Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New PhaseOne - P40+  (Read 75820 times)
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #200 on: May 05, 2009, 09:41:19 AM »
ReplyReply

The RED is a small revolution, because it's the first HD-prosumer-cam with a big single super35-sized-CMOS-sensor and uses a "RAW" approach, while other HD-cameras use very powerful algorithms to create finished data (with sharpening, WB...) which can be used with little to no manipulation and quite small sensors (1/3" - 2/3") and large DoF.

The size of the RAW-format is indeed very problematic, especially for 4k, which results in more than  four times the data rate than 1080p! That's why they use a very strong, lossy compression on "RED-RAW" with only 220MBit/s at 4k, the professional 1080p-cameras with a real RAW mode without lossy compression have a ten times higher data rate! You see the paradox? On one side they interpolate to create bigger images and on the other side they compress the RAW-signal.

Film in the movie-industry has reached an incredible quality, the negative stocks are more advanced, the scanners are better, one of the best of them uses the same sensor as the HD-camera but takes 24 images from one negative to resolve nearly all the information (4x pixel shift, 3x RGB, 2x highlight exposure) The film-cameras from legendary companies like ARRI and Panavision are professionally designed, developed in collaboration with the cinematographers and unsurpassed in handling and reliability. If anyone is interested, here's a comparison of a prosumer and state-of-the-art HD-cam with the small film-format Super16: http://www.ecctv.de/videos/hdtv/mountain_top_reasons.wmv
You're distracted by the grain? See how advanced their filters have become: http://www.digitalfilmcentral.com/english/...16_anewlook.pps

Film-costs and processing time are not really relevant for movie-productions, they have to deal with other problems...

That's why 95% of the Hollywood-productions are still made on film, sometimes I whish we could get this technology for our medium-format-cameras, too :-)

What has this to do with the P40+?   .

Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #201 on: May 05, 2009, 10:45:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: georgl
The RED is a small revolution, because it's the first HD-prosumer-cam with a big single super35-sized-CMOS-sensor and uses a "RAW" approach,...........

Film in the movie-industry has reached an incredible quality, the negative stocks are more advanced, the scanners are better, ........................

That's why 95% of the Hollywood-productions are still made on film, sometimes I whish we could get this technology for our medium-format-cameras, too :-)

What has this to do with the P40+?   .

There are a lot of parallels between digital stills and digital video.

Just like a few years ago in stills, the film Indie crowd and some episodic TV have been begging for a full frame (movie full frame) digital camera, rather than the small 3ccd chip cameras that pull focus for miles and just the frame size is a big attraction with RED, maybe even more than the raw format.  That and the price, because even at $30,000 owning a full fledged movie camera at that price is pretty cheap.

You can kind of think of the RED like the original Canon 1ds as it's the closest anyone has come in digital video with a film quality look and ease of use . . . and also costs.

The issue with digital motion beyond the rolling shutter, is the standards for color timing and post processing are not as accepted as film.  With film you call go to almost any major post house and colorists, explain the look you want and they will get you there all with time code intact.

With digital video it's a different process and just like digital stills pretty much a roll your own process.

Also just like digital stills, digital video can look beautiful and film like under one sceanrio, casted and digital looking in others.  It really is lighting subject dependent.

Most people that shoot digital video try to use a desk top computer to color grade the video and it can be done, actually with desktops and most higher grade software anything CAN be done, but that's the problem because it's usually a slow process rendering dozens of filters and transitions on a motion clip.

The best and most cost effect way to color time/grade video is to go to an expert colorist that works a DiVinci.  It's a process and expensive, but the time savings is more than worth the costs as a DiVinci works in real time.

When we shoot motion, I take a few still frames from each scene, process the stills out in photoshop, make prints and bring them to the colorist for a base.   Then after the first session I can usually leave and they run the colortiming on line and I can check it back in my studio while I get on to other work.

It's a big time and money saver and a nicer way to work than sitting in the room for 12 hours saying try a little less red.

But back to the original question, what does the RED have to do with a p40+.
 Well in a way the process is the same, the smaller planned RED cameras will be a lot cheaper than the larger 4 and 5 k cameras, the process of do everything yourself is also alive and well in the the video world just like the still world and the backend process is much more complicated with digital than it was with film.

As with digital stills, with digital video the more time you put into the front end, lighting, selecting scenes, marking the "print" scenes instead of just shooting wildly, the less time you put into the back end.

Also digital video is going through the same adolescent period as stills, with roll your own color, multiple formats, frame sizes and the same standard issues as monitor calibration, file format delivery, even down to delivering a final cut.



B



Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #202 on: May 06, 2009, 05:47:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: georgl
Film-costs and processing time are not really relevant for movie-productions, they have to deal with other problems...
All costs are relevant!
And one of the big costs is in striking prints for distribution. Digital projection is already making big inroads and will make huge savings for distributors when it's all digital.

Quote
...That's why 95% of the Hollywood-productions are still made on film.
And only a few years back one would have said the same about stills, now it is probably 95% digital. Movies will be 95% digital in 10 years time, if not sooner.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #203 on: May 06, 2009, 10:01:26 AM »
ReplyReply

"All costs are relevant!
And one of the big costs is in striking prints for distribution. Digital projection is already making big inroads and will make huge savings for distributors when it's all digital."
"And only a few years back one would have said the same about stills, now it is probably 95% digital. Movies will be 95% digital in 10 years time, if not sooner."

Saving a few thousand dollars on film stock and processing on a >>1million $ production is just stupid.
Before still photography switched to digital, barely any acceptable digital technology was available. Now, in cinematography digital technology is available and is used by making a DI (digital intermediate, scanning film for post-production and various output formats like 35mm prints, digital cinema or blu-ray) - but this is a purely professional, very demanding market with more technical skilled customers and much less prone to marketing-tricks. Sony tries to kill film since over 15 years without even offering a optical viewfinder... As long as film-cameras are this superior, they will use film (unless the studios don't act entirely stupid). There is only one way to capture real (not color-interpolated) 4k resolution and up to 16 stops DR right now, it's film properly processed with a dedicated scanner.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #204 on: May 06, 2009, 09:35:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: georgl
"All costs are relevant!
And one of the big costs is in striking prints for distribution. Digital projection is already making big inroads and will make huge savings for distributors when it's all digital."
"And only a few years back one would have said the same about stills, now it is probably 95% digital. Movies will be 95% digital in 10 years time, if not sooner."

Saving a few thousand dollars on film stock and processing on a >>1million $ production is just stupid.
Before still photography switched to digital, barely any acceptable digital technology was available. Now, in cinematography digital technology is available and is used by making a DI (digital intermediate, scanning film for post-production and various output formats like 35mm prints, digital cinema or blu-ray) - but this is a purely professional, very demanding market with more technical skilled customers and much less prone to marketing-tricks. Sony tries to kill film since over 15 years without even offering a optical viewfinder... As long as film-cameras are this superior, they will use film (unless the studios don't act entirely stupid). There is only one way to capture real (not color-interpolated) 4k resolution and up to 16 stops DR right now, it's film properly processed with a dedicated scanner.


I don't think anyone who shoots to a refined level, still or motion, believes that digital is superior or for that matter easier than film.  At least not in the complete process of production to finsh out.

What most paying clients know, movie studios, advertising agencies and magazines is that more production can be done in a digital day than a film day (still or motion).   That's where the real cost is.

What most paying clients also know is that in todays world working in backend post regardless of the original carrier is going to be extensive anyway.

I'm not advocating digital over film, or vice versa, but it's a digital world, with digital intermediate processes and digital delivery and the toothpaste is not going to go back into the tube, so sooner or later the cinema world will accept digital by choice or force.

Now I'm no expert on the Red, but I find it quite amazing that for about 10 years indie film makers, commercial film makers, even video production companies have begged the camera makers for a digital motion camera that had a large frame size so selective focus could be used AND didn't cost the price of a Presidential Helicopter.

Red, whether anyone likes it or not answered that call way before Sony and all the other video giants.  The video camera makers were content to offer $100,000 ENG's that really didn't do cinema well and back that up with tiny chipped prosumer cameras that required huge workarounds to get close to the quality of film, even super 16.

I root for Red and applaud them with the courage to make there camera(s) and hope they do become the standard of the digital motion industry, marketing claims or not.

This forum talks cameras and puts a whole lot of emphasis on buying or upgrading to a new camera, but I know the next major camera purchase I make will have to have real, full frame, manually controlled motion capabilities.



B
Logged
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #205 on: May 07, 2009, 04:13:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I also think that RED is a great opportunity for indie-film-makers, students etc. to create a look which comes closer to classical cinema than ever before with "cheap" solutions. Sony doesn't come from the film-world and they don't understand it (that's why they didn't offer larger sensors or 24fps isntead of 25/30fps) and Panavision/ARRI are absolute high-end solutions, the limitations that come with buying a 35mm-sensor and somehow putting it in a body for 20k $ instead of 150k $ are unacceptable for them. They also behave entirely different, ARRI started their digital basis in 2003 with a special scanner and they used this technology to build a digital-camera. It wasn't even sold but tested for nearly 5 years (!!!) by customers as a "working prototype" - they use a 6MP-sensor, but they don't even offer 2k but 1080p (like Genesis - because it's HDTV, not cinema), they don't offer it as a revolution, a superior device but an interesting option. RED is different, they have a big marketing budget (which they use very efficiently with web 2.0) but only a few employees. They buy components, but advertise everything as 100% RED, they selll a 500$ sigma-zoom for 6k$ with a better housing (but still bad optical performance), their cameras overheat easily and are not as reliable. They try to work these things out - but AFTER the customers bought it. ARRI/Panavision would never do that, their customers have to rely on their tools.
They generate gigantic 4k-images out of their sensor by interpolation, they compress the signal to make these files usable in end. Why? Not because it makes sense by the engineers point of view but from a marketing point of view...
And so we're back on-topic: Advertising a display with subpixels or a sensor/system with interpolated data to impress customers is just the first step. When customers fall for that, it becomes worse and engineer-driven companies get into trouble... We have to be very careful, it would be great if we could rely on such a company (like ARRI/Panavision) in the photography-world again! Right now we have some gigants which sometimes mix-up their consumer-grade stuff with their professional-products and very little companies, which aren't able to offer whole systems.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #206 on: May 07, 2009, 07:26:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: georgl
I also think that RED is a great opportunity for indie-film-makers, students etc. to create a look which comes closer to classical cinema than ever before with "cheap" solutions. Sony doesn't come from the film-world and they don't understand it (that's why they didn't offer larger sensors or 24fps isntead of 25/30fps) and Panavision/ARRI are absolute high-end solutions, the limitations that come with buying a 35mm-sensor and somehow putting it in a body for 20k $ instead of 150k $ are unacceptable for them. They also behave entirely different, ARRI started their digital basis in 2003 with a special scanner and they used this technology to build a digital-camera. It wasn't even sold but tested for nearly 5 years (!!!) by customers as a "working prototype" - they use a 6MP-sensor, but they don't even offer 2k but 1080p (like Genesis - because it's HDTV, not cinema), they don't offer it as a revolution, a superior device but an interesting option. RED is different, they have a big marketing budget (which they use very efficiently with web 2.0) but only a few employees. They buy components, but advertise everything as 100% RED, they selll a 500$ sigma-zoom for 6k$ with a better housing (but still bad optical performance), their cameras overheat easily and are not as reliable. They try to work these things out - but AFTER the customers bought it. ARRI/Panavision would never do that, their customers have to rely on their tools.
They generate gigantic 4k-images out of their sensor by interpolation, they compress the signal to make these files usable in end. Why? Not because it makes sense by the engineers point of view but from a marketing point of view...
And so we're back on-topic: Advertising a display with subpixels or a sensor/system with interpolated data to impress customers is just the first step. When customers fall for that, it becomes worse and engineer-driven companies get into trouble... We have to be very careful, it would be great if we could rely on such a company (like ARRI/Panavision) in the photography-world again! Right now we have some gigants which sometimes mix-up their consumer-grade stuff with their professional-products and very little companies, which aren't able to offer whole systems.



Still or motion there are two cameras artists use.  The camera we build our reel, editorial portfolio and personal projects with, then the cameras we use for commerce.

Some people own both, but usually the camera that you use for yourself on a 4 person crew project is different than the camera that sits on a tripod with 30,000 watts of light and a crew of 20.

Technically, the expensive camera is superior, but it's funny that the work we produce that gets us hired is usually shot with the less than technically perfect camera which goes a long way to explaining why Canon 5d2's fly off the shelf and medium format still cameras are still trying to find ways to keep their market from contracting.

With motion, digital cameras are still a generation of use behind still cameras, because few people have $40,000 to buy a red, many less $100,000 to buy an Arri, but the biggest stumbling block with using digital video is not the compression, the file format or even the exacting quality of the file, it's just the ability to use a larger frame size that will give more of control.

With motion there are just some looks you cannot produce with digital simply because the makers are protecting their current market.  Why a 5d2 doesn't offer manual controls is a marketing decision, not technical and here in is the real issue of shooting motion.   Nobody expects Arri to start selling film or digital cameras for $3,000 but on the other hand few people want to produce work for their reel or an indie project with a Sony ENG  (because it looks "video) and even at 30 to 40k the Red seems like a deal compared to any other way of shooting with a professional look.


B
Logged
MichaelAlanBielat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78



WWW
« Reply #207 on: May 07, 2009, 07:36:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry to jump back into talking about the P40+ back...

I am so glad to hear about this MF back that it isn't even funny! I am first and foremost a wedding and portrait photographer... Having the ability to jump to ISO 3200 is awesome and being able to drop into 10mp images is a really great feature... BUT for $20k+ I don't think I would want to do that unless it is a wedding job. The reason for that is because it isn't uncommon to shoot 1500+ images during an all day wedding. 1,500 40mp images would be a joke to edit them all. I would keep the 40mp files for all portraits and the "money shot" wedding portraits that the couple would most definitely want enlarged.

With me trying to branch out into the landscape photography side of things, the 40mp should provide stellar resolution which would rival only a couple other backs that are out now...

Might I add that the 12+ stop dynamic range would be to kill for!!!

I think I am going to be dropping my Hassy fetish asap and start counting my pennies for one of these bad boys...
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 07:37:52 AM by MichaelAlanBielat » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #208 on: May 07, 2009, 07:58:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I have to agree some may see this as a gimmick but from someone that shoots a lot of events along with the advertising stuff for a lot of the same corporate clients . The need for a 31mpx file on the P30+ is not always needed nor wanted. Dropping into a ISO 800 file at 10mpx covers all that stuff and still having a 40 mpx file for the landscape or advertising stuff brings some nice diversity to your back. I know this would certainly help me on processing in a hotel room on a laptop and having a show ready in the morning to work with the 10 mpx files instead. Been here and done this many times already and as nice as the S file is on the Phase backs it still is a big file to be working with on deadline. Most of these event things are ISO 800 type shooting anyway so like events I do see this as a good tool for the wedding folks as well. The other thing this back brings to the table is raw speed that only a P21+ may have or a DSLR which I do not want to buy. I see no value buying a 35mm system and some may disagree with that thinking but frankly what would be the real point except another system with more money outlay and you don't like the files anyway. I just processed yesterday shots from last year for a show with D300 and P25 Plus files doing stage work. Processing the D300 files was so much more work with recovering highlights and tweeking that it was frustrating as hell compared to processing the P25 + files and in almost every case the Phase files just beat up the Nikons. That I found it a complete waste even shooting the D300 on that job. So for some folks that do a variety of shooting I do see some REAL advantages to the Sensor Plus, others may see it as a gimmick or what's the point. For people that shoot many different types of work the more diversity a back can bring you the better use you will have. I like the P30+ because it does give me the higher ISO over the P25+ but this P40+ is very tempting. Hopefully I will get a chance to test it and see how it fairs in the real world.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 08:00:41 AM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

MichaelAlanBielat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78



WWW
« Reply #209 on: May 07, 2009, 08:14:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
I have to agree some may see this as a gimmick but from someone that shoots a lot of events along with the advertising stuff for a lot of the same corporate clients . The need for a 31mpx file on the P30+ is not always needed nor wanted. Dropping into a ISO 800 file at 10mpx covers all that stuff and still having a 40 mpx file for the landscape or advertising stuff brings some nice diversity to your back. I know this would certainly help me on processing in a hotel room on a laptop and having a show ready in the morning to work with the 10 mpx files instead. Been here and done this many times already and as nice as the S file is on the Phase backs it still is a big file to be working with on deadline. Most of these event things are ISO 800 type shooting anyway so like events I do see this as a good tool for the wedding folks as well. The other thing this back brings to the table is raw speed that only a P21+ may have or a DSLR which I do not want to buy. I see no value buying a 35mm system and some may disagree with that thinking but frankly what would be the real point except another system with more money outlay and you don't like the files anyway. I just processed yesterday shots from last year for a show with D300 and P25 Plus files doing stage work. Processing the D300 files was so much more work with recovering highlights and tweeking that it was frustrating as hell compared to processing the P25 + files and in almost every case the Phase files just beat up the Nikons. That I found it a complete waste even shooting the D300 on that job. So for some folks that do a variety of shooting I do see some REAL advantages to the Sensor Plus, others may see it as a gimmick or what's the point. For people that shoot many different types of work the more diversity a back can bring you the better use you will have. I like the P30+ because it does give me the higher ISO over the P25+ but this P40+ is very tempting. Hopefully I will get a chance to test it and see how it fairs in the real world.

I am going to also give this system a look-see. Your information about the files from the Nikon D300 is pretty interesting. Would you mind posting or PMing me an X-Y comparison of a similar image between your D300 and Phase One?
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #210 on: May 07, 2009, 08:35:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: georgl
Saving a few thousand dollars on film stock and processing on a >>1million $ production is just stupid.
Uh, it's not a few thousand dollars, it' s a lot more than that. Plus more affordable cameras allow for multiple angles being shot at once which can also reduce costs.

Quote
Before still photography switched to digital, barely any acceptable digital technology was available.
Is that like saying before people had legs, no-one walked?  
Not quite true either, I worked digitally from about 1994 about 10 yrs before I got a DSLR, I used film and scanned images into computer then.

Quote
Now, in cinematography digital technology is available and is used by making a DI (digital intermediate, scanning film for post-production and various output formats like 35mm prints, digital cinema or blu-ray) - but this is a purely professional, very demanding market with more technical skilled customers and much less prone to marketing-tricks.
and also full of people who want to push boundaries, features are already being shot digitally and have been for some time now, both by people new to the industry and those who can afford to do anything they want like George Lucas. Final Cut completely undercut Avid as not only was it waaaaay cheaper, but was better too for many users. Now you can do editing with software+ kit that anyone can afford which is more than capable of doing high end features.

Quote
Sony tries to kill film since over 15 years without even offering a optical viewfinder... As long as film-cameras are this superior, they will use film (unless the studios don't act entirely stupid).
Are you seriously crediting studio execs with knowing what they are doing?    
Quote
There is only one way to capture real (not color-interpolated) 4k resolution and up to 16 stops DR right now, it's film properly processed with a dedicated scanner.
I've seen digitally shot films that look better than those shot on film and I hate the look of video. All depends on the end user and context. Some films have been shot on DV and they not only worked but were successful too.
Things are changing, just like in stills a few years back, when people were saying exactly  the same as you, "film is so much better than digital SLRs" - now try and find someone shooting film with an SLR, can you even buy them?    
As an aside - both '24' and 'Phonebooth' were inspired by a film made with cheap video cameras bought on the high street - by an Oscar nominated director.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 08:37:45 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #211 on: May 07, 2009, 08:45:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Let me find some similar raws to put together
Logged

Khun_K
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #212 on: May 08, 2009, 12:30:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
I have to agree some may see this as a gimmick but from someone that shoots a lot of events along with the advertising stuff for a lot of the same corporate clients . The need for a 31mpx file on the P30+ is not always needed nor wanted. Dropping into a ISO 800 file at 10mpx covers all that stuff and still having a 40 mpx file for the landscape or advertising stuff brings some nice diversity to your back. I know this would certainly help me on processing in a hotel room on a laptop and having a show ready in the morning to work with the 10 mpx files instead. Been here and done this many times already and as nice as the S file is on the Phase backs it still is a big file to be working with on deadline. Most of these event things are ISO 800 type shooting anyway so like events I do see this as a good tool for the wedding folks as well. The other thing this back brings to the table is raw speed that only a P21+ may have or a DSLR which I do not want to buy. I see no value buying a 35mm system and some may disagree with that thinking but frankly what would be the real point except another system with more money outlay and you don't like the files anyway. I just processed yesterday shots from last year for a show with D300 and P25 Plus files doing stage work. Processing the D300 files was so much more work with recovering highlights and tweeking that it was frustrating as hell compared to processing the P25 + files and in almost every case the Phase files just beat up the Nikons. That I found it a complete waste even shooting the D300 on that job. So for some folks that do a variety of shooting I do see some REAL advantages to the Sensor Plus, others may see it as a gimmick or what's the point. For people that shoot many different types of work the more diversity a back can bring you the better use you will have. I like the P30+ because it does give me the higher ISO over the P25+ but this P40+ is very tempting. Hopefully I will get a chance to test it and see how it fairs in the real world.
I don't disagree the quality of medium format file visibly superior than the better/best of FF DSLR in studio and in normal light, but I don't see much value for sensor plus technology, but of course, it has its value, just that I also know little photographers who own the MFDB does not also own a Canon or Nikon. Especially for event, with the much advanced TTL flash system, I don't even consider MFDB, even it is a P65+ and able to shoot at higher ISO with sensor binning. Why not just use D700? 5D2, 1Ds 3 or D3X? But of course if it is an emergency then something is better than nothing, but as a photographer, we need to prepare contingency for those emergency, or it is a set-up production designed to use MFDB.  I see the sensor + a convenience feature, not a solution, but of course the absolute resolution for production is another matter, and the reason why so many photographers are still rely on it, me included, for most of our production. I don't see myself will give up my MFDB and continue to look for high resolution backs to come, even the FF DSLR comes closer and closer, the 2 system has more difference in workflow rather than the absolute quality in print. I use either P45+ or H3D39, and 1Ds3 and D3X, you will see the difference between the 2 system, for regular magazine print I do not hesitate using any of them. For evening and night photography, I will leave MFDB behind.
Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #213 on: May 08, 2009, 01:16:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Khun_K
I don't disagree the quality of medium format file visibly superior than the better/best of FF DSLR in studio and in normal light, but I don't see much value for sensor plus technology, but of course, it has its value, just that I also know little photographers who own the MFDB does not also own a Canon or Nikon. Especially for event, with the much advanced TTL flash system, I don't even consider MFDB, even it is a P65+ and able to shoot at higher ISO with sensor binning. Why not just use D700? 5D2, 1Ds 3 or D3X? But of course if it is an emergency then something is better than nothing, but as a photographer, we need to prepare contingency for those emergency, or it is a set-up production designed to use MFDB.  I see the sensor + a convenience feature, not a solution, but of course the absolute resolution for production is another matter, and the reason why so many photographers are still rely on it, me included, for most of our production. I don't see myself will give up my MFDB and continue to look for high resolution backs to come, even the FF DSLR comes closer and closer, the 2 system has more difference in workflow rather than the absolute quality in print. I use either P45+ or H3D39, and 1Ds3 and D3X, you will see the difference between the 2 system, for regular magazine print I do not hesitate using any of them. For evening and night photography, I will leave MFDB behind.


Different tools for different uses may apply. And having Sensor Plus doesn't mean that all event photographers will now shoot MFDB. However, I do feel that the Sensor Plus will be a benefit to many photographers who, while shooting MFDB, as light fades and you see your shutter speed losing a stop (or 2), rather than stop the action, grab the 35mm out of the bag, you just press a button and keep going. If the 35mm will work for that situation in terms of quality, then 15 high quality MF pixels certainly will. I don't see Sensor Plus as something that one would utilize all the time necessarily, but some have said they'd never use it. I feel the usefullness of it is being under-rated. I see it as one of those features that once you have it, winds up being used more than you thought it would be.

I've already seen some anecdotal feedback expressing the same from some of our users.


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
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #214 on: May 08, 2009, 03:07:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Steve Hendrix/Phase One
I feel the usefullness of it is being under-rated. I see it as one of those features that once you have it, winds up being used more than you thought it would be.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One

I shoot 1ds3 and P45+. I've changed my mind on this several times, but now after shooting this H2/P45+ for a while now, my recommendation to Phase is "do not try to compete with Canon or Nikon", because they will clean your plate, in terms of run-and-gun photography like that. At this point, I'd say for Phase to compete with megapixels and file size only; stay ahead of 35; that's the only way to keep individuality and relevance. It's just simply a no-brainer; the Canon is light years easier to use, as a camera system.

Can't imagine being an "event photographer" and doing it with MF, but it's a free country, especially if using on camera flash. Canon/Nikon would win hands down. And for that kind of work, 22Mp or even less is plenty fine. Hell, even half that. Set it on ASA 3200, pop in a little fill flash, set it to JPG, upload it to CostCo, and go home.

To me, Phase's future is in the P65+, and the P85+ after that, and the P95+ after that, if they're still around.

The other massive downside to me is Phase aligning with Mamiya, but we've covered that. Kinda like Julia Roberts marrying Lyle Lovett -- looks OK on paper, but it's just not a good fit. Every time I see a picture of a Phase back mounted onto a Mamiya body, I kind cringe a little bit.

Phase needs some Sex in their life -- a bigger better LCD and a little more aerodynamic shape, to keep up with The Joneses. They're getting left in the dust a bit, sex-wise and cool-wise. And don't underestimate that factor, when you're dealing with Rich Guys With Disposable Income. They need all the sex they can get, in any form that they can get it.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 03:12:00 PM by gwhitf » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #215 on: May 08, 2009, 03:33:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
I shoot 1ds3 and P45+. I've changed my mind on this several times, but now after shooting this H2/P45+ for a while now, my recommendation to Phase is "do not try to compete with Canon or Nikon", because they will clean your plate, in terms of run-and-gun photography like that. At this point, I'd say for Phase to compete with megapixels and file size only; stay ahead of 35; that's the only way to keep individuality and relevance. It's just simply a no-brainer; the Canon is light years easier to use, as a camera system.

Can't imagine being an "event photographer" and doing it with MF, but it's a free country, especially if using on camera flash. Canon/Nikon would win hands down. And for that kind of work, 22Mp or even less is plenty fine. Hell, even half that. Set it on ASA 3200, pop in a little fill flash, set it to JPG, upload it to CostCo, and go home.

To me, Phase's future is in the P65+, and the P85+ after that, and the P95+ after that, if they're still around.

The other massive downside to me is Phase aligning with Mamiya, but we've covered that. Kinda like Julia Roberts marrying Lyle Lovett -- looks OK on paper, but it's just not a good fit. Every time I see a picture of a Phase back mounted onto a Mamiya body, I kind cringe a little bit.

Phase needs some Sex in their life -- a bigger better LCD and a little more aerodynamic shape, to keep up with The Joneses. They're getting left in the dust a bit, sex-wise and cool-wise. And don't underestimate that factor, when you're dealing with Rich Guys With Disposable Income. They need all the sex they can get, in any form that they can get it.


Maybe your business model but not mine. Here is the point I DON"T WANT another system like a DSLR system. I don't want different workflows, software , batteries and all that goes with it. I see no need. If that is all I ever did I may think differently but it is NOT. I am NOT going to tell a 50k a year Corporate client that I do there marketing and advertising for to go hire another shooter to shoot there events . I will LOSE that client PERIOD. BTW I feel I get better results to boot. Now can you believe that one and I would rather shoot MF. Please after 32 years I don't need the advice on how to do my job or what are the best tools for it. All I am saying is the Sensor plus looks to have some advantages for certain things, Phase does not want to compete with Nikon or Canon but they will take every fence jumper that wants to move up. That you can bet money on. If a back can have some diversity in it than it is a good thing not a bad one, if you don't feel the need DON"T BUY IT.
Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #216 on: May 08, 2009, 04:03:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
At this point, I'd say for Phase to compete with megapixels and file size only; stay ahead of 35; that's the only way to keep individuality and relevance. It's just simply a no-brainer; the Canon is light years easier to use, as a camera system. (...)
To me, Phase's future is in the P65+, and the P85+ after that, and the P95+ after that, if they're still around.
100% agreed! For the most purposes 35 DSLRs have plenty resolution, great IQ and are very very fast... by any account. MFDB is for those who care about the ultimate IQ and resolution (may it be for art, landscape... whatever) and have the time to process those "single" images (or maybe 10... but not 200).
Recently James R. said Sinar adressed all the requests of MFDB shooters (LCD, in camera processing, DNG ...). That's right. But Sinar was too late. Nikon, Canon and Sony were faster. There is still a reason to shoot ~ 30MP with MFDB if you like the look of Medium Format. But at these price tags (and the Sinar is not that expensive actually) the 21-24MP of 35 DSLRs are just... too good. MFDB is for "specialists" and the MFDB companies should stress (and advance) this and shouldn't try to run after the 35 DSLRs... because in this race they already lost big time.
Logged
Khun_K
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #217 on: May 08, 2009, 09:29:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Maybe your business model but not mine. Here is the point I DON"T WANT another system like a DSLR system. I don't want different workflows, software , batteries and all that goes with it. I see no need. If that is all I ever did I may think differently but it is NOT. I am NOT going to tell a 50k a year Corporate client that I do there marketing and advertising for to go hire another shooter to shoot there events . I will LOSE that client PERIOD. BTW I feel I get better results to boot. Now can you believe that one and I would rather shoot MF. Please after 32 years I don't need the advice on how to do my job or what are the best tools for it. All I am saying is the Sensor plus looks to have some advantages for certain things, Phase does not want to compete with Nikon or Canon but they will take every fence jumper that wants to move up. That you can bet money on. If a back can have some diversity in it than it is a good thing not a bad one, if you don't feel the need DON"T BUY IT.
Photographers will buy P65+ , as I did, for its absolute resolution, less on the sensor plus technology, which I said it has its value, but I don't see that a big value, of course other people can think it otherwise. To me the sensor plus is a convenience, not a solution, at least "not yet".  Same apply for the P40+.
The choice of camera is not relate to quality of picture nor client, or Terry Richardson can't use Olympus miu or other compact camera to shoot Sisley AD, Karl Lagerfeld should not use his Nikon, and Annie Lebovitz should leave her Canon in box, they all have the resources to use any camera they want, but the client pay for the photographer's quality, not the camera quality.  Camera quality is a choice of the photographer, it is a subjective decision the photographer take for his job, some may use just one system, so may use a lot, good example as Michael of Luminous Landscape, I don't see why he could not exhibit picture taken by a P65+ or a G10, a good picture is a good picture, I also don't think Harper's Bazaar will ask Karl Lagerfeld go home if he intend to shoot by using a Nikon.
Logged
footoograaf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #218 on: May 09, 2009, 03:44:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Here you can see Karl Lagerfeld shooting with Nikon LOL
« Last Edit: May 09, 2009, 03:49:00 AM by footoograaf » Logged
Toby1014
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #219 on: May 09, 2009, 06:58:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: footoograaf
Here you can see Karl Lagerfeld shooting with Nikon LOL


Yes indeed.....    

« Last Edit: May 09, 2009, 06:59:16 AM by Toby1014 » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad