Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Phase One P65+ vs Hasselblad 50MS test  (Read 24725 times)
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 29, 2009, 09:03:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John-S
Phase should rethink defaults.

Note that Capture One allows you to set your own custom defaults. Not everyone's opinion on noise reduction and sharpening will be the same so this allows a large diversity of opinions to all have a fast and easy workflow using their own desired settings.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 †| †Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 09:03:50 PM 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
tesfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137


« Reply #61 on: December 30, 2009, 04:38:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Steve Hendrix
I don't see your sharpening tool.

Steve Hendrix


Both gentlemen could be right:

Niels is developing the RAW files at setting set to 0 (zero), knowing that Hasselblad will perform better with this setup (at 0 setting there will still be a lot of processing being done behind the scenes).

Steve is processing the RAW files at default setting (not zero), knowing that Phase will perform better with this setup.

Both gentlemen being pro dealers should know exactly what they are doing.

The OP state that he does not know C1, I am not sure if I believe him:

A. This is correct info, he is btw an expert in Phocus. This is a little unfair being a dealer and publishing such a test not knowing how to get the other brand (phase) to perform. But knowing that so much is done in RAW processing that you can get any result of your liking.

B. My feeling is that he knows exactly what he is doing (not publishing the sharpening setting window). This is even worse and he will come out a little less of a gentleman.



Quote from: yaya
Worth noting that in these samples the extra 10.5MP on the P65+ were used for capturing the black cloth on the left, mostly...

Moving the camera closer to the scene to get the exact same frame might have changed things, or not...

Another favor to Hasselblad by the dealer.


Quote from: Niels Van Iperen
Simply because we did not want the focus to be influenced by depth-of-field issues - we were not really testing lenses, and both have the same disadvantage at f/22.

Perhaps, but we donít know, lenses do perform different at small apertures.

For all we know test might have been run at different apertures, and found the Hasselblad lenses performing better at f22 and Mamyia lenses better at f11, hence publishing test shot at f22 (diffraction).


Quote from: Niels Van Iperen
Only lens corrections were on in both cases because they are an integral part of the system. No focus adjustments in favor of Hasselblad, no soft focus filter for Phase...

Hmm, Perhaps Phocus does a better lens correcting job (and diffraction sharpening included). Interesting why this is the only setting in Phocus not at 0.


Quote from: Steve Hendrix
I have to say that I did actually click a grey patch with the white balance tool, because the file came into Capture One blue (perhaps it was set to the wrong white balance to begin with?). I didn't make any white balance adjustment to the Hasselblad file because it already appeared balanced.

Hmm, perhaps another "little" favor to Hasselblad from the dealer ?



--------

I think too many questions can be asked, and the more I look into the test, the less valid it seems.

This is the reason why I donít believe in test done by dealers with an agenda.

TES
« Last Edit: December 30, 2009, 04:40:53 AM by tesfoto » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #62 on: December 30, 2009, 05:38:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
Note that Capture One allows you to set your own custom defaults. Not everyone's opinion on noise reduction and sharpening will be the same so this allows a large diversity of opinions to all have a fast and easy workflow using their own desired settings.
True. But a useless preset is ... useless. Why then define any preset at all?
Especially lum.NR is a detail killer par excellence (my default is lum.NR: 0 | col.NR: 12 for my DBs).
At least for someone who is new to the software - like Niels - a better preset would be useful.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2009, 05:38:26 AM by tho_mas » Logged
PdF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



« Reply #63 on: December 30, 2009, 06:06:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Niels Van Iperen
IMHO a Multi Shot camera is not very useful for a portrait photographer. It is directed exclusively to product photographers. Product photographers will be shooting much more often in the 16-32 range than in the 5.6-11 range. So it is relevant that a system performs well at f/22.
What a stupid argument.

99% of my professionnal work is made in 4 shots and 16 shots modes. I'm allways triyng to use the best aperture for each lense, to have the best image quality. And f22 is never the best aperture ! Why would I use f22 to capture a painting ? To have less details ?

I think that the best comparative test is done with the same platform and the same lens.

PdF
Logged

PdF
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1102


WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 30, 2009, 08:31:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tesfoto
Both gentlemen could be right:

Niels is developing the RAW files at setting set to 0 (zero), knowing that Hasselblad will perform better with this setup (at 0 setting there will still be a lot of processing being done behind the scenes).

Steve is processing the RAW files at default setting (not zero), knowing that Phase will perform better with this setup.

Both gentlemen being pro dealers should know exactly what they are doing.

The OP state that he does not know C1, I am not sure if I believe him:

A. This is correct info, he is btw an expert in Phocus. This is a little unfair being a dealer and publishing such a test not knowing how to get the other brand (phase) to perform. But knowing that so much is done in RAW processing that you can get any result of your liking.

B. My feeling is that he knows exactly what he is doing (not publishing the sharpening setting window). This is even worse and he will come out a little less of a gentleman.





Another favor to Hasselblad by the dealer.




Perhaps, but we donít know, lenses do perform different at small apertures.

For all we know test might have been run at different apertures, and found the Hasselblad lenses performing better at f22 and Mamyia lenses better at f11, hence publishing test shot at f22 (diffraction).




Hmm, Perhaps Phocus does a better lens correcting job (and diffraction sharpening included). Interesting why this is the only setting in Phocus not at 0.




Hmm, perhaps another "little" favor to Hasselblad from the dealer ?



--------

I think too many questions can be asked, and the more I look into the test, the less valid it seems.

This is the reason why I donít believe in test done by dealers with an agenda.

TES



TES

I don't blame you for not believing in tests done by dealers. Frankly, the only test I really recommend is the one where the buyer spends some time with the product and uses it in the way he would normally use it. A test is a very very limited-eye view of a products performance. I also agree that it is hard to imagine a dealer who produces a test of competitive products that would publish the results if the test performed showed a disadvantage to the product they sell.

But I will also say that, as a dealer, it is our charter to try and provide information about the products we sell as much as possible. We do this for our own educational purposes as well.

So tests like these should be taken with a grain of salt. It is just one very narrow look at a product's performance. We'll continue doing our own testings and in fact have discussed recently ways to improve the tests, make them more real-world and interesting, and more objective, to the extent that we can. And despite the controversy over tests, comparative tests are hugely popular with users. I wish more users could perform tests also, but when I do see end user tests, they are usually not completely knowledgable about the products as they are usually performed by non-owners.

I am going to disagree 100% regarding your assertation that I processed the files at default knowing this would favor the Phase file. In fact several have stated they prefer the Hasselblad default look. And I have to say that I did so assuming Niels was attempting default settings with both programs and I knew from looking at the files they were not at default settings. And in fact, I have to say that after re-reading Niels original post, that he did say "zero out or switched off", which is something quite different than default. I assumed he meant default when he said "zeroed out/switched off". I didn't realize that he literally meant zero out, even though he did not zero out all settings, which led to the more contrasted look of the Phase file and other inconsistencies. Now that I realize that, I would probably amend my posts to discuss what happens with Hasselblad and Phase One files at default and what happens when you zero out certain settings. That might be more useful than the tests themselves.



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
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 30, 2009, 10:20:24 AM »
ReplyReply

well, I for one did not know the original poster was a dealer.

This thread likely demonstrates that the forum can be 'self policing!"

Re: multi-shot advantage:  Score "1"  (most seem to agree test was ok and results valid)

Re: Phase vs Hasselblad:  Score "0"  (most see big flaws in test, interpretation and conclusions)

But it did raise interesting comments....
Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #66 on: December 30, 2009, 10:38:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: vgogolak
well, I for one did not know the original poster was a dealer.

To me, it shows the desperation in the MF marketplace, that so many dealers are now on these forums. Fishing, fishing, for new customers, anywhere. If you thought it was bad here, with members sniping at each other, just wait until the dealers are the only ones reading this forum, and it's just them sniping at each other. You know that feeling when you're trying to buy a new car, and you pull into the dealership, and before you ever get out of your car, you look out your windshield and their are four different salesmen walking toward your car, all with a little drool slipping out of the corner of their mouth?

* The guy clearly should have identified himself as a distributor initially, with a vested interest in Hasselblad.

* If the guy truly knew Hasselblad, he'd know that the HC are beyond horrible at f22; in fact, f22 should not even have been included as an option on any of those HC lenses, to maintain the high quality Hasselblad reputation. And for the record, I have done the extensive testing, with my own HC lenses, so I speak from direct experience. So that's Strike Two on him.

* You had to beat it out of him, that he did not know CaptureOne. That's Strike Three right there.

Separate from this Colombian distributor, it also makes you wonder why a dealer like Capture Integration does not do their own extensive testing, side by side, with strobe on tripod at about f8 or 11, in their offices, with ALL the brands that they sell, (even including Canon). Would simply showing the truth simply be too threatening?

I agree with other multiple comments here: At this point, in 2010, it's about The Workflow. And now that I've sold off my Phase back, I just look back and wonder why I beat myself up with that Workflow, compared to the utter simplicity of DPP/EOS Utility of Canon. Yes, for landscape in low volume, the Phase back was nice, but if you're using this stuff for high-volume commerce, the 35 approach is very hard to beat. Everyone wants it tomorrow, (whether it sits on their desk for three days or not).
« Last Edit: December 30, 2009, 10:46:35 AM by gwhitf » Logged
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 552


« Reply #67 on: December 30, 2009, 11:46:29 AM »
ReplyReply

sorry,

it seems I've asked this question a bit too late....

the battle seems over already, and everyone's going home, wounded, bruised, and torn up.....

"Wouldn't the best way to test a digital back(say in this case Hassy vs P1), to put them on the SAME platform, with the SAME lens(say a m/f view camera), and shoot them the exact same way?"

to me, this seems to be the best way.... and being that you can't get the H3d/H4d to mate with a V-series body, albeit the P1 can, you can't just mount a different back, refocus, and re-shoot.

but, since I'm new to the digital arena, having been/still am a film shooter primarily, I understand what some of you are feeling in regards to WORKFLOW. I'm a photo major(i.e. still in school), and don't have a lot of money for fancy computer equipment with all the bells and whistles, YET .

but from my dealings with some smatterings of limited usage of a friend's P45+(see 8x10 vs MFDB thread), and other friends D5II's and D3x's, the file processing times are significantly shorter for the DSLR files, just due to raw file size.

I'm NOT trying to stoke the fire here any more than it already is, but wouldn't testing both backs on the SAME camera and lens be the best way to determine what does what, and what looks like what?

knowing that personal side-by-side testing is the best way to see the differences, I'm just interested right now in seeing how things REALLY would be that different in the end.

with each software left at its DEFAULT processing settings?

-Dan
Logged
RichA@FotoCare
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


WWW
« Reply #68 on: December 30, 2009, 11:49:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
To me, it shows the desperation in the MF marketplace, that so many dealers are now on these forums. Fishing, fishing, for new customers, anywhere. If you thought it was bad here, with members sniping at each other, just wait until the dealers are the only ones reading this forum, and it's just them sniping at each other. You know that feeling when you're trying to buy a new car, and you pull into the dealership, and before you ever get out of your car, you look out your windshield and their are four different salesmen walking toward your car, all with a little drool slipping out of the corner of their mouth?

* The guy clearly should have identified himself as a distributor initially, with a vested interest in Hasselblad.

* If the guy truly knew Hasselblad, he'd know that the HC are beyond horrible at f22; in fact, f22 should not even have been included as an option on any of those HC lenses, to maintain the high quality Hasselblad reputation. And for the record, I have done the extensive testing, with my own HC lenses, so I speak from direct experience. So that's Strike Two on him.

* You had to beat it out of him, that he did not know CaptureOne. That's Strike Three right there.

Separate from this Colombian distributor, it also makes you wonder why a dealer like Capture Integration does not do their own extensive testing, side by side, with strobe on tripod at about f8 or 11, in their offices, with ALL the brands that they sell, (even including Canon). Would simply showing the truth simply be too threatening?

I agree with other multiple comments here: At this point, in 2010, it's about The Workflow. And now that I've sold off my Phase back, I just look back and wonder why I beat myself up with that Workflow, compared to the utter simplicity of DPP/EOS Utility of Canon. Yes, for landscape in low volume, the Phase back was nice, but if you're using this stuff for high-volume commerce, the 35 approach is very hard to beat. Everyone wants it tomorrow, (whether it sits on their desk for three days or not).


I'd have to disagree with the statement that there's a desperation in the MF marketplace.  I started posting to give a alternative option/opinion on a board dominated by Phase and other dealers.  After 12 years working here at Foto Care I have sold more back systems this year to new customers who were either still shooting film or were shooting 35mm digital.  This was partly because of the price point from the manufactures to drive business but also because of other factors.  These other factors include perceived professional equipment type, quality level, software availability, etc.  You will not see me posting a test here or anywhere.  It is my belief that you as the photographer needs to do the test yourself in your shooting situation.  I have always argued that you should test everything that is available to find the right solution for the work you're doing no matter type or brand.  It's your money and your livelihood isn't it?  How many types of film cameras do you own?  How many different types of screw drivers, wrenches, hammers, drills, saw's, etc do you own?  How many fishing poles or golf clubs do you have?  It's the same scenario in digital photography, there is a correct tool for each application.  You might see guys like myself as car salesmen but from what I know of guys like Steve & John from Hot Wire Digital, and other PRO dealers is that we're an asset to your business.  Why do I believe this, it's from solving problems for customers, it's from helping out clients worldwide on set when they have a problem, it's from providing multiple solutions for you to test.

Sorry as I have posted earlier so what if Niels shot at 22 it was his test right or wrong.  He shot with a bunch of pros who could have and possibly did ask to shoot at different apertures.  You guys have different requirements and 22 sometimes is the right solution.  I have often had to tell working professional photographers to open up, change power on their packs or shutter speed, and the image will be sharper.  Oh don't have enough depth of field, get a view camera or tilt/shift adapter.  I think it was great that Niels posted a possible alternative for someone to consider when purchasing a higher end digital back system no matter how his test was performed.

I don't think Steve or any of the other dealers or manufactures are afraid of the results of a cross platform test.  It all gets back to finding the right solution for you and the best quality for you.

Rich Andres
Foto Care
41 West 21st Street
NY, NY 10010
212-741-2990
« Last Edit: December 30, 2009, 12:24:24 PM by RichA@FotoCare » Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #69 on: December 30, 2009, 12:21:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RichA@FotoCare
You guys have different requirements and 22 sometimes is the right solution.

If your job at hand calls for everything in the photograph to be slightly diffused, and nothing in focus, then certainly, f22 is clearly the best choice of fstops in the HC lens lineup.

I stand corrected.

Since you sell the gear, and since you're advising photographers, I suggest that you do the test -- it might surprise you. I know for sure that I was surprised. Just because it's got a Hasselblad logo on it doesnt mean it's tack sharp at every fstop. Diffraction is not your friend. I'll never shoot another frame with an HC lens (or most any lens) at an fstop smaller than f13 now, (unless that job is a portrait of Barbara Walters or anyone else that calls for a Softar II).
« Last Edit: December 30, 2009, 12:27:30 PM by gwhitf » Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832


« Reply #70 on: December 30, 2009, 03:08:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DanielStone
sorry,

it seems I've asked this question a bit too late....

the battle seems over already, and everyone's going home, wounded, bruised, and torn up.....

"Wouldn't the best way to test a digital back(say in this case Hassy vs P1), to put them on the SAME platform, with the SAME lens(say a m/f view camera), and shoot them the exact same way?"



-Dan


That was the first thing I wrote and in respone author said that it's simply a test of CAMERA SYSTEMS, ie CAMERA KITS (sic!), because in fact that's what he was testing. That's what everyone wishes for when getting a $40k back- a not top of the line version of 80mm lens. The only thing which may be insightful in this test is the single / MS shot comparison of HB shots, but that's a well known truth and you could see the samples at the hasselblad site from the moment they released their first multishot back as far as I remember.
Logged
RichA@FotoCare
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


WWW
« Reply #71 on: December 30, 2009, 03:19:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
If your job at hand calls for everything in the photograph to be slightly diffused, and nothing in focus, then certainly, f22 is clearly the best choice of fstops in the HC lens lineup.

I stand corrected.

Since you sell the gear, and since you're advising photographers, I suggest that you do the test -- it might surprise you. I know for sure that I was surprised. Just because it's got a Hasselblad logo on it doesnt mean it's tack sharp at every fstop. Diffraction is not your friend. I'll never shoot another frame with an HC lens (or most any lens) at an fstop smaller than f13 now, (unless that job is a portrait of Barbara Walters or anyone else that calls for a Softar II).

So I'll quote myself;
 "I have often had to tell working professional photographers to open up, change power on their packs or shutter speed, and the image will be sharper."

So yes, we tested three lenses that were easy to grab, used lenses, the HC50mm, HC80mm, and HC150mm.  No surprises since we advocate shooting at the sharpest f stop if possible.  It was always fun when I worked at Sinar Bron showing customers what that funny little scale on the fine focusing knob was on the Sinar view cameras.  Stop down to 45, 64 no watch what you get at 22 or 32.  then right down the line with the other formats, people would be amazed - working pros.  So yes we tested, "nothing in focus" is a strong statement, and not something I'm sorry that I would agree with.  Would I advocate shooting at 22, no not necessarily, but I'm also not going to tell you what to do or criticize any one for doing so.
Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #72 on: December 30, 2009, 03:34:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RichA@FotoCare
So I'll quote myself;
 "I have often had to tell working professional photographers to open up, change power on their packs or shutter speed, and the image will be sharper."

Rich,

I understand now. Honestly, I didn't really know what you were talking about with that sentence; now I see that you were in fact referring to diffraction. Yes, I have been shooting thirty years, and boy did it take me back when, several months ago, I took the time to test these HC lenses. It came about because I rented a 120HC Macro on a still life job, and I shot the final file at f32. But when I ran the file, it just did not look sharp to me. I even sent the RAW to the digital tech and asked what he thought. Then I began to think about that Diffraction thing. (Yes, sometimes you DO learn something from the LabCoat Guys!) My whole life, I always thought, "Well hell, if f16 is sharp, can you imagine how sharp that f22 will be? And then imagine how much sharper that f32 will be after that?" When, in truth, the inverse is true -- once you stop down past f13, the whole file begins to fall apart dramatically.

Next, after that, I now bring up the subject of "Sensor Bloom", as the LabCoatBoys like to call it. I suggest anyone that uses a Phase back, that shoots anything on a white cove, in the studio, to really watch out for this. So yes, I guess this is me again, "attacking the precious Golden Child medium format", but if you've ever tried to retouch Sensor Bloom in post, you'll pull your hair out.

But will you ever get a Warning Letter from your "MF Dealer, who's your partner in the large investment", about watching out for Sensor Bloom? No, I doubt you will. Yet, if you show them a file, they'll say, "Yeah, that's Sensor Bloom. Don't shoot anything with hard horizontal lines against a white blown-out cyc wall". And then I think, "Wow, thanks for the warning. I'm glad you knew about this, but didn't pass it on".

I'm not bitching -- I'm just talking Real World, and Real Jobs, and Real Situations, (where your reputation is at stake). Yeah, it's Personal.

Edit: The reason I read this forum is to learn about The Bad Stuff. I know the cameras are good; all of them. But I read this forum to identify the Snakes In The Grass, that are waiting to bite me in the ass, and ruin a job. Be it Error Messages on an H body, or Mirror Slap, or Sensor Bloom, or Diffraction -- with digital, there's always a snake lying in the grass. And very seldom, if ever, (like Rainer says) will you ever hear it from one of the dealers or manufacturers. They'll gladly come on here when there's an Upgrade Special or New Model, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen them come on here and announce, say, a problem with Leaf Capture 10, or that the new Capture One is (still) crashing. You've almost got to beat it out of them, if there's anything negative (that could threaten your paying job). That's why I get mad. And like that TMARK guy said one day, I'd hate it if some young kid came on here, thinking that a new Hasselblad camera was going to change his life, or put him on the map overnight, and all he got was hype, (like that www.hassynyc.com site), and not a balanced picture of the whole equation. Because I was that kid one day, many years ago, and my money was hard-earned; I would have appeciated it if someone spoke up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 10:28:27 AM by gwhitf » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #73 on: December 30, 2009, 06:18:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
License to have spoken: Versed in the real world in Hasselblad 500; Hasselblad 200; Mamiya 6; Fuji 680; Phase P25, P21, P30, P45; Contax 645; H2; GraflexSuperD; Linhof; Ebony; GowlandFlex; Deardorff.
is this the table of content for the once promised animated GIF?  
« Last Edit: December 30, 2009, 06:19:19 PM by tho_mas » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2398



WWW
« Reply #74 on: December 30, 2009, 07:51:19 PM »
ReplyReply

This sure seems like one of those tests where one could easily walk away with the wrong impression.  If I were the original poster, I'd think about redoing the tests with more attention to focus and framing with either f/8 or f/11.

- as an aside the higher pixel count backs seem to fair much worse with the small apertures like f/22 than the older backs like the ixpress 528c or P20, p25.     If you need f/22 and can't focus stack, then maybe an older back with lower pixel count would be a better option.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
macz5024
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 01, 2010, 12:32:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Just my 2 cents from a user of a P65 - I have some fff-files so I have a certain experience with Phocus 2 - but much more with Capture One 5.01.
Thanks for the RAW files. I have developped them and compared the areas discussed in this forum. Attached you will find my screenshots.

I think we should not mix up dynamic range and standard profiles. We can easily get all information which is seen the highlights of the fabric discussed in this thread from the P65 file. It is not visible with a standard procedure - but the information is in the file and can be recovered using the HDR-function. So it is not an issue of the back but merely of the profile/curve being used. Standard values in the Phase workflow may work better for other situations.

Sharpness/resolution is not really an issue with the P65 in this file (I am using sharpening values of 140/0.6/0.8 and NR values of 5/28) - it is very interesting however that these lenses still work rather nicely at f22 - I very rarely use them above f11...

The MS file is very clean and crisp - which was to be expected of course - but it is remarkable that the P65 gets a similar amount of details. I have developped the single shot Hassi file using both no sharpening and slight sharpening as set in the standards of Phocus 2. Both files do not get the same amount of details as the P65. And - if looking at the full frame - we deal with different measures. The P65 shows a much bigger frame of the whole scene than the others. So as for absolute resolution this is another pair of shoes as well...

The color issue of the apple reminds me of a mirroring of the green color of the chart in the background...

I would be very happy if these backs - which are on a really high level - all of them - will be compared with profound knowledge and from biased people. However if somebody wants to buy such gear, it is probably a good advise renting both equipments, try to get as much information as possible for how to use these software packages and try for himself. In the end it is also an important question what the use of the gear will be - and how you can get around with it.

Just my 2 cents - as I said in the beginning

Markus




Logged
BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 01, 2010, 03:34:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: macz5024
Just my 2 cents from a user of a P65 - I have some fff-files so I have a certain experience with Phocus 2 - but much more with Capture One 5.01.
Thanks for the RAW files. I have developped them and compared the areas discussed in this forum. Attached you will find my screenshots.

I think we should not mix up dynamic range and standard profiles. We can easily get all information which is seen the highlights of the fabric discussed in this thread from the P65 file. It is not visible with a standard procedure - but the information is in the file and can be recovered using the HDR-function. So it is not an issue of the back but merely of the profile/curve being used. Standard values in the Phase workflow may work better for other situations.

Sharpness/resolution is not really an issue with the P65 in this file (I am using sharpening values of 140/0.6/0.8 and NR values of 5/28) - it is very interesting however that these lenses still work rather nicely at f22 - I very rarely use them above f11...

The MS file is very clean and crisp - which was to be expected of course - but it is remarkable that the P65 gets a similar amount of details. I have developped the single shot Hassi file using both no sharpening and slight sharpening as set in the standards of Phocus 2. Both files do not get the same amount of details as the P65. And - if looking at the full frame - we deal with different measures. The P65 shows a much bigger frame of the whole scene than the others. So as for absolute resolution this is another pair of shoes as well...

The color issue of the apple reminds me of a mirroring of the green color of the chart in the background...

I would be very happy if these backs - which are on a really high level - all of them - will be compared with profound knowledge and from biased people. However if somebody wants to buy such gear, it is probably a good advise renting both equipments, try to get as much information as possible for how to use these software packages and try for himself. In the end it is also an important question what the use of the gear will be - and how you can get around with it.

Just my 2 cents - as I said in the beginning

Markus



Ya you didn't good job either.

It's now 2010 in everyone like to make money.

So here is the solution to all vendor.Well hasselblad and Phase one)

Phase one or hasselblad get together each other at the same place same time.

each of them shot the same product, or what ever at the same iso F what ever.

they go home or what ever place they can work and develop the best file they have and show it.

then people can see what they got.

Now I giving the info, I like to get pay for me passing it to you,(wow)

Here is the end.


Please do not post more, lets it end right here.

Amen.


Logged

rhsu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2010, 06:05:12 PM »
ReplyReply

shame cannot be tested against Rodenstock HR lens with both backs.  As this will actually test the back "interpretation" rather than using their own respectively lenses via C1 and Phocus software, which IMHO, both lenses "may" not be up to the task against such high resolution back both @ 6 micron pixel vs their respective lens design of 9 micron (? I think - but please correct me).  Rodenstock HR is of 5 micron.  However, it was an interesting test and thanks for sharing!
Logged
tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #78 on: January 08, 2010, 01:05:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, but he OP's samples have my BS meter pegged.  I downloaded the raw files and opened the P65+ file in Lightroom 3 Beta, did a quick white balance and turned off all noise reduction.  Consider the following three screenshots viewing the file at 100%:

1.  Lightroom 3 Beta's default sharpening setting:


2.  Sharpening reduced to ZERO:


3.  Sharpening increased to 50:


The screenshots were saved as TIFFs and saved for Web as jpegs at quality level 80.

So I really have no idea why the OP's P65+ samples are so soft, but it doesn't pass the smell test.


Does Lightroom support Hasselblad files?  I can't open the downloaded file in Lightroom to see how it compares...


Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2363


« Reply #79 on: January 08, 2010, 01:55:21 PM »
ReplyReply

No Lightroom does not support .FFF files. The single/multishot .FFF files are only supported by Phocus or Flexcolor (as long as they are not generated in Phocus).
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 02:07:38 PM by Dustbak » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad