Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Can Stitching 1DsMk3 files = Med Format Quality?  (Read 34928 times)
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2008, 10:10:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wanted to be able to make large prints 30 x 40 or larger with less interpolation
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201371\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I should have mentioned the the output I am looking for will be often going to 5 x 8-feet or larger.
I am occasionally selling images now that are 30-feet wide (usually printed on vinyl).

My clients and I are VERY comfortable with the quality I can get in the 30 x 40-inch range using my 35mm DSLR. But now with my Epson 11880 printer, I am having more clients ask for 5 x 8 foot prints and bigger.

I just want to make sure that I am delivering the best file that is reasonable. I realize that most of my commercial clients won't do as much "pixel peeping" as we might do, but...
Logged

Henry

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

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2008, 10:17:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Henry,
Nothing very scientific in my response I am afraid. 1 and 2 are very subjective and cannot be quantified. All I can say is that for landscapes, I just slightly prefer the 'look' of the ZD files after a minimum of post-processing. As for 3, no I do not think that is a moot point at all. As a landscape shooter, I would prefer to shoot at the sweet point of f8-11 on both systems, unless I needed the DOF and generally the Mamiya lenses look better to me (perhaps not surprisingly as I tend to carry  more Mamiya primes, though the 75-150 Mamiya zoom is excellent).
Logged

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

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2008, 10:27:17 AM »
ReplyReply

They will never be the same because the magnification ratio is different in the two formats which causes the look to be different.  It's that simple unless you are just shooting brick walls  - forget about pixels - these formats will just produce different looks.

The high pixel count DSLR's will not be able to shoot at small apertures due to diffraction.  This means that you can't expect to have a sharp file with large DOF with the 1DsIII no matter what.

The high bit color rendering and greater dynamic range of the MFDB's contribute more over all than you realize.  I absolutely don't buy it that if you printed these files and compared them that at 2 ft you could not see a difference.  The MF files should jump out with better color and look even without considering detail.    

Lastly its obvious to everyone that you are not going to be able to rely on stitching photos to provide a solution for most images.  It's a very limited circumstance where you can stitch.


Hdomke,
If you only look at details you are missing almost all of what MFDB's offer.   Seriously if you can't see the difference then something has gone wrong in your process. It should jump out.

Also might I make a suggestion to the moderators that threads like these be placed in the camera gear and techniques forum instead of the MF forum?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 10:35:21 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2008, 10:32:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Drew,

I do respectfully disagree with you, as much as you do with me!
 

Although I am aware that it might be difficult to get access to the gear for some, it is not an "excuse" or valid reason to rely only on what others suggest, advice or show. Photography in general is a constant learning curve. Digital in particular needs such a serious learning path: others can help you, show you the way, give you hints and ways not to go, but eventually it has to be your choice and entire conviction based on experiences learned under your own conditions. The subjective elements and bias can be eliminated, with a little care, and that's where advices can help you, but not to the point to make you decide based on this advice.

Once you have jumped, understand convinced yourself, the learning curve will just start. It is by no way finished when you have decided to jump. And believe me, if this decision comes from the conclusion that what others have said is true, then it will be a much longer learning curve for you until your gear gives you satisfaction and you may actually be very disappointed.

I am absolutely on your side, when it comes to get advices and ways to go from others, and that's where everybody here is ready to jump in. Nobody says the contrary here.

And of course, disrespect has no place, agreed. If others tell you "do it yourself", it shouldn't be taken as such, IMO.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 10:43:07 AM by thsinar » Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2008, 10:51:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric,
I do appreciate your opinion. I am sorry if I am going over old territory for you, but since I live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, I have only this forum to turn to...

If you could help me understand some of your comments:
"They will never be the same because the magnification ratio is different in the two formats which causes the look to be different."
What magnification ratio are you referring to? Surely not just focal length. Please explain.

"The high pixel count DSLR's will not be able to shoot at small apertures due to diffraction."
I don't believe diffraction is causing an trouble when I shoot at f/13 or f/16. Agreed? I am using Canon's "L" glass. The have MTF charts that look very good.

"The high bit color rendering and greater dynamic range of the MFDB's contribute more over all than you realize."
Can you describe what that might be? Is it more shadow detail, or something else? Also aren't bit-depth and dynamic range "joined at the hip"? One follows the other?  

"I absolutely don't buy it that if you printed these files and compared them that at 2 ft you could not see a difference." I really did to this test. Perhaps you would have used different processing, but I was very careful. I used RAW files (DNG) and processed them in Lightroom. I output them as 16-bit files with ProPhoto color space. I enlarged each to be 10-feet wide in PS using Bicubic Smoother interpolation. I sharpened to taste (the Canon files needed much more sharpening) and then printed identical pieces from each file.

"its obvious to everyone that you are not going to be able to rely on stitching photos to provide a solution for most images."
I understand that is your opinion. You have more experience than I do. I'm trying to learn from your experience. Thank you for tolerating my naive questions.

"suggestion to the moderators that threads like these be placed in the camera gear and techniques forum instead of the MF forum"
But who else besides those who use MF every day can answer these questions??
Thank you for being tolerant of my lack of experience.
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
H1/A75 Guy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 230


« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2008, 10:54:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Yawn:)
Logged
drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2008, 11:30:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Thierry,
No problem.

'Lastly its obvious to everyone that you are not going to be able to rely on stitching photos to provide a solution for most images' No, I disagree. For landscape work, you can rely on it for most images.
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
Joe Behar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2008, 12:19:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nope. Using less enlagement will simply give you more DPI. If you're at the point where an image falls apart because you've enlarged it too much you have a different issue alltogether. A soft image is a soft image...at any size.
Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2008, 12:56:04 PM »
ReplyReply

You also forgot that you're moving the lens to shoot the 1Ds files, but you're not when shooting the single MF file.
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Chris Livsey
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281



« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2008, 01:23:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"The high pixel count DSLR's will not be able to shoot at small apertures due to diffraction."
I don't believe diffraction is causing an trouble when I shoot at f/13 or f/16. Agreed? I am using Canon's "L" glass. The have MTF charts that look very good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The quality of glass will not overcome the basic physics that the Canon will be diffraction limited at f8. Scotty was right you can't change the laws of physics.
No MTF chart is going to change that.
Logged

ATB
Chris Livsey
http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2008, 01:25:11 PM »
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]

if your object is static then I think you shouldn't have a problem getting high resolution shots with your stitched 1ds mk III images.
It's quite simple to gauge, just treat your 1Ds MKIII image as a crop of a H3D2 image and compared a similar crop on your H3D2 image.

As long as the process of stitching the files together doesn't introduce any loss of quality in the files, you can judge the quality of the shot based on the crop of the H3D2 image vs a single 1DS MKIII image with appropriate focal length.

The only problem with the 1DsMKIII is that the image has a different  look to it due to the AA filter. How much of a problem it is for your images depends alot on your personal preference.
Logged
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 13, 2008, 02:09:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the Canon will be diffraction limited at f8
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Chris,
I had to revisit the term "diffraction" and I am not finding that the there is any limit of f/8. Can you send me a reference to that information?

Also, isn't  diffraction measurable, and won't it show up in MTF charts?

In the book "EF Lens Work III" on p. 197 they say this about diffraction:
"A phenomenon in which light waves pass around the edges of an object and enter the shadowed area of that subject, caused because of the wavelike nature of light. Diffraction in a photographic lens is known for causing flare (diffraction flare) which occurs when light rays bend around the edges of the diaphragm. Although diffraction flare tends to appear when the diaphragm is smaller than a certain size, it actually depends not only on the diameter of the diaphragm but also on various factors such as the wavelength of the light, the lens focal length and the aperture ratio. Diffraction flare causes reduction in image contrast and resolution, resulting in a soft image. The laminated diffraction optical elements developed by Canon control the direction of the light by intentionally creating diffraction."
Logged

Henry

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

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2008, 02:57:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
if your object is static then I think you shouldn't have a problem getting high resolution shots with your stitched 1ds mk III images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My subject will for this camera will be landscapes. They are mostly static.

Quote
It's quite simple to gauge, just treat your 1Ds MKIII image as a crop of a H3D2 image and compared a similar crop on your H3D2 image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great idea. I will do that!

Quote
The only problem with the 1DsMKIII is that the image has a different  look to it due to the AA filter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wonder how the anti-alias (AA) filter affects the image. I would guess it would cause softness. Both cameras have IR filters, but only the Canon has an AA filter. I guess  MF camera sensors are less prone to moire and therefore don't require an AA filter?
Logged

Henry

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

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2008, 03:40:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I saw the subject on the main forum list and thought I'd throw in my two cents:

I do mostly panoramic landscape photography and I don't think comparing crops of the two sensors is going to be very useful since you aren't gaining anything by making a couple 1ds frames equal a medium format frame.   It's going to be much less work to just take a single MF shot rather than stitch even if the MF setup is worse than the 35mm setup.

On the other hand if you dramatically increase the amount of detail (the resolution) or increase the width of the image (like a pano format), and print large enough to use the resolution the stitching techniques can far surpass anything from a MF back.   Provided the subject allows it, of course.  If you don't print large enough to use the detail it's not going to make much difference, I'd expect, and stitching a large image can be a lot of work.

As another soapbox item: I find that viewing distance as a limiter of resolution is kind of a cop-out for many comparisons since if the detail is present in the photo people will get closer to inspect it.    I find that even with 3x9 foot images viewers will inspect it at distances of a few inches if something catches their eye.

At wider angles of view stitching really starts to come into it's own and I think lenses are going to have much more of an impact on the image quality than the details of the sensors.   Here a stitched image can dramatically improve overall image quality by allowing longer focal lengths and allowing you to use the best lenses for the subject rather than selecting a lens purely for adequate field of view.   At extremes you could be talking about an MF fish-eye comparing to a lens like the Canon 135 F2 or even a Leica macro.

Of course you can always stitch with medium format and really make a statement!

Anyway, those are my thoughts, jumbled as they may be.
Doug

Jpg reductions of some of my humble efforts --> www.bcpanorama.com
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 03:48:55 PM by DougMorgan » Logged
Chris Livsey
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281



« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2008, 03:52:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: hdomke,Jun 13 2008, 08:09 PM
Chris,
I had to revisit the term "diffraction" and I am not finding that the there is any limit of f/8. Can you send me a reference to that information?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This reference is a model of clarity and is interacive as well  

[a href=\"http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm]http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...photography.htm
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 03:59:07 PM by Chris Livsey » Logged

ATB
Chris Livsey
http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2008, 05:06:18 PM »
ReplyReply

1. "Magnification", "3D view", "better color" are BS, or more politely expressed, the imagination is playing a game with some.

2. Stitching can be completely adequate in some situations, like landscapes.

3. Stitching is not always working with architecture, and perhaps never in studio. Moving subjects are out of the scope in most caswes (when these moving objects are just the main subjects).

4. The dynamic range can be a big issue even there, where the stitching is the best, in landscapes. Although it is possible to capture an even larger dnamic range of the scenery in several frames than an MFDB can capture in one frame, the processing can be extremely laborous. Furthermore nothing help, if the large dynamic range of the scenery can not be separated in frames, except HDR - even more work, less fine result (and today's HDR results are not everyone's taste).

So, when time and effort are non-issue and it is not a problem, when a certain situation can not be solved adequatey, then yes, stitching. However, some can say justifiedly, that they can make several new projects in the time required to process a high-quality stitching.

There is another side of the issue. MFDBs too have limits; what if even a 39Mpix image does not suffice or the angle of view is not large enough? I hear already some: then stitching several MFDB images. Suddenly stitching becomes acceptable. LOL.
Logged

Gabor
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2008, 05:11:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Both cameras have IR filters, but only the Canon has an AA filter

What do you mean with "IR filter"? An IR transmitting filter, replacing the hot mirror? If yes, then there is no AA filter there any more.
Logged

Gabor
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2008, 05:18:09 PM »
ReplyReply

"There is another side of the issue. MFDBs too have limits; what if even a 39Mpix image does not suffice or the angle of view is not large enough? I hear already some: then stitching several MFDB images. Suddenly stitching becomes acceptable. LOL."

Exactly!

And now we have an even bigger file!

Nothing wrong with that!

Cheers,

Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
snickgrr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2008, 05:23:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
3. Stitching is not always working with architecture, and perhaps never in studio.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why can't you stitch in the studio?  I did for years when I was shooting with a 2X3 sensor and didn't want to change the perspective by moving the camera back from the set to get the needed crop room.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2008, 05:30:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why can't you stitch in the studio?  I did for years when I was shooting with a 2X3 sensor and didn't want to change the perspective by moving the camera back from the set to get the needed crop room.
I guess the MFDB owners of this forum wouyld be laughing their heads off comparing what you achieved with what they can achieve by one click.
Logged

Gabor
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad