Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Can Stitching 1DsMk3 files = Med Format Quality?  (Read 34053 times)
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #140 on: June 17, 2008, 04:50:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you mind posting the raw files of your comparisons? (Yousendit is the way to go..)
Logged

Gabor
203
Guest
« Reply #141 on: June 17, 2008, 04:53:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do you mind posting the raw files of your comparisons? (Yousendit is the way to go..)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No I don't mind, I will post them later tonight or tomorrow. Any ideas how, aside from yousendit?

*and like I said, the Canon was further form the tabletop setup, so these files are no good for comparing resolution differences.*

And maybe when I do post them, I'll start another thread, as this one is already all over the map.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2008, 04:54:12 PM by 203 » Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #142 on: June 17, 2008, 05:05:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And maybe when I do post them, I'll start another thread, as this one is already all over the map.
This is a very good idea. And post please those, which you deem the best, most comparable. I suggest you to include a grey/white card as well.

I don't know any better service than yousendit. You don't need to register, as the individual files are under 100MB. You don't even need to use your own email address, use a fictional one both as sender and receiver, and post here the URL.
Logged

Gabor
203
Guest
« Reply #143 on: June 17, 2008, 05:08:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is a very good idea. And post please those, which you deem the best, most comparable. I suggest you to include a grey/white card as well.

I don't know any better service than yousendit. You don't need to register, as the individual files are under 100MB. You don't even need to use your own email address, use a fictional one both as sender and receiver, and post here the URL.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There was no grey card. I was at a dealer for about 45 min total. both cameras shot in "daylight" white balance. So you will have to white balance them yourself.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2008, 05:08:47 PM by 203 » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3968



WWW
« Reply #144 on: June 17, 2008, 05:21:48 PM »
ReplyReply

A point of information: I asked the product manager of Sinar - there is no analog ISO setting at all, the ISO setting in the file is just a datum used afterwards by the software.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #145 on: June 17, 2008, 05:34:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A point of information: I asked the product manager of Sinar - there is no analog ISO setting at all, the ISO setting in the file is just a datum used afterwards by the software.
I brought this surprize at the GetDPI forum. Funny is, that some owners appeared to have been offended by this insinuation, while I would be happy if my camera behaved that way (offering the entire dynamic range in every shot).

However, the software is not up to the proper processing of such images.
Logged

Gabor
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #146 on: June 17, 2008, 05:45:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In short, I was looking for this 14-bit vs 16-bit medium format advantage which is being discussed in this thread and elsewhere on a daily basis. *People say that they have better shadow detail from their MF backs.* I saw no advantage there today.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is a similar debate about bit-depth in high-end audio.
Many audiophiles clamor for greater bit depth because it is theoretically better. They think it sounds better, but they have never tested it. Until a report came out last fall:

“In the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9), …a breakthrough paper that contradicts all previous inputs by the engineering community. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels, conducted over a period of more than a year, that there’s no audible difference between the original CD standard (“Red Book”) and 24-bit/192-kHz PCM or 1-bit/2.8442-MHz DSD.”

In the world of high-end imaging there seems to be a similar acceptance that a higher bit depth file has to be better. It makes sense, so it has to be true right? Bit can you see it in the "real world"?

So far 203 is seeing no difference.
When I did tests with two different MF backs (Hasslblad and Phase One) I could see no difference in shadow detail when compared to the Canon 1Ds Mk3.

Has anyone else out there conducted careful side-by-side comparisons?
Logged

Henry

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

Posts: 3968



WWW
« Reply #147 on: June 17, 2008, 06:13:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is a similar debate about bit-depth in high-end audio.
Many audiophiles clamor for greater bit depth because it is theoretically better. They think it sounds better, but they have never tested it. Until a report came out last fall:

“In the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9), …a breakthrough paper that contradicts all previous inputs by the engineering community. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels, conducted over a period of more than a year, that there’s no audible difference between the original CD standard (“Red Book”) and 24-bit/192-kHz PCM or 1-bit/2.8442-MHz DSD.”

In the world of high-end imaging there seems to be a similar acceptance that a higher bit depth file has to be better. It makes sense, so it has to be true right? Bit can you see it in the "real world"?

So far 203 is seeing no difference.
When I did tests with two different MF backs (Hasslblad and Phase One) I could see no difference in shadow detail when compared to the Canon 1Ds Mk3.

Has anyone else out there conducted careful side-by-side comparisons?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, the guys has a point - but we'll never know because the CFA is different for the backs and for the Canons, and this also has an effect on the color precision.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1129


WWW
« Reply #148 on: June 17, 2008, 06:43:15 PM »
ReplyReply

in the audio world happens exactly the same than in the world of imaging:

higher bit depth is better as long the data has to be edited or changed.
you easily can see that 8 or 12bit data can reach posterization, if smooth gradations are edited strongly.  this happens much later  if the images are 14bit depth.

the same happens with audio data. it has sense to record multitracks in 20 or 24bit depth, as well as the mixdown to stereo or multitracks, before the final mastering step is done.
finally mastered the difference between 16bit 44.1 or 48 khz and 24/96 bit/khz is not very important, the data will be reproduced in most cases nearly linear and the data is deep enough for that in 16bit.

same happens in the photo world. an image which is not more edited ( because its already finished ) wont look better in 16bit than in 8bit on todays printing and monitoring systems. this eventually might change in future with better reproduction systems,- but not today.

but during the production process the bit depth makes a huge difference.
but again: the mf system use only 14bits of image information, as the new 35mm hi-end cameras as well.  two bits are "left "empty", although many dont want to believe this and claim to "see" the difference in 14 bit and ( imaginated ) 16 bit data.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

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

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #149 on: June 17, 2008, 07:02:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
higher bit depth is better as long the data has to be edited or changed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Certainly increasing the exposure by 2-f/stops during RAW conversion is some serious editing.

But you are saying he did not see any difference because the so-called "16-bit" Phase One back is really 14-bits, just like the Canon 1Ds Mk3?
Logged

Henry

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

Posts: 1129


WWW
« Reply #150 on: June 17, 2008, 07:03:03 PM »
ReplyReply

yes and no.
but in any case the bit depth has not much to do with the dynamic range, and this is what you proof in raising up the level for 2 stops and looking in the shadows. you better can proof the bit depth and its influence if you raise up the contrast e.g. of a smooth colorband as a light blue sky ( or skin ) . deeper information will allow you by far more manipulation than lower information depth.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2008, 07:07:46 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

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

Posts: 575


« Reply #151 on: June 17, 2008, 07:15:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
higher bit depth is better as long the data has to be edited or changed.
you easily can see that 8 or 12bit data can reach posterization, if smooth gradations are edited strongly.  this happens much later  if the images are 14bit depth.

during the production process the bit depth makes a huge difference.
but again: the mf system use only 14bits of image information, as the new 35mm hi-end cameras as well.  two bits are "left "empty", although many dont want to believe this and claim to "see" the difference in 14 bit and ( imaginated ) 16 bit data.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The more I look into the matter, the more it seems to me that the only difference can come in the raw conversion process, as there is not much to see in added bit depth beyond DR at the level of the raw data.  I took a 1D3 image, deliberately underexposed by about 6 stops so that the last six bits of its 14-bit raw data cover the range 0-255 and also encode almost all the image data (except for patch of sky on the middle right).  I extracted one of the green channels of  the Bayer array and lopped off those mostly empty highest six bits; I also rounded off the resulting 8-bit data to the nearest 6-bit level (what would have arisen had the 1D3 been a 12-bit camera).  Because the noise is over four levels, it masks any tonal transitions one would think of as being posterized with those last two bits missing...

Here is this green channel raw data bit shifted and encoded as 8-bit grayscale tiffs, both the original and with the last two bits truncated by rounding to the nearest 6-bit level:

[a href=\"http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/dpr/ueIJ8bit.tif]http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...pr/ueIJ8bit.tif[/url]  
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...pr/ueIJ6bit.tif

I find it VERY hard to tell the difference between these two files visually; the histograms do however show that one file has four times fewer levels than the other.  And remember, what you see if you view the files has effectively six stops exposure compensation.  Now, one can do silly things in post-processing to make the bit-truncated data posterize; median filtering does a pretty good job.  I am beginning to think that any perceived issues with 12-bit data, when they are not in the mind of the viewer, are due to shortcomings in raw conversion software and not in the data per se.  It should be possible to add back in random noise (or better yet, a proper dithering algorithm that only affects past the 12th bit) in the additional bits in such a way as to dither away issues in the conversion process so that even extreme edits have no effect.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2008, 07:27:00 PM by ejmartin » Logged

emil
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #152 on: June 17, 2008, 07:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
yes and no.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rainer,
First you say "Yes" then you change your post to say "Yes and No"
Was gibt?

Do these MF backs that say they are 16-bit backs really have 16-bits of usable data, or is it really 14-bit?

If they really are only 14-(effective)bit backs, how can they call themselves 16-bit?
Logged

Henry

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

Posts: 1805


« Reply #153 on: June 17, 2008, 07:51:24 PM »
ReplyReply

In is nonsensical to talk about MFDBs sensors in general. Even the P25+ and P45+ from PhaseOne are different.

Related to the P45+: it is by far not so, that there were only 14 bits there. I created a demo about this; everyone can make his/her own conclusion about the usefulness of these or those bits.

The file is in TIFF format, layered, over 8MB; the layers contain screenshots of raw data displays: 16bit; 14bit; only the low order bit; only the low order two bits.

The P45+ file is from Edmund. I hope he does not mind that I use a small crop of that for this demo. (I guess he still does not believe, that the shot has been underexposed by almost four stops.)

Demo
« Last Edit: June 17, 2008, 07:52:13 PM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #154 on: June 17, 2008, 09:00:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So far 203 is seeing no difference.
When I did tests with two different MF backs (Hasslblad and Phase One) I could see no difference in shadow detail when compared to the Canon 1Ds Mk3.

Has anyone else out there conducted careful side-by-side comparisons?
As I mentioned on page 4 of this thread, I've compared my P45+ against my D3. The only advantages I see with my P45+ is the total number of MPs, and the lack of an AA filter, which together yield crisper, higher resolution images. I see no real advantage to the P45+ on shadow detail retrieval and color fidelity. Specifically, here's what I said:

"In 14-bit mode, the D3 has tremendous ability to pull clean detail out of the shadows without suffering posterization and other artifacts. In that regard, I'd say it's on a par with my P45+. And the D3 actually has a little more highlight headroom than my P45+, so in that sense, the D3 is actually a bit better (tho again, the difference is slight). If the D3 sensor didn't have an AA filter, I'd say the pixel level quality would be a wash."

All that said, the P45+ is always going to be my first choice, because it does have the MP advantage and the lack of an AA filter. Those are still huge advantages, in my opinion, that can't be ignored, and can only be approached, with considerable limitations, using stiching.

This whole business of shadow detail and color has become a red herring, I think, at least when it comes to the latest generation of high end DSLRs (D3, 1DIII and 1DsIII). These new high end DSLRs have true 14-bit, low noise A/Ds, and for all intents and purposes are "just as good" as 16-bit sampling that you find in a MFDB, or at least so close in quality that it's virtually impossible to see the difference.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2008, 09:05:14 PM by Mort54 » Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8877


« Reply #155 on: June 17, 2008, 09:09:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have just done a side-by-side test of the Phase P30+ and the 1Ds3. In my opinion the files look very similar to one anther processed in C1 4.1 in terms of look, sharpness, etc (though the Canon camera was further away than the Phase, so no real resolution test here. And the Phase does show some other very subtle advantages - but these are only seen at major pixel peeping levels.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's almost inconceivable that the P30 would not produce lower shadow noise than the 1Ds3. It not only has a slightly wider pixel pitch and a greater pixel count, but more significantly has a sensor which is double the size of the 1Ds3 sensor.

The question is, just how significant is the lower shadow noise? Unfortunately, because you haven't matched the FoVs of the two shots we can't tell how significant the lower shadow noise is, but it's clear to me that the P30 shot does have noticeably less noise in the comparison you've shown.

When comparing noise, it is essential to compare equal size files of matched FoVs.

Even if the sensors were the same size, it would be necessary to do this. An analogy would be the comparisons that have been made between the Nikon D3 and 1Ds3. Wild claims have been made by some that the D3 has significantly lower noise at high ISO than any other DSLR on the market, including the 1Ds3.

However, when the larger 1Ds3 files are reduced to the same size as the D3 files (a process which results in the discarding of some degree of noise as well as resolution), we find that noise levels are pretty much on a par.

The following image is a screen capture of a crop of your P30 shot reduced in size and superimposed on the 1Ds3 shot. You should be able to see clearly that the P30 image now exhibits less noise.

[attachment=7082:attachment]
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #156 on: June 17, 2008, 09:45:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When comparing noise, it is essential to compare equal size files of matched FoVs.

...

However, when the larger 1Ds3 files are reduced to the same size as the D3 files
No. A pixel is a pixel is a pixel and a digital image consists of pixels, of nothing else.

Have you purchased the 5D to downsize the image, so that it is even better? No-one I know would give many thousand dollars for a camera to regularly make a smaller image in order to make it appear a better camera.

The D3 has the advantage of large pixels vs the 1DsMkIII's small ones. The latter has the advantage of many pixels vs the D3's tiny image. These are trade-offs, which can not be balanced against each other in quality; the photographer's priority determines, what is more important.

Btw, it is not true, that downsizing an image yields the same result as if it had larger pixels.
Logged

Gabor
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8877


« Reply #157 on: June 17, 2008, 09:56:54 PM »
ReplyReply

The audio analogy is interesting because it highlights just how easy it is for people to believe things that are not necessarily true.

I think all of us have a tendency to believe what we want to hear and reject what makes us feel uncomfortable.

Having once attempted a comparison between the Nikon D3 and Canon 5D under less than ideal circumstances, I know how difficult it can be to get everything right. It takes time and painstaking attention to detail as well as an awareness of all the factors that might tip the balance one way or another in favour of one camera or system.

The recent article on LL, 'Do sensors outresolve lenses?' should make it clear why one should not be using the same F stop when comparing images from different size sensors even if they both have a similar pixel count.

I don't believe I've ever seen a proper comparison between 35mm and MFDB of similar pixel count. There's always been some major flaw in the methodology, at least in the comparisons shown on this forum.

Perhaps it's a promotional thing. There's a need to preserve the idea (perhaps myth, who knows?) that a DB pixel is inherently superior to any DSLR pixel of the same pitch or size.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8877


« Reply #158 on: June 17, 2008, 10:32:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No. A pixel is a pixel is a pixel and a digital image consists of pixels, of nothing else.

Have you purchased the 5D to downsize the image, so that it is even better? No-one I know would give many thousand dollars for a camera to regularly make a smaller image in order to make it appear a better camera.

The D3 has the advantage of large pixels vs the 1DsMkIII's small ones. The latter has the advantage of many pixels vs the D3's tiny image. These are trade-offs, which can not be balanced against each other in quality; the photographer's priority determines, what is more important.

Btw, it is not true, that downsizing an image yields the same result as if it had larger pixels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have great difficulty in understanding your point, Gabor. Perhaps this is because you are so immersed in the minutiae of the digital process that you cannot see the woods for the trees.

Photographers are concerned with the final result. The final result is always, without exception, a print of a specific size or an image displayed on a screen of some sorts, at a specific size. You may change the size of the image at will, produce prints at various sizes, view images at different degrees of magnification on monitors of varying resolution, but it makes no sense at all from the point of view of the practising photographer, to compare camera systems by comparing different size images from those systems.

It makes little difference, (as regards noise) when comparing the D3 with the 1Ds3, whether the D3 image is upressed beyond its native resolution to make a large print, or whether the 1Ds3 file is downressed to make a small print, although I would recommend doing both to compare resolution. In both cases the noise will be affected. When the D3 image is interpolated, noise will also be interpolated (increased). When the 1Ds3 image is downsized, noise will also be downsized (reduced).

When comparing camera systems purely for image quality (as opposed to the many other features that might be significant such as weight, ergonomics, frame rate etc) it's absolutely essential to compare same size images of the same FoV.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 05:17:50 AM by Ray » Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #159 on: June 18, 2008, 01:36:57 AM »
ReplyReply

The questions you are all debating about dynamic range and shadow detail have been definitively resolved. All those technical treatises we have been pondering were a waste of time, it's all totally irrelevant.

Real photographers know DR does not matter...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dynamic-range.htm

 

Gotta love the guy!
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad