Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: P45 vs 4x5 - different RAW converter?  (Read 4892 times)
alanrew
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


WWW
« on: January 20, 2006, 11:42:32 AM »
ReplyReply

After reading the fascinating article by Charles Cramer, I couldn't help wondering whether the P45 in RAW mode would actually have beaten the 4x5 if a different RAW converter had been used.

I don't know what other RAW converters (if any) support the P45 at the moment, but having seen, with my humble Canon 10D, the substantial extra detail I'm getting from Pixmantec RSP compared with Phase One Capture One, I think Charles should investigate alternative RAW converters as a priority.

BTW I've just checked the Adobe web site and it looks like ACR doesn't support Phase One backs yet. Maybe Thomas will do something?

Regards,

Alan
Logged
Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2006, 02:11:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting point and observation, Alan.
Capture One has such a good reputation. I would be interested in others reports on Pixmantec RSP, with which I am not familiar.
This also reminds us results depend on lots more than pixel counts.
I would also suggest that as the Phase One back is so much smaller than 4x5 film , that the amount of data it receives from the lens is much less, and that the lenses themselves need to be compared for resolution differences. This would require a much more rigorous set of tests.
As a "real world " experience the article is valuable. The increase of depth of field, and reduction of camera mass and volume is a boon.
The next move would seem to be in software, as Alan has implied, and in lenses specifically designed for these chips. The chips themselves seem to have enough resolution, even with the wasteful Bayer array. What we need is more competition and greater manufacturing efficiency giving us much lower prices so more of usl can afford them.
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged
paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468



« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2006, 03:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

re: RawShooter Premium use on Canon 1D Mark II

I’ve switched to RSP a few months ago. Very VERY satisfied. And thus far, has been well supported and responsive to user requests. I’ve owned Capture One (good, but not as good as RSP, further... world’s worse user interface).

imho, Adobe’s Camera RAW is behind the pack. Including the latest version, v3.3. ACR gives you the illusion of control but seems to “scrub” the file of subtle tonality that Capture One preserves (invents?). More, RSP not only preserves subtle tonality but lets you adjust it to suit. It works for me.

paul
Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
pixman63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2006, 04:03:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would also suggest that as the Phase One back is so much smaller than 4x5 film , that the amount of data it receives from the lens is much less, and that the lenses themselves need to be compared for resolution differences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Generally speaking, the smaller the format its designed for the more resolution a lens should have - so 35mm lenses have higher resolution than medium format, and so on.

Given that the Hasselblad H system was designed from the ground up with digital capture in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if its lenses have higer resolution than other medium format optics, precisely because of the smaller chip size compared to the 6x4.5cm film format.
Logged
Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2006, 01:27:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pixman63,Jan 21 2006, 10:03 AM
Generally speaking, the smaller the format its designed for the more resolution a lens should have - so 35mm lenses have higher resolution than medium format, and so on.
    True. It seems what is needed for digital backs to surpass 4x5 film is a combination of pixel quality, digital lenses and better RAW conversion. Nearly there but not quite. The price is not going to drop fast as landscape and art photographers are too small a part of the market and all this stuff is still very expensive to manufacture. All the same , Canon could force a few changes if it decided to take up the slack in medium format.
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2006, 02:59:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Switching to RSP/RSE isn't going to net much benefit in sharpness vs what you could achieve with good sharpening techniques after using another converter such as C1 or ACR. There is another thread that discusses this.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8904


« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2006, 07:44:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Switching to RSP/RSE isn't going to net much benefit in sharpness vs what you could achieve with good sharpening techniques after using another converter such as C1 or ACR. There is another thread that discusses this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This might be true, Daniel, but you made the very valid point yourself that sharpening algorithms applied to the RAW data have the potential to be more effective. I haven't spent much time trying out the various sharpening programs available but I did play around with PK Sharpener for a while. I found that some of the sharpening effects were so subtle, even as shown in their sample images in the manual, that I couldn't see myself engaging in that degree of pixel peeping on a regular basis.

It's a really difficult situation to resolve because anyone who prides himself/herself on being a sharpening expert and who has invested time and money in expensive sharpening programs, might well produce a more detailed or at least equally detailed image as the same image from RSP without all the fancy work.
Logged
fmfmfm55
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2006, 06:58:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I have read several articles on this site dealing with comparisons digital vs. analog and follow the growing possibilities of digital photography with interest.
However, as a scientist from another field (and as a hobby photographer), I see some weaknesses in the experimental design of these tests comparing pictures obtained with different lenses and with the use of a drum scanner for the film negative - in germany we would say "comparing apples with pears"..
Since this test was made with a Mamiya 645 allowing the parallel use of the phase-one back and film I would like to suggest the following test (which I cannot perform for my-self since of course the P45 back is out of any range for me...):
1. Shoot pictures in parallel with the P45 back and the best available films (Velvia for color, TechPan or Tmax for b/w) under IDENTICAL conditions with the same camera and lens
2. Neglect the fact that the covered fields of P45 and film are different.
3. Make the best possible printouts of the SAME area (neglecting different scales) on 11x14 paper (best possible digital solution including digital enhancement etc. for P45, best possible analog solution for film); this area should be small enough - representing at least a 20-fold linear enlargement (about  100,000 pixel of the CCD)
4. Scan both printouts with the SAME scanner and compare.
Then we would better now where we are...
Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 808


« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2006, 11:59:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Not that I want to delve into a film/digital comparison - but a few quick thoughts in response to your suggestions...

#2 does not make sense, because it is not how you would use the camera. You don't compare a 1Ds Mark II with a point and shoot by cropping the 1Ds frame to 1/8" in size. You need to use them as intended.

#3's suggestion of analog printing doesn't really make a difference. Most photographers have found they can get superior results with a digital workflow (drum scan, retouch, digital print) than they can with analog.

#4 isn't needed, since you can just as easily view a print as scan it.

Finally, 11x14 isn't even getting warmed up for the P45 (or 645 film even). The P45 could make 40x60 fine art prints. There's a reason that people are intrigued by the idea of a P45 and 4x5 film comparison, it's because they are so close in performance. 645 film is so far behind the P45, it's a meaningless contest.
Logged

fmfmfm55
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2006, 02:42:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Sheldon,
thank you for your reply and your critizism - as I told I am just a (still analog) hobby photographer and maybe I simply cannot believe the incredible quality of these CCDs. And meanwhile I have noticed that I have posted this question on the wrong part of the forum...  So, please apologize if my suggestions should be outdated and naive.
But I have still some questions:
1. I think a parallel comparison using the SAME lens is indispensable, although large format maybe superior.
2. My suggestion was - and perhaps I didnt explain it correctly - to compare a CCD area of exactly 5,5 x 7 mm2 (825x1050 pixel, about 800,000 pixel) with 5,5 x 7 mm2 film, enlarged by a linear factor of 20, resulting in a picture of 11x14 cm. Here, the slight advantage of the larger field of film (42mmx56mm) as compared to CCD (36,8mmx49,1mm) would be neglected. But then we directly compare the same area of CCD with film. I meant 11x14 cm2 for the 20-fold enlargement of the detail, representing a final size of 84 x 112 cm2 of the total print (film) or 74 x 98 cm2 of the P45 picture.
3. Maybe that in certain combinations the use of a drum-scan is superior, but in all tests using drum-scans it formally cannot be excluded that the scanner is limiting the result. At least with b/w film and good optics (as the Mamiya 7 camera has, I dont know the 645) it should be possible to resolve more than 80-100 lp/mm (numbers which often are not reached by large-format lenses since they are calculated for a wider field) under best analog printing conditions. I just wonder whether 150 pixels/mm can do the same job.
4. Right, you can see it without scanning, but I would like to see the result here on the LL page....

Frank.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad