My S-2 Demo and Thoughts

[Christopher]

I never understand the need/ purpose to look at files at more than 100%

I would say there isn't one ^^

 

[David K]

I never understand the need/ purpose to look at files at more than 100%

The obvious reason is so that you can draw conclusions to justify whatever decision you were pre-disposed to make in the first place. I hope you're not suggesting we should be limiting ourselves to what might be visible in the real world. The more pertinent question, I think, is why limit yourself to 800% On a more serious note, there hasn't been much discussion of the Leaf offerings lately (or perhaps I missed it). I loved my Leaf Aptus 75S and still think it's one of the finest MFDB's out there. I for one would appreciate an update as to what Leaf has been up to lately and what they have planned for the future.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Actually Yair I would love for you to start a thread on leaf's new offerings. I know sorry I just put you on the spot. But I would certainly love to know more on them. More for just keeping me aware of what is available. Sometimes I feel i speak too much of Phase and really that is I lack the full depth of knowledge on Leaf and Hassy . As they say it's a little foreign to me. Maybe it would help our members know what is out there better.

 

[Jack]

I never understand the need/ purpose to look at files at more than 100%

While I agree with your comment in principle, in actual use going to 200% can help you better evaluate and refine global capture or output sharpening settings in raw or post. Going higher still definitely makes it an easier task to edit certain things in CS. But yes, there's no aesthetic to gain by doing so...

 

[Bob]

While I agree with your comment in principle, in actual use going to 200% can help you better evaluate and refine global capture or output sharpening settings in raw or post. Going higher still definitely makes it an easier task to edit certain things in CS. But yes, there's no aesthetic to gain by doing so...

It depends on how far away from the screen you are standing.
I need 200% without my cheaters because the screen is for dang far away. :ROTFL:
-bob

 

[markowich]

I never understand the need/ purpose to look at files at more than 100%

great for spor removal.
p

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I only go past 100 % to airbrush myself.

 

[gogopix]

yes 200% can help. Especially
if software goes to 200% by an algorithm not just x2, then you actually get a benefit esp as Guy and Bob say for 'finishing".
Remember the 100% is already interpolated in Bayer matrix, so only 50% view is 'as taken'

Victor

 

[thomas]

Remember the 100% is already interpolated in Bayer matrix, so only 50% view is 'as taken'

what?

 

[georgl]

Regarding color information, that's about right. But luminance information comes from every photosite.

Enlargements beyond 100% can make artifacts (or the lack of) more obvious, just like a large print exhibits file quality better.

 

[Jack]

Remember the 100% is already interpolated in Bayer matrix, so only 50% view is 'as taken'

what?

I suspect Victor is referring to Nyquist sampling, which is generally accepted as a 50% fold-back at frequencies higher than Nyquist. But the fold-back is across the Nyquist limit itself, so the actual net sampling error is variable depending on output frequency, not fixed at 50%. Bayer color is indeed interpolated down to individual RGB values from an RGBG data matrix.

Also, there is the other factor of onscreen viewing for print: I have found that viewing at "Print Size" (with CS calibrated to be exact print size for the dot pitch of my monitor) is not nearly as accurate a representation for final print detail as viewing the final print version at 50%; for whatever reason, viewing at 50% seems to generate a more realistic representation of final print detail.

My .02,

 

[thomas]

I have found that viewing at "Print Size" (with CS calibrated to be exact print size for the dot pitch of my monitor) is not nearly as accurate a representation for final print detail as viewing the final print version at 50%; for whatever reason, viewing at 50% seems to generate a more realistic representation of final print detail.

I agree. I am viewing at 50% for printing purposes as well. However 1 Pixel is 1 Pixel and independent of the print resolution that is 100%...?

 

[David K]

I suspect Victor is referring to Nyquist sampling, which is generally accepted as a 50% fold-back at frequencies higher than Nyquist. But the fold-back is across the Nyquist limit itself, so the actual net sampling error is variable depending on output frequency, not fixed at 50%. Bayer color is indeed interpolated down to individual RGB values from an RGBG data matrix.
My .02,

Thanks Jack, that really clears things up...

 

[gogopix]

both reasons actually.
sampling artifacts are known, and as Jack said, many will use 50% for final review (I do). Even for BW would theoretically be better.

Also because the 100% view is really a composite of RGBG square. Although it seems you are getting luminance at each site, what you are really getting red centered, green centered and blue centered light data because there are spectral filters in front of each photo site.
It is assumed most luminance information is in the green, so people see the luminance (total light) interpelation as closer to the real illuminance than the color information.
This is borne out when you print-ever notice that you use the blacks and greys 3-5 times the other colors? that is because most scenes are NOT color saturated, are grey (eg IF you have black, liteblk, LtLtblk) then 100 120 140 the 'core 100 of each creates basically a grey background for the incremental color. 100,7,7 is rare indeed. (because of color balance etc, it is almost impossible to get a pure 100,0,0)

Victor

PS MTYWTK Huh! or as some say TMI!

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I only go past 100 % to airbrush myself.

Why would you airbrush yourself? You're not that bad looking.
Bill

 

[tashley]

Nice review, and it is nice to have most of my initial impressions (from reading only) and hopes confirmed.

It also pains me to hear the tethering problems confirmed, both on Leica's and on my own (unrealistic) behalf. I really hope that the gap between today and when the camera goes out the door Leica can at least double the size of the buffer (or halve the image size), and get the tethering up to near-USB-theoretical-max speeds, which should be close enough to FW not to be a factor.

Minority report here Carsten: the day I shot the S2 and the P45+ at the same time, the P45+ tethering crashed constantly (sometimes, about 15% of the time in my experience, it does that) and at one point I had to restart Capture One and re-plug the firewire cable for every shot until I gave up. Whereas the S2 tethering just worked.

However I am with the OP at this moment. If I had no MF kit at all and didn't truly need to use a tech cam I would buy the S2 but as a current Phase owner, much as the kit irritates me, the ergonomic and optical improvements from a switch would be marginal compared to the massive cost of switching.

Best,

T

 

[tashley]

And they had a Cube there. I am fairly certain that within 60 days, my assimilation will be complete.

Just do it! I thought, when I purchased my Cube, that it was a luxury. In fact it is the single best designed and performing piece of photographic equipment I have ever used... and it feeeeeels soooo niiiiiice.......!