IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

[torger]

It's interesting to see when "good enough image quality and convenience" becomes a sales argument for Phase One products

But that's probably the case, the 80 MP single shot backs are so much more convenient to work with than multi-shot that the reduction in image quality is acceptable to most. It's the same argument that has caused some to move to smaller formats, so it's a dangerous discussion to have.

The weakest aspect of single shot cameras I think is the aliasing, but if you don't shoot textiles etc it's quite easy to live with.

With macro perhaps you need to throw in focus stacking into the mix? Or do you think you can do with single shots using the Capcam? Maybe the Capcam can do automated stacking too?

 

[gerald.d]

Thanks all. In one post so as not to clog things up...

A few things to bear in mind.
Your floor. A modern building/concrete floor is great, a wooden bouncy floor less so.
Your lighting, it needs to be very accurate in output as any discrepancy between the multi exposures will show in your file, I had issues with shooting cars and using only one tungsten light as small variations in output caused the tell-tale square edges in the shot, adding another light seemed to cure this. Not sure if it was because of minute power fluctuations or the filament vibrating and changing the light?
Time. If your time costs you nothing and you literally have all day then it's obviously not an issue but don't underestimate the increased shoot time with multi shot, especially if things move and you get the jaggies and have to take another shot.

This was my experience using an imacon/HB 528

While the results are great I personally wouldn't go multi-shot as its too restrictive way of working and the time/£ ratio is not biased towards my wellbeing

Thanks - I'm on the 40th floor of a modern skyscraper, with marble tiles laid on a concrete floor. Camera is on a 125kg Cambo studio stand, watch on a shooting table that I've drilled a hole through so that I can position the watches on a platform that's mounted to an Arca Swiss Cube, with the cube connected through the table to a tripod underneath (perhaps not what Arca ever had in mind for the Cube, but it is extremely useful to be able to dial in whatever angle I want to present the watch to the camera, whenever I want to).

With regards lighting...

Gerald, you haven't mentioned how you are lighting your watches. That can have an impact on workflow when using a Multi-shot back. Depending on which strobe is being used and at what power output, you have to program a delay that allows time for full recycle so each step exposure is exactly the same.

Lighting is continuous - from a Schott KL2500 LED with a triple lightguide (flexible goose-neck fibre optic). My understanding is that this light source is very stable. And before anyone takes offence, yes - I am fully aware that a white-light LED spectrum isn't perfect and that others may cringe at the thought of using this, but I like working with this set-up, and am very happy with the results.

BTW, when working with a multi-shot, you work with single shot until you get the lighting/composition/focus exactly the way you want it … then shoot the multi-shot image.

IMO, scientifically accurate color isn't necessarily the same as color fidelity. If shooting a rose gold watch, the subtile transitions of color can have a profound effect on presenting the true presence of the product.

I do not know about the Sinar back (but I suspect it is the same), … the Hasselblad MS backs do not increase resolution when done in 4 shot. A 50 meg single shot at 50 meg 4 shot produce the same resolution. The difference is apparent in clarity of detail and more definitive color separation that adds to that detail.

As I understand it, the newer Hasselblad H5D/50C Multi-Shot or H5D/200C is a more cropped CMOS sensor compared to the Hasselblad H4D/50 or H5D/50 or 200 with a CCD sensor. All of them use 1 shot, 4 shot … and the 200 version uses 6 shots to achieve the higher res file (200 meg RAW = 600 meg Tiff). 16 shot backs were older Imacon designs.

- Marc

Ok this confuses me enormously. Hasselblad market their multishot back as delivering a 200 megapixel file. Is this not the case then? There's no mention of file size - why would anyone care about that?

It's interesting to see when "good enough image quality and convenience" becomes a sales argument for Phase One products

But that's probably the case, the 80 MP single shot backs are so much more convenient to work with than multi-shot that the reduction in image quality is acceptable to most. It's the same argument that has caused some to move to smaller formats, so it's a dangerous discussion to have.

The weakest aspect of single shot cameras I think is the aliasing, but if you don't shoot textiles etc it's quite easy to live with.

With macro perhaps you need to throw in focus stacking into the mix? Or do you think you can do with single shots using the Capcam? Maybe the Capcam can do automated stacking too?

Yes, as mentioned, the Capcam does automated stacking. Just set the focal plane wherever you want, and then enter three numbers - the step-size, focus delta from current position to start at, focus delta from current position to stop at. All entered in 1/100ths of a mm (although I don't need to go to anything like this level of accuracy - DoF for a typical shot that I'm taking is in the 0.5mm to 1mm range).

Kind regards,


Gerald.

 

[T.Dascalos]

I agree that alising will be the major issue to avoid with watches, but also the extended DR of multishot should be a considerable advantage too.

IMO, resolution is not an issue to have great large prints of watches if multishot mode is to be used, I would guess that an inexpensive 54H would be more than enough for the job, to the extend that I have a feeling that one would never miss higher resolution even with the most demanding of subjects. I also believe that the more than twice the size pixel area would make the process much easier to perform in 16x mode.

I don't know what Sinar means when they claim 192mp in one of their 4x modes, but I suspect that it is an interpolated mode rather than a true color one, I know that Hasselblad's 6 step mode is interpolating the 4x "true color" mode (it does 50mp "true color" and then uses the 4x info of color to apply it in dofferent position) so it's not the same as shooting in 16x mode.

IMO, Sinar should have made a version of their 75H back with 16x mode ability for 132mp "true color" file, if they did, one would have a choice for either 33mp (4x) or 132mp (16x) and thus overcome the 54H 22mp "true color" 4x mode which may be considered too low for demanding work... Personally I use a Hasselblad CF-39MS next to my 54H exactly because many times 88mp multishot is an overkill but also to be able to have a self contained single shot back next to the multishot ability.

Having extensively used multishot backs (I used to have an Imacon 528c before), I have to say that Sinar is a step further from Hasselblad when color accuracy is a crucial factor, the files from my 528c where exactly of the same resolution and DR from my 528C as they are from my 54H and the abscence of artifacts is also the same, but Sinar is a step further when one aims for absolute color accuracy.... If accuracy is not what one is after, he may as well aim for a 528c or a CF-39MS.

Only to conclude, I think that resolution with multishot shouldn't be treated as with single shot backs, I would print the same size any 4x file out of a 75H and I'm sure I would much prefer it that any modern 80mp back... Just my 2 cents.

 

[gerald.d]

I agree that alising will be the major issue to avoid with watches, but also the extended DR of multishot should be a considerable advantage too.

IMO, resolution is not an issue to have great large prints of watches if multishot mode is to be used

Why would it not be an issue?

Kind regards,


Gerald.

 

[T.Dascalos]

Why would it not be an issue?

Kind regards,


Gerald.

This both easy and difficult to answer Gerald... Generally speaking a "clean" file where there are no artifacts, both shows considerably more visual resolution (depending on the complexity of the subject) and can be printed at lower value of ppi... this is because with a file that exhibits artifacts, the more ppi one uses for a print, the more he hides the artifacts. If the artifacts where absent from the file (as happens with multishot), one can print down to ...72ppi (!!!) and still have an amazing (ultra large) print! So it all comes down to two factors when printing a multishot file, one is per pixel quality, which is amazing since there is complete absence of artifacts and the second is the higher (visual) resolution that the file exhibits because (other than the absence of artifacts) each pixel has no other that is identical to it... (hardly the case if the color was interpolated - especially between neighboring pixels)...

Of course printing experience for preparing optimally the files as to be printed perfectly is another aspect to be taken in mind, but this is both a different (although very interesting) conversation and is supposed to be the same for both a multishot or single shot interpolated files.

 

[Nebster]

Do any of the modern MS backs support the compositing in-back, i.e., without being tethered?

Like Gerald, I shoot a lot of little stuff and don't care about heritage-grade color accuracy. But I do think the sensitivity (spatial and color) is night and day with the MS samples I've seen. I don't shoot in a studio, though, so I'm waiting for a back that can do it all in the field, or at least write the intermediates to the card in the field and defer the compositing until I get back to the computer.

 

[T.Dascalos]

Do any of the modern MS backs support the compositing in-back, i.e., without being tethered?

Like Gerald, I shoot a lot of little stuff and don't care about heritage-grade color accuracy. But I do think the sensitivity (spatial and color) is night and day with the MS samples I've seen. I don't shoot in a studio, though, so I'm waiting for a back that can do it all in the field, or at least write the intermediates to the card in the field and defer the compositing until I get back to the computer.

I believe this is not feasible... To shoot in multishot mode one needs parameters that are set in the software, further more the back integrates a piezzo electric crystal that needs to be be directed very accurately and more than that, the final image is a synthesis of the multiple single shot captures that are performed that needs special software as to be processed...

 

[Nebster]

I believe this is not feasible... To shoot in multishot mode one needs parameters that are set in the software, further more the back integrates a piezzo electric crystal that needs to be be directed very accurately and more than that, the final image is a synthesis of the multiple single shot captures that are performed that needs special software as to be processed...

At the end of the day, it's just software running on hardware. The image pipeline chips in a modern DSLR are probably hundreds of times faster than the computers people used to tether and composite the imagery off MS backs ten years ago.

Note that several (inexpensive) smaller format cameras are now doing full MS in-camera.

The question is whether someone has done it yet in one of these modern MF backs, like the Hasselblad CMOS one, to facilitate MS in the field. That would awesome.

 

[T.Dascalos]

Note that several (inexpensive) smaller format cameras are now doing full MS in-camera.

Which smaller format camera does FULL MS in camera? ...if you refer to Sumsung's technology the uses the VR system to multiply analysis, this is NOT full MS in camera... it doesn't shoot in true color for each pixel position that it captures... (which is the purpose behind multishot).

 

[Nebster]

Which smaller format camera does FULL MS in camera? ...if you refer to Sumsung's technology the uses the VR system to multiply analysis, this is NOT full MS in camera... it doesn't shoot in true color for each pixel position that it captures... (which is the purpose behind multishot).

Take a look at the Olympus E-M5 II.

 

[T.Dascalos]

Take a look at the Olympus E-M5 II.

Oups... To be honest, I don't follow the news of micro 4/3 cameras nor the forums, I just had a look on the E-M5II (thanks for pointing that up) and was really impressed... It looks like its multishot mode works very similarly to Hasselblad where it first creates 16mps of true color and then it samples the true color information to up res it at 40mp... I immediately thought that if one combines the OLY with a Cambo Actus and use some really good quality old Nikkor AI-S lenses, he'll end up with a very capable system indeed...