S2 versus H4D40/50 test

[glenerrolrd]

Was overexposed and flat.

Isn t that a good starting point for a raw file? Expose to the right without blowing the highlights .

Aren t raw files linear ? flat and the raw developer applies the tone curve?

What I am getting at is the difference between a

(1) High quality raw capture ,and

(2) file that thru conversion yields a pleasing rendering without much fine tuning?

DMR files for example appear finished right out of the camera . They look great in LR with no profile or presets . A Nikon D3X file looks to my eye as flat and not really all that sharp. But apply the right profile and presets and you can get a good file virtually everytime.

I have no idea which approach yields better IQ when properly converted . But a don t think the fact that the D3X file is flat out of the camera is a big deal. I would expect for some applications like a printed page it might have more latitude.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Highlights where blown. Also shadows where very clipped. ACR and LR clip the shadows with there defaults on S2 files. The highlights where also about a half stop over. Anyway I'm on a deadline but I see no improvement with ACR doing a S2 files. Same thing it did in November doing these, blow the highlights clip the shadows.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Guy I let you get back to your work ..come back to this when you have time .

I looked at the file in LR 3. The exposure is dead on ...look at the histogram and where the highlights and shadows are . There is some very light overexposure of about 1/3 stop in the whites of the boats .. a 1/5 stop correction pulls in most of it. The shadows are so close you can bring them back by dropping the shadows slider from 5 to 3. Maybe C1 does this automatically as LR would if you used auto settings. But that exposure is correct . I want maximum tones between highlights and shadows and I get it with a modest adjustment. I thought this was setting your white and black points.

The issue with the capture is that the brightness of the scene tends to rob the saturation and vibrancy of the deep colors. Warming the white balance and shifting the tint really help . Doesn t always work but this brought back some of the faded red . Applying a standard curve of +10 light and -10 dark looked correct on my screen .

On a D3X file it takes a lot more clarity ,vibrance and saturation to move in the direction of kodachrome(which is what I would want for that scene ).

Sharpening looked normal landscape preset .

I haven t compared my development with marc s but they looked similar. I am interested in both how marc processed the file and what his reaction to the final product.

The final product isn t knocking my socks off but it took a while with the D3X and the M9 to find the right processing .

 

[dfarkas]

Here's my take on the file.

Imported into LR3, applied my default S2 preset.

Warmed up about +300K, brought down exposure 0.4, added a touch of recovery and a dab of fill light.

Done. Exported to JPG.

All in all, took about 30 seconds to season to taste. The hardest part was getting the final JPGs to be under 976K for the forum limit. Of course, in LR3, you can now just have LR manage your compression settings to get down to a specific file size.

Personally, I like deep shadows and bright highlights (not blown, but bright). To me having too much shadow info with no black and too much highlight detail without white makes for a very flat and very "digital" looking file. My taste certainly isn't everyone's but I like my files to have depth and richness to them.

David

 

[glenerrolrd]

And my version created under duress. :deadhorse:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy I let you get back to your work ..come back to this when you have time .

I looked at the file in LR 3. The exposure is dead on ...look at the histogram and where the highlights and shadows are . There is some very light overexposure of about 1/3 stop in the whites of the boats .. a 1/5 stop correction pulls in most of it. The shadows are so close you can bring them back by dropping the shadows slider from 5 to 3. Maybe C1 does this automatically as LR would if you used auto settings. But that exposure is correct . I want maximum tones between highlights and shadows and I get it with a modest adjustment. I thought this was setting your white and black points.

The issue with the capture is that the brightness of the scene tends to rob the saturation and vibrancy of the deep colors. Warming the white balance and shifting the tint really help . Doesn t always work but this brought back some of the faded red . Applying a standard curve of +10 light and -10 dark looked correct on my screen .

On a D3X file it takes a lot more clarity ,vibrance and saturation to move in the direction of kodachrome(which is what I would want for that scene ).

Sharpening looked normal landscape preset .

I haven t compared my development with marc s but they looked similar. I am interested in both how marc processed the file and what his reaction to the final product.

The final product isn t knocking my socks off but it took a while with the D3X and the M9 to find the right processing .

ACR and LR3 may have a different engine right now. Not sure

I do not have LR on my system and most likely never will given I use C1.

 

[Mark Gowin]

The image is over exposed, but not terribly so. It is very interesting to see the different versions of processing. I am putting up my quick version as well just to see how it compares on the web.

 

[Mark Gowin]

Well, my version looks too flat on the web. I need to work on my processing or at least web output.

 

[bensonga]

Well, my version looks too flat on the web. I need to work on my processing or at least web output.

Mark...it doesn't look flat on my monitor at all. Is Roger's version more to your liking?

So hard to judge these images without knowing what the original scene looked like.....

Gary

 

[tjv]

Ok, so here is a conversion from LR3 of one of Guy and Jack's review shots. I literally only opened this file, did a quick few edits to exposure, clarity and NR/Sharpening and converted straight to sRGB JPG. I'm a lightroom user but have only just downloaded LR3 so I'm not all that familiar with the new NR tools. I'm sure I could get more out of these with practice but I'm only looking at a small laptop screen that isn't really made for critical work, although it is calibrated... Full image and 100% crops...

 

[tjv]

And my version created under duress. :deadhorse:

Think I like yours the best but it just goes to show you it's all down to subjective editing in the end and no one final conversion will please everyone. In fact, I think personal preference (more than skill) probably plays a more significant role in the final (subjective) print quality than dedicated software.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Here's my take on the file.

Looks pretty nice to me... much more 3-dimensional and mf-ish than the other files I've seen. Thanks for the crop as well.

I still have some obvious trouble finding where "in-focus" starts and ends on some S2 landscape files. I swear there must be something wrong with my eyes, because some things in the (somewhat) far BG look pretty stable while other objects closer to the plane of focus seem not so acute.

Must be me because it's late at night, lol!!!

 

[fotografz]

Here's my take on the file.

Imported into LR3, applied my default S2 preset.

Warmed up about +300K, brought down exposure 0.4, added a touch of recovery and a dab of fill light.

Done. Exported to JPG.

All in all, took about 30 seconds to season to taste. The hardest part was getting the final JPGs to be under 976K for the forum limit. Of course, in LR3, you can now just have LR manage your compression settings to get down to a specific file size.

Personally, I like deep shadows and bright highlights (not blown, but bright). To me having too much shadow info with no black and too much highlight detail without white makes for a very flat and very "digital" looking file. My taste certainly isn't everyone's but I like my files to have depth and richness to them.

David

Perhaps some of this can be chalked up to slight differences in monitors and or course personal taste ... but sorry David I would find this rendering unacceptable for a MFD file, and I do not agree with Shelby either. There is little to no detail in the highlight areas in this version, and the scene lacks any sort of character that I would like ... character like Jims Boatyard series done with an old school V camera and a 16 meg DB. Same sort of images often shot in very similar light that were simply terrific.

In fact, for me this little exercise in variable processing tastes by different members mirrors my experimentation with my own S2 files where I tried various approaches and was never quite satisfied.

All my best wishes to S2 owners and may their journey be filled with great shots.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Mark...it doesn't look flat on my monitor at all. Is Roger's version more to your liking?

So hard to judge these images without knowing what the original scene looked like.....

Gary

I agree, Mark's version is not bad ... maybe just needs a bit more punch ... but at least the highlight areas have some detail ... which is what MFD is all about ... DR that provides data across the tonal range then lets the user decide what creative mojo to use for a final rendering.

-Marc

 

[markowich]

I agree, Mark's version is not bad ... maybe just needs a bit more punch ... but at least the highlight areas have some detail ... which is what MFD is all about ... DR that provides data across the tonal range then lets the user decide what creative mojo to use for a final rendering.

-Marc

i agree with marc. but let us keep in mind that the DNG was flat while the scene is really high contrast. this is IMHO why the conversions look artificial.
peter

 

[fotografz]

ACR and LR3 may have a different engine right now. Not sure

I do not have LR on my system and most likely never will given I use C1.

Guy, yes LR3 is better than 2 ... but these preliminary explorations with an S2 file reveal that for this type of shot in this sort of light, the improvements may be minimal.

However, LR3 has visibly improved noise rendering in lower light scenes ... and it would be very interesting to see a high ISO S2 shot processed in LR3 where the benefit may be more readily discernible not to mention valuable. My higher ISO M9 and Sony A900 files have noticeably improved in LR3.

When I get a moment I am going to reload my S2 files into LR3 and see if I can do better than I did in my previous explorations.

I'm still convinced, and in agreement with you, that not having proprietary dedicated software doesn't help the S2 cause.

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think everyone is really missing the point hear big time. Your all struggling to get a decent image from it and how much time is this taking. Bottom line no doubt about it if this was tuned to a raw processor we would not have clipping shadows as much as there is and the highlights would not be blowing on a scene that any meter can handle. You know how many times i actually used fill on a Phase file , I could maybe count them on one hand. I hardly ever ever have to use fill. Highlights at times yes. The color is off and your making adjustments. Go back and read what adjustments and debate is going on. Frankly to me this is going back to the days where I had to work a file to death to get anything from it. I rarely do that anymore and only if I want something as a option. Not a color corrected , DR capable image that is shot in sunlight that is about the easiest file to deal with. This file should be much better out of the gate.

Marc we posted the same time here but what I see here is a file that has a very minimal amount of DR. Not sure why this is at all either. The clipping is too much and the highlights too blown for a image that looks like the metering system captured just fine. This is a normal scene by all accounts and the color sucks right out of the gate.

Maybe I'm nuts but I just don't like these files. I'll stay out of this for now on.

 

[fotografz]

Looks pretty nice to me... much more 3-dimensional and mf-ish than the other files I've seen. Thanks for the crop as well.

I still have some obvious trouble finding where "in-focus" starts and ends on some S2 landscape files. I swear there must be something wrong with my eyes, because some things in the (somewhat) far BG look pretty stable while other objects closer to the plane of focus seem not so acute.

Must be me because it's late at night, lol!!!

Shelby, I have to disagree.

Of course it's purely subjective ... but perhaps at least an explanation as to why I disagree is in order.

For me, the expectations of a MFD file is one of data capture that exceeds smaller formats in DR. What is done with it afterwards is the subjective, creative part.

My issue with the original file, and some of the post renderings, is that the highlight areas lack the details that are actually there. David may subjectively prefer bright highlights (which you may also prefer) ... however, what if a user doesn't have the same subjective vision? This reveals the clipping issue that both Guy and Jack discussed in their S2 review ... which lead to the opinion that the S2 suffers from not having a highly tuned proprietary software solution that deals with the very specific characteristics of the S2 imaging chain.

I cropped a foreground detail as demonstration of the highlight detail that the original file actually has. The one marked A is the original, B is David's rendering (ignore the lack of sharpness as I only had his up-load to work with), and C shows the highlight detail more fully.

I still think the image was overexposed, and with LR3's better handling of shadow areas it may have been preferable to deal with opening the shadows than restoring the brights.

Again, purely subjective, but a subjectivity based on dealing with all sorts of lighting scenarios with various MFD systems and their dedicated software ... where getting to a good file is not such a struggle and provides a pretty wide latitude for creative interpretation with less sacrifice.

-Marc

 

[VICTOR BT]

as i already posted in the forum, i doing my studies for 40mp MFD. leica S2 is there but very soon i have realized, partly from many good arguments on this forum, that the S2 is not a fully ready tool. now i just downloaded some DNG files from Guy's iDisk public folder and tried to play with them in LR myself. just for example, contrary to the dull light were are talking here, i know the issues with some of those photos guy uploaded, i live in israel and playing with sun-light is familiar to me, i know what to expect from film, and from digital.
now i really realize what Marc has commented about the FLAT look of S2 files. i really tried, tried hard and was sitting half a hour on those, i simply could not get a pleasing to me file. what takes minutes to bring a scanned file, or a digital file (like from leaf, or even like from canon 5d2 that im not exactly exited about) was a hard work with S2 and never got there. FLAT.
i just compare it with a slide film (provia medium format) that i have made for fashion in sunny-light... what a depth to the photographs, on light table or scanned proof printed etc...
more over... there are some ugly artifacts, like in hair for example. i know it can happen with MFD, but i simply had troubles with it more than i could imagine. some more issues, but those mentioned are enough.
now, the resolution seems great, the lens quality and character seems great too as far as i could put it apart from general experience of tuning the files. but FLAT.
so ok, i understand this is a conversion issue, and guy talked about it in his review, and nothing really changed since then, or not improved enough. but as it is now, leave aside the completition from pahse/leaf/hassy 40mp, as it is now, i would rather prefer film slides than S2. simply because i have MUCH better look, and the extra work with film does not look like a big issue compared to the extra work with S2 dng.

since i really like this camera, aesthetic, concept design etc ... i have to say, that my experience i described is very limited, but enough for me not to look at this camera as an option, until there significant improvements. again, im not talking about "creative" part, this is very personal indeed, i also like contrast, punch etc... im talking about experience when working on the file and the result i get, especially "look"/"character" etc...

 

[jlm]

marc:

thanks for your comment, your input is always appreciated