Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Help needed with P45+ File Size  (Read 3509 times)
algrove
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« on: February 18, 2012, 09:41:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Contrary to the instruction manual, I cannot set the File Format to IIQ Raw L or IIQ Raw S.  My back only lets me set it to IIQ L or IIQ S.  Then when I take an image into LR3 the image is only around 40 mb.  That does not seem large enough since my M9 files are 35 mb.  Also my P45 files are TIFF not raw as I thought they should be right from the CF card.  Any suggestions for changes?  What am I doing wrong here.  Thanks for any help.
Logged
Rudy Torres
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2012, 10:18:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Algrove. I believe the word Raw was removed from the menu options as a result of a firmware update. Set it to IIQL or IIQS. When you say the image is only 40mgb your talking about the raw file size, right? I believe thats about right if its the raw file IIQL. The 45+ is a 31megapixel file so your processed Tiff files should land in the neighborhood of about 93 megs in RGB, uncropped. If your having trouble accessing the menu from the camera try changing the file format through Capture One during a tethered session. Capture One will be your best bet IMO for processing Phase One files, anyway. If you don't have a copy of Capture One, it is a free download for the DB version or a 30 day trial for the Pro version.
Logged
Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 249


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2012, 04:58:46 AM »
ReplyReply

 P45+ is a 39Mb file, not a 31 Mb file.
Logged

Willow Photography
darr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2012, 08:10:32 AM »
ReplyReply

TIFF is RAW on Phase One backs.

Quote
.TIF and .IIQ, available on P+ digital backs, are only file extensions. They do not change the format of the file (which is always the Phase One Raw Format).
  See http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/06/15/tif-vs-iiq/ to read more.
Logged

Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2012, 09:39:13 AM »
ReplyReply

.TIF was the extension chosen by Phase One in the early days of digital back. The reason (in short) is that early on the options for raw processing were extremely limited. No ACR, no LR, no Aperture, no Bibble, etc etc. Notably the OS itself had no raw-processing engine and could not generate a preview or thumbnail from raw data. This meant a photographer could deliver a raw file to a retoucher or client and unless they had Capture One they wouldn't even be able to see a thumbnail. To work around this Phase One made their raw file a "tiff compliant file" with the extension of .TIF. At a technical level the Phase One raw file is structured like a TIFF, a very small preview was placed in the "body" of the file and the raw data from the sensor is placed in a "note" section of the file.

All this by way of saying ".TIF" is a raw file. ".tif" is a processed file.

But of course as time passed the situation has changed. Now there are many ways to see/work-with a raw file. So phase (in current firmware) allows the photographer to pick ".IIQ" as the file extension. The file format is absolutely unchanged, but having the last letters of the file (the extension) changed to .IIQ avoids confusion like yours

The Phase One raw file compression is also some of the best in the industry: "IIQ L" is a losslessly compressed raw file which brings the file size down to much smaller than an uncompressed raw file - without any loss in quality. "IIQ S" is a lossy-compressed file which brings the size even smaller, but loses a very small amount of quality (generally only visible in deep shadows or when the file is greatly manipulated).

Is your firmware up to date? If you purchased from a dealer it should be, but if you purchased privately then it's important to make sure the firmware is up to date is especially important as performance-at-the-envelope (long exposure, high ISO) is broadly improved, and compatibility with currently-sold CF cards is much much better. If you have very old firmware (e.g. 2.9.Cool then you should not upgrade directly to the latest (5.1.2) but will need to update incrementally; trying to update directly from 2.9.8 to 5.1.2 can cause major issues which would not be covered under warranty. With a dealer this would be a non-issue, but if you recently purchased it used I'd contact the the seller and ask them what they want to do; but in any case I wouldn't accept the back with old firmware - let them deal with the hassle.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 09:51:11 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
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2012, 09:49:37 AM »
ReplyReply

P45+ is a 39Mb file, not a 31 Mb file.

A raw file from a P45+ will either be approximately 44mb (IIQ L) or approximately 27mb (IIQ S).

It will depend a bit on image content. A black frame (e.g. left the lens cap) will vary considerably from a shot of a highly detailed full-frame art reproduction.

http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/phase-one-tech-specs/
http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/new-backs/

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
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
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 820



« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2012, 05:12:55 AM »
ReplyReply

...it's important to make sure the firmware is up to date is especially important as performance-at-the-envelope (long exposure, high ISO) is broadly improved...

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)


Doug,

Could you explain please how different firmware can improve long exposure RAW image quality? I would have thought that this domain is purely at the mercy of the hardware - sensor dark current characteristics, cooling systems etc.

Thanks,
Ray
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2012, 08:39:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't claim to have engineering level knowledge. But in practice I've seen firmware on a variety of backs improve performance-at-the-envelope for a variety of issues that might seem, in theory, to be only hardware based. (and yes, I mean underlying maximum ceilings of quality of recorded raw files, not an improvement in defaults)

I've seen that personally with Phase One, Leaf, Hasselblad, and Leica.
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
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 820



« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2012, 08:50:06 AM »
ReplyReply

OK. My concern is that firmware implementations might involve some sort of non-kosher trickery, like filtering or interpolating the data before writing the RAW files (in which case, they're not really RAW anymore!). Do you know if this happens with any of Phase One, Leaf, Hasselblad, and Leica?

Ray
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2012, 09:42:54 AM »
ReplyReply

OK. My concern is that firmware implementations might involve some sort of non-kosher trickery, like filtering or interpolating the data before writing the RAW files (in which case, they're not really RAW anymore!). Do you know if this happens with any of Phase One, Leaf, Hasselblad, and Leica?

Ray

Almost certainly it does. Otherwise why would Hasselblad's Phocus software be able to do a better (or just different) job than Lightroom? I bet you that almost all RAW data has been filtered in some way by the onboard ADCs and firmware.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
EsbenHR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2012, 11:02:16 AM »
ReplyReply

OK. My concern is that firmware implementations might involve some sort of non-kosher trickery, like filtering or interpolating the data before writing the RAW files (in which case, they're not really RAW anymore!). Do you know if this happens with any of Phase One, Leaf, Hasselblad, and Leica?

Ray

I think it would be hard to argue that any Phase back does anything "non-kosher" to your data. All the tricks are deferred to the RAW converter... We think competing RAW converters should do the work themselves ;-)

On a serious note there are several ways we can improve a back over time.

1) The hardware is actually pretty "soft". A back is not like a DSLR where the critical parts are burned into ASICs (and even ASICSs are often very configurable these days). This means there are a lot of room to tweak hardware through firmware.

2) Sensors are not created equally.

Some chips may be above average at long exposure, others may excel in handling movements, yet others could be driven at lower ISOs than average etc.
Unfortunately we can not exploit this, since we must ensure that all backs can handle everything on a single spec sheet. A back that performs near the spec in one area may be superior in another. If we can find a way to improve the (usually few) backs that "are only at the spec" we can enable this as a general feature.

We may keep back sensors if we feel we can do better in some areas. After working our asses off, we often find a way to push these harder. This often involves recording more data from the hardware or even adding steps during manufacturing. Once we feel we can get all backs to a sufficient quality, we will enable this in firmware.

3) Improved processing.

Sometimes firmware can enable a feature if we think the processing is improved enough to make it useful. The obvious example is the ISO-range on DSLRs. You would be surprised to see how hard you could push an underexposed LightPhase image...

Back in the days, the expected quality of the files pixel-for-pixel were different. Also, a lot of improvements have happened to the processing, a lot of it enabled by faster computers.


I think this covers the majority of cases, but Phase One do not cheat by doing any processing in the backs that might as well be done in the RAW converter.

- Esben H-R Myosotis


PS: we actually have requests for this kind of processing. Recent Leaf backs can apply the equivalent of LCC directly in the back. At least the user needs to do something before it happens, but personally I am dead set against ever pilfering with the RAW data itself.
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2012, 11:34:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm sure Leaf, being based in Isreal, only produces Kosher files :-). AFAIK only the (optional) Leaf in-back LCC does anything like you describe and no such functions are possible in Phase One backs. It's quite against their internal mentality/ethos.

Update: I see Esben from P1 has chimed in here for a deeper engineering answer. What I can tell you is in practice it works and is a great benefit. All the back releases I have been part of have benefited from improvement for many months, and often years, after launch through firmware and software improvements.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 11:43:39 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
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2012, 12:12:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm sure Leaf, being based in Isreal, only produces Kosher files :-). AFAIK only the (optional) Leaf in-back LCC does anything like you describe and no such functions are possible in Phase One backs.

We actually have a kosher supervisor who's hired part-time and comes in after lunch every day to make sure everybody on the assembly line wash they're hands according to the halakha.... Wink

I've just upgraded the firmware on my D5100. It says something about more accurate exposure/ iso reading....is that kosher? (the label says Made In Thailand)

Seriously though;

All the on-board LCC really does is to temporarily replace the factory gain file, which is stored in the back, with one that is made for the specific aperture+focus setting+lens displacement so the RAW file that is produces is free of lens cast and vignetting

A RAW file is considered RAW as long as it is not de-mosaic'ed and bitmapped into a layered RGB image like a TIFF/ JPEG.

You cannot just read the pixel data from a sensor and stick it on a CF card...none of the current camera does this, especially when you use compression (lossy or lossless) and more-so when you utilise dark subtraction, blemish removal etc...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2012, 12:19:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray

Almost certainly it does. Otherwise why would Hasselblad's Phocus software be able to do a better (or just different) job than Lightroom? I bet you that almost all RAW data has been filtered in some way by the onboard ADCs and firmware.

John

Think about Raw Conversion as being a translation from a foreign text. Yes, there is one underlying "truth" (the original scene) but other than for scientific projects (e.g. art reproduction) there is very little about the process that is set in stone. There is a ton of math in raw conversion. Think of it this way, dozens of PHDs have spent since the early 90s (and much before depending on you definitions) working on how to take raw data from a sensor and best translate it into a final image. We have seen meaningful improvement in every iteration of new software. Take the same raw file through Capture One 3, 4, 5, and 6 and you'll see how much that has improved - likewise from Lightroom 1, 2, and 3 and the beta of 4 (I can't speak to Hassy but I'll assume the same could be said of early FlexColor to later FlexColor to early Phocus to now). This can be observed with raw files from a myriad of cameras (not just digital backs). This math is sometimes public domain (university research or just common knowledge for instance), some of it is developed independently and then purchased, and much (most?) is developed in-house by the math-heavies at each company.

So if it's clear (and empirically evident) that the math used in a raw processor matters a LOT to the final result, and the math used in each software is developed separately then why would you think the difference between Phocus (or Capture One or Leaf Capture) and LightRoom are because of changes to the raw file in-camera??

That said there is a lot of information Phase One, for instance, places in the raw data that other programs may or may not look for and use. For instance the dark frame data from long exposures. The guys developing Capture One and the guys choosing the hardware for Phase One digital backs, and the guys working on the firmware for those backs all work in the same building (for the most part) and go out for beer together and know each others kids. They are personally, professionally, and financially motivated to create the best total product possible and have the most intimate knowledge of every nuance of the sensor, A/D convertor, and other electronics that influence the raw data.

None of this is to say that LR can't do a great job with digital back files. In fact LR4 is looking like a big step forward (as I would expect from Capture One 7 - keep in mind that Adobe likes to show their betas and Phase One keeps theirs private). And since raw processing is partly (largely?) aesthetic it's very possible any given person will prefer different processors than someone else.

I'm simply explaining that the raw processor matters, and no hokus pokus is required for a manufacturer to the best job handling the processing of their own raw files.

A similar response on GetDPI I made a while back.

P.S. The difference between convertors is usually most evident with difficult files like high-iso, strange white balances, long exposures, or with large/heavy post process (e.g. very strong curves or strong highlight/shadow recovery).

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

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
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2012, 01:00:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for those interesting replies, Esben, Doug and Yair. I am happy to stand corrected.

By the by, I didn't mean to imply that any in-back processing would somehow be a bad thing. To me, that's pretty much the same as film emulsion chemistry, and if it makes for a better final image then that's just fine  Wink

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
algrove
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2012, 10:29:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Back from a very long journey. Thanks ever so much for everyone's help and comment. @ Doug, I will have to update the firmware in the back I can see.  I have ben using PS and LR and never installed my Capture Software, so I will do it now slowly getting up to latest version.

Must say my images have been outstanding just the way they are so hate to mess things up at this point.
Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1642


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2012, 08:21:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Algrove:

Just a few more thoughts.   What is the current firmware level of your back?  Are you sitting at 2.9.8? or are you at 3.2.6 or higher.  If you are at 3.2.6 or higher, then you should be able to upgrade incrementally with no problem.  However if you are at 2.9.8 or lower, you really need to contact Phase one or a dealer before you attempt to upgrade.  The reason is that some early P45+ backs will have problems getting above 2.9.8 and require a physical hardware change out ( I believe the controller card) before they will run 3.2.6 or anything higher.  If your back has the correct version of the card, it's no problem, if it doesn't then it can be a nightmare.  Mine didn't and became a nightmare. Net, as you attempt the upgrade, you can make the back unstable and it will no longer operate.  Mine being under Value Added warranty at the time was repaired.  But trust me, it was dead before Phase fixed it. It was strictly due to the firmware upgrade attempt.   The main thing you gain with the 3.2.6 and higher is the ability to get a longer exposure than around 15 minutes.  What started this whole quest for me was I wanted to use the my P45+ for exposures longer than 15 min and the back was rated to 1 hour.  I was informed that the later versions of firmware allowed this.  So here is one example where firmware in combination with the correct hardware did get you a new feature/function.  Unfortunately my back had a different version or make of the controller card and was not compatible. 
This is a little known issue about the P45+ as I guess most had other type of card and worked with the upgrades. 

With the firmware, I was able to get exposures of 1 hour that were very clean and my higher iso of 400 and 800 was improved markedly.  To the posters that were concerned that a firmware could improve performance quality of a image.  I can tell the new firmware made a marked improvement to the higher iso files, much cleaner and overall DR better, and the ability to get a clean workable file at exposure times up to 1 hour.

I had heard that since early 2010 when I went through this, Phase fixed the firmware process so that any back would now upgrade to 3.2.6 (now I guess 5.1.2 per Doug's note) but I don't if this ever happened or not.   Still I would check this out.   When I went through this, I was told that there was not any way of knowing if my back would take the firmware or not only if it failed.  That showed I had the other style of card.  Hard to believe this is true, but it is.  I hold no ill will to Phase One or my dealer at the time.  I was told about the risk, and was under warranty. 

What concerns me is it's unclear if you have any warranty or not.  If you don't I would strongly recommend you check your serial number and see if it's in the range that might have problems.  Phase One or a dealer will know this.  If you are under warranty, I would contact a dealer and or Phase One or both and ask them about the correct process to upgrade your firmware. 

Since I Phase One tech has already responded, I put it forward to them to verify if they feel this is a issue still or not.  It was a huge deal for me as my back went dead and nothing would get it to come back to point where I could get back to an earlier version of the firmware.

Paul
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
algrove
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2012, 05:19:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Paul- Thanks ever so much for your explanation and history of you went through. I purchased my back in 2011 and must check what version is on it now.  Must admit, I have never made an exposure longer than 5 minutes.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad