Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's review of the P65+ is online  (Read 21086 times)
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1084


WWW
« Reply #80 on: March 13, 2009, 08:42:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
What I mean is that I believe IF a lens is soft or lacks resolution in the corners, no amount of digital corrections in any form will rescue it.  I do not think it is appropriate to apply USM to the corner fields of a lens to try and rescue something that is fundamentally not sharp.

Therefore as an example, the ethos of the HCD28 was to design a lens that was sharp edge to edge with an acceptable level of distortion that could be corrected digitally without further affecting the rest of the image.

David

PS.  Regarding a comment elsewhere on the forum  - if this makes a lens more economical for purchase then I am all for it.


David

Are you saying that by "sharp edge to edge", the edges are equivalently sharp as the center (as well as to each other)? I think you are probably not saying that as I'm sure you will agree there is a sharpness falloff comparing the center performance to the edge performance of the HCD28.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One



Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #81 on: March 13, 2009, 09:06:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Steve Hendrix/Phase One
Hi Stewart

I'm sorry, but you will have to show me where you are seeing that I am "sniping at the competition", as you put it. If there was a flavor of "edginess", I regret that it came across that way, as my primary objective is only to show what our products capabilities are. I agree completely that being snipy with competitors does no one any service.


Thanks,
Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Hi Steve
Hmm... I think maybe I'm having a bad hair day. I just read your posts again and I think I was a little too critical - sorry. I read your comments re the Hass 28 lens as sniping whereas they were probably just genuinely questioning a claim that you disagreed with. Nothing wrong with that. Sorry again. Maybe I'm worrying that LL is getting a little more fractious and I don't want t see it go the way of...well, others.
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 951



WWW
« Reply #82 on: March 13, 2009, 09:23:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Steve Hendrix/Phase One
David

Are you saying that by "sharp edge to edge", the edges are equivalently sharp as the center (as well as to each other)? I think you are probably not saying that as I'm sure you will agree there is a sharpness falloff comparing the center performance to the edge performance of the HCD28.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Actually I am!  Maybe not all situations/apertures/times of day(!) etc etc...

But Its a damn good lens sharpness-wise and it is possible to achieve edge to edge sharpness.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....c=28651&hl=

Have a look at Post #2 and Post #9

David
Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1084


WWW
« Reply #83 on: March 13, 2009, 09:28:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stewarthemley
Hi Steve
Hmm... I think maybe I'm having a bad hair day. I just read your posts again and I think I was a little too critical - sorry. I read your comments re the Hass 28 lens as sniping whereas they were probably just genuinely questioning a claim that you disagreed with. Nothing wrong with that. Sorry again. Maybe I'm worrying that LL is getting a little more fractious and I don't want t see it go the way of...well, others.


I think that (at least among the reps, Yair, David, Thierry) there is too much respect (and hopefully professionalism) to get too fractious to where it would be a distraction from the point. We all do actively check each other, and yes, this is - from one standpoint - for the sake of curiosity and clarity, but also it can be competitive. We are all competitors, but we are certainly friendly and respectful competitors.

That said, we are all also after truth. And we are all certainly guilty at one time or another of being a little too indulgent with respect to each of our own products and I feel it is perfectly reasonable for us to call each other out on this (although usually our users do before we have a chance, as they're on their toes even more than we are).


Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #84 on: March 13, 2009, 10:42:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Re the smoother color comment:  Many of us have said for quite some time that the Dalsa chip shows smoother color.  In my test of a pre-release P65+ it could definitely be noted, but to my eyes it is a very subtle difference over the P45+ and perhaps a bit more over the P25+; like comparing the differences between Crystal and DP or Szechwan and Mandarin versions of Kung-Pao chicken, and to my palette not even as significant as the difference between Coke and Pepsi...  Moreover, by adjusting the Color NR and/or the Clarity sliders in C1 you can pretty much make each file look like the other one, save for a more distinct difference in color response (profile).

Re the broader DR comment:  We saw this in our comparison too, and it amounted to approximately 1/3rd stop more than the P45+ which was better than the P25+ by perhaps another 1/3rd stop.  Ironically, when you adjusted the Clarity slider to get inter-pixel contrasts to match, the DR differences between these three backs disappeared to where they are for all intents and purposes, identical...

So while you can see these differences, they will likely only be noted by experienced digital file processors, possibly be noted by experienced viewers when comparing prints side-by-side, and probably not significant enough to be noted by 98% of the viewing public when not being compared side-by-side.  (And it is interesting to then balance the p45+/P65+ justification comments against the P345+/G10 real-world print difference comments  )

Frankly -- and I step way out on a limb here -- I think the stated differences are subtleties used by folks to create enough of a threshold of additional benefits to seal the rationalization for making their purchase.  Don't get me wrong here, the P65+ is a remarkable achievement, and is the pinnacle of DB development IMO, and represents the best of what's currently available and IMO that in and of itself should be enough rationalization.

Cheers,

Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #85 on: March 13, 2009, 10:45:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Attn Michael:

Glad to hear your 45 is performing well! I tested two copies and while really nice in the center, they NEVER sharpened up in the corners at any aperture! Can you please post say a 1200x1200 pixel corner crop from any any of your files taken with that lens at around f8 so I can see the improvements for myself?

Thanks in advance!



FWIW, here are corner crops from the better of my two 45AF lenses (new D version) compared directly to my 35AF.  Both at ISO 200 and f8, processed out to 16-bit tiffs with C1 lens adjustments ON and my basic sharpening settings for C1, then to CS4 for the crops and jpegging but no other processing or sharpening -- And yes, to be very clear, the 45 is properly focused; center frame is very sharp as is the 35's, though the 45 shows advantage in the center.

The 45:


The 35:
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 11:25:28 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #86 on: March 13, 2009, 12:13:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack I read with interest your observations on the subtle differences of these backs.  I currently use a 45+.  A reviewer on the new P65+ review on the Phase One site that has also compared these backs observed that in his estimation, if he takes a shot of a green leaf, he would see approx. 20 shades of green with the 45+ and 100 shades of green with the new 65+ (again, correct me if I read this wrong!).  That doesn't sound subtle to me.  Seems everyone sees a little differently (no surprise I know).  In the 65+ files that I'm seen I'm not seeing huge differences over my 45+....As you mentioned, possibly a lot has to do with processing in Capture One too.  Just my observations....eleanor

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Re the smoother color comment:  Many of us have said for quite some time that the Dalsa chip shows smoother color.  In my test of a pre-release P65+ it could definitely be noted, but to my eyes it is a very subtle difference over the P45+ and perhaps a bit more over the P25+; like comparing the differences between Crystal and DP or Szechwan and Mandarin versions of Kung-Pao chicken, and to my palette not even as significant as the difference between Coke and Pepsi...  Moreover, by adjusting the Color NR and/or the Clarity sliders in C1 you can pretty much make each file look like the other one, save for a more distinct difference in color response (profile).

Re the broader DR comment:  We saw this in our comparison too, and it amounted to approximately 1/3rd stop more than the P45+ which was better than the P25+ by perhaps another 1/3rd stop.  Ironically, when you adjusted the Clarity slider to get inter-pixel contrasts to match, the DR differences between these three backs disappeared to where they are for all intents and purposes, identical...

So while you can see these differences, they will likely only be noted by experienced digital file processors, possibly be noted by experienced viewers when comparing prints side-by-side, and probably not significant enough to be noted by 98% of the viewing public when not being compared side-by-side.  (And it is interesting to then balance the p45+/P65+ justification comments against the P345+/G10 real-world print difference comments  )

Frankly -- and I step way out on a limb here -- I think the stated differences are subtleties used by folks to create enough of a threshold of additional benefits to seal the rationalization for making their purchase.  Don't get me wrong here, the P65+ is a remarkable achievement, and is the pinnacle of DB development IMO, and represents the best of what's currently available and IMO that in and of itself should be enough rationalization.

Cheers,
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #87 on: March 13, 2009, 01:31:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eleanorbrown
Jack I read with interest your observations on the subtle differences of these backs.  I currently use a 45+.  A reviewer on the new P65+ review on the Phase One site that has also compared these backs observed that in his estimation, if he takes a shot of a green leaf, he would see approx. 20 shades of green with the 45+ and 100 shades of green with the new 65+ (again, correct me if I read this wrong!).  That doesn't sound subtle to me.  Seems everyone sees a little differently (no surprise I know).  In the 65+ files that I'm seen I'm not seeing huge differences over my 45+....As you mentioned, possibly a lot has to do with processing in Capture One too.  Just my observations....eleanor

Hi Eleanor,

Well...  100 shades of green versus 20 in a single leaf, eh?   To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever noticed even 10 shades of green in a single leaf, but then maybe your friend photographs really, really large leaves, or perhaps normal leaves from really, really close up?   Regardless, I can assure you I have not seen that level of tonal differences in greens between these backs -- though again, this was a pre-release P65+ back, so maybe things changed a lot in the retail version -- but I doubt it...  As I said though, I definitely DO see is a difference in the way color is rendered via the respective profiles.  Meaning for example, if the sky is tuned to the same rich blue in each file, then greens off the P65+ look warmer to my eyes.  Perhaps the person responding to you has a higher visual sensitivity to warmer greens, as in more to the yellows than blues?

My advice is to look at actual samples from each and judge for yourself.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 01:32:56 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #88 on: March 13, 2009, 01:49:03 PM »
ReplyReply

To avoid sensor cropping, increase subject distance by a factor of 41.5/40.4, or 2.7% further away, an extra one inch per three feet. Does that mess up perspective much, or put you out the back door of the studio?

Edit: with corrected sensor width of 53.9mm, make that 4% further away: two inches further back for every five feet from the subject.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 04:35:54 PM by BJL » Logged
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #89 on: March 13, 2009, 01:50:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A reviewer on the new P65+ review on the Phase One site that has also compared these backs observed that in his estimation, if he takes a shot of a green leaf, he would see approx. 20 shades of green with the 45+ and 100 shades of green with the new 65+

They actually published THAT on their website?

That's almost as funny as the elephant story


Mark
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #90 on: March 13, 2009, 02:15:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe I need to go back and re-  read....that's what i though was said but sometimes I tend to "skim" articles...:-) (thus my comment...."correct me if I'm wrong") eleanor

Quote from: mtomalty
They actually published THAT on their website?

That's almost as funny as the elephant story


Mark
Logged

image66
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


« Reply #91 on: March 13, 2009, 02:55:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
All medium format backs currently use CCDs, which are not suitable technically for Live View.


I suspect that the use of CCD's is probably what explains the "microcontrast" issue that makes medium-format digital look different than DSLR-based digital.  We saw similar differences between CMOS and Kodak-based CCD sensors a few years ago.

If "size" was the answer, then the "microcontrast" difference should be visible in downsized DSLR-based images too.  But it isn't.  A CMOS image has a CMOS image look.  I'm not necessarily calling the CMOS look "evil", but if you want the medium-format digital look, you won't get there with the latest from Canon or Sony-based sensors.

Ken
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1127


WWW
« Reply #92 on: March 13, 2009, 04:51:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Hi Eleanor,

Well...  100 shades of green versus 20 in a single leaf, eh?   To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever noticed even 10 shades of green in a single leaf, but then maybe your friend photographs really, really large leaves, or perhaps normal leaves from really, really close up?   Regardless, I can assure you I have not seen that level of tonal differences in greens between these backs -- though again, this was a pre-release P65+ back, so maybe things changed a lot in the retail version -- but I doubt it...  As I said though, I definitely DO see is a difference in the way color is rendered via the respective profiles.  Meaning for example, if the sky is tuned to the same rich blue in each file, then greens off the P65+ look warmer to my eyes.  Perhaps the person responding to you has a higher visual sensitivity to warmer greens, as in more to the yellows than blues?

My advice is to look at actual samples from each and judge for yourself.

Cheers,

i think many of this and other comments are to be taken with a good portion of salt. in other words such comparison of 20:100 is pure marketing bs. ( meanwhile the comparision between the g10 and the mf back unfortunately is not .... ) . the dalsa sensors have been always a tick better than their kodak counterparts, and more expensive for the manufactors too. for me qualitywise allways the leaf/sinar backs had the preferred color rendition ( a little bit... nothing dramatic ) and also they havent had of some "kodak- typical" artefacts ( as christmas tree color artefacts between fne branches of trees ). this will be  probably now be the case comparing the p65 to the p45.
the difference between the two last phase backs might be bigger than to a 33mp leaf or sinar back, simply because sinar+leaf used already dalsa sensors in their backs.
unfortunately is typical too for the dalsas a drawback:  the centerfold, if not corrected with the right code. here the test shots i saw ( beeing published in another forum some weeks ago )  showed  clear visible cf in the p65 files in the sky. so i hope phase will not step in similar problems than happenend with leaf in the past. we ( i ) will see this very critical.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 04:53:37 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
alan100
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #93 on: March 13, 2009, 05:01:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello all
My first post
I would like to as if there has been any problems with  image and colour/image aberations on the P65 images? The new back has a Delsa chip which can cause "centrefold" when used in conjunction with lens shift. I am a leaf Aptus 75 user and experience it periodically and seems to be more noticeable as the chip gets bigger, ie there is little on the Aptus 22 but some on the 75 when I use shift with a 35mm digitar lens. This is corrected with a custom gain adjust. I bring this up because I downloaded an image from Capture integration that had a substantial centre fold in the image. http://www.captureintegration.com/download...gration.jpg.zip. This image has now been changed. I would like to know if there has been more problems with centrefold as the size of chip has increased and if so has the P65 back some new software to fix it  or are we back using the gain adjust or phase equivalent?
Thanks in advance
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1127


WWW
« Reply #94 on: March 13, 2009, 05:17:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alan100
Hello all
My first post
I would like to as if there has been any problems with  image and colour/image aberations on the P65 images? The new back has a Delsa chip which can cause "centrefold" when used in conjunction with lens shift. I am a leaf Aptus 75 user and experience it periodically and seems to be more noticeable as the chip gets bigger, ie there is little on the Aptus 22 but some on the 75 when I use shift with a 35mm digitar lens. This is corrected with a custom gain adjust. I bring this up because I downloaded an image from Capture integration that had a substantial centre fold in the image. http://www.captureintegration.com/download...gration.jpg.zip. This image has now been changed. I would like to know if there has been more problems with centrefold as the size of chip has increased and if so has the P65 back some new software to fix it  or are we back using the gain adjust or phase equivalent?
Thanks in advance
its caused by tolerances in the dalsa chip ( electronic ) and it has nothing to do with the size of the chips. some chips show it more ,some less.
the 22 mp generation showed it way less than the 33 mp generation, but it could appear too,- but was very rare.
one can get completely rid of this effect, but it needs very clever programming of the software to eliminate the cf during the download from the back to the computer. maybe the p1 programmers will find the key for the code fast .... maybe not. i have seen this cf in the p65 files too, as i wrote above.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2753


WWW
« Reply #95 on: March 13, 2009, 05:22:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alan100
Hello all
My first post
I would like to as if there has been any problems with  image and colour/image aberations on the P65 images? The new back has a Delsa chip which can cause "centrefold" when used in conjunction with lens shift. I am a leaf Aptus 75 user and experience it periodically and seems to be more noticeable as the chip gets bigger, ie there is little on the Aptus 22 but some on the 75 when I use shift with a 35mm digitar lens. This is corrected with a custom gain adjust. I bring this up because I downloaded an image from Capture integration that had a substantial centre fold in the image. http://www.captureintegration.com/download...gration.jpg.zip. This image has now been changed. I would like to know if there has been more problems with centrefold as the size of chip has increased and if so has the P65 back some new software to fix it  or are we back using the gain adjust or phase equivalent?
Thanks in advance

The image that showed a strange issue was processed in 4.6.2 Beta #3. We did not notice at the time, and only recently were informed that 4.6.2 Beta 3 had a bug which caused this issue. The current version 4.6.3 shows no sign whatsoever of the issue, and is the version used to process the image now linked from our front page. To my knowledge no production (i.e. not a beta) version of Capture One produced this error.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #96 on: March 13, 2009, 05:47:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
unfortunately is typical too for the dalsas a drawback:  the centerfold, if not corrected with the right code. here the test shots i saw ( beeing published in another forum some weeks ago )  showed  clear visible cf in the p65 files in the sky. so i hope phase will not step in similar problems than happenend with leaf in the past. we ( i ) will see this very critical.

A FWIW comment on the centerfold issue:  I *did* have notable centerfold lines in a few of my pre-release P65+ files -- and I think back then I was converting with C1 4.6.0.  Anyway, I reprocessed one of the raws that had a pronounced set of the smeary fold lines to show a friend what they looked like, only was now using 4.6.2 -- and presto, the fold lines were all gone!  IOW it seems C1 has "fixed" that issue in the latest revs of the conversion software   Obviously the lines are still there, just that the software is indeed doing some very clever things to more effectively camouflage it.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 05:52:20 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1127


WWW
« Reply #97 on: March 13, 2009, 06:03:14 PM »
ReplyReply

.... great to hear.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
photodan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #98 on: March 13, 2009, 06:20:35 PM »
ReplyReply

<deleted by author of post>

« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 12:37:21 PM by photodan » Logged
reinfried marass
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


WWW
« Reply #99 on: March 13, 2009, 08:15:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Antartica - What Worked – What Didn't

Temperatures were moderate, ranging from about +2C to -3C during our two weeks at the Peninsula.

Just received the new PI monthly newsletter ...
Headline :

Antarctica – The Ultimate Test  ...  P 65+ Camera System passes the ultimate test


serious advertising :-)
 

Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad