Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?  (Read 51092 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8199



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2009, 06:56:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
That's simply not true. You're judging based on dX0s numbers. I've judged it (as well as many many people on this forum) in the real world.

This can be settled in just a few minutes when you shoot both formats. Underexpose or overexpose both systems by 3 stops and then push/pull the image back into place. This test is dead-easy to run and judge, but obviously anyone shooting an expensive system should be expected to expose properly, so alternatively, use each camera for a scene with extraordinary range of lighting and then try to pull in both highlights and shadows.

The difference is obvious and undeniable.

Hi Doug,

You could easily cut short on those pointless discussions once for all by putting such examples onlines, along with raw files.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2009, 07:06:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
That's simply not true. You're judging based on dX0s numbers. I've judged it (as well as many many people on this forum) in the real world.
What is not true is that I am judging based on DxO numbers. I have deeply analysed Hasselblad H3D II RAW files and was surprised to find much more noise than I expected according to the myth. DxO measures just confirmed that, and I made a reference to them since the site can be easily checked by anyone.

If you have some evidences or comparisions to share (RAW files preferrable), I would be delighted to start a technical discussion. Until that, your experience is less valuable to me than my own tests, sorry.

Quote from: EricWHiss
You'd think so from looking at just the numbers, but when you compare the files there's a pretty big visual difference between even my old P20 and my new canon 5DII.
The same applies here Eric, if you have RAW fiels proving that, just share them.

Regards.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 07:12:45 PM by GLuijk » Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2009, 07:12:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GLuijk
What is not true is that I am judging based on DxO Numbers. I have deeply analysed Hasselblad H3D II RAW files and was surprised to find much more noise than expected according to the myth. DxO measures just confirmed that, and I made a reference to them since can be easily checked by anyone.

If you have some evidence or comparisions (RAW file preferrable) I would be delighted to start a technical discussion. Until that, your experience is less valuable to me than my own tests, sorry.

Regards.

When you examined the H3DII files did you use Phocus or Flexcolor or DCRAW or Huh?      I'm just suggesting that using the proprietary converters for MFDB files will make a bigger difference, especially regarding noise and fine detail than with DSLRs.    How much can you know until you shoot with the cameras and work with the files, push them around and print them?    

I've gone back and forth on noise.  It's one of those things that makes a lot less difference than I thought.  Banding and blotches, yeah they ruin images, but noise?  Nope.  And while noise fits into the technical definition of DR - it certainly is not cut and dry in terms of look and feel and prints.  Some kinds of noise - luminance noise is not a prob at all.


p.s.   I'm not at all interested in having a technical discussion with regard to whether MFDB has more DR than DSLR's with you or anyone else.  I've done my own testing.  I encourage you to stop trying to start a debate and rent a digital back camera and do some real life shooting with it.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 07:27:25 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 1291



WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2009, 07:14:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
When you examined the H3DII files did you use Phocus or Flexcolor or DCRAW or Huh?      I'm just suggesting that using the proprietary converters for MFDB files will make a bigger difference, especially regarding noise and fine detail than with DSLRs.
I am sorry Eric, but this discussion was already hold in the forum. If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.

Regards.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 07:16:00 PM by GLuijk » Logged

gdwhalen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2009, 08:07:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GLuijk
I am sorry Eric, but this discussion was already hold in the forum. If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.

Regards.


These discussions are typically so pointless.  People have eyes.  Use them.


http://www.gdwhalen.com
Logged

Jim2
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2009, 08:54:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gdwhalen
These discussions are typically so pointless.  People have eyes.  Use them.


http://www.gdwhalen.com
I wish I could compare them myself but I have no access to an MFDB nor to anyone who has one, hence hoping for some opinions / advice from those who have used both (preferably owned both also).
Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1132


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2009, 08:58:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GLuijk
I am sorry Eric, but this discussion was already hold in the forum. If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.

Regards.


IMO it's pointless what the capabilities of the sensor itself are except only as one component towards the final image quality. What matters is what comes out at the end of the imaging process. And to me, if a proprietary software somehow decreases noise, improves detail, reduces artifacts, etc, then the result of that is all I care about. The sensor characteristics are relevant, but only as a critical part of the final outcome, it is in and of itself not the complete story of the outcome.

I agree with Gary, photographers use what they want to use, they'll see what they want to see, and those who use medium format digital feel it gives them something that 35mm does not. Pinning down what that is sure gets difficult. Nonetheless, the preference exists with many. Recently I took a survey of a number of photographers who all shot with medium format digital (and probably all shot with 35mm dslr as well) and asked what it was about mfd that kept them shooting it. Even though I laid out some multiple choice answers it was difficult to come to a clear conclusion as to why they continued shooting mfd. But none of them were interested in shooting exclusively 35mm. Obviously the majority of the market shoots exclusively 35mm dslr. But there is and will always be that (comparatively) small but stubborn quadrant that requires an alternative.

It's very simple - just do the test, look at the results, and you'll know for whatever it is you do, which direction (sometimes both) to take.


Steve Hendrix
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 09:37:56 PM by Steve Hendrix » 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
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8902


« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2009, 09:32:37 PM »
ReplyReply

We should be clear that the only 35mm DSLR pixel (or sensel) that appears to exceed the DR of the P65+ sensel, at base ISO, is that of the D3X. It appears to be better in all departments; tonal range, color sensitivity and noise etc, at the pixel level.

However, the situation is different when comparing equal size images or prints. The P65+ image then appears to have better SNR, tonal range and color sensitivity, but oddly enough not better DR. The DR of the D3X, even on 8x12" prints, is still about 2/3rds of a stop better than the downsampled P65+ image, excluding enhanced results from proprietary software.

To make a fair comparison, would one have to process both images using the best software available for each camera.
Logged
Voltman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2009, 10:48:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jim2
I'm currently shooting landscape as a hobby, hoping that one day I can sell the ones I consider great. I'm currently using 1ds3 and have been wondering about whether to get an MFDB + view camera. The MFDB would give me a higher res and the view camera would give me better Dof on grand scheme type of shots.

- I'm wondering whether I should wait for 1ds4, hoping it would have a higher resolution + better DR (if that's even possible?) and use either the Canon TS lens or Cambo X2

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology? I'm using a Canon ipf6100 printer at the moment but the future might offer us better printing technology too.

I guess this is all technical and at the end of the day a nicely captured shots with 1ds3 would be quite nice too and I know a few professional landscape photographers who sell their photos for a living use 5d2.

Thanks for your input / comments / advice / suggestions / thoughts.

Just my 2 yen's worth.  

"Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?" In my limited experience yes when you look at very large prints that your ipf6100 is capable of producing.  But you don't mention your actual intended output size - assuming you'll print at native res would DR really matter much to please your seeing at the smaller print size your bound to with a DSLR sensor? Do you ever intend to print something larger?

I've owned and used both an MFDB and Nikons for a number of years, albeit the MFDB until recently was a Kodak DCS and my most recent Nikon a D2x (before that a D1, D1X, D2H etc.).  I now have a P65+.  It was a really hard decision not to get the D3X over the P65+ (which I will do eventually) but for me the real killer in deciding to invest so much money in MFD right now came after quite a few visits to galleries here in Tokyo and more specifically the Epson Salon where I saw a portfolio of very large gallery prints of sunsets and landscapes from a Leaf - they were simply stunning - much more so than many of the images I'd seen there before typically shot with DSLRs.  I think once you've seen prints of high DR subjects in large format output from a large format sensor the result will be compelling enough to just go with your instincts.

For me its simply a decision to emulate the technique used to produce the best results I've seen from my perspective and needs - in this case large prints which contain vast, deep shadows where I want to retain the details mixed with nearly blown out highlights.  The tipover point for me was seeing those objectives realized on paper for the first time and comprehending that all of the Photoshop tricks and plugins would never achieve that on a DSLR. Investing in an MFDB makes sense to me as I now realize that when printer technology finally catches up to the sensor's capabilities I'll likely have more useable image files to work with at a later point.

As for the Cambo X2 I'd pass. I've have the Horseman VCC (similar) and I think you'll find the limited movements from a DSLR body won't be satisfying enough. Its a kludge - and in any case Canon's newer T/S series eliminates most needs for such a contraption given they can rotate and are fully coupled.


Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7647


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2009, 10:53:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Ray,

DR is nothing you can see in a print or, to be more exact, prints can reproduce about seven seven steps of DR. It would be possible to map a large DR. like 10 steps, to print range but the image would be boring and flat. DR is something we can use in raw-conversion and post processing to achieve attractive results.

D-max on papers is about 2.15 - 2.35. D-min on glossy paper is about 0.05. So DR is about 2.2, to get it in steps you simply divide by 0.3 .

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Ray
We should be clear that the only 35mm DSLR pixel (or sensel) that appears to exceed the DR of the P65+ sensel, at base ISO, is that of the D3X. It appears to be better in all departments; tonal range, color sensitivity and noise etc, at the pixel level.

However, the situation is different when comparing equal size images or prints. The P65+ image then appears to have better SNR, tonal range and color sensitivity, but oddly enough not better DR. The DR of the D3X, even on 8x12" prints, is still about 2/3rds of a stop better than the downsampled P65+ image, excluding enhanced results from proprietary software.

To make a fair comparison, would one have to process both images using the best software available for each camera.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 09:37:33 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2009, 11:09:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jim2
I wish I could compare them myself but I have no access to an MFDB nor to anyone who has one, hence hoping for some opinions / advice from those who have used both (preferably owned both also).

Jim,

I hear you. There must be some Leaf and Phase One dealers not too far journey from where you live. That is the way to take a look and well worth while a journey for this level of gear.

In these forums nowadays you find much folks arguing that DSLRs are the equal, but with lack of experience of shooting MFDB, and with way too much pixel peeping, comparing to that flawed DxO comparison etc. Many pros shooting MFDB and that posted here before post much less than the other year or are gone, simply because too many trolls with eyes that cannot and refuse to see a difference... claiming, arguing plain silly that their latest gadget 2-7k usd dslrs are equals of professional imaging machines more capable and costing many times more.

Both Leaf and Phase Ones clear beat the recent 24mp dslrs including beating D3X for anyone that have eyes with which to see.... I roamed tons of photos of D3X and the others, and am unable to see any point in discuss because MFDB is superior.
 
If you are willing to stick a digital back on a Mamiya RZ, the RZs nowadays sells for near free, check Ebay. I just picket up a great condition RZ there for 1,700 usd including five lenses and loads of extras, just out of curiosity to shoot some film with such BIG and bright waist level viewfinder. If I would care to get a adapter my Aptus would fit, but... I might not and sell it off instead - at profit.  And... the claim is that MFDB is more expensive... well, it all depends. Also used backs can be come by for reasonable. There are the 22MP Aptus 22 and P25 with 48x36mm sensors and at low ISO they are superb, but there are the newer generation technology higher MP backs, and of those the 44x33 sensors are a bargain because due to their very slight crop they sell for lower. When I bought my Aptus 65 it was cheaper to buy new than a used Aptus 22! I would recommend checking out refurbished backs from a dealer, due that they provide warranty.

Best of luck. Please send me a private message if in any way I can help more.

Regards
Anders
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2009, 05:00:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
that flawed DxO comparison

Sorry ... but why is it so hard to accept that the biggest difference between a Phase One and D3x is sensor size?

What's flawed about DxO's tests?
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7647


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2009, 05:29:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Well, probably not much is flawed about the DxO tests except the way they present data, and the folks that read those tests.

The major issues I have is that:
- Boiling down all measurement in a single number is over simplification.
- Most readers don't read the articles, look at the curves but just compare the DxO-marks

By and large I see DxO-mark as something positive and feel that their efforts should be appreciated.

If DxO published their raw files used in the measurements then it would be a great contribution to the community.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Sorry ... but why is it so hard to accept that the biggest difference between a Phase One and D3x is sensor size?

What's flawed about DxO's tests?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 05:31:47 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

evgeny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 481



« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2009, 05:37:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I shoot MFDB in studio with controlable light.
I use ISO 50.
My strobes limit me to 1 image per 2 seconds, which I found almost enough for photographing children.

If you shoot fast and/or in low light you need a DSLR, I don't. I not tried D3x, cannot compare it to MFDB, I think it can succed your needs, but you will want to upgrade every n-years.
I not look back at DSLR since I started shot with Sinar and Aptus backs mounted to Contax 645. My MF/DB images are superb comparing to anything I did before with my old Nikon D/SLRs.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 06:34:20 AM by evgeny » Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2009, 05:50:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GLuijk
I am sorry Eric, but this discussion was already hold in the forum. If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.

Regards.
What matters is the end result - the print... and if the lens/sensor/software are made for each other... then it would be illogical not to use them together - compare systems, not sensors.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2009, 06:06:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
If you have a meter, and an LCD, (even a shitty Phase One LCD), and you can't get any closer than three stops, then you've got some much bigger issues in your life, and maybe you ought not own either system. Maybe you oughta go back to that Minolta 101, take a class, and start from scratch.

So you call this "real world"? Miss your exposure by three stops and then try to save the job in the software?

...If you read my post I very clearly state two tests
1) which is NOT real world, but is very easy/quick to run: miss by three and correct
2) a REAL WORLD test in which the scene's DR is very large and you simply attempt to bring in both highlights and shadows.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
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
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838


WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2009, 06:09:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi Ray,

DR is nothing you can see in a print or, to be more exact, prints can reproduce about seven seven steps of DR. It would be possible to map a large DR. like 10 steps, to print range but the image would be boring and flat. DR is something we can use in raw-conversion and post processing to achieve attractive results.

D-max on papers is about 2.15 - 2.35. D-min on glossy paper is about 0.05. So DR is about 2.2, to get it in step you simply divide by 0.3 .

Best regards
Erik

That's absolutely right. DR is used to CAPTURE detail. It is a separate, but very connected issue, to REPRODUCING detail.

If you capture detail you can rearrange the tone curve to reproduce it in print.
If you don't capture detail it cannot be brought into the print curve.

While you can render the detail into the print by a curve this often leaves the entire scene looking flat. So instead you often bring the detail captured back into the print by selectively dodging and burning.

That is the simple power of Dynamic Range. You cannot reproduce what you do not capture.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 06:11:12 AM by dougpetersonci » 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
Voltman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #37 on: September 13, 2009, 07:16:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
That's absolutely right. DR is used to CAPTURE detail. It is a separate, but very connected issue, to REPRODUCING detail.

+1 Doug....

To be honest I'm still struggling to understand all of this coming from film for the most part of my life but Adobe has an excellent (though some may say basic) paper on this which pertains to DR:

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbo...ering_image.pdf

I found this particularly useful in understanding and defining my imaging needs for the present and future sense.

A bit dated comment - but its kind of like going to a Zone system workshop after having a Peter Gowland initiation to photography in the 70s.... and I still have my Pentax Spotmeter F btw.

In the end its how many prints (and future better prints) you can produce 10 years from now from images you only have a single moment to capture now thus a need to capture the best you can at the moment.  From my learning that was the main emphasis of the zone system and the unique departure from the norm of the subject of Adam's book "The Negative". From what I'm finding that still rings true today though its a digital not chemical realm.
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2009, 08:08:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: evgeny
I shoot MFDB in studio with controlable light.
I use ISO 50.
My strobes limit me to 1 image per 2 seconds, which I found almost enough for photographing children.

If you shoot fast and/or in low light you need a DSLR, I don't. I not tried D3x, cannot compare it to MFDB, I think it can succed your needs, but you will want to upgrade every n-years.
I not look back at DSLR since I started shot with Sinar and Aptus backs mounted to Contax 645. My MF/DB images are superb comparing to anything I did before with my old Nikon D/SLRs.


Alright, I confess as well!!!! I did not shoot with the D3X, and I do not wish to touch it! I got serious into photography with a Nikon F100, it was a superb camera to do so with, and Fuji Velvia. And! It did not have the multitude of high tech buttons that DSLRs have and that do not make you take quality photos, only a large number of photos.

Around 2005 the forums raved of the exciting Nikon D200, saying it was a blessed device and surpassing slide film with all the details from those pixels... and indeed there were lots of folks pixel peeping same as now is argued for 24mp dslrs being equals to mfdb. Anyways, I was convinced by the forums for the D200 back in 2005, simply I was not clever enough to listen to posts not raving for it. I am sorry, but I really found the D200 horrible tool. Colors were a pain to get pleasing and decent, and although details were rendered with pixels it was of far less value than my Minolta DiMage SE 5400 scans from Velvia 50. Perhaps it is something wrong with my eye... perhaps they are too sensitive or trained???

Albeit, many are photographers who wished of and have guilt of claiming the latest carnations from Canoikon land was beating film ;-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/d30/d30.shtml
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003

Yup, those two threads were the 6MP and 3MP days...  Hm, what has changed on LL??? And , if you read the one about the 3MP it also justify the cost for digital. How many of you folks posting here are sure digital has been financially justifiable? As an amateur my reply is that it has been far more expensive than if I would have stayed film. Yet, we have all been caught by the media and internet, to upgrade, upgrade, latest better, latest better...

Anyways, I was near strangled over on dpreview when I posted that I sold my D200 and bought a ZD. Even Thom Hogan posted and suggested I would be better off spending money on Photoshop classes. Regrettably the ZD was designed with problems, as I posted of it early last year. That is when I bought the Aptus, either that or I would have been back to FILM. The Aptus 65 rocks, so does the M8, albeit they are complete different tools. Now, back to subject... and you were arguing that dslr be the equal to MFDB???

All it takes is a trained eye.

Rgds
A
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #39 on: September 13, 2009, 08:51:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
All it takes is a trained eye.
I'll take the science and dispassionate common sense over a 'trained eye' any day.  Eyes lie ... people see what they want to see.

What's flawed about DxO's testing?
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad