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!

best DB for lens cast

A

aitc

Guest
looking on the best DB for minimal lens cast... what do folks think?

thanks
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Dalsa sensors in general are the best at lens cast. So that would include Sinar not sure of the models though. Leaf they are all Dalsa. Hassy has the new 60 and than Phase p40,65 and all the new IQ backs as well. Need to avoid ones with micro lenses like the P30 and H31. Now the least amount of lens cast will be the crop sensors since they are cropped you simply won't see casts as bad. Now with LCC corrections almost any lens cast can be corrected. Now there are some Kodak sensors that are fine from both Phase and Hassy like the P45 P25 and if course the Hassy 39 and 50. I think that is the run of the backs you can use best on a tech cam. Now it really depends on what your looking for and what is the best software to correct that. I'm a C1 fan so that is Leaf and Phase for me.

What are you looking for as far as mpx and feature sets. The P45 will do a hour exposure but most Dalsa if not all will go 2 minutes max I believe. Maybe the Hassy 60 does 4 need to check that

BTW welcome to the forum
 

yaya

Active member
looking on the best DB for minimal lens cast... what do folks think?

thanks
If you are not after the highest resolution sensor then a 22MP or 33MP Leaf back will give you the cleanest images, cast wise.

If you go for an Aptus-II 5 or Aptus-II 7 you can also use the new feature that allows you to have the cast corrected in the back. You can read more about it here and here

HTH

Yair
 
R

rpb

Guest
If you go for an Aptus-II 5 or Aptus-II 7 you can also use the new feature that allows you to have the cast corrected in the back. You can read more about it here and here
that's a fantastic development, is it only a matter of time before we communication between tech cameras and backs? So LCC becomes a thing of the past. I know that these cameras are completely manual but add a few sensors running of the backs battery???
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Dalsa sensors in general are the best at lens cast. So that would include Sinar not sure of the models though. Leaf they are all Dalsa. Hassy has the new 60 and than Phase p40,65 and all the new IQ backs as well. Need to avoid ones with micro lenses like the P30 and H31. Now the least amount of lens cast will be the crop sensors since they are cropped you simply won't see casts as bad. Now with LCC corrections almost any lens cast can be corrected. Now there are some Kodak sensors that are fine from both Phase and Hassy like the P45 P25 and if course the Hassy 39 and 50. I think that is the run of the backs you can use best on a tech cam. Now it really depends on what your looking for and what is the best software to correct that. I'm a C1 fan so that is Leaf and Phase for me.

What are you looking for as far as mpx and feature sets. The P45 will do a hour exposure but most Dalsa if not all will go 2 minutes max I believe. Maybe the Hassy 60 does 4 need to check that

BTW welcome to the forum
Hi Guy,

Any news yet from the tests you and Doug were running on the various tech lenses on the IQ180?

Best
Tim
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Tim not yet but we specially did shoot the 35mm lens with you in mind. From just what we can tell given the software , hardware today you will lose about 5- 10 percent more than your P65+. But I would not do anything until he has those final results posted. The 28 and 35 look from the previews to be a little limited on movements but I'm being cautious here as well as Phase maybe working on something with C1. I'm a little afraid to commit fully to a yes or no on it without seeing those final results.

I know your sitting there playing russian roulette on this. Totally understand and I don't want you to panic or mislead you but it most likely will be more limited than your P65+

BTW the 35mm is a nice lens compared to my 35D which I have the new version and is pretty good. I know Doug took a few days off for the weekend but should be back in full swing starting today.
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
If you are not after the highest resolution sensor then a 22MP or 33MP Leaf back will give you the cleanest images, cast wise.

If you go for an Aptus-II 5 or Aptus-II 7 you can also use the new feature that allows you to have the cast corrected in the back. You can read more about it here and here

HTH

Yair
Very interesting indeed .
Where can I find a detailed description of how to use the "LCC" set up ? ? ?

@ YAIR

When will you be at PHOTO UNIVERSAL in Stuttgart again ? ? ?
I am thinking of an APTUS II-7 .:thumbup:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Love to see those auto corrections on the Phase backs and folks my opinion maybe the smartest purchase Phase made was buy Leaf and the shared technology they can do together. Hopefully good times ahead for tech shooters in both camps.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
looking on the best DB for minimal lens cast... what do folks think?

thanks
I strongly believe this is a largely moot question.

Other than some very specific lenses and the 5.2 micron backs (IQ180 / Aptus II 12) there is only very modest impact on the final image of the color cast after correction - and often the level of impact is offset by generally higher quality anyway.

In other words if you compare a P25 and P45 the P25 will generally have less visible cast before correction, and the shadows/colors of the P45 will require modestly more correction, but the P45 has a bit more reserve dynamic range anyway so the end result is essentially the same.

There is no [tech camera + digital back + wide angle] combination that I suggest be shot without applying an LCC to every shot (even the combinations where the uncorrected images has very little visible cast it's often clear after correction that there was some cast to start with). So if you have to correct it anyway it's moot how much you see before correction.

The exception being very wide lenses on the very small micron backs

And of course you must avoid at all costs the backs that use strongly micro-lensed sensors such as the P30, H3D-31, H4D-40. Also the P21 which has modest micro lenses and is not the best choice.

But yes generally speaking (and echoing most posts above):
- Dalsa show less cast than Kodak
- Larger pixels show less cast than smaller pixels
- Microlensed pixels are to be avoided if at all possible

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
. . . . .
But yes generally speaking (and echoing most posts above):
- Dalsa show less cast than Kodak
- Larger pixels show less cast than smaller pixels
- Microlensed pixels are to be avoided if at all possible

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Doug

I think it should also be mentioned that :
Symetrical designed WA lenses , I use to say BIOGON type lenses ,
produce more CC than Retro-Focus type lenses .
The HASSELBLAD DISTAGON 4/40 CFE/IF , for example , produces very little CC . That is a retrofocus type lens , while my APO-SIRONAR digital 35mm produces strong CC (not only that) .
Also many Schneider lenses show a strong CC .
 
A

aitc

Guest
thanks to all for all the great input, and thanks Guy for the welcome.

I've heard great things about all the backs mentioned on this forum and have tried to learn about the subject from the other threads... that combined with some very quick testing on the Aptus II 10 and the CFV-50 (I believe the former having special cast-friendly micro lenses and the latter no microlenses?) have shown me that some form of correction always needs to be part of the work flow and the results are sometimes spectacular, sometimes adequate - as I plan to stitch 2x2s using full frame horizontal and vertical shifts using a 90mm lens, I'd say I'm pushing the limits about the same as single shot with a 45mm.

From what I'm reading, based on folks experience here, it sounds like either of the backs I've tested are probably going to be good as long as I use very sound and rigorous technique? Or is there still a clear choice for this very specific application? and not to complicate matters, but would the choice of lens, or the use of non-digital lenses (which may be needed for coverage), make one back better than the other.

Thanks

reposting in hopes of getting back to the original question

thanks
 
Last edited:

rupho

New member
Will post within 72 hours.
Doug, is there any chance to see a comparison between the new Schneider 28mm Super Digitar and the 32mm or other wide ones?

My 28mm lost a lot of it's shifting ability due to extreme color cast resulting in serious light fall off.

Word has it that Schneider is releasing a 1.5 Centre Filter which could help but that is still to be seen.

thanks
 

Terry

New member
Hi Guy,

Any news yet from the tests you and Doug were running on the various tech lenses on the IQ180?

Best
Tim
Tim - I got my back on Friday. So, far I'm pleasantly surprised at how good the LCC's are working to correct the images. I'm only shooting the 43 and I know you are interested in the 35. I really was expecting much worse. Still waiting to see Doug's test.
 

Christopher

Active member
When visiting Arca Swiss we did some quick snaps with the 28vs32 and in would say the 32 is a LOT better regarding lens cast. I don't have the files, but can try to get some.
 
A

aitc

Guest
reposting in hopes of getting back to the original question

thanks

thanks to all for all the great input, and thanks Guy for the welcome.

I've heard great things about all the backs mentioned on this forum and have tried to learn about the subject from the other threads... that combined with some very quick testing on the Aptus II 10 and the CFV-50 (I believe the former having special cast-friendly micro lenses and the latter no microlenses?) have shown me that some form of correction always needs to be part of the work flow and the results are sometimes spectacular, sometimes adequate - as I plan to stitch 2x2s using full frame horizontal and vertical shifts using a 90mm lens, I'd say I'm pushing the limits about the same as single shot with a 45mm.

From what I'm reading, based on folks experience here, it sounds like either of the backs I've tested are probably going to be good as long as I use very sound and rigorous technique? Or is there still a clear choice for this very specific application? and not to complicate matters, but would the choice of lens, or the use of non-digital lenses (which may be needed for coverage), make one back better than the other.

Thanks
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
The problem I think is the backs you've specifically mentioned are not very common, and I don't think many folks here are actually using them on a tech camera, so nobody wants to say for certain yes or no. Nor are they similar, and that's creating some confusion, at least for me: the Hassy back is a Kodak sensor, the Leaf a Dalsa; the Leaf you mention is a full-width 2:3 aspect, not the more common 3:4, and the Hassy 50 is a cropped sensor at 36x48mm IIRC?

To repeat: Dalsa sensors tend to be easier on corrections than Kodak, but either will work if you actually perform the LCC. The bigger the pixel the less sensitive to color casts, all else equal. Given what you want to accomplish -- stitching -- any back with NO microlenses is going to be fine if you follow the appropriate LCC protocol. Does this help?
 
A

aitc

Guest
thanks Jack, very helpful

I think you are right, the CFV-50 is smaller than the 10R (49mm vs 56mm in wdth), but pixel density/pitch should be the same.

the sensors are very different, and that's why I'm asking for preferences based on experience, but understand there is a very limited audience for this specific application.

tc
 
Top