Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: I would like to understand the MF look.  (Read 61664 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #120 on: December 07, 2013, 08:32:08 am »

Ken,

The Alpha 77 image is larger than the P45+ image.  Please remember that they were shot with similar lens and distance. The Alpha 77 has smaller pixels than the P45+ so the actual pixels image is larger. I also have a downsampled Alpha 77 image and an upsampled P45+ image for comparison.

What this shows that small pixels and OLP filtering are helpful in reducing aliasing. You could also say that the Alpha 77 image shows what you would see on an 120 MP MFD back.

It looks good in my browser now.

Best regards
Erik


Why is the feather much larger in the A77 image?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 08:38:01 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

OliverM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #121 on: December 07, 2013, 02:07:09 pm »

For me, the reasons why I don't use much my dslr anymore (canon, nikon, sigma) but the less convenient contax 645 (either with P65+ or Sinar 54lv) are :
1. colors : the Phase has very rich and accurate colors, the Sinar has beautiful warm colors. None of my dslr comes close.
2. smoothness (& still incredible accuracy even with P65) of my favorite Zeiss lenses : contax 80/2, 120/2
3. geometry, colors & details with the alpa SWA

Yes, dslr can make excellent pictures, also they are often the only capable tool.
But I don't care anymore trying to bring back a picture every time I go out, I don't care capturing 1 good picture over 250 of my boy running in the garden, I don't care of the perfect pixels of a leaf in a forest that has flat colors.

When I walk with my family, I will wait until there is a good light, a nice background, I will ask them to stop for 5 minutes and avoid moving too much and wait for a nice expression after they stopped complaining. But then back home, I will watch the picture again and again and never regret the efforts. And not because I could count the white hairs of my wife on the screen.

I couldn't see this value of MF in crops, on my laptop screen, with compressed web colors, etc. I see it on the pictures I made, on my calibrated 30" NEC screen. Then the unit that best measures "the MF look" is not MFT but minutes the image remains on the screen.

Enjoy !
Marc
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #122 on: December 07, 2013, 03:42:50 pm »

A 6L6 if I'm not mistaken. I have an amp that takes 12 6L6s in the power stage. Suck to retube in matched pairs.

Looks like a preamp tube to me...12AX7 or something in that family. Is your amp a stereo/dual-mono hifi jobbie? When I was a kid my dad had a McIntosh mono amp with four output tubes. One big Lansing enclosure with a high-frequency horn and a conventional woofer. I remember going with him to Lafayette Electronics to do tube tests...they had a high-voltage tester. He gave it all to a friend when he "went stereo."   :D  I have one guitar amp that uses 6L6s...it originally took 7591s but I rewired the power tube sockets when my new-old-stock supply of the latter tube ran out.

-Dave-
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #123 on: December 07, 2013, 05:17:24 pm »

I have a Mesa Bass amp. 12 6L6 and 4 12ax7s. It's a monster.

Too bad your dad went stereo. My father has two Marantz mono blocs. Too bad he mainly listens to mp3s on an NAD/Mirage set up. I'm angling for it.

Looks like a preamp tube to me...12AX7 or something in that family. Is your amp a stereo/dual-mono hifi jobbie? When I was a kid my dad had a McIntosh mono amp with four output tubes. One big Lansing enclosure with a high-frequency horn and a conventional woofer. I remember going with him to Lafayette Electronics to do tube tests...they had a high-voltage tester. He gave it all to a friend when he "went stereo."   :D  I have one guitar amp that uses 6L6s...it originally took 7591s but I rewired the power tube sockets when my new-old-stock supply of the latter tube ran out.

-Dave-
Logged

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3276
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #124 on: December 07, 2013, 06:28:33 pm »

I have a Mesa Bass amp. 12 6L6 and 4 12ax7s. It's a monster.

Too bad your dad went stereo. My father has two Marantz mono blocs. Too bad he mainly listens to mp3s on an NAD/Mirage set up. I'm angling for it.

Good call, yes it is a 12AX7. I replaced the one (of two) in the photo with a matched pair of Mullards for my stereo. I rate my setup as being a respectable entry level audiophile hi-fi. It's nice having a good sound system in my lightroom. I'm surprised that nobody has volumteered an opinion as to what digital format(s) captured the elements used in the montage.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 06:32:49 pm by BobDavid »
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #125 on: December 07, 2013, 11:54:51 pm »

Good call, yes it is a 12AX7. I replaced the one (of two) in the photo with a matched pair of Mullards for my stereo. I rate my setup as being a respectable entry level audiophile hi-fi. It's nice having a good sound system in my lightroom. I'm surprised that nobody has volumteered an opinion as to what digital format(s) captured the elements used in the montage.

To be honest I can only see your montage as a whole. My eye/brain system rebels when I try to break it down (other than picking out broad shapes like 9-pin preamp tubes). This is probably the same reason why I've never been much of a pixel peeper. Yet I made my living as a programmer, and programming is all about breaking things down! Weird...

I often listen to music in my computer room via CD/Blu-ray/MP3 through the guitar amp I refered to above, an Ampeg Super Echo Twin. The high end rolls off past 7kHz or so...but after decades of electric guitar playing I can't hear much beyond that anyway.   :D  The only NOS Mullards I have left are EF86 pentodes. Still have good supplies of other NOS tubes of various brands & types...enough to outlast me!

-Dave-
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4169
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #126 on: December 08, 2013, 12:04:41 am »

For me, the reasons why I don't use much my dslr anymore (canon, nikon, sigma) but the less convenient contax 645 (either with P65+ or Sinar 54lv) are :
1. colors : the Phase has very rich and accurate colors, the Sinar has beautiful warm colors. None of my dslr comes close.
2. smoothness (& still incredible accuracy even with P65) of my favorite Zeiss lenses : contax 80/2, 120/2
3. geometry, colors & details with the alpa SWA

Yes, dslr can make excellent pictures, also they are often the only capable tool.
But I don't care anymore trying to bring back a picture every time I go out, I don't care capturing 1 good picture over 250 of my boy running in the garden, I don't care of the perfect pixels of a leaf in a forest that has flat colors.

When I walk with my family, I will wait until there is a good light, a nice background, I will ask them to stop for 5 minutes and avoid moving too much and wait for a nice expression after they stopped complaining. But then back home, I will watch the picture again and again and never regret the efforts. And not because I could count the white hairs of my wife on the screen.

I couldn't see this value of MF in crops, on my laptop screen, with compressed web colors, etc. I see it on the pictures I made, on my calibrated 30" NEC screen. Then the unit that best measures "the MF look" is not MFT but minutes the image remains on the screen.

Enjoy !
Marc

Marc,

That's beautifully said. I hope you stick around the forum and share some of these images.

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3276
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #127 on: December 08, 2013, 06:11:11 pm »

To be honest I can only see your montage as a whole. My eye/brain system rebels when I try to break it down (other than picking out broad shapes like 9-pin preamp tubes). This is probably the same reason why I've never been much of a pixel peeper. Yet I made my living as a programmer, and programming is all about breaking things down! Weird...

I often listen to music in my computer room via CD/Blu-ray/MP3 through the guitar amp I refered to above, an Ampeg Super Echo Twin. The high end rolls off past 7kHz or so...but after decades of electric guitar playing I can't hear much beyond that anyway.   :D  The only NOS Mullards I have left are EF86 pentodes. Still have good supplies of other NOS tubes of various brands & types...enough to outlast me!

-Dave-

The hearing in my left ear starts to drop out at around 500Hz or so. I wear a hearing aid in that ear. I am now able to hear what my wife tells me to do, and I am better able to hear music.

On another topic, your reaction to my photo montage is on target. It references the cold war era. I remember hearing strange terms over the radio--"Iron Curtain" for example. Our radio and TV set ran on tubes that generated a lot of heat. Looking back, I think it's funny that the devices that delivered audio and video in the 50s and early 60s mostly operated on tubes--or valves as they say across the pond. (Cold War Hot Tubes) In the mid-50s through the early 60s, NORAD relied heavily on tracking and monitoring systems and computers that used vacuum tubes. Good thing military-grade tubes were more reliable than those used in our Philco. The USSR continued using tubes well into the 80s. Just think, a bad tube could have possibly caused WWIII. The movie Fail Safe (1964) explored what could happen if a single electronic component failed and caused a computer to spit out inaccurate data. In the movie, a resistor fails and triggers a nuclear war. Sort of like a Cold War version of Richard the Third--"A horse, my kingdom for a horse." The King's horse faltered due to a faulty horseshoe; the war was lost due to measly horse shoe.

Back to my photo montage: It is approachable on either a macro or micro level. On a macro level, it is supposed to invoke a feeling of vertigo--a menacing dream scape that has spiraled out of control. On a micro level, there are all sorts of little elements that hint at the Cold War era.

When I was a little boy, our family lived under the flight path of (Strategic Air Command) SAC in Omaha. We had air raid drills, civil defense sirens, sonic booms, B-52s, SS jets and all sorts of stuff going on in the background--incomprehensible sounds and sights to a little boy.

The photo elements in the montage were taken with an Olympus PL-1 camera and its 14-42mm kit lens. The electron tube was shot in my studio with a Nikon d800 and a macro lens. The photo looks great blown up to 20" X 36".
« Last Edit: December 08, 2013, 06:18:11 pm by BobDavid »
Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #128 on: December 08, 2013, 06:26:44 pm »

Ken,

The Alpha 77 image is larger than the P45+ image.  Please remember that they were shot with similar lens and distance. The Alpha 77 has smaller pixels than the P45+ so the actual pixels image is larger. I also have a downsampled Alpha 77 image and an upsampled P45+ image for comparison.

What this shows that small pixels and OLP filtering are helpful in reducing aliasing. You could also say that the Alpha 77 image shows what you would see on an 120 MP MFD back.

It looks good in my browser now.

Best regards
Erik



 Sorry I am a little slow. Ok, now I see what you did. You use the same focal length on both the P45+ and the A77 and positioned both cameras almost identically and shot the scene. Well that explains everything if I understood correctly. No wonder the feather looks so bad. As a whole the feather is a much smaller portion of the frame shot with the P45+ compared to the A77 since there is a large difference in sensor size. Angle of view given equal focal length is VERY different in both cameras. Fill the frame equally with both cameras with the same scene and the results are very different no? When composing an image that is realistically what one would do.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #129 on: December 08, 2013, 06:37:56 pm »

Hi Ken,

This is about aliasing not resolution. If some gave me an MFD camera with small pixels, I would used that instead. See it as a demonstration of what a MFD back with 120-130 MP would look like. 

Best regards
Erik

Sorry I am a little slow. Ok, now I see what you did. You use the same focal length on both the P45+ and the A77 and positioned both cameras almost identically and shot the scene. Well that explains everything if I understood correctly. No wonder the feather looks so bad. As a whole the feather is a much smaller portion of the frame shot with the P45+ compared to the A77 since there is a large difference in sensor size. Angle of view given equal focal length is VERY different in both cameras. Fill the frame equally with both cameras with the same scene and the results are very different no? When composing an image that is realistically what one would do.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #130 on: December 08, 2013, 06:46:38 pm »

Hi Ken,

This is about aliasing not resolution. If some gave me an MFD camera with small pixels, I would used that instead. See it as a demonstration of what a MFD back with 120-130 MP would look like. 

Best regards
Erik


Thats what it would take to eliminate moire? 120+?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #131 on: December 08, 2013, 07:04:02 pm »

Hi,

With the Planar 80/2.8 I used, maybe. The Alpha 77 probably also has OLP filtering. Stopping down to f/11 had little effect on the P45+ but stopping down to f/22 eliminated Moiré  and sharpness. A better lens raises the limit.

I know you shoot f/5.6 with HR lenses on an IQ 160 or IQ 260. I am quite certain that if you shoot a one dollar bill or the test target I used at 4 m at f/5.6 you would see a lot of Moiré. A guy who also posted on this topic has tested the IQ 260, and he loves it, but he also found a lot of aliasing.

But, it is seldom Moiré shows in real world images. I see it a bit more often than I'd like to but it doesn't stop me from using MFD.



Full size: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Dollars.jpg

Best regards
Erik

Thats what it would take to eliminate moire? 120+?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2013, 07:12:13 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #132 on: December 09, 2013, 12:28:52 am »

Back to my photo montage: It is approachable on either a macro or micro level. On a macro level, it is supposed to invoke a feeling of vertigo--a menacing dream scape that has spiraled out of control. On a micro level, there are all sorts of little elements that hint at the Cold War era.

When I was a little boy, our family lived under the flight path of (Strategic Air Command) SAC in Omaha. We had air raid drills, civil defense sirens, sonic booms, B-52s, SS jets and all sorts of stuff going on in the background--incomprehensible sounds and sights to a little boy.

Yes, I picked up on the spiral staircase...the degraded/mutated inverse image with the skeletal buildings. I saved your montage on my iPad and have gone back to it a few times today...thanks!

I lived in northern Israel during late 1983 & early 1984. This was not long after a military campaign in southern Lebanon (where I later spent time as well...lived in Egypt too, working on archaeological sites). There were F-16s roaring by overhead on a daily basis, and occasional sonic booms. Weekly security updates from the local military liaison officer. A slightly different vibe to the quiet 'burbs of southeastern Michigan.   ;)

-Dave-
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 12:30:40 am by Telecaster »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #133 on: December 09, 2013, 09:34:00 am »

This is the difference of the look in the real world.

Three different images, though same model for the same editorial project.

The first is a Canon 1ds3 (girl in electrical dept. of movie studio), The second contax p30 +, talent on white


The third, p30+ talent reading script.


All were shot with continuous light,  all with tripods all around 800 to 1000 iso.

The horizontal image best illustrates the medium format look as it's not noiseless, not oversharp, but it has a look and sharpness I don't see from cmos cameras.  The mf ccd images also don't have that global cmos color look.

Interesting the bottom image is 800 iso, 80mm lens, F4,  produced with 1 500w broncolor hmi (with 1/4 stop of spun) for the key, the accent lights are small 250 watt frensnel tungstens.

This is basically the minimum light I would use for digital video, so the fact this older medium format back works in this situation is to me not surprising, but makes me feel a lot better about that purchase I made 6 or 7 years ago.

The talent in white somewhat flies in the face what most people here look for in a digital file.  It's also shot with broncolor himi and I don't care much about noise shadow worry, as for me it's fairly easy to clean up, (though I don't shoot smooth objects,
but i do care about holding the whites and I shot this image tethered but never looked on the computer, only the challanged p30+ back and hit it.  Also I do not check a histogram, I've never looked at a histogram other than turn it off as I don't even
know what a histogram  means and imagine I never will.

The first image, from the 1ds3 is nice, but doesn't have that crisp depth you see (at least I see) in even these small web reductions.

So is medium format worth it?  Well for me I'm not sure I would drop 50k for a system, but given I own 4 bodies, two backs every lens and bought over a period, it's well worth it, though I love the contax, don't care much for other medium format cameras other than
the Leica S2 and the Pentax and for long use, neither one of those cameras I would take over my Contax.  As I've said before I would find it hard to believe that any modern lens is sharper than these contax Zeiss, or for that matter prettier.

Then again as mentioned by others you don't need to spend $50,000.  A used p30+ will go for about 6 to 7k and a contax and a few lenses, $1,500 more, but at used prices you not going to depreciate much.

But as always it's down to personal opinion.

BC

I should add that to get the most out of a medium format file (any file actually) you'll have to fully understand post processing in more than just a convertor. 

« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 09:38:54 am by bcooter »
Logged

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #134 on: December 09, 2013, 10:31:05 am »

Bcooter, what is this sorcery? You are using your digital backs to make actual photographs you say? You are basing your opinions on years of use in a professional setting you say? There are more important things to a photograph than what can be quantified in numbers you say? BLASPHEMY I SAY! Now repent by deleting your posts and let this forum go back to it's regular broadcast of internet experts posting images of dollar bills and brick walls, numbers and graphs. Lest you be burned at the pixelpeeper-stake for heresy!

All hail the Canikon Dx900XDs1, hallowed be thy name.

/end sarcasm
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #135 on: December 09, 2013, 11:13:14 am »

The backs I've knows (leaf 22/54, 75s, Phase P25/30+, Sinar 54M), and the M8/M9/DMR, have more delicate color.  Not accurate color by numbers, but delicate.  This is a very good thing for breathing subjects.  The Canon/Nikons I've known are more ham fisted, although I like teh Canon 5d2/ds3 color very much.

This is the difference of the look in the real world.

Three different images, though same model for the same editorial project.

The first is a Canon 1ds3 (girl in electrical dept. of movie studio), The second contax p30 +, talent on white


The third, p30+ talent reading script.


All were shot with continuous light,  all with tripods all around 800 to 1000 iso.

The horizontal image best illustrates the medium format look as it's not noiseless, not oversharp, but it has a look and sharpness I don't see from cmos cameras.  The mf ccd images also don't have that global cmos color look.

Interesting the bottom image is 800 iso, 80mm lens, F4,  produced with 1 500w broncolor hmi (with 1/4 stop of spun) for the key, the accent lights are small 250 watt frensnel tungstens.

This is basically the minimum light I would use for digital video, so the fact this older medium format back works in this situation is to me not surprising, but makes me feel a lot better about that purchase I made 6 or 7 years ago.

The talent in white somewhat flies in the face what most people here look for in a digital file.  It's also shot with broncolor himi and I don't care much about noise shadow worry, as for me it's fairly easy to clean up, (though I don't shoot smooth objects,
but i do care about holding the whites and I shot this image tethered but never looked on the computer, only the challanged p30+ back and hit it.  Also I do not check a histogram, I've never looked at a histogram other than turn it off as I don't even
know what a histogram  means and imagine I never will.

The first image, from the 1ds3 is nice, but doesn't have that crisp depth you see (at least I see) in even these small web reductions.

So is medium format worth it?  Well for me I'm not sure I would drop 50k for a system, but given I own 4 bodies, two backs every lens and bought over a period, it's well worth it, though I love the contax, don't care much for other medium format cameras other than
the Leica S2 and the Pentax and for long use, neither one of those cameras I would take over my Contax.  As I've said before I would find it hard to believe that any modern lens is sharper than these contax Zeiss, or for that matter prettier.

Then again as mentioned by others you don't need to spend $50,000.  A used p30+ will go for about 6 to 7k and a contax and a few lenses, $1,500 more, but at used prices you not going to depreciate much.

But as always it's down to personal opinion.

BC

I should add that to get the most out of a medium format file (any file actually) you'll have to fully understand post processing in more than just a convertor. 


Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #136 on: December 09, 2013, 12:07:24 pm »

Bcooter, what is this sorcery? You are using your digital backs to make actual photographs you say? You are basing your opinions on years of use in a professional setting you say? There are more important things to a photograph than what can be quantified in numbers you say? BLASPHEMY I SAY! Now repent by deleting your posts and let this forum go back to it's regular broadcast of internet experts posting images of dollar bills and brick walls, numbers and graphs. Lest you be burned at the pixelpeeper-stake for heresy!

All hail the Canikon Dx900XDs1, hallowed be thy name.

/end sarcasm

Hit the heretic with a cushion !

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #137 on: December 09, 2013, 12:22:29 pm »

Nice images bcooter. I agree that those illustrate the difference well, especially the first one vs the last one.

However if you told everyone that the first one was a P25/Contax image, I don't think anyone would have called you a liar.
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8818
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #138 on: December 09, 2013, 12:36:07 pm »

Nice images bcooter. I agree that those illustrate the difference well, especially the first one vs the last one.

However if you told everyone that the first one was a P25/Contax image, I don't think anyone would have called you a liar.

Hi Sheldon,

I agree. And what's more, a photon looks the same to CCD or CMOS. Most of the alleged differences can be applied to any image in post-processing, in particular color differences depend heavily on the profile used. The examples shown also exhibit lots of dedicated lighting setups, which makes a difference regardless of the camera platform.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4122
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #139 on: December 09, 2013, 02:00:47 pm »

Great images Cooter. 

Insofar as the DSLR vs. MFD, I do see a difference in the depth and color. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Up