Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Comparisons From DT's 250 and 260 testing in the Library  (Read 6530 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2014, 05:24:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have no Nikon D800 so I don't know about it's colour, so I cannot say. But it seems that it is a bit fishy if the IQ 250 profile works much better than the D800 profile for a D800. If even Q260 and Q280 profiles work better than D800 profile it is even more fishy. Could be the "Image Professor" had a bad day?

But colour rendition is not the main reason I am not using Capture One, the main reasons are:

- I prefer LR 5 from workflow and I don't want to have a lot of TIFFs in my library
- I prefer DNG to propriatery raw formats
- C1 processing doesn't work for me. I prefer Adobe's highlight compression to C1-ones. C1 one just gives boring images.
- Same goes for shadow detail

But, I am a Lightroom user since 2006 and very much addicted to parametric workflow.

Best regards
Erik

Grin

It does come into mind.... but on the other hand, what would I do if I where Phase One? I wouldn't cry if the D800 profile didn't turn out too well.

The accuracy probably not too good if using the IQ250 profile on the D800 due to the different CFAs. However the global sensitivity of the channels are compensated for through the white balance constants embedded in the raw file which should even out the differences, so it's not too suprising that good results can be had anyway. And while I'm sure the CFAs are different, the difference maybe is smaller than they would have been if the sensors came from different manufacturers.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4121



« Reply #41 on: February 14, 2014, 12:05:07 AM »
ReplyReply

C1 has a history of bad profiles for dSLRs.
I don't know why this is because there is a CAMSPECS gadget you can buy for $12K or so from Image Engineering that will spit out profiles computed from the sensor spectral sensitivity.

In the case of Adobe, at least one can assume that their color renderings correspond to what they wish to offer consumers, which of course is very different from what pros would rquire.

Edmund
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 12:14:26 AM by eronald » Logged
synn
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 512



WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2014, 02:55:07 AM »
ReplyReply

How does capture nx2 render iiq files?
oh wait...
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1588


« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2014, 03:09:29 AM »
ReplyReply

MF is a system, a workflow, not just a back or a camera. Potential buyers look at the end result. If noone really makes profiles for the DSLRs to suit the studio professionals then they have a workflow disadvantage. If neither Phase One or Adobe is doing it MF can continue to keep an edge just based on software. The difference in cost between a high resolution DSLR and an entry level MF camera is not huge for a professional, and if the MF workflow will make you spend less time in post-processing it's an easy choice.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 03:12:10 AM by torger » Logged
synn
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 512



WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2014, 03:45:18 AM »
ReplyReply

MF is a system, a workflow, not just a back or a camera. Potential buyers look at the end result. If noone really makes profiles for the DSLRs to suit the studio professionals then they have a workflow disadvantage. If neither Phase One or Adobe is doing it MF can continue to keep an edge just based on software. The difference in cost between a high resolution DSLR and an entry level MF camera is not huge for a professional, and if the MF workflow will make you spend less time in post-processing it's an easy choice.

True.

And yes, I spend a lot less time post processing MF files than I do DSLR files. This was a huge reason for me to switch to MF.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2014, 04:05:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Nikon doesn't sell NX2 as a general purpose product for a wide range for cameras.

Phase One markets Capture One as a professional tool for a wide range of cameras, including Nikon and Canon and therefore they should provide adequate and accurate profiles for the cameras they pruportedly support.

Best regards
Erik

How does capture nx2 render iiq files?
oh wait...
Logged

synn
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 512



WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2014, 04:18:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Nikon doesn't sell NX2 as a general purpose product for a wide range for cameras.

Phase One markets Capture One as a professional tool for a wide range of cameras, including Nikon and Canon and therefore they should provide adequate and accurate profiles for the cameras they pruportedly support.

Best regards
Erik


I bought my C1P license for less than what Nikon charges for CNX2.
Even without the IQ 250 profile, a custom preset created with a color checker in C1P delivers better colors than LR for Nikon files.My friend who shoots Canon says the same.

Haven't processed enough Sony files to give a definite verdict on that.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838


WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 14, 2014, 06:08:26 AM »
ReplyReply

C1 has a history of bad profiles for dSLRs.

Huh

Capture One has an excellent reputation for color rendering for dSLRs.

Color is subjective so of course you're neither right not wrong if you say YOU don't like c1's color engine, but if you ask 100 people who have used c1 or you look back through posts on c1, and you'll find its likely the #1 reason stated for why people like c1.
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
AreBee
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138



WWW
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2014, 06:59:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Erik,

Quote
Could be the "Image Professor" had a bad day?

Quote
It was known for long that CMOS with on sensor converters has much lower shadow noise than CCD. But CCD friends have always stated that CCDs have some magic properties, like the emperor's new cloths. So we just found out that the emperor has no clothes and a lot of underbody fat.

Your sense of humour is on fire these days. Grin

Quote
I have no Nikon D800 so I don't know about it's colour, so I cannot say...

I recently trialled Capture One and compared results from it to Capture NX2, the latter of which I am very familiar with, and which cost me nothing. For my part, I prefer the colour I get from Capture NX2 to that from Capture One by far, regardless of profile.

Regards,
Logged

Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 496


WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2014, 07:17:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Huh

Capture One has an excellent reputation for color rendering for dSLRs.

Color is subjective so of course you're neither right not wrong if you say YOU don't like c1's color engine, but if you ask 100 people who have used c1 or you look back through posts on c1, and you'll find its likely the #1 reason stated for why people like c1.

No worries. Some of the folks on this forum are never happy, never satisfied in regards to anything photographic. (unless something is free, then they can't complain much, at least not about cost  Grin )
Logged
AreBee
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138



WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2014, 08:04:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Ken R,

Quote
Some of the folks on this forum are never happy, never satisfied in regards to anything photographic.

Instead of talking around folk, why not demonstate some strength of character and name those you criticise?
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2014, 02:55:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I just tested Capture One on my Sony Alpha SLT 99. On the ColorChecker, deviation in Capture One 7.1.3 is almost twice compared with LR 5.3.

It is well possible the profile is good, but not accurate. To be more specific, it may be that it produces pleasant skin tones in studio conditions but the colours are less accurate.

The targets were illuminated with two Elinchrome D-lite 400 flashes with soft boxes on each, and WB taken on second left gray field on the colour checker. Exposure corrected. -0.41 EV in LR5.3 and -0.93 in C1.

C1 7.2LR 53 profile 131225LR 5.3 AdobeStandardLR 5.3 Adobe RGB (D65)
Delta E6.993.554.13.86
Sigma7.693.874.524.18

This is pretty similar to the results I got with my P45+.

For completeness, I used a camera specific profile generated automatically by Adobe DNG Profile Editor. Adobe Standard values in third column.

Note! As pointed out by Bart van der Wolf in another posting, the files have different white points. This depends on me using Prophoto RGB in LR5.3 and Adobe RGB in Capture One (as Prophoto RGB is not a recommended output colour space in C1). I rechecked the results exporting from LR 5.3 in Adobe RGB. There was a small difference. Most thankful for Bart pointing out the issue.


As a small side note, I am aware the we are shooting real world subjects and not test charts, but test charts have a couple of advantages. They designed to measure certain parameters and they are pretty reproducible.

Best regards
Erik




Huh

Capture One has an excellent reputation for color rendering for dSLRs.

Color is subjective so of course you're neither right not wrong if you say YOU don't like c1's color engine, but if you ask 100 people who have used c1 or you look back through posts on c1, and you'll find its likely the #1 reason stated for why people like c1.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 03:51:45 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3767


« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2014, 03:04:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I just tested Capture One on my Sony Alpha SLT 99. On the ColorChecker, deviation in Capture One 7.1.3 is almost twice compared with LR 5.3.

Hi Erik,

Just an observation on the Imatest Charts, D65 versus D50 ?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2014, 03:32:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bart,

Thanks for observing this!

I have no explanation, except that in LR 5.3 I exported the file in Prophoto RGB and from Capture One I exported as Adobe RGB, as it doesn't have Prophoto RGB as an option. I am not aware of any colour space setting I may have done. The flash I use is about 5100K.

Exporting the file from Lightroom 5.3 in Adobe RGB sets it to D65 with Delta E 3.86 and Sigma 4.18, so the results are similar in Adobe RGB for both.

I guess that Imatest assumes D65 for Adobe RGB and D50 for Profoto RGB.

Incidentally, the values I have seen on my P45+ were similar. LR5.3 was about twice as accurate as C1 7.1.3.

I only have the P45+ and Sony cameras so I cannot say about Nikon or Canon. But, it has been posted on these forums that Capture One gives 'better' colour with say IQ-250 profile than with D800 profile on D800. Now, I guess that may have to do with the ICC profile being applied after colour conversion to the internal colour space in C1 (whatever that may be). So the colour conversion matrix is probably applied before the ICC profile, in which case the ICC profile may be just a tweak on the colour conversion previously done?

I leave the figures as they are, right now and fix them tomorrow. As said the deviations are very similar weather Prophoto RGB (D50) or Adobe (D65).

Yeah, I found out: Prophoto RGB uses D50 white point while Adobe RGB uses D65, see below:

http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/rommrgb.xalter
http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/adobergb.xalter


Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

Just an observation on the Imatest Charts, D65 versus D50 ?

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 03:39:49 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

synn
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 512



WWW
« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2014, 07:34:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Capture one can export as pro photo rgb.
I'm starting to get a good idea about why you complain about c1 so much...
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4121



« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2014, 07:41:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken R,

Instead of talking around folk, why not demonstate some strength of character and name those you criticise?

Because Ken is a gentleman Smiley
Please, kids, play nice!

Edmund
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2014, 01:12:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes,

It can export Prophoto RGB, but it is not 'recommended'. If it is using a smaller internal working space than Prophoto RGB than Prophoto RGB doesn't matter. I did consider exporting in ProphotoRGB but Imatest handles both Prophoto RGB and Adobe RGB.

It matters very little as all colours in the ColourChecker fit comfortably with Adobe RGB.

Anyway the main reasons I dropped Capture One are:
  • My workflow is LR 5.3, it is either one or the other, I think C1 is capable of parametric workflow so it could replace LR, but it essentially means that I would loos all complex adjustment for all images.
  • As I will always have the images in LR. Using C1 would mean generating TIFFs. I avoid TIFFs as it breaks parametric workflow.
  • Lightroom has some magic features in handling highlight compression, similar to local adaption. Generally I don't like magic and I would like a bit more control, but it works for me.
  • Lightroom also has some tone mapping on shadows
  • If I have a wide scene luminance range, some tone mapping is needed to reduce it to something usable on print and screen and I want to do it without resorting to Photoshop. As said I want to have a parametric workflow.
  • C1 doesn't really support DNG, and my workflow has been based on DNG since 2006. Also I am strong supporter of DNG and I am deeply against proprietary RAW.
  • I want to use RawTherapee as alternate processor and it supports DNG but IIQ (as far as I can see). DNG opens some doors and close some others.
  • To make a switch, partial or full, C1 would need to offer significant benefits. The only significant benefit I have seen is that it avoid some moiré and moiré reduction has somewhat less side effects than LR. But, RawTherapee has some coding that suppresses both moiré and other colour aliasing effects well and with less side effects. So I decided on RawTherapee as alternate raw converter.
  • RawTherapee, is open source and some guys I respect take part in its development. That matters a lot for me.
  • Availability of easy to use colour calibration tools. You can use Adobe DNG Profile Editor or Xrite Passport software or QPCard to generate DCP profiles. Those DCP profiles work with LR5, Iridient Raw Developer and RawTherapee.
  • PhaseOne uses ICC profiles for camera calibration, but that may not be a correct approach. My understanding is that they are applied to a converted image.
  • The comment by Esben HR here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=82891.msg672308#msg672308 says essentially: forget about calculating ICC profiles. Esben is maintaining the colour engine of C1 at PhaseOne, so I guess he knows how things work. The whole thread is worth reading
  • So when Phase One says that it uses ICC profiles it is correct, in a sense, but it doesn't give you the tools to generate those profiles, and using them seems to be far more complex than usually suggsted.
  • In those cases I had opportunity to test Adobe Standard profiles were more accurate than Capture One profiles, but may have been less correct. Adobe gives me the tools correct my profiles.


All the reasons I can recall right now, there may be some more.

The major deal breakers are poor DNG support, how "HDR sliders work", ICC profiles. And most importantly that I have not found any benefit significant enough to switch workflow from LR to C1.

I don't hate Phase One, if I did I wouldn't buy their back, but I deeply distrust they marketing. I am also deeply opposed to the idea that you need a manufacturers software to handle that manufacturer raw converter. Quite a lot of ideology involved, and it matters lot for me. Let's put it this way, I am for openness, free  competition and so on.

Best regards
Erik

Capture one can export as pro photo rgb.
I'm starting to get a good idea about why you complain about c1 so much...
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 01:38:35 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2014, 01:42:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Yes Ken is gentleman I have deep respect for his views, even if they differ from mine.

That applies to most posters on these forums actually.

Best regards
Erik

Because Ken is a gentleman Smiley
Please, kids, play nice!

Edmund
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 15, 2014, 02:05:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

This is my impression from this test:

  • The IQ-250 works as expected, it is a Sony sensor yielding the DR Sony sensor normally deliver. Works as expected.
  • Well possible that it does not perform as well CCD cameras with shift. Doug and Torger have good insights in this.
  • Much less shadow noise from the CMOS sensor than from the CCD, but that has been expected.
  • The test says little about colour rendition. My guess is that it is pretty good.
  • I also note that the camera produces a lot of moiré, colour aliasing and aliasing in general in this setting, but that is expected from combination of excellent lenses, relatively large pixels and no OLP filtering. Nice that image processing theory still works! ;-) Note: this needs to be rechecked, I may have mixed up images with other backs.

My take is that CMOS is probably a good thing for MFD. Personally I use live view a lot for accurate focusing. If it was not for live view I would still shoot my Sony Alpha 900 from 2009, but it is now retired.

I would say that the camera is quite expensive for 1.3X crop, but it is beyond my means anyway. Phase One obviously feels they have chosen a correct price point for the camera, that is their decision.

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 08:40:32 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3767


« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2014, 03:06:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bart,

Thanks for observing this!

I have no explanation, except that in LR 5.3 I exported the file in Prophoto RGB and from Capture One I exported as Adobe RGB, as it doesn't have Prophoto RGB as an option. I am not aware of any colour space setting I may have done. The flash I use is about 5100K.

Hi Erik,

Capture One does have the capability to export as ProPhoto RGb (see screencapture attachment).

Quote
I guess that Imatest assumes D65 for Adobe RGB and D50 for Profoto RGB.


That's correct, those are the native Illuminants for those colorspaces.
Quote
Yeah, I found out: Prophoto RGB uses D50 white point while Adobe RGB uses D65, see below:

http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/rommrgb.xalter
http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/adobergb.xalter

Correct.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 03:18:58 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad