The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

A Wealth Of Riches: Can't Have Them All : -(

PeterA

Well-known member
1. Wondering what blue artefacts are on knob protrusions
2. Wondering why image is so soft since lens is so sharp..
3. Think that the high ISO IQ is nothing short of amazing.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
1. Wondering what blue artefacts are on knob protrusions
Not sure exactly which you're referring to -- the darker blue is probably specular reflection from a very dark blue sky, the lighter blue is the copper under the chrome corroding. The knob protrusions are also out of the focus plane so reflections off of them are blurred too.

2. Wondering why image is so soft since lens is so sharp..
As I said with the image -- shutter bounce in the first frame due to using 1/13th sec shutter speed. We had a thread on this a while back where i explained I avoided 1/15th like the plague specifically because of shutter bounce. So much, I rarely use even 1/8th or 1/30th, preferring either slower or faster. But since I had a request for both full ISO 400 and binned ISO 1600, this is what you got. It was a quickie noise test and not a resolution test.

3. Think that the high ISO IQ is nothing short of amazing.
Same lens, focus setting did not change between the first and second frame. Only thing that did change is the binning, the ISO going up two stops and the shutter speed increasing two stops to 1/50th.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Not sure exactly which you're referring to -- the darker blue is probably specular reflection from a very dark blue sky, the lighter blue is the copper under the chrome corroding. The knob protrusions are also out of the focus plane so reflections off of them are blurred too.
Top left knob protrusion has a very dark blue line against it - was just wondering what that might be..I can also see a slight magenta caste on the body of the same knob - again maybe evening sunset reflection..

sorry maybe I have become super conscious of these issues - especially in backs I am considering buying - because truth be told I am very frustrated with the H3D11-39 on the technical camera..


As I said with the image -- shutter bounce in the first frame due to using 1/13th sec shutter speed. We had a thread on this a while back where i explained I avoided 1/15th like the plague specifically because of shutter bounce. So much, I rarely use even 1/8th or 1/30th, preferring either slower or faster. But since I had a request for both full ISO 400 and binned ISO 1600, this is what you got. It was a quickie noise test and not a resolution test.
the shutter issue @ those speeds is 'interesting' I remember the thread very well..


Same lens, focus setting did not change between the first and second frame. Only thing that did change is the binning, the ISO going up two stops and the shutter speed increasing two stops to 1/50th.
I am (literally) very impressed with the IQ at the high ISO setting..



Thanks
Pete
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Like the 1600 very well. Exactly what GUY needs and binned also. I really like the idea of having a binned 1600 in a small file. For some of my work absolutely all I need and WANT.
 

Christopher

Active member
I would only say, not to use NR in C1. I just think it lucks like mush and is pretty ugly. Especially for printing I find a "noise" look is so much nicer than digital mush.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'll also point out that while Don is taller than I am by about an inch, I outweigh him by maybe 20 pounds AND I'm meaner :ROTFL:
Jeeze, you big guys are scary ... here I am losing inches off my height because all the cartilage in my knees is gone (sports sins of youth).

Gotta get some lifts if I want to hang around you dudes, or I'll look like a midget with a big camera. :ROTFL:

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Like the 1600 very well. Exactly what GUY needs and binned also. I really like the idea of having a binned 1600 in a small file. For some of my work absolutely all I need and WANT.
Well, they came through for you Guy ... one system to do as much as possible.

So is it the 45 or 65? :ROTFL:

-Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Looking to get a P40+ but need to find the scratch first. LOL

I've tested it 2 times now and I do really think it is the best back for me. I could use the tax deduction and the S2 is just not ready this year but looking forward to testing them both this week. There is no wrong answer here on any of these systems. They all are good. Matter of what fits you.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Bottom line is I wouldn't use ISO 400 on the full sized image unless it was an emergency situation, but nice to know it's not horrible.
... wow. Actually, given the amount of resolution, I wouldn't hesitate to use 400 if I know i weren't going to be printing huge. It's decently impressive IMO.

For me (and I'll never own a p65+ due to $$$), I'd be interested in a comparison between a iso400 full-res shot and a binned 1600 shot up-res'd to match the full sized iso400.

Thanks Jack.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Jeeze, you big guys are scary ... here I am losing inches off my height because all the cartilage in my knees is gone (sports sins of youth).

Gotta get some lifts if I want to hang around you dudes, or I'll look like a midget with a big camera. :ROTFL:

-Marc
Don’t worry Marc we provide stools for people to stand on so we can see them and at the same time make you appear taller. Now you know how Ken feels! :ROTFL:

Don
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Top left knob protrusion has a very dark blue line against it - was just wondering what that might be..I can also see a slight magenta caste on the body of the same knob - again maybe evening sunset reflection..

sorry maybe I have become super conscious of these issues - especially in backs I am considering buying - because truth be told I am very frustrated with the H3D11-39 on the technical camera..
Pete:

Excellent call! :thumbs:

I looked closer at the original file and realized it was CA(!), so I reprocessed this time using C1 lens corrections, which I did NOT use in the first round processing. From my Betterlight days, I learned that APO lenses usually aren't -- the BL software allowed you to live-focus at any of the three color channels, and they NEVER all lined up at the same point, even with the best Schneider or Rodenstock APO glass. Obviously the problem gets exacerbated as you go smaller and smaller in pixel pitch, probably why we don't see it in the binned frame. (Edit note: When I uprezzed the original binned ISO1600 file per Shelby's request below, the CA showed. So I reprocessed the binned file with the lens corrections for the uprez version below.) Also, this shot was done at near the closest focusing distance for the 150, so adds to the issue. (By design, true APO only occurs at one focus distance, a and most modern lenses are usually designed to be their best at around 4-6 meters.) Widest aperture doesn't help either...

Anyway, here is the reprocess of that same file. This time is I turned on CA correction and purple fringing reduction in C1, AND dialed up Lum NR a few more points -- the result is far superior IMO:



Here's the original without CA or PF for reference -- clearly more time behind the scenes with the P65+ files and I'll get better at processing them -- my apologies:

 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
... wow. Actually, given the amount of resolution, I wouldn't hesitate to use 400 if I know i weren't going to be printing huge. It's decently impressive IMO.

For me (and I'll never own a p65+ due to $$$), I'd be interested in a comparison between a iso400 full-res shot and a binned 1600 shot up-res'd to match the full sized iso400.
Shelby,

Great idea! (And my advice is NEVER say never! :ROTFL:)

Anyway, here is the ISO 1600 file uprezzed by 400% (200% linear). IMO not too shabby at all for a 60MP ISO 1600 file!:

 

kdphotography

Well-known member
Yea and he is shorter than me, poor guy.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
I caught that!

Actually, Don is three inches taller than Jack. I just use the step stool when I'm with Jack. I need the step ladder when I hang out with Don.

Hope to see you out in Carmel in February, Guy----it'd make for a great photo opportunity with Jack and Don. Don't worry, I've got an extra step stool in the studio you can borrow!

:ROTFL:

ken
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
No I'm only 6-9
Is that now, or when you were 25? :ROTFL: I know I've shrunk almost an inch too Marc!

Seriously, if you're 6-9 that makes you 2-3/4 taller than I am now. Was 6-7 at my peak, but have shrunk back to 6-61/4
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Jack - I know you said the images were taken when it was "pretty dark"; just how dark was it? How far could you see in front of you without the aid of a flashlight? Okay might be easier just to ask what time it was taken.

Don
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Is that now, or when you were 25? :ROTFL: I know I've shrunk almost an inch too Marc!

Seriously, if you're 6-9 that makes you 2-3/4 taller than I am now. Was 6-7 at my peak, but have shrunk back to 6-61/4
I don't think I'm shrinking as a matter of fact my waist is growing! :eek:
 
Top