Sinar arTec available for Hasselblad V, H, Phase One/Mamiya backs

[Jack]

the trick with eXposure is - if I understand correctly - that the calibration file is applied automatically to all the files followed by the calibration file in the browser.

Sounds like an issue if it's automatically applied to all downstream images in the browser -- surely they have some way to choose the files it is to be applied to...

My point was that the basic process sounds pretty similar to C1's LCC implementation, and C1's LCC is pretty to generate and then apply to as many images as you want, regardless of their position in the browser...

 

[jps]

the trick with eXposure is - if I understand correctly - that the calibration file is applied automatically to all the files followed by the calibration file in the browser. In C1 you first have to select the captures the LCC should be applied to.
Now, when you are working with captures shot with different movements you certainly don't want to apply the same LCC to all the files whereas you probably do want to copy/apply your CA (and/or purple fringe) settings to all the images. As you just can copy/apply all the lens corrections as one setting you always have to select/deselect the files.

Not exactly , the calibration file is applied just to the files you select , however these files must be after not before the calibration file.
JOHN

 

[thomas]

Not exactly , the calibration file is applied just to the files you select

so than it's the same as in C1....

however these files must be after not before the calibration file

so if you shoot the calibration files after the actual photographs you first have to rename them so that they show up in the correct order in the image browser? Or can you change the order of the files in the browser without renaming?
Can you also use calibration files/presets created in prior shootings?

 

[jps]

so than it's the same as in C1...

YES sounds like it


so if you shoot the calibration files after the actual photographs you first have to rename them so that they show up in the correct order in the image browser?

YES

Or can you change the order of the files in the browser without renaming?
NO i dont think so

Can you also use calibration files/presets created in prior shootings?

YES I do this often.

JOHN

 

[thomas]

Thank you!

 

[thomas]

Does anyone use the arTec lens shade?
http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/accessories/55-sinar-artec-zubehoer/185-artec-kompendiummaske
Does it work okay or is it prone to move the lens?
Thanks!

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

David - you have to be congratulated for the help you provide on this forum it is much appreciated. :thumbup:

Phocus allows as Bob points out a lot of the colour caste issues to be fixed. I am looking forward to testing the new Phocus white shading methodology.

....Big Snip!

Just quickly as I am fighting with the table saw. :thumbs:

Ill reply to you properly later on (and to Neil!) but in the meantime a colleague in the US, made a handy document on Scene Calibration, ie cast correction and also a new addition which allows you to digitally correct for uneven exposure - ie copying artwork.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2849451/scenecalibration.pdf

...and thanks for the kind words.

D

 

[tashley]

Hi Peter,

I too want to hear about sinar's white frame implementation!



I shot my P65+ on a Cambo RS with the 40 HR in a T/S mount. Re your first point: Focus was no more difficult than with any other back -- bottom line is you need to nail it with anything you use, period. Anybody tells you different, like that a larger pixel is more forgiving for focus, send them my way and I'll straighten them out -- at this level, they are all critical .

Re your point two: All the smaller pixel means in relation to f-stop is you hit a diffraction limit earlier. However, you only see this IF YOU COMPARE FILES AT THE PIXEL LEVEL. If you compare files at the same final sensor magnification size, there is essentially no visible difference. Moreover, I shoot my P65+ at f16 a LOT of the time, and frankly have ZERO issues with diffraction. At f22 I start to see some obvious diffraction issues (and frankly saw them with my P45+ too) but they remain small enough that in many cases the added DoF from the extra stop is more of a benefit than the slight loss of accutance -- a loss that is very difficult to see in a print.


Cheers,

Thanks Jack - I am used to setting focus on my P45+/WRS/Schneider 35XL combo tp between three and five metres, stopping down to F16 and having pretty much everything from 3 metres to infinity in very very crisp focus even at the 100% level so I was concerned to hear of the P65+ being a problem since I have just ordered one!

You advice and experience are invaluable as always!

Tim

 

[Jack]

I was concerned to hear of the P65+ being a problem since I have just ordered one!

Tim, I think I can safely say you'll never look back

 

[Bob]

The only problem I had with my P65+ was that I waited too long before getting it.
-bob

 

[tashley]

Tim, I think I can safely say you'll never look back

The only problem I had with my P65+ was that I waited too long before getting it.
-bob

C'mon guys, you already assimilated me with the Cube... I admitted defeat months ago and now purchase what I am told to!

 

[cly]

Whilst Sinar have an easy and elegant white shading feature - I can also say the back has a lot of " eccentric" behaviour and "chunkiness" inbuilt - compared to Hasselblad elegance it is a clumsy drunken oaf in many aspects of its operation :thumbdown:....LOL

what do you mean by 'eccentric' behaviour and 'chunkiness'? i'm curious as i'm toying with the insane idea* of getting closer to an artec with sinar back and whilst there is plenty of user feedback on phase backs i haven't found that much on sinar backs.

-christoph

* i don't know how often i have read "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here" before clicking on the link to this subforum .

 

[jps]

Tim, I think I can safely say you'll never look back

Jack, can I go slightly off topic here and at the risk of provoking an argument over the merits of file formats ! - ask if it is possible to create DNGs from P65 files? I know next to nothing about C1. Now that Sinar are offering conversions of arTec to other mounts I may consider a P65 in the future.

Cheers JOHN

 

[Bob]

If you want to create a version of the file that is no longer recognizable by the original raw converters, and you don't mind shifting from one proprietary format to another, than sure, you can convert to dng. DNG, when you pick it apart, is a metadata decorated version of tiff. So, do your your raw conversion first in the native format, then convert to dng if you would like, but there is no benefit to that that you do not realize when converting to tiff other than it is more difficult for the majority of processing tools to deal with it. The only benefit that I can see is that inferior proprietary tools such as lightroom, think of dng as universal, but then look at the results at 100%, and if you have eyes, you won't do that again.
DNG is NOT the holy grail of file formats., it is the lowest common denominator of file formats.
-bob

 

[jps]

If you want to create a version of the file that is no longer recognizable by the original raw converters, and you don't mind shifting from one proprietary format to another, than sure, you can convert to dng. DNG, when you pick it apart, is a metadata decorated version of tiff. So, do your your raw conversion first in the native format, then convert to dng if you would like, but there is no benefit to that that you do not realize when converting to tiff other than it is more difficult for the majority of processing tools to deal with it. The only benefit that I can see is that inferior proprietary tools such as lightroom, think of dng as universal, but then look at the results at 100%, and if you have eyes, you won't do that again.
DNG is NOT the holy grail of file formats., it is the lowest common denominator of file formats.
-bob

Hello Bob,

Sorry I really didnt mean to start a debate about file formats. Yes I know that DNGs are not the holy grail. The reason I asked is that Im a long term lightroom user and would like to have copies of P65 files in the library. Yes I know there are better converters - and I would plan to use C1 if I get a P65 back- however the complete integrated workflow with lightroom I find to be very good and well Im just used to it !

Cheers JOHN

 

[Bob]

Hello Bob,

Sorry I really didnt mean to start a debate about file formats. Yes I know that DNGs are not the holy grail. The reason I asked is that Im a long term lightroom user and would like to have copies of P65 files in the library. Yes I know there are better converters - and I would plan to use C1 if I get a P65 back- however the complete integrated workflow with lightroom I find to be very good and well Im just used to it !

Cheers JOHN

If you are using lightroom as a catalog, then you might be better served to just create jpg versions and file those. At least lightroom knows how to render those.
-bob

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Several years ago I converted a lot of my files to DNG because I bought into the notion that DNG might survive where individual companies' formats might not.

BIG mistake! Many were P45 files that can no longer permit C1 to provide such things as lens corrections. I will never do it again.

Fortunately I saw the light soon enough and by the time I got the P45+ I was leaving my files in the Phase tif format - and have ever since.

Bil

 

[jps]

Several years ago I converted a lot of my files to DNG because I bought into the notion that DNG might survive where individual companies' formats might not.

BIG mistake! Many were P45 files that can no longer permit C1 to provide such things as lens corrections. I will never do it again.

Fortunately I saw the light soon enough and by the time I got the P45+ I was leaving my files in the Phase tif format - and have ever since.

Bil

Bill,

forgive my ignorance - can lightroom read and open a phase tif file ? If so I dont need to convert to DNG

JOHN

 

[Bob]

Hello Bob,

Sorry I really didnt mean to start a debate about file formats. Yes I know that DNGs are not the holy grail. The reason I asked is that Im a long term lightroom user and would like to have copies of P65 files in the library. Yes I know there are better converters - and I would plan to use C1 if I get a P65 back- however the complete integrated workflow with lightroom I find to be very good and well Im just used to it !

Cheers JOHN

Mainly the issue is that Lightroom knows how to render the embedded preview, but does not know how to deal with the camera metadata, so minor issues such as the the luminance of the image are just not represented in the catalogue.
Lightroom does reasonably well with camera files that represent the majority of the market such as canon or nikon files. Even Leica files are not too bad, but at the moment the higher-end stuff is not well served.
I looked at some S2 files with both lightroom and C1 (no editorial comment since I thought they were "weak") so I have no issue with lightroom per se, but like aperture, they tend to hit the middle of the market and do what 80% of the market requires. Unfortunately I think I fall in that outside 20%.
-bob

 

[rhsu]

I am sorry Richard, I have to take issue with that statement.

There are NOT serious issues with timing and using Tech Cameras with Hasselblad products.

It was explained to you many times with plenty of correspondence from support and even directly from R&D themselves.

Agreeably a few mechanical shutters have caused issues (as I have spoken to PeterA about this too) but to say ALL cameras will cause you a problem is incorrect and unfair.

Even the minor amount of shutters that can give incorrect timing signals, can still be used with a simple work around.

The actual white shading method in Phocus is now almost exactly the same as the Sinar solution, and can be used for tethered or untethered capture.

David

Bless you David! But that was exactly what you said to me with my H3D! Contradicting yourself again! When you 1st joined LL that Hasselblad does NOT need double cabling in our discussions and then turned around 4 months later and stated to me in the heat of litigation that I needed double cabling to resolve "timing" issue AND that I had a faulty Copal shutter which Linos tested and was said NOTHING was wrong - and Linos went further and gave me a NEW copal shutter and still had issues with your DB. I sent to Copal Japan and they said there was NOTHING wrong!

Then Alpa waded into the debate in Oct 2009 in their news letter.

PS: Further two HR lenses (HR28 and HR40) still have same issue.

We make mistakes so lets move on and get it right.

:angel: