more would simply risk blowing out highlights while not improving noise levels in any significant way.

In other words, for MFDB's with  adjusting of final output levels in the digital domain ("fake") might be as good as or better than adjusting them in the analog domain ("real") when dealing with high expsoure index shooting; that is, in limited light situations where the sensor has to be given less than full exposure, so that no photosites get close to full well signals.


Variable gain is far more useful in CMOS sensors, and when using lesser A/D convertors, like 12-bit and maybe even lower quality 14-bit. It is useful with CMOS because the variable gain can be applied far earlier in the signal path, such as at the bottom of each column of pixels, so that there are more noise sources downstream of the amplification, like noise arising in transportation across the sensor. Emil Martin has shown us good evidence that this noise down-stream of variable analog gain is the dominant noise source with some Canon DSLR's at low to moderate gain levels (low to moderate ISO speed settings.)
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 05:17:53 pm by BJL »
Logged

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #88 on: April 27, 2009, 05:39:34 pm »

Quote from: Panopeeper
For example the Sony noise reduction on the raw data greatly reduces the resolution; that is not acceptable without the user wanting that.

I presume you are talking about the A900? The NR can be turned off, can it not?
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #89 on: April 27, 2009, 07:24:32 pm »

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
If there is an impression that we fudge the DNG conversion to make us look favorable, then I am afraid in our evil underground lair, we are not that clever.
David, you posted earlier

Quote
Converting to DNG will see a significant rise in noise levels compared to retaining our 3F format and using Phocus. Therefore showing such an image is an unfair evaluation.

On the other hand, I found this a Phocus brochure:

The extra data contained in the Hasselblad 3FR format, and the corresponding set of image refining algorithms contained does not fit into today’s DNG format. Phocus does however, include a full export function for exporting 3FR files in the DNG format, delivering good color rendering, but with no optical lens corrections

Now we see three positions:

1. the DNG conversion is not suboptimal regarding noise

2. the DNG conversion results in higher noise

3. the DNG conversion has nothing to with noise

Logged
Gabor

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #90 on: April 27, 2009, 07:45:01 pm »

Quote from: carstenw
I presume you are talking about the A900? The NR can be turned off, can it not?
Not for low ISOs, but most owners beleive it can. See a very technical study of this topic (although I thought you had seen this on GetDPI).
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 08:27:00 pm by Panopeeper »
Logged
Gabor

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #91 on: April 28, 2009, 01:07:47 am »

Hi,

What about sharpening? The Canon needs a lot of capture sharpening because of the AA-filter. A MFDB needs much less sharpening.

No doubt that MFDBs resolve better than DSLRs this discussion is about noise, where some of the differences between DSLRs and MFDBs is less well understood.

If you are comparing Canon with Camera Raw and Phase One with Capture one, what are you comparing Phase One to Canon or C1 to CR?

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: cjmonty
Ive extensively used two Canon 21mp bodies, and now shoot with a Phamiya P45 refurb with assorted Mamiya glass.  With Canon i used Camera Raw or Lightroom, with Phase I use C1 4.7.

There is no comparison in image quality.  The Phase files are on a whole other level of clarity.  And not just in terms of 21MP vs 39MP relative size.

A Phase-derived image looks like my old 4x5 prints in describing detail.  The Canon prints should not be printed past 200% base resolution.

I could have been misusing the Canon gear, or have gotten two bad cameras, or should not have processed the files in Lightroom, but in my working experience some people are better served by the Canon and Nikon gear, and some are better served by MFDBs.  

However, neither is unequivocally better.

There are some very good reasons to stick with Canon

1- Not everyone prints large enough so the Canon dough-ball looking pixels become apparent.  When the prints are small, an invisible pixel is an invisible pixel.  If I didn't require a certain amount of detail in my work, I would have happily kept my Canon.  And several thousand dollars.

2- Much of the deficiency with Canon gear may be in the lenses, which when sharp, don't seem that sharp.  However, the whole problem is probably the AA filter.  As far as I can tell.  The description detail in a Canon image is rather fugly.  However, I have only had my work to judge this on... I would love to see a scientific comparison of Canon primes vs Mamiya vs Rodenstock/Schneider digitals in Helical mounts all compared on one sensor.

3- If I shot action, needed lowlight, or needed any real photographic versatility, I would happily have kept my the Canon.  And several thousand dollars.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

andershald

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #92 on: April 28, 2009, 06:15:42 am »

DXOlabs Suck anyway!

I bought the Filmgrain software from them, because I like the look and the way the effects are applied. The software kept crashing when I was usingit with my P30+ files (90mb). I contacted their support and they were surprised that I was using such extremely large files. Their conclusion was: I had to reduce my file sizes and (I quote Jeff): "Most images range from a few Mb to about 20 Mb."

So according to DXO normal image files are <20mb any thing above that is extreme!

When I asked for a refund, as the software is useless to me, and nowhere in the documentation is it specified that it only works with smaller files, they simply refused.

So I have very little respect for DXOlabs, they must have some kind of DSLR agenda going...
Logged

R_Medvid

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
    • http://kadru.net
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #93 on: April 28, 2009, 06:04:24 pm »

Quote
When I asked for a refund, as the software is useless to me, and nowhere in the documentation is it specified that it only works with smaller files, they simply refused.

This is absolutely ridiculous.
Logged
Roman Medvid
Mamiya AFD / P40+
http://kadru.net

focusgroup

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #94 on: April 28, 2009, 09:20:17 pm »

May I suggest simply using your eyes people? !??!!  Make up your own mind by looking at whatever medium you generally use or distribute.  Sheesh
Logged

Nick-T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 462
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #95 on: April 28, 2009, 10:33:03 pm »

Quote from: focusgroup
May I suggest simply using your eyes people? !??!!


What? Are you mad! Photography isn't about what you SEE!!! It's about numbers! Sheesh.

Nick-T
Logged
[url=http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.c

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
    • http://www.billcaulfeild-browne.com
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #96 on: April 28, 2009, 10:42:10 pm »

Quote from: Nick-T
What? Are you mad! Photography isn't about what you SEE!!! It's about numbers! Sheesh.

Nick-T


Aw c'mon - it's about GEAR! Sheesh....

Bill
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #97 on: April 29, 2009, 12:48:00 am »

Quote from: focusgroup
May I suggest simply using your eyes people? !??!!  Make up your own mind by looking at whatever medium you generally use or distribute.  Sheesh

I agree. Use your eyes. That's what I do. The problem is, we're all creatures of habit, to some degree at least. Different formats of cameras require different techniques and different lenses, so the whole issue becomes terribly confused when the better image from an MFDB might be due to the better performance of the lens at a particular aperture, or simply the lack of an AA filter which produces the semblance of higher resolution.

The main issue in this thread is that the MFDB does not appear to have a significantly higher DR and SNR than the 35mm format D3X, for whatever reason, and even at base ISO.

If anyone wants to dispute these DXO results, then show us the comparisons at equal ISO at least. I would not insist upon equal DoF and equal shutter speed, because then you would be stuffed. The D3X would triumph in everything except resolution. The sensor with the higher pixel count usually produces the higher resolution. That's completely understandable and I would not attempt to contest that point.
Logged

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #98 on: April 29, 2009, 01:19:31 am »

Does it really matter?
I mean who bloody care about what DXO guys think.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 01:45:05 am by ziocan »
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
DXOmark ranks DB image quality well below DSLR!
« Reply #99 on: April 29, 2009, 11:54:12 am »

Quote from: focusgroup
May I suggest simply using your eyes people? !??!!  Make up your own mind by looking at whatever medium you generally use or distribute.  Sheesh
May I ask what exactly "people" should use their eyes for? Honestly, do you have the slightest idea what the discussion is about?
Logged
Gabor
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11   Go Up