Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Can Stitching 1DsMk3 files = Med Format Quality?  (Read 32344 times)
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


WWW
« on: June 13, 2008, 08:04:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I recently did a side-by-side comparison of the Hasselblad H3D2 with 39 MP back and my Canon 1DsMk3.
I took each file of the exact same shot and enlarged them to be 10-feet wide.
I then printed a 40-inch wide piece from the center of each images and compared them.
The Hasselblad was clearly sharper when viewed from 10-inches away. From 2 feet or further I could see no difference.

Still, I would like that kind of quality. Is it reasonable to expect that I could get that by stitching three of my Canon files into one? (see attached picture).

Shouldn't they be equivalent?
Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome.
[attachment=7030:attachment]
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
Joe Behar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2008, 08:27:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Hasselblad was clearly sharper when viewed from 10-inches away. From 2 feet or further I could see no difference.

Still, I would like that kind of quality. ]


Putting 3 unsharp files side by side will make them sharper?
Logged
drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2008, 08:27:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I recently did a side-by-side comparison of the Hasselblad H3D2 with 39 MP back and my Canon 1DsMk3.
I took each file of the exact same shot and enlarged them to be 10-feet wide.
I then printed a 40-inch wide piece from the center of each images and compared them.
The Hasselblad was clearly sharper when viewed from 10-inches away. From 2 feet or further I could see no difference.

Still, I would like that kind of quality. Is it reasonable to expect that I could get that by stitching three of my Canon files into one? (see attached picture).

Shouldn't they be equivalent?
Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome.
[attachment=7030:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You raise an interesting, but not original question. I have both the 1DS MKIII and the Mamiya 645 AFDII/ZD and I frequently stitch (using PTGui) in exactly the way that you suggest. Both devices are capable of producing very high quality files in this way and for me, it is no longer really about resolution as I can get as much as I need these days using precisely these methods. Stitching is also often a good solution to optical issues, particularly for ultrawideangle type shots, though of course your subject does have to be largely static, so it is no surprise that the really high end MFDB are to be found in the studio or on fashion shoots. If you are having difficulty deciding which to invest in, you need to consider other factors as well. For me, the ZD back does give a more 3D type image, probably due to the slightly narrower focusing differential of the larger sensor (I do not want to encourage a technical debate on this, except to say that I see it empirically). Also, when properly processed, I slightly prefer the overall colour rendering from the ZD. Also, the Mamiya lenses show more uniform illumination and sharpness at the wide end. This is actually an advantage when stitching. If the subject matter is purely landscape, I would generally prefer the Mamiya, but the Canon is superbly versatile and much, much faster and less hassle to use in all situations.
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
Snook
Guest
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2008, 08:44:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You raise an interesting, but not original question. I have both the 1DS MKIII and the Mamiya 645 AFDII/ZD and I frequently stitch (using PTGui) in exactly the way that you suggest. Both devices are capable of producing very high quality files in this way and for me, it is no longer really about resolution as I can get as much as I need these days using precisely these methods. Stitching is also often a good solution to optical issues, particularly for ultrawideangle type shots, though of course your subject does have to be largely static, so it is no surprise that the really high end MFDB are to be found in the studio or on fashion shoots. If you are having difficulty deciding which to invest in, you need to consider other factors as well. For me, the ZD back does give a more 3D type image, probably due to the slightly narrower focusing differential of the larger sensor (I do not want to encourage a technical debate on this, except to say that I see it empirically). Also, when properly processed, I slightly prefer the overall colour rendering from the ZD. Also, the Mamiya lenses show more uniform illumination and sharpness at the wide end. This is actually an advantage when stitching. If the subject matter is purely landscape, I would generally prefer the Mamiya, but the Canon is superbly versatile and much, much faster and less hassle to use in all situations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you all forgetting dynamic range...?? Still won't be 16 bit
Snook
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2008, 08:44:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I also have a DB (P25) + 1Ds and have done stitching with both and have to agree with the above posts. Stitching canon files won't give you a DB file, just a huge 35mm file, which of course might be enough, just don't expect the same file quality.
Logged
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2008, 08:50:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you all forgetting dynamic range...?? Still won't be 16 bit
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know that the Hasselblad is 16-bit and the Canon is 14-bit.
But what does that mean in the real world?
Better shadow detail?

When i look at the two images I created side-by-side I can see no differences other than fine detail. Tell me what to look for. If I can't see it, I'm not buying it.

Thanks!
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2008, 08:53:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I also have a DB (P25) + 1Ds and have done stitching with both and have to agree with the above posts. Stitching canon files won't give you a DB file, just a huge 35mm file, which of course might be enough, just don't expect the same file quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In what way won't the file be a DB file?
Tell me what to look for.
I am from Missouri. We pride ourselves in being the "Show Me" state.
I need to see the difference.
Please educate me about what exactly I need to look for.
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2008, 08:54:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I know that the Hasselblad is 16-bit and the Canon is 14-bit.
But what does that mean in the real world?
Better shadow detail?

When i look at the two images I created side-by-side I can see no differences other than fine detail. Tell me what to look for. If I can't see it, I'm not buying it.

Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I agree with you. I think the ZD back is also a 14 bit device, so not all the backs are 16 bit, but so what? Show me a shot that could only have been done or is convincingly better quality with a 16 bit device.
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2008, 08:56:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Putting 3 unsharp files side by side will make them sharper?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, but using less enlargement will be sharper.
All files will appear soft if they are enlarged enough.
If I take three 35mm files and stitch them, I won't have to enlarge them as much to equal the MF equivalent. Hence they would appear sharper. Yes?
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2008, 09:03:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you all forgetting dynamic range...?? Still won't be 16 bit
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly. You can stitch to get an increase in resolution (for stationary scenes), but the colour and DR will still be Canon.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
JDG
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2008, 09:08:02 AM »
ReplyReply

12 bit:   4,096 shades of grey per channel.
14 bit: 16,384 shades of grey per channel.
16 bit: 65,536 shades of grey per channel.

16 bit will lend itself to greater shadow detail, more accurate color capture, smother tonal transitions, etc, etc.
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2008, 09:10:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In what way won't the file be a DB file?
Tell me what to look for.
I am from Missouri. We pride ourselves in being the "Show Me" state.
I need to see the difference.
Please educate me about what exactly I need to look for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe you should move to the "Do it yourself and stop pestering others to convince you" state  Seriously though, I'm just not very interested in convincing ppl to see it my way. I can tell you however that I see a huge difference in detail and dynamic range, which is particularly evident if you work the files a lot in post production. If you don't see it then just stick with 35mm.. it's as simple as that really.
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2008, 09:15:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe you should move to the "Do it yourself and stop pestering others to convince you" state
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2008, 09:20:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe you should move to the "Do it yourself and stop pestering others to convince you" state  Seriously though, I'm just not very interested in convincing ppl to see it my way. I can tell you however that I see a huge difference in detail and dynamic range, which is particularly evident if you work the files a lot in post production. If you don't see it then just stick with 35mm.. it's as simple as that really.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, it is as simple as that of course, but your assertion that there is a huge difference is overblowing it and simply contributing to an impression (which may be unintended) of an elite/needing to justify my investment mentality, which is not helped by the 'just stick with 35mm' cheap shot.
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2008, 09:29:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Here we are again. I still don't understand, when some here have been kind enough to give an answer to the OP and some clues in what there "might be" a difference, where to look for these differences, which are the advantages, etc ..., why one cannot simply take a camera and do some shots to convince oneself or not, instead putting simply all and everything said in doubt. I guess nobody needs another thread with 200 + times somebody saying "prove it to me, up to now there is no clue".

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Well, it is as simple as that of course, but your assertion that there is a huge difference is overblowing it and simply contributing to an impression (which may be unintended) of an elite/needing to justify my investment mentality, which is not helped by the 'just stick with 35mm' cheap shot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2008, 09:35:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here we are again. I still don't understand, when some here have been kind enough to give an answer to the OP and some clues in what there "might be" a difference, where to look for these differences, which are the advantages, etc ..., why one cannot simply take a camera and do some shots to convince oneself or not, instead putting simply all and everything said in doubt. I guess nobody needs another thread with 200 + times somebody saying "prove it to me, up to now there is no clue".

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thierry,
I am sure I would not be alone in seeing some condescension in the post that I commented on. Also, I have offered that exact kindness at the start of the thread.
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2008, 09:47:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the ZD back does give a more 3D type image, probably due to the slightly narrower focusing differential of the larger sensor... I slightly prefer the overall colour rendering from the ZD. Also, the Mamiya lenses show more uniform illumination and sharpness at the wide end
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Those are three interesting specific ideas. Let me make sure I understand them:
1. "3D type image, probably due to the slightly narrower focusing differential"
Does that refer to the depth of focus issues of larger formats? When shooting MF at f/16 is really looks like f/8 on 35mm, hence more out-of-focus background and greater sense of depth?

2. "prefer the overall colour rendering"
Isn't this something easily adjusted in PS, or is it something else?

3. "lenses show more uniform illumination and sharpness at the wide end"
Of course, for landscape work (all I would be using it for) I would tend to shoot at f/11 or f/16. At those apertures, this becomes a moot point, yes?

Thanks for being specific!
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1416


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2008, 09:58:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Henry,

What you are describing is what I have done for the past 5/6 years, mainly with the Zoerk adapter with various 35mm digial bodies.  Your point is well taken and I would agree with you that in regards to overal resolution, yes, you can get close.   If you allow for the 20% overlap, you are looking at around a 53mp image from a MKIII.  Zoerk will allow you to shift 20mm to each side and use various medium format glass, Mamiya, Hassy, Pentax.  I mainly used the Pentax 35mm FA on my Canon bodies.   If you just pan by setting nodal points you may even get a greater number of usable pixels.   Three portrait across the sensor stitches to make up a Landscape orientation print and three landscape up and down stitches to make up a Portrait orientation print.   The Zoerk will allow you to move the body and not the lens which makes for some very easy combinations.  

It's all dependent on what your clients are looking for/what their predisposed ideas are.  I wanted to be able to make large prints 30 x 40 or larger with less interpolation not as much create panorama type prints.   For inkjet output this method can produce some very nice images.

With the newer software tools out there for stitching the overall workflow has gotten much better.  Just using CS3's photo merge will many times handle the combination work.  

Paul C
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2008, 10:00:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Drew,

I honestly do not see this as an "elitist" or "condescension" issue. The vast majority of the members here are ready to speak about the differences they see and have experienced. But they are certainly not ready to try to convince others and starting arguments: that is where all will say "stop" and "test it yourself".

If one is ready to spend such an amount of money to invest in such a MF system, then it is my opinion that one should also be ready to test this system seriously. And there is only one way to test, it is the do-it-yourself way. One will learn much more this way and able to take conclusions and understand (or not), then approve or (or disapprove) much more easily than asking others to show clues and proves. One should make one's own opinion, based on one's own experiences: some points may be irrelevant to some people.

Also, for some the differences suggested here and elsewhere so many times are obvious and do not need to be proven, for them. Working and looking at thousands of files during many years makes this understanding and conviction having some ground. But I have seen as well the contrary, which leads to make it obvious that there are different types of "seeing" and judging.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Thierry,
I am sure I would not be alone in seeing some condescension in the post that I commented on. Also, I have offered that exact kindness at the start of the thread.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2008, 10:10:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Drew,

I honestly do not see this as an "elitist" or "condescension" issue. The vast majority of the members here are ready to speak about the differences they see and have experienced. But they are certainly not ready to try to convince others and starting arguments: that is where all will say "stop" and "test it yourself".

If one is ready to spend such an amount of money to invest in such a MF system, then it is my opinion that one should also be ready to test this system seriously. And there is only one way to test, it is the do-it-yourself way. One will learn much more this way and able to take conclusions and understand (or not), then approve or (or disapprove) much more easily than asking others to show clues and proves. One should make one's own opinion, based on one's own experiences: some points may be irrelevant to some people.

Also, for some the differences suggested here and elsewhere so many times are obvious and do not need to be proven, for them. Working and looking at thousands of files during many years makes this understanding and conviction having some ground. But I have seen as well the contrary, which leads to make it obvious that there are different types of "seeing" and judging.

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thierry,
I do not really agree with what you say on the need to do your own testing. Life is too short, not all of us have access to the equipment that needs to be tested in this way and so on. Also, there are the strong subjective elements to any such testing and all kinds of bias can be introduced. No, asking for the advice of other is a good way to short cut this, though that in itself is not infallible. In offering the advice we should be careful not to disrespect the person asking. After all 'Seriously though, I'm just not very interested in convincing ppl to see it my way' could be answered by 'well if it is so beneath you, don't bother to post a reply....it is as simple as that really
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad