I would like to know wich camera system offer that nice color

[hjulenissen]

Yes, but manufacturers still have the choice between a large amount of combinations. Moreover, we know that the filters are different between manufacturers. It stands to reason that manufacturers use that choice to tweak the rendering of the camera.

There is little doubt that manufacturers (of sensors and/or cameras) can choose different filter characteristics, and that they do.

This does not prove that they do this in order to make colors appear "pleasing" in the sense of saturated colors, bottle-green foliage etc. I'd argue that they don't. Have a look at a non-corrected image file straight from camera, and it is obvious that raw camera response is very far from the consumer-friendly "bigger-than-real-life" colors. Rather, they look washed-out, under-saturated and dull.

More photons will hit the sensors, but the color matrix will need to use large negative coefficients to subtract thee common parts. The net effect is usually more noise for more permissive filters, actually.

If you have no CFA, then you will have a better achromatic camera (see the noise/sensitivity of the CFA-less Leica for instance) but no color information. If you widen the filters, you will have something in-between those extremes.

This has to be traded against the higher expected chrominance noise. Applications may vary, and some people may be mostly interested in b&w photography, or they may be perfectly happy with doing more heavy-handed noise reduction in the color difference channels.

I was discussing the quality of the light, not its quantity. Press photographers, for example, routinely shoot under fluorescent light (think indoor stadium, etc...). With an "accurate" camera everything will turn yellow-green and it will very difficult to get a passable white balance. With a less accurate camera, its colour "blindness" may be tweaked to be adapted to these illuminant. It is quite easy to test, actually: take a portrait under fluorescent light with different cameras and try to correct the white balance. The differences will surprise you.

I use a Colorchecker for my purposes, and I am surprised at _how little_ my camera matters for color in my applications. I can't see if an image was shot with my RX100M2 or my 7D from colors alone. I am very happy about that, as it allows me to select what camera to use based on other criteria (e.g. portability or AF performance).

I do acknowledge that other people may have other uses and expectations than myself.

-h

[Jim Kasson]

Rather, it seems that color filters are selected from a discrete set of substances that may have certain spectral properties, but also certain life-expectancy, light loss, cost, etc. Thus, it might not be only a matter of employing a color scientist to tweak filter numbers in Matlab.

Hey, I thought we agreed to keep this quiet. It's hard enough getting a color science gig as it is.

Jim

[eronald]

Hey, I thought we agreed to keep this quiet. It's hard enough getting a color science gig as it is.

Jim

Yeah, if people knew you didn't have to take Linear Algebra 1xx to get that job, there would probably be failed english majors lining up for each position

I really hate Matlab, and yet every time I need to read in a real-life file rather than just an array of numbers, I have to dig out that horrible thing.

Edmund

[hjulenissen]

I really hate Matlab...

I like Matlab for letting me focus on _what_ instead of _how_. That is compared to other software packages, of course. Someone whose main focus is a white-board might think otherwise.

-h

[eronald]

I like Matlab for letting me focus on _what_ instead of _how_. That is compared to other software packages, of course. Someone whose main focus is a white-board might think otherwise.

-h

I usually do stuff entirely in my head and paper for weeks, the actual proof of concept on computer is then usually a day or two at most.
My advantage is that I can "work" anywhere in any scrap of time.

But I guess the young crowd use the computer instead of paper. I don't know if it's better, but it certainly is a different way of working.

At the moment I'm thinking of simplifying the MTF/SFR measurement stuff of MTF 50 down to rise time. I wrote some Matlab code a year ago (5 lines? ) that reads in a target image and computes the rise time, I need to check it against "real" (ISO) MTF and find out whether in practice there really is a useful relationship ... you got any opinions? I found a paper from some HP folks who defended this point of view.

Edmund

[Gulag]

Out of curiosity, I opened some D800 raw files in C1Pro8 Demo version using both Nikon and IQ 250 Daylight profiles; however, I fail to see any major difference that I expected based on what has mentioned here. Am I missing something? By the way, I use Windows 8.1 with a 10-bit monitor that is calibrated regularly every two weeks.

Image on the left using Nikon D800 Generic V2, and on the right the IQ 250.

at fit screen


at 50%


at 100%

[synn]

Most of the differences I have seen are with skintones as well as with highlight rolloff.
Perhaps, try with a portrait instead?

[EricWHiss]

the red tree top left got more orange and more saturated, and the greens became more yellow

[eronald]

Most of the differences I have seen are with skintones as well as with highlight rolloff.
Perhaps, try with a portrait instead?

Which would be consistent with the 250C profile being a more carefully made and manually edited version of the same profile, or a profile for a very similar chip with a different cover glass / IR filter.
 
I'm not saying that's bad - I guess if you buy a musical instrument you also pay considerably more for it to be handmade and carefully tuned. In fact I used to sell hand-edited portrait profiles for non-Phase cameras

On the other hand, if the only color difference between a D810 and a $30K back is going to be the profile you use in the converter, then Phase are certainly going to have a commercial issue making people pay for the hardware. But we knew that already

One interesting test would be to stack some ND filters and redo a test image on both cameras with and without filters; that might show up the differences in IR contamination and control of IR.

Edmund

[Gulag]

the red tree top left got more orange and more saturated, and the greens became more yellow

Yes,  but very very subtle and it can't be used to hold up the claim that IQ250 is substantially better for D800 raw files. At least that's my observation.

I prefer capture very flat capture so that it can give me tons of room in post.  I set my D800 to use a customized picture control profile similar to the Flat profile of D810 that makes a really flat capture without much contrast for the imbedded jpeg in raw file.  But,  i notice C1Pro 8,  unlike Lightroom,  simply discards that flat jpeg,  which makes my work flow entirely miserable.

[synn]

On the other hand, if the only color difference between a D810 and a $30K back is going to be the profile you use in the converter, then Phase are certainly going to have a commercial issue making people pay for the hardware. But we knew that already

Why do you always twist someone's words to suit your personal agenda? I said the profile makes a difference for D800 files. Never said it compares in any way to a phase file.


Phase is having zero commercial issues getting people to pay for the hardware, as I see them expanding their portfolio, not cutting down. Why is your "Handmade profile business for non phase cameras" not thriving anymore,if you were delivering MF quality at much lesser prices?

[eronald]

Why do you always twist someone's words to suit your personal agenda? I said the profile makes a difference for D800 files. Never said it compares in any way to a phase file.


Phase is having zero commercial issues getting people to pay for the hardware, as I see them expanding their portfolio, not cutting down. Why is your "Handmade profile business for non phase cameras" not thriving anymore,if you were delivering MF quality at much lesser prices?

Synn,

 Let me take your remarks in order. First of all *I* say that the two sets of images above, posted by Gulag,  are reasonably close, indicating the CFAs are close. This is a  *subjective assessment*, by which I concur with an observation made by Gulag and Eric. You have a different opinion? Fine with me - I respect your eyesight. From my assessment, I conclude the CFAs are similar.

 Concerning my profile business, actually at the time I profiled both Leica M8 and Phase sensors, and some Nikons and Canons. The dSLRs were really hit and miss, while the Leicas had CCD sensors very similar to the Phase backs of the time, and I profiled them with some special IR filters, and Leica customers were really happy to get decent images, which they didn't initially get with the C1 bundled profiles, through no fault of Phase's. I had some neutral profiles, which I established experimentally from measurements,  but then I also removed some magenta casts that were causing issues for portraits of caucasian individuals, and manipulated the tone curve a bit to give what I thought was a more filmlike look. At the time I assembled some software that allowed me to concatenate looks into profiles, and quickly create a camera profile that had a desired look; I have no doubt that Phase have some similar tools, as do most color consultants who program.

 Now, actually, if Leica hadn't foobarred the M8 design, the neutral M8 profiles would have coincided with the KAF profiles of Phase backs at the time as the M8 was a Kodak based mini-back AFAIK; in fact the M8 had stellar image quality at low ISO, as it had a good sensor and superb lenses, it just had fewer pixels than a back.  Today history repeats again with the D810 a miniature version of the IQ250C sensor. Why should the D810 be any worse that the IQ250C?

Edmund

[Ken R]

Edmund you are right.

But you (and a few other regulars) keep pounding and pounding on Phase continuously like a meat tenderizer on a slab of meat hoping it will soften up and give in and finally reduce prices to what you and others deem appropriate. This has been going on for years. You guys keep Doug and others busy trying to minimize the damage all this (discussions) might cause on potential phase customers that stumble on forums like this one looking for information.

Might be cool to sometimes take the price out of the discussions and just discuss the photographic capabilities and characteristics of the gear.

I know I know that the price bothers you and others a LOT and you are very disgruntled with Phase (you certainly are entitled to be) but it's getting somewhat tiring to continuously see similar posts over and over.

That said, the D810 seems to have a very different sensor compared to the A7R and the D800/E. I am liking the color much better on that camera from what I have seen posted. But it is still a Nikon 35mm DSLR.

[eronald]

Edmund you are right.

But you (and a few other regulars) keep pounding and pounding on Phase continuously like a meat tenderizer on a slab of meat hoping it will soften up and give in and finally reduce prices to what you and others deem appropriate. This has been going on for years. You guys keep Doug and others busy trying to minimize the damage all this (discussions) might cause on potential phase customers that stumble on forums like this one looking for information.

Might be cool to sometimes take the price out of the discussions and just discuss the photographic capabilities and characteristics of the gear.

I know I know that the price bothers you and others a LOT and you are very disgruntled with Phase (you certainly are entitled to be) but it's getting somewhat tiring to continuously see similar posts over and over.

That said, the D810 seems to have a very different sensor compared to the A7R and the D800/E. I am liking the color much better on that camera from what I have seen posted. But it is still a Nikon 35mm DSLR.

Ken,

 You know, there might be something to what you say, re price. Let's give poor Doug some rest. I've had such a bad day that I can sympathize with his woes

Edmund

[synn]

Edmund,

If you quote one of my posts and add a cheap shot at the end, I will take it as a response to my PoV.

The two images posted above are STILL from the same camera. It in NO WAY Infers that the Nikon (with the IQ 250 profile) delivers the same image quality as the IQ 250. The only thing it proves is that for certain subjects, the improvement offered by that profile over the standard nikon profiles is not apparent. You just keep pulling strawman argument after strawman argument because phase doesn't sell their stuff to you for 10 bucks and because some incompetent dealer screwed you over in 900 BC.

The ONLY way you can make the argument you currently are making is if you have the nikon and the phase and have shot extensively with both. Or at the very least, have raw files from both cameras of the same subjects that you have processed t your heart's content.

I would much rather learn swimming via post than listen to your opinions about equipment you haven't even touched or seen.

[eronald]

Synn,

 As I wrote Ken, I am willing to give Phase and Doug a rest on the business issues, no problem. If I'm being boring, I'm boring..

 As to the image stuff, let's agree to disagree; I think I prefer to discuss these issues with the other geeks.

Edmund

Edmund,

If you quote one of my posts and add a cheap shot at the end, I will take it as a response to my PoV.

The two images posted above are STILL from the same camera. It in NO WAY Infers that the Nikon (with the IQ 250 profile) delivers the same image quality as the IQ 250. The only thing it proves is that for certain subjects, the improvement offered by that profile over the standard nikon profiles is not apparent. You just keep pulling strawman argument after strawman argument because phase doesn't sell their stuff to you for 10 bucks and because some incompetent dealer screwed you over in 900 BC.

The ONLY way you can make the argument you currently are making is if you have the nikon and the phase and have shot extensively with both. Or at the very least, have raw files from both cameras of the same subjects that you have processed t your heart's content.

I would much rather learn swimming via post than listen to your opinions about equipment you haven't even touched or seen.

[Gulag]

Most of the differences I have seen are with skintones as well as with highlight rolloff.
Perhaps, try with a portrait instead?

The image on the left with the D800 Generic v2 profile, the one on the right with the IQ250. I don't know but to my eyes the D800 Generic V2 looks better since it has less reddish skin tone.

1. at screen-fit


2. at 33%


3.at 50%


4.at 100%

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would agree, in this case.

I am not so surprised the IQ-250 profile is usable the D800, as it is applied late in the conversion process.

My understanding is that a colour conversion matrix (sometimes called compromise matrix) is applied to the sensor output to move it into XYZ coordinates and the XYZ coordinates may be mapped into an internal working space using another conversion matrix. Finally an output profile combining matrix operations and LUT (look up table) based tweaks are applied before the image is presented on screen.

So the camera profile is actually applied at late in the process, long after base conversion is done.

Best regards
Erik

The image on the left with the D800 Generic v2 profile, the one on the right with the IQ250. I don't know but to my eyes the D800 Generic V2 looks better since it has less reddish skin tone.

1. at screen-fit


2. at 33%


3.at 50%


4.at 100%

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The image on the left with the D800 Generic v2 profile, the one on the right with the IQ250. I don't know but to my eyes the D800 Generic V2 looks better since it has less reddish skin tone.

Hi,

Just wondering, did you use the same white balance for both renderings, or did you re-adjust WB based on the specific profile choice?

Cheers,
Bart

[araucaria]

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-detailed-spec-sheet-of-the-new-sony-apcs-active-pixel-color-sampling-sensor/

New sony sensor, high frecuency shifting color filter for "true RGB" and 21stops DR @ iso 5120 with global shutter. Seems too good to be truth.