Thanks - I've already dropped Steve a private message asking him to comment here when he gets the chance. I suspect he's currently on vacation though as he's not been active on the forum for a couple of weeks, so I can be patient
Very interested to hear from users though of course.
Kind regards,
Gerald.
Hi Gerald -
Yes, you nailed it, I am on vacation - your PM woke me from my slumber, and now my wife Rachel is not happy, so one post then I'm out until next week {he says....}.
So, just some quick reflections.
I have been selling multi-shot and single shot capture solutions since the days of 6 megapixel (ms from Sinar, Leaf, Imacon/Hasselblad, Jenoptik, single shot from all those, plus Phase One), and am familiar with the differences, advantages, disadvantages.
Phase One stands alone as the stubborn, never has produced multi-shot products manufacturer, though they did begin with the scanning backs. Their initial foray into single shot capture (LightPhase) was groundbreaking in the quality produced from a single shot capture in terms of color and ability to handle single shot deficiencies (edge aliasing, color artifacts, moire, etc). This holds true more than ever today.
In the early days, the difference between a single shot capture and a multi-shot capture was enormous. Shoot a curved table, shoot a watch face, the differences leaped out, and it was often a matter of well, how many "stair steps" do you want to see with the single shot?
Today, major increases in resolution and algorithms have dramatically reduced the differences, and as has been pointed out, those differences need to be quantified (for example, in terms of output size).
There is a difference in color fidelity, as well as aliasing, and artifacts, however, I feel that the differences in color are largely due to the lack of specialized quality from default profiles (this includes a multi-shot back's own single shot quality as well as a dedicated single shot back). I can capture some colors more accurately with a single shot capture from a Leaf Credo than a single shot capture from a Phase One IQ or Sinar Exact single or multi-shot (and vice versa), depending on how I have profiled the digital back (CI and DT both offer custom color profiling).
The real factors in why institutions use a Phase One or Leaf digital back are mostly about the software and the workflow. All modern digital backs are capable of producing a comparable quality file,
if prepared optimally. But with digitization ramping up in recent years among institutions, agility and productivity, not to mention an aggressive evolution of the software platform in terms of added features, speed, etc, are critical components. Even turn around times can be an issue in the event of a repair, so are there adequate systems available for rental or loaner if say, an institution with 8 stations has a problem.
These are all factors. I'm not trying to be measured - I've sold Sinar eXact digital backs into museums for use with the Sinar Repro Camera, and naturally Phase One and Leaf systems.
If you can handle a slower workflow with less editing capability at the raw level, then there's no reason to not investigate a multi-shot option, keeping in mind that the multiple shots will add some degree of complexity to each situation and impose some limitations on the camera/lens options, by putting 4 or 16 shots into every capture.
I do not have an eXact to Phase One or other single shot comparison. I did perform a test some years back with an IQ180 Phase One and a Hasselblad 50MS 4 shot, and found that I did not see an edge aliasing issue with the subject I shot (bone) if I reduced the single shot IQ180 to the same tif size as the 50M. However I did see it with the 50MS file when I up-rezzed the 50MS shot to the dimensions of the IQ180 file. So the required resolution may be a factor.
Gerald - in general, I would say that if you are open to working with the color profiles of the various digital backs, as well as the raw processing capabilities, you'll find the results very close. The workflow and raw capability weighs in favor of Capture One. Obviously, the eXact produces a much larger raw capture from the 16 shot capability, and this would enable you to back away from the subject to some degree and increase depth of field, which may be what you're after.
Back to my vacation...
Steve Hendrix
CI
