Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RAW files: 1Ds3 and Phase P30+  (Read 71769 times)
G_Allen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2008, 11:18:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just out of curiosity, do any of these look "3-D"?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Really, really nice images. Congrats. I wish I had a studio with light like that!
Logged

GREGORY ALLEN
PLASTICIMAGE.COM
203
Guest
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2008, 11:45:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Snook and Gregory.

The second image is just daylight from camera left, in my studio - the blue highlights from the blue sky. I think there was light also coming in from another window and bouncing off a beige wall, creating the highlight on her back. (all of these images are 100% daylight, with a mirror & blue gel for the highlights in the third image.)

We actually had some incredible light last week, when the rays were periodically glancing off the Empire State building and into my space. I like daylight for the randomness. What you see behind the model (above her head) in the below image is some light which was randomly bouncing off of parked cars across the street (we were shooting in a hotel.) Someone asked me if I wanted them to block the reflections, and I said, certainly not. The reflections came and went in different formations throughout the day, making each picture a little different.


And yes, the model in the second image in the previous post is African. She was a runner, training for the olympics when a scout from Ford Models saw her picture in the paper, and that was the end of her running career ;-)

http://nymag.com/fashion/models/anasanyana/ajumanasanyana/
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 12:10:55 PM by 203 » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2008, 12:57:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
I would have had to see the shots next to each other.

The so called 3D effect is caused by MANY factors.

Being:
1. Light/shadows
2. Pose/placement
3. DOF
4. Contrast

A lot of these can be achieved with any camera that is of good quality.
I have made some nice 3D looking shots with a 10D.

What I find however is that when I compare two identical shots next to each other the MF shot gives me more sense of 3D.
When you look again at the two samples, the lizzard is more loose of the background than in the other shot, also the stones are more rounded on that same shot, and the red apple looks rounder than on the other shot.

Again, you can get stunning results with all cameras if you control the scene, but make the same shot with a DSLR and a MFDB and somehow the difference is seen in most cases for me.

I think it's mostly due to the better quality of the pixels (higher dynamic range, no filtering etc.).

What I like further about MF is the compression of the longer lenses vs DOF they give, it just is a different look.

But we can talk ages about it, some people see it some don't.
I have a background in Home Theater and Calibrations (lots of them) and there are people that don't see a difference between a $1000.00 projector 720P and a $6000.00 projector 1080P with 1080P source material.
While for me it's day and night.
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2008, 01:10:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks Snook and Gregory.

The second image is just daylight from camera left, in my studio - the blue highlights from the blue sky. I think there was light also coming in from another window and bouncing off a beige wall, creating the highlight on her back. (all of these images are 100% daylight, with a mirror & blue gel for the highlights in the third image.)

We actually had some incredible light last week, when the rays were periodically glancing off the Empire State building and into my space. I like daylight for the randomness. What you see behind the model (above her head) in the below image is some light which was randomly bouncing off of parked cars across the street (we were shooting in a hotel.) Someone asked me if I wanted them to block the reflections, and I said, certainly not. The reflections came and went in different formations throughout the day, making each picture a little different.
And yes, the model in the second image in the previous post is African. She was a runner, training for the olympics when a scout from Ford Models saw her picture in the paper, and that was the end of her running career ;-)

http://nymag.com/fashion/models/anasanyana/ajumanasanyana/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202593\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
203 Thanks for the information..
The girl is VERY beautiful. Photographically speaking to me..:+}
Nice Daylight..
I have not shot Daylight in years..
Actually Have shot much since Digital because I have always been un happy with the results and usually I am doing so many pictures per day that it is impossible to have the light run out..
I can imagine that you have a very short window for shooting and tripod a must..?

Nice shot's...
You mind me asking the shot of the girl.. what camera lens and what speend and aperture more or less... what you developing in etc..
Sorry I just really like it and it inspires me to start shooting more daylight..:+}
Thanks
*Snook
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #44 on: June 20, 2008, 01:37:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
when I compare two identical shots next to each other the MF shot gives me more sense of 3D
You listed just above the "reasons" for the 3D effect, none of which is partticular characteristic of MFDBs. So, there must be something else.

Quote
When you look again at the two samples, the lizzard is more loose of the background than in the other shot, also the stones are more rounded on that same shot, and the red apple looks rounder than on the other shot
I wonder how (at which zooming) you are looking at them. I find the size difference in pixels very important in the overall effect.

In order to be comparable, not the field of views should be the same but the size of the objects in pixels. Then the larger image should be cropped to the size of the smaller one, and then it becomes reasonable to compare the effect.

Quote
I think it's mostly due to the better quality of the pixels (higher dynamic range, no filtering etc.)
The lack of filtering contributes to the sharpness, but that plays no role in the present case.

However, mentioning the dynamic range in this context is particularly interesting: the P45+ image (the second one, on the H2) is wrecked. Its dynamic range is less than that of the 1DsMkIII, so I wonder what you are seeing there.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 01:39:52 PM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 20, 2008, 01:56:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know what other people see, but when I look at the shots, the MFDB shot just looks more real to me.

But again forums are written about this effect and NO-ONE ever has given a 100% answer.
I only know what I see, and trust me I don't have money to burn and for what I normally do a 1DsII is more than enough

I made the switch to MF because the pictures looked more real for me.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2008, 02:17:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know what other people see, but when I look at the shots, the MFDB shot just looks more real to me
I did not doubt that; I am looking for a plausible explanation.

My own explanation is, that it is the large field of view, coupled with minimal rectilinear distortion. The same field of view can be achieved on DSLRs only with much shorter lenses, which are everything but stellar. Therefor, photogs with DSLRs use lenses with smaller angle of view to achieve the same field of view, which means taking a farther position, i.e. the perspective changes.

In other words, the wide angle of view with MFDBs allows you to shoot from "the middle of the scenery".
Logged

Gabor
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2008, 02:28:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Could be, I tried to explain it to myself many times but I don't have a 100% answer.
The only thing I know that when I compare the MFDB shots with my own 5D the 5D seems to be flat.

In the beginning I did some test setups with three bottles in different distances and there the difference was obvious for me (I searched for the photo but can not find it anymore  )
Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2008, 03:40:34 PM »
ReplyReply

re:
"....I would have had to see the shots next to each other...."

So you can only see this effect if the image is next to another image?

Quote
Could be, I tried to explain it to myself many times but I don't have a 100% answer.
The only thing I know that when I compare the MFDB shots with my own 5D the 5D seems to be flat.

In the beginning I did some test setups with three bottles in different distances and there the difference was obvious for me (I searched for the photo but can not find it anymore  )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is why I asked you to comment on the series of JPEGs I posted, as they are taken with a variety of cameras/lenses. Care to comment on the "3D"ness of each of them?
Anyone else?
Also, as you can see there is a 4x5 thrown in there. That should look more 3D than the rest for sure, right?
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 03:40:57 PM by 203 » Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2008, 04:01:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Snook, you should reaqaint yourself with shooting daylight. It's great. While the light changes throughout the day, as long as you have enough windows you should be fine. I just shot a catalog, all daylight, and we were shooting between around 11:00 am until 5 or 6 pm each day, with no problem at all - see two samples from that shoot below.

Of course you need a tripod, and sometimes shift the ISO around.
There are so many dudes shooting with the same studio lighting look (Profotos, bla bla bla) that using the available light in the studio can make your work stand out a bit.

Plus it's free, and you don't have to lift anything ;-) I say this jokingly, but you can imagine how free it felt when I went to Paris to shoot in April with JUST CAMERAS. No 80 lbs. of strobe stuff. And the pictures end up looking nicer, IMO.

It's more with less.

last week's daylight cashmere catalog:
the one with the bow tie:
1/50s f/5.0 at 85.0mm iso200

the other one:
1/100s f/3.5 at 85.0mm iso400
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 04:19:50 PM by 203 » Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2008, 04:13:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Snook, you should reaqaint yourself with shooting daylight. It's great. While the light changes throughout the day, as long as you have enough windows you should be fine. I just shot a catalog, all daylight, and we were shooting betwen around 11:00 am until 5 or 6 pm each day, with no problem at all. Of course you need a tripod, and sometimes shift the ISO around.
There are so many dudes shooting with the same studio lighting look (Profotos, bla bla bla) that using the available light in the studio can make your work stand out a bit.

Plus it's free, and you don't have to lift anything ;-) I say this jokingly, but you can imagine how free it felt when I went to Paris to shoot in April with JUST CAMERAS. No 80 lbs. of strobe stuff. And the pictures end up looking nicer, IMO.

It's more with less.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for you info and I will try to shoot more..:+}
What speeds and apertures are usually using during the day...
You getting a lot of light?
I shot a catalogue a while back and I suffered trying to maintain the quality all day and towards the end I was really stressing b/c the light was falling off fast and did not want to have just 2 shots daylight simulated with flash.. quite a pain and never looks the same....:+]
I was using the 1DsMII with speeds around iso 200 to 320 anywhere from 30/th to 125/th f 4. to f5.6 and a lot of the images were soft.
Of course  it is hard form me still to see a 100% view of a flashed image and a daylight image.. the daylight always looks soft...
I keep forgetting back in the film days we never looked at the images at 100% in computers so maybe that is where I get confused..:+]

You know what I mean.
For example your image of the daylight at 100-200% viewing.. do they lok kind of soft compared to your studio flashed shot's...?
Or is it a problem that I am having..?
Thanks
a lot and maybe I should start a different thread  not to bombard this one...
Snook
Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2008, 04:31:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You know what I mean.
For example your image of the daylight at 100-200% viewing.. do they lok kind of soft compared to your studio flashed shot's...?
Or is it a problem that I am having..?
Thanks
a lot and maybe I should start a different thread  not to bombard this one...
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dude, looking at images at 200% is nonsense in my book. If I want to see how an image will look in print, I look at 50%. When my clients are breathing down my neck in the studio wanting to see details, I zoom in to 50%.

Sure, strobe stuff usually looks sharper than daylight stuff at 100%, but does that mean it looks better? No. (for example, I find a lot of that stuff in the Recent Works thread looks like *someone sharpened the shit out of it.*)
 
Ok, the last image I am going to post for a while is below.
1/15s f/2.2 at 50.0mm iso200

It's obviously not very sharp, the girl is moving, the dress is moving, and the clients LOVED IT. And they didn't ask me for blur either.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 04:35:37 PM by 203 » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #52 on: June 21, 2008, 12:04:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In order to be comparable, not the field of views should be the same but the size of the objects in pixels. Then the larger image should be cropped to the size of the smaller one, and then it becomes reasonable to compare the effect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Surely it depends on what you are trying to compare, Gabor. Most photographers are concerned with the appearance of the final print (or image on display monitor); is it sharp and vibrant; does the file have enough resolution to blow up large; is there good detail in the shadows or, is there objectionable noise in the shadows; is the tonality smooth and natural etc?

If these are your concerns, then it's essential to compare images with the same FoV since the FoV is central to the composition. Also, if the sensor is a different size then it's essential to adjust f stop to achieve equal DoF in both images because degree of DoF is also central to the composition. Choice of f stop also affects resolution.

However, there are good reasons to compare 'pixel for pixel' performance and that certainly can be useful information to have. For example, if both my longest lenses for MFDB and 35mm were 300mm, I might want to know whether I should use a 1Ds3 or a P45+ for a particular shot, if the composition required a 35mm size and aspect ratio.

In other words, will the P45+ image with 300mm lens, after cropping to the same FoV as the 1Ds3 shot with 300mm lens, be better quality? In order to predict which is likely to be better, I need to compare 'pixel for pixel' quality, as well as lens quality.

I would suggest that most photographers try to maximise the benefits of their sensor 'real estate' and choose a lens and perspective which result in the least amount of cropping.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #53 on: June 21, 2008, 01:44:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Having now had some time to examine #203's P30/1Ds3 images, I see no significant differences in over all quality between the two files, that matter to me.

At 200% magnification on my monitor, the P30 has the edge regarding clarity of text at the point of focus. The fact that the red apple in the P30 shot has a more solid red (should we describe that as a 'fat' red?) is an effect which one could no doubt achieve in the 1Ds3 image after a bit of selective manipulation in PS.

[attachment=7136:attachment]

After grey-balancing the two images, the magenta cast in the P30 shadows has been dispelled, only to be replaced by a strong cyan cast in the very deepest shadows. That's not a problem in this image because it's only apparent after the shadows have been lightened to an extreme and unnatural degree, but it's a curious effect and might be entirely due to the way ACR handles P30 files.

[attachment=7138:attachment]

The fact that the same f stop has been used in both these images is a flaw in the methodology. In these two shots from #203, an attempt has been made to match horizontal FoVs rather than vertical FoVs. The sensor dimensions along the horizontal axis differ by a factor of 1.33 and so should the f stops used. In other words, in this comparison, F6.3 should have been used with the 1Ds3. It does make a difference. Parts of the image which are nearest to the camera are noticeably sharper in the 1Ds3 image, as you can see from the following 100% crop showing roughly equal shadow noise but superior 1Ds3 resolution.

[attachment=7137:attachment]

The sameness of f stops used also raises a doubt about the slightly greater resolution of the P30 at the point of focus. Would the difference have been even narrower if the 1Ds3 had been used at F6.3 instead of F8? Most 'good' 35mm lenses tend to be sharpest somewhere between F5.6 and F8.
Logged
ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #54 on: June 21, 2008, 11:18:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Having now had some time to examine #203's P30/1Ds3 images, I see no significant differences in over all quality between the two files, that matter to me.

At 200% magnification on my monitor, the P30 has the edge regarding clarity of text at the point of focus. The fact that the red apple in the P30 shot has a more solid red (should we describe that as a 'fat' red?) is an effect which one could no doubt achieve in the 1Ds3 image after a bit of selective manipulation in PS.

[attachment=7136:attachment]


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What's with the zipper artifacts on the 1Ds3 image on the blue-yellow border below "Ready-Mop"?   Kind of nasty, but more likely an issue with the raw converter than the raw file itself.

The P30 looks to have indeed regarding sharpness, but also has significant jaggies; both it would seem can be attributed to the lack of AA filter.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2008, 11:22:23 AM by ejmartin » Logged

emil
Ignatz_Mouse
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #55 on: June 21, 2008, 12:08:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I usually see a slightly pronounced "3D effect" in my Leica DMR files than in those ones taken with my Canons but I think that the reason of this is no other than the lack of AA filter of the digital back and the higher contrast and smooth tone and color rendition of the Leica glass. Same for a lot of shots taken with the M8. Anyway, I agree with Frank Dorhoof about the factors that really plays a definitive role in this question and that you can get that 3D effect with almost any good quality camera if the conditions of the shot are the adequate ones.
Logged
reissme
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #56 on: June 21, 2008, 12:11:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just out of curiosity, do any of these look "3-D"?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great "3-D" look, I like them.
Good photographers don't need to spend $30000 to get that "3-D look".
Flexibility, clean high ISO, ease, great sharp L zoom lenses, WIFI shooting - all in the 1DSMIII, makes the difference. words does not replace great shots.
Menachem Reiss,    www.reiss.co.il
Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #57 on: June 21, 2008, 12:27:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You mind me asking the shot of the girl.. what camera lens and what speend and aperture more or less... what you developing in etc..
Sorry I just really like it and it inspires me to start shooting more daylight..:+}
Thanks
*Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey Snook, I can give you the info next week when I am back at the studio. I do not recall the details off hand, and I am out in the country now...
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 21, 2008, 12:36:24 PM »
ReplyReply

@reissme,
I never said you need $30,000 to get the 3D effect.
On the conturary I say it's debit to MANY other factors, however......

What I do know for 100% is that if you photograph the same scene with a DSLR and with a MFDB the MFDB will have MORE of that 3D effect.

I think that most is debit in the higher dynamic range and cleaner pixels.
Interpixel contrast is very important for 3D looks in hometheater, as is blacklevel (although those two are related).

You can do the test quite easily.
Take your best 3D looking shot and make a curve adjustment where you lift the center part, you will see that the 3D effect slowly goes away.
Same happens when you pull up your blacks (no real black anymore).

This is one of the reasons why in projectors I waited a LONG time to switch from a CRT projector to now a D-Ila.
The D-Ila is the first digital projector with a native CR of 35.000:1 (measured it myself, so no brochure talk) without the use of an Iris of dynamic settings, the 3D look of that projector is STUNNING.

In digital capture the same rules should apply.
In other words, to have that 3D effect all the elements should already be in place and the last factor is the capture device.
Capture the same scene with a DSLR and it's 3D looking, capture the same scene with a MFDB and it's even more so.
But it's not so that a DSLR can't capture a 3D looking image

That's why it's ridicilous to just say this is done with MF and this is done by DSLRs.

HOWEVER, the scene you see here with the stones and lizard is a clear example, again look at the stones and the lizard, both look much less flat on the MFDB sample.
Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #59 on: June 21, 2008, 12:47:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
HOWEVER, the scene you see here with the stones and lizard is a clear example, again look at the stones and the lizard, both look much less flat on the MFDB sample.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey Frank, I suspect that what you are seeing with the lizard has more to do with the fact that the Canon file was resized to proportions of the Phase file, and we are seriously pixel peeping here anyway - this is a 3" segment of a 7 foot print.

But anyway, are there any files on your own personal web site which demonstrate maximum "3D" which you would point us to? Not trying to be difficult, I just want to see what you are seeing...
« Last Edit: June 21, 2008, 12:48:46 PM by 203 » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad