Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: P45+ Centerfold  (Read 16210 times)
godtfred
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2007, 04:07:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure what you are currently quoting of me but I have never put anything down as the 'truth'. I always say stuff within the context of my own experiences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure I respect and expect that, and I'm sorry if i angered you or pointed a finger, that was not my intention.

I was merely wanting to point out that (as quoted from you below) the "underexposure" cup that is being carried around in relation to Edmunds experiences, is not giving the problem due justice, as its not just Edmunds back, and it's not just underexposed shots.

Again, no offence, and I shold probably not have quoted you previously, just said my piece about underexposure  

-axel

Quote
These are less underexposed than Edmund's examples. The one with the lowest exposure of the ISO400 samples is only about 1 stop under. At least that is what ACR is telling me.

Pushing it towards the point of clipping does show the bag go mildly to magenta & greenish.

I bet when you would underexpose that shot another stop, with which you will come close to Edmunds example, there will be a lot more garbage in the bag.

I am currently downloading your ISO800 examples...

Yikes! The ISO800 examples look horrible. These are going from being exposed right on the point of clipping to being 3/4 of a stop over? Even than there is a lot of Green/magenta rubbish in the darker parts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Axel Bauer
godtfred.com
H2|M679CS|P45+
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372


« Reply #61 on: December 14, 2007, 04:07:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I currently use a Hasselblad CF39 and an Imacon384. I did not do anything special to get one that doesn't stripe of band.

However I do get other stuff when using in certain ways.

I get a blue hotspot on the DigiFlex with the ZF50macro which cannot be resolved according Zeiss.
I get lightrings with the PC85 Nikkor on the Truewide with the A17 something caused by the optics of the lens, cannot be resolved according to Nikon.
I get magenta and green goblins under certain circumstances with indoor lighting and the CF39.
I get magenta blobs when pulling up shadows too far on the CF39 (especially when underexposing but also with exposing ETTR!)
Etc...

Most things can be worked around or fixed in post-processing. I have used several brands of backs and each had specific weird things under specific circumstances. Sometimes annoying but I have simply accepted them as a fact of life (what else can you do?).

@Axel

No offense taken. That quote below your last post was one of my first to Edmunds issues. At that point I was indeed doubtful that the problem was with the back. That changed when Edmund posted more shots and eventually the centerfold part. As you can see I already acknowledged with the ISO800 shots that they were exposed correctly and still showed misery (I think these were your examples?).

Sorry, I have made too many user errors myself. I always first look whether there is an user error instead of looking for broken equipment.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 04:15:30 AM by Dustbak » Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #62 on: December 14, 2007, 04:11:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Which back are you using, Rainer ? How did you get a sample that doesn't band or stripe ?

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i used at first two,5 years before a sinar emotion22 which was a great back without any shadow defects. i added than in mai 2006 one of the first emotion75 which showed very unlinear colors. my friend stefan hess wrote first profiles for this back in his already existin g dng konverter,
 then the colors became better.  centerfold issue showed up soon,- foto-z was  the first one who saw this in an image i had posted in the net in rgalbraight.
i returned the back and got a new one ( which i still use ).
the second back had much better linearity but still centerfold, but no noise or patterns in the dark.
i asked stefan now to think about if he could write a code to remove it ..... after 2 or 3 days he finished the first code ( !!!! ) which already was wrking very good, just needed some fine tuning with more backs ( stefan wrote around 50 updates..... ) . incredible no? he wrote in few days a code where the established companies till today have not been able to deliver one ( in fact all other solutions in the market are just "work-arounds"- cosmetic ). well --- sinar took over this code in their captureshop program and now in exposure. therefor they had very little image damage from this horrible dalsa sensor fault. BTW. it is also caused by too big tolerances of 3% between the different amplifier zones in the chip. i suppose the sensors are cheaper to manufacture with this hi tolerances and software departements in the companies promised to resolve this but ...... some delay... u know.

so .. long story. but in contrary to many others i did not accept  the quality i found and searched for a solution. fortunately i knew stefan and he is really a sotware-star. so i got my own "custom" manufactored soluton ..... later we tweaked the brumbaer tools more and more till the workflow was in a way that it seemed to have some logic for my needs.  not any proramm in the market delivers a workflow which i would name logical and fast,- for the needs of architecture shooting where you need to make many white references to have color free results.
somehow similar than your profile writing but brumbaer tools and so our experience are  freeware. some photographers use them now as you probably know.

i just updated some weeks ago my old emotion22 to a 75lv as well, this back was good out of the box. not 100% as good as my old one but nearly as good- the new one shows this "hair" structure 11 stops down.
both backs have good bright oled display, these displais  are very different,- some are perfect visible in sunlight and some are only usuable for histogram control. seems so that M.R. had one of these bad ones..... fortunately i have two good ones.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 04:24:58 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4206



« Reply #63 on: December 14, 2007, 04:12:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I think a *normally* exposed shot of the plexi or a sheet of paper or wall and a glance at the preview on the back itself actually gives one a good idea of how well the back *hardware* of a Phase back is doing. The software will clean up as much of the mess as it can. I think this trick is the MF equivalent of holding a lens up to the light to see if it is scratched or if the aperture i getting stuck, and maybe used digital camera buyers should adopt it too.

Edmund

Quote
To my surprise as I said before I tried two P30+ and when underexposed they show more striations/bending at ISO 400, ISO 800 than P45+, Other LL members/P30+ owners here can report on their results with underexposed ISO 400/ISO 800 condition/performance.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 04:16:55 AM by eronald » Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 14, 2007, 04:27:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think a *normally* exposed shot of the plexi or a sheet of paper or wall and a glance at the preview on the back itself actually gives one a good idea of how well the back *hardware* of a Phase back is doing. The software will clean up as much of the mess as it can. I think this trick is the MF equivalent of holding a lens up to the light to see if it is scratched or if the aperture i getting stuck, and maybe used digital camera buyers should adopt it too.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

every exposure should look good. some darker, some brighter.
higher isos cause noise. not bandings in any form. not centerfold.
thats the way it has to be with P1 leaf hasselblad and sinar.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 04:28:36 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Caracalla
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 14, 2007, 04:31:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think a *normally* exposed shot of the plexi or a sheet of paper or wall and a glance at the preview on the back itself actually gives one a good idea of how well the back *hardware* of a Phase back is doing. The software will clean up as much of the mess as it can. I think this trick is the MF equivalent of holding a lens up to the light to see if it is scratched or if the aperture i getting stuck, and maybe used digital camera buyers should adopt it too.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree Edmund, that is what I did with plexi card delivered by Phase. However, at that point Lens cast is mostly/all I can see on the preview including the annoying quality/noise of the screen it self >>>This is my experience only with wide angle lenses Schneider Apo-Digitar 5.6/24 mm XL and Rodenstock Apo-Sironar digital HR 4.5/28 mm, No problems with others so far..... <<<
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 04:35:35 AM by Caracalla » Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #66 on: December 14, 2007, 06:30:43 AM »
ReplyReply

the stripes should be there at any iso, just at the darker end. at least with sinar it is in this way. the noise is moving up with higher isos in the same way as if you underexpose a lo iso. so a three stops underexposed iso 400 shows exactly the same noise than a 6 stops underexposed iso 50.

many backs dont do much other things than to level the histograms for the higher isos. file content is the same than underexposed lo iso files,  but with cutted lights and levelled histo.

i attached here a min. 6 stops underexposed iso50 , which equals more or less a correct exposed iso3200 or 6400.  to show the noise floor i raised up the shadows as you can see,- more is not possible.  here remains just noise but no deeper structure and in this way it should look,as i think.
the deep shadows should be at the teoretical limit of the sensor DR, abot 12 stops under.
ofcourse this image could not be used but its not the sense of it, its lowest part of a HDR
so the not-leveled shot is the one which is in use.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 04:53:27 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2007, 06:58:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Here it how it looks like on a P21 ISO 400 Underexposed 3 stops and then pushed:
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2007, 09:29:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This "truth" about underexposure has to stop, I provided ample evidence throught raw files that the histogram before my eyes in the examples I provided on the other thread, showed no underexposure, and where just short of clipping to the right. Yet the images still had visible artefacts in the dark parts of the images, even at ISO 400 (one stop short of the P45+ max iso range.) It does not show a lot, but it shows if your eye is tuned into what it should look for.

The fact that Panopeeper and others could find ample underexposure if using other software that the one supplied from the manufacturer should in this case not be of any significance.

It is significant, in that the manufacturer's software is defective if it forces you to underexpose several stops to avoid clipping with that software. I thought losing a stop of DR using Canon's camera JPEGs was bad, but what the back software seems to be doing is throwing away 2-3 stops of sensor data and forcing you to underexpose, which means you're seeing far higher noise levels, more artifacts such as striations and banding, and throwing away significant highlight detail that is actually present in the RAW data.
Logged

david.westphal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #69 on: December 14, 2007, 09:44:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I had this centerfold issue.  I spoke directly to a Phase One person at the NYC PDN show last October.  The issue was resolved immediately with the installation of the c1pro version 3.7.8.  Aparantly, this version is shipping now with the + backs.  The phase one person informed me that this update had one fix.  It was to fix this issue.  So, I would suggest that you contact your phase one dealer and request this latest version:  CaptureOnePRO_378b_3130.dmg
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4206



« Reply #70 on: December 14, 2007, 02:26:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey, Rainer, with Sinar the stripes are the other way from Phase - across rather than along !

Edmund

Quote
the stripes should be there at any iso, just at the darker end. at least with sinar it is in this way. the noise is moving up with higher isos in the same way as if you underexpose a lo iso. so a three stops underexposed iso 400 shows exactly the same noise than a 6 stops underexposed iso 50.

many backs dont do much other things than to level the histograms for the higher isos. file content is the same than underexposed lo iso files,  but with cutted lights and levelled histo.

i attached here a min. 6 stops underexposed iso50 , which equals more or less a correct exposed iso3200 or 6400.
[attachment=4242:attachment][attachment=4243:attachment][attachment=4244:attachm
ent][attachment=4245:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #71 on: December 14, 2007, 03:50:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hey, Rainer, with Sinar the stripes are the other way from Phase - across rather than along !

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
what you see here is around 11 till 12 stops under. absolute unvisible in any photo.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad