Topic: Sigma DP Quattro (Read 140113 times)

Quentin · « **Reply #280 on:** August 03, 2014, 07:04:27 am »

Trying out Lee Filters on the DP2 Quattro yesterday. The following shot used a .9 ND grad. and some X3 Fill

Which I then tried printing on an Epson 7900 at 24" x 36", 300ppi after resizing 200%, 300ppi, using Photozoom Pro

The result shows excellent fine detail (print snapshot taken with a Sony RX100 II) broadly comparable to MF digital.

Farsh · « **Reply #281 on:** August 03, 2014, 10:52:14 am »

very nice results, thought I'm not a big fan of the quattro.
do you also use photozoom for your merrill?
do you use standard settings?
I've just downloaded the trial version and not sure what settings are best.

Alan Smallbone · « **Reply #282 on:** August 03, 2014, 11:19:00 am »

Looks really good Quentin. So how does Photozoom compared to normal printing through Lightroom, etc? I will have to do some research.

Thanks,
Alan

Quentin · « **Reply #283 on:** August 03, 2014, 07:43:15 pm »

I do use Photozoom, but the new S-HI setting for the Quattro out of SPP runs it very close if the aim is an approx 39mp image. That setting is not available for the Merrills unfortunately.

New firmware and a new version of SPP is due any day and might introduce some enhancements. Will have to see.

capital · « **Reply #284 on:** August 03, 2014, 08:14:41 pm »

Trying to further refine on Quattro output.

Any opinion on the Beer Garden SPP output versus this test process?

Note: No noise reduction and No sharpening on SPP or Test process.

Also included in the last set is a comparison in reds in highlight shadow detail between DP2Q & DP2M, again, no noise reduction, no sharpening, also a comparison using the test process.

Quentin · « **Reply #285 on:** August 04, 2014, 05:25:58 am »

Quote from: capital on August 03, 2014, 08:14:41 pm

Trying to further refine on Quattro output.

Any opinion on the Beer Garden SPP output versus this test process?

Note: No noise reduction and No sharpening on SPP or Test process.

Also included in the last set is a comparison in reds in highlight shadow detail between DP2Q & DP2M, again, no noise reduction, no sharpening, also a comparison using the test process.

Test process looks pretty good, except for the last flower shot where there are random black spots.

capital · « **Reply #286 on:** August 05, 2014, 04:01:26 am »

So I've been doing some deeper explorations of X3F raw files, comparing the Quattro and the Merrill. Sigma opened a totally new window into Foveon when they released a new x3f layout and as such we could begin to explore what Sigma's SPP software might or might not be doing to the outputted tiifs. I have been doing some "black box" testing and I think even at the lowest detent sharpening setting the Merrill files are getting a kick of sharpening on the order less than a pixel and about 50-70% or so. I think I already demonstrated in part how Sigma really fell short in the SPP rendering with the Beer Garden comparison above and what the actual data is "saying". Some examples to follow. Soon.

Ok, so the image below has 3 images, X Y Z.

Choices are as follows: Sigma DP2Q or Sigma DP2M for each X Y and Z. Can you spot the Quattro or Merrill or are they all the same camera?

Stefan Schelosky · « **Reply #287 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:03:44 am »

May I start guessing?

X: DP2Q, like Z, but with some kind of improvement
Y: DP2M
Z: DP2Q

Thanks for sharing your tests.

Stefan

NancyP · « **Reply #288 on:** August 05, 2014, 10:53:52 am »

I concur with Stephan. X = modified Q, Y = M, Z = unmodified Q file.

Farsh · « **Reply #289 on:** August 05, 2014, 07:46:01 pm »

I agree with you guys, before reading your suggestions my thinking was: y is Merrill, z is Q, x not so sure.

The Ute · « **Reply #290 on:** August 06, 2014, 08:57:23 am »

Quentin-

Just a heads up.

Your new firmware and SPP are available now.

palpman · « **Reply #291 on:** August 06, 2014, 09:57:42 am »

Quote from: capital on August 05, 2014, 04:01:26 am

So I've been doing some deeper explorations of X3F raw files, comparing the Quattro and the Merrill. Sigma opened a totally new window into Foveon when they released a new x3f layout and as such we could begin to explore what Sigma's SPP software might or might not be doing to the outputted tiifs. I have been doing some "black box" testing and I think even at the lowest detent sharpening setting the Merrill files are getting a kick of sharpening on the order less than a pixel and about 50-70% or so. I think I already demonstrated in part how Sigma really fell short in the SPP rendering with the Beer Garden comparison above and what the actual data is "saying". Some examples to follow. Soon.

Ok, so the image below has 3 images, X Y Z.

Choices are as follows: Sigma DP2Q or Sigma DP2M for each X Y and Z. Can you spot the Quattro or Merrill or are they all the same camera?

Hard to say actually, it seems to ma that the resolution is pretty much the same in all three. The Y pic has some weird black spots, maybe slightly less resolution. I'd say they're all Q although Y looks different. Y could be Merrill but looks messy, maybe it was shot a high ISO?

capital · « **Reply #292 on:** August 06, 2014, 02:24:08 pm »

Hi palpman, All were shot at ISO100.

Alan Smallbone · « **Reply #293 on:** August 07, 2014, 11:10:06 am »

In case anyone is interested. The Quattro is now in stock and on sale in the US now. Adorama sent me notice they had them in stock ready to ship.

Alan

Raist3d · « **Reply #294 on:** August 07, 2014, 12:17:31 pm »

I still see the same beer garden resolution loss. Moreover, the color is not what it should be now (as referenced by both the Merrill shot and the Quattro shots).

- Ricardo

capital · « **Reply #295 on:** August 08, 2014, 12:52:19 am »

Okay so for those who guessing which is which.

A: DP2M Test Process, yes I tried out the test process on Merrill files to make sure for sanity checking.
B: DP2Q Test Process then downsized nearest neighbor to match Merrill output. As some have noted black pixel artifacts in the test process I think those are actually dead pixels which are not mapped out of the RAW data, and would normally be handled by SPP post processing.
C: DP2M SPP 5.5.3 Output with lowest settings of NR/Sharpening.

Some observations:

-Native SPP contrast curves of DP2Q and DP2M are different but you can attempt to match them.

-Lowest sharpening setting of SPP actually still sharpens Merrill output.

-Shadows of Quattro files have more color, even at base ISO.

-Quattro files seem to have a tad more luminance noise even at base ISO.

-SPP 6.0.5 and earlier introduce a slight sub-pixel level blurring by the current SPP algorithm. The effect is so subtle I thought I was imaging it. So I am rewriting this sub-headline observation with a more concrete example. The effect seems to shave off the peak intensity of highlights, so it may be partly contrast curve issue but it may be an interpolation issue. Capture sharpening and clarity applied to an SPP exported tiff do not recover the slight sub-pixel level blurring introduced by the current SPP algorithm. Below is a example using raw X3f luminance data in comparison to the SPP 6.0.5 output, both images have received the same two-step smart sharpening (55% Radius 0.8, then 52% Radius 0.3) set to lens blur. You can also see in the image below the interpolation issue most clearly on a man-made object.

Some wishlist items:
-Would be nice if Sigma will release a Merrill rendering mode for the Q with both contrast and color matching.
-Would be nice if Sigma fully optimizes SPP to extract every last bit resolution from their raw files.

eronald · « **Reply #296 on:** August 08, 2014, 04:43:57 pm »

Hi

I'm starting to use the Merrill DP3M.
Which version of converter is sharp?
I mean which version number ...
Edmund

Quote from: capital on August 08, 2014, 12:52:19 am

Okay so for those who guessing which is which.

A: DP2M Test Process, yes I tried out the test process on Merrill files to make sure for sanity checking.
B: DP2Q Test Process then downsized nearest neighbor to match Merrill output. As some have noted black pixel artifacts in the test process I think those are actually dead pixels which are not mapped out of the RAW data, and would normally be handled by SPP post processing.
C: DP2M SPP 5.5.3 Output with lowest settings of NR/Sharpening.

Some observations:

-Native SPP contrast curves of DP2Q and DP2M are different but you can attempt to match them.

-Lowest sharpening setting of SPP actually still sharpens Merrill output.

-Shadows of Quattro files have more color, even at base ISO.

-Quattro files seem to have a tad more luminance noise even at base ISO.

-SPP 6.0.5 and earlier introduce a slight sub-pixel level blurring by the current SPP algorithm. The effect is so subtle I thought I was imaging it. So I am rewriting this sub-headline observation with a more concrete example. The effect seems to shave off the peak intensity of highlights, so it may be partly contrast curve issue but it may be an interpolation issue. Capture sharpening and clarity applied to an SPP exported tiff do not recover the slight sub-pixel level blurring introduced by the current SPP algorithm. Below is a example using raw X3f luminance data in comparison to the SPP 6.0.5 output, both images have received the same two-step smart sharpening (55% Radius 0.8, then 52% Radius 0.3) set to lens blur. You can also see in the image below the interpolation issue most clearly on a man-made object.

Some wishlist items:
-Would be nice if Sigma will release a Merrill rendering mode for the Q with both contrast and color matching.
-Would be nice if Sigma fully optimizes SPP to extract every last bit resolution from their raw files.

capital · « **Reply #297 on:** August 08, 2014, 11:07:40 pm »

Hi Edmund,

My endeavors were largely focused on looking at the behavior of Quattro vs Merrill from SPP 6.0.x (Quattro) and SPP 5.5.3 (Merrill).

I did try exporting some Merrill X3Fs from 6.0.4 but did not notice any thing outstanding. I am holding off moving to processing my Merrill files in version 6 of SPP because at present if you save metadata into a Merrill X3F from SPP6 you can't then reopen in SPP 5.5.3.

Different people have different preferences for sharpness settings, but usually backing down to -1 to -2 in SPP 5.5.3 is a good place to start, also turning noise reduction settings to their lowest is also good for maximum detail extraction.

Finally, there is also a dedicated thread to DP3 Experiences in this sub-forum.

eronald · « **Reply #298 on:** August 09, 2014, 04:59:00 am »

Thank you.

Edmund

Quote from: capital on August 08, 2014, 11:07:40 pm

Hi Edmund,

My endeavors were largely focused on looking at the behavior of Quattro vs Merrill from SPP 6.0.x (Quattro) and SPP 5.5.3 (Merrill).

I did try exporting some Merrill X3Fs from 6.0.4 but did not notice any thing outstanding. I am holding off moving to processing my Merrill files in version 6 of SPP because at present if you save metadata into a Merrill X3F from SPP6 you can't then reopen in SPP 5.5.3.

Different people have different preferences for sharpness settings, but usually backing down to -1 to -2 in SPP 5.5.3 is a good place to start, also turning noise reduction settings to their lowest is also good for maximum detail extraction.

Finally, there is also a dedicated thread to DP3 Experiences in this sub-forum.

RobertJ · « **Reply #299 on:** August 09, 2014, 11:59:07 pm »

I've looked at the same DP3 file in 5.5.3 and 6.05 back and forth a million times, and though they are almost identical, it looks like 6.05 is sharper with more details. This is just me using my eyes, so I might be wrong. But for now I will use 6.05. I think it's better. I don't save anything, so I can open all my files in SPP5 and 6.

Author Topic: Sigma DP Quattro (Read 140113 times)