IQ3 100MP technical camera tests: color cast, mazing artifact, tiling issue, DR etc

[Ken_R]

it would seem to be asking a lot for a photographer to spend $40,000 on a piece of equipment so handicapped...

Well, the thing is, if you only saw and read what the handful (but the most vocal and prolific) posters on this forum (and the other one) post about the Phase backs you would think they are junk. They work hard at creating and looking for the very worst of these backs, the limits or failure points. Imagine if this were an airplane forum, you would never get on a plane ever again...Ever.

Even the older backs can be used to make amazing images.

Even Yunli (voidshatter) has created some stunning images made using the purportedly "useless" IQ260.

The fact is cameras and backs are tools to make photographs. They ALL have limits. Cool to see people finding those limits (which in most cases nowadays are VERY extreme!) but they do not exemplify the complete user experience.

 

[jagsiva]

Are the tiling lines, which are clearly visible, shown to illustrate what the file looks like before they are removed in post, or are they not removable?

This occurs at either extremes of processing, where you are pushing all kinds of sliders to their max/min, and/or extremes of shift. You typically do not get them, and when you do, LCC does clean it up.

 

[voidshatter]

Have enjoyed this discussion and the technical education it provides (academic to me as I don't own a digital back, at least not yet). In this regard, I do have questions about the (lovely) long-exposure image of London. Are the tiling lines, which are clearly visible, shown to illustrate what the file looks like before they are removed in post, or are they not removable? If the latter, I'd be surprised as long-exposure is a feature of the IQ260, as I understand it, and it would seem to be asking a lot for a photographer to spend $40,000 on a piece of equipment so handicapped. Do these lines appear only in long exposure, or on shifting too? And, yes, I do understand that such lines may not be visible unless there is a uniform background or foreground such as sky or water, but as the London image shows, it is often desirable to have such backgrounds or foregrounds.

Hi, the tiling issue is a known issue for the fullframe Dalsa CCD backs (80MP and 60MP). With some search by Google within seconds you could easily find examples:

IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...cks/53546-help-wb-exposure-when-shifting.html
IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/45242-issue-iq180.html
IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/35873-iq180-frustrations.html
IQ160: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...gital-backs/52161-tiling-how-remove-post.html
IQ160: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/50367-iq160-tiling-issue.html

If we take the official sample image of the IQ260 (shot by Antony Spencer as advertisement for the IQ260) as an example we can see the below:



I have not bothered to investigated the conditions of occurrences. I only know that for the fullframe CCD sensors it's likely to happen for uniform/simple contents and is more likely to happen when a technical camera lens is shifted to the extreme.

Sometimes an LCC correction can fix it. Sometimes content-aware healing tool in Photoshop can fix it. Sometimes it's just annoying and it's difficult to fix it. I gave up and moved to a CMOS sensor.

 

[jagsiva]

Hi, the tiling issue is a known issue for the fullframe Dalsa CCD backs (80MP and 60MP). With some search by Google within seconds you could easily find examples:

IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...cks/53546-help-wb-exposure-when-shifting.html
IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/45242-issue-iq180.html
IQ180: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/35873-iq180-frustrations.html
IQ160: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...gital-backs/52161-tiling-how-remove-post.html
IQ160: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/50367-iq160-tiling-issue.html

If we take the official sample image of the IQ260 (shot by Antony Spencer as advertisement for the IQ260) as an example we can see the below:

View attachment 115668

I have not bothered to investigated the conditions of occurrences. I only know that for the fullframe CCD sensors it's likely to happen for uniform/simple contents and is more likely to happen when a technical camera lens is shifted to the extreme.

Sometimes an LCC correction can fix it. Sometimes content-aware healing tool in Photoshop can fix it. Sometimes it's just annoying and it's difficult to fix it. I gave up and moved to a CMOS sensor.

A good example of processing on the fringe to bring out tiling, not unlike the 23HR image above!

 

[voidshatter]

A good example of processing on the fringe to bring out tiling, not unlike the 23HR image above!

Hi, allow me to steal your IQ180 image and attempt to ruin it by the noob filters in Color Efex Pro:

View attachment 115670

It's a nice image btw. I just wanted to demonstrate the tiling issue. I know you would never ruin an image like this, and perhaps you have ways to work around it. (If you dislike this I will remove this post.)

Okey, I have removed it and you have my apologies.

 

[jagsiva]

Hi, allow me to steal your IQ180 image and attempt to ruin it by the noob filters in Color Efex Pro:

View attachment 115670

It's a nice image btw. I just wanted to demonstrate the tiling issue. I know you would never ruin an image like this, and perhaps you have ways to work around it. (If you dislike this I will remove this post.)

Can you please do this with your own images, this is actually quite rude.

 

[voidshatter]

Can you please do this with your own images, this is actually quite rude.

Okey, I have removed it and you have my apologies.

 

[jagsiva]

Okey, I have removed it and you have my apologies.

Thank you, Jag.

 

[Don Libby]

Hi, allow me to steal your IQ180 image and attempt to ruin it by the noob filters in Color Efex Pro:

View attachment 115670

It's a nice image btw. I just wanted to demonstrate the tiling issue. I know you would never ruin an image like this, and perhaps you have ways to work around it. (If you dislike this I will remove this post.)

Okey, I have removed it and you have my apologies.

Not only rude, unethical and also illegal as it violates copyright. Once again any good work that you may have done in the past is invalidated due to the theft.

 

[Bob]

OK Lets make something completely clear.
Images are owned by their creators unless made under a contract that says something different.
We assume though that folks that post images own them and thus control their usage.
We encourage the posting of images, after all it is not all about gear but about the images we make with it. Some images are intended as art, some to illustrate some aspect of gear, processing or technique.
It is perfectly fine to ask to use an image for a test or some other purpose such as variations on processing, but the key point here is that you MUST ask and get permission and furthermore your request MUST say what you intend to do with them.

Any questions?
Good, now carry on.
-bob

 

[Ken_R]

Yunli are you ever happy or satisfied with anything?

I will something Doug posted in one of the threads you linked to:

Normal photographic work includes pretty strong adjustments (that's the whole point of a DB, they hold up under strong styling and adjustment). I do not mean "I'll adjust it until I see it" kinds of adjustment; the reason being ALL cameras will show terrible things if you look hard enough. For instance: take a 5D mark 2 file, shoot an LCC at low ISO, apply the LCC to itself (to even out any variation in color and brightness) and then auto-adjust the exposure (effectively stretching the histogram way out). You'll see some really awful things. Then breath, reset the adjustments and try to look for those issues in a normal file with normal adjustments - you won't see them.

Some of Wayne's issues with his particular IQ180 were mainly due to his back requiring calibration which was easily solved. Other's were fixed or greatly reduced with proper workflow.

Yunli, please consider the effect your posts have on people before posting. Put them in context since obviously not everyone can read between the lines and not everyone can put the comments in perspective or in balance with other aspects of the gear in question. You isolate a problem and pound on it. Relentlessly.

 

[Don Libby]

OK Lets make something completely clear.
Images are owned by their creators unless made under a contract that says something different.
We assume though that folks that post images own them and thus control their usage.
We encourage the posting of images, after all it is not all about gear but about the images we make with it. Some images are intended as art, some to illustrate some aspect of gear, processing or technique.
It is perfectly fine to ask to use an image for a test or some other purpose such as variations on processing, but the key point here is that you MUST ask and get permission and furthermore your request MUST say what you intend to do with them.

Any questions?
Good, now carry on.
-bob

In total agreement Bob. The ownership of any image belongs to the photographer. Just because I share an image here or anywhere else do not mean I give carte blanche to it's usage or sharing. Simple, ask first and wait for the response before proceeding.

Yes, I'm being grouchy however this is how I make my living.

Don

 

[Jamgolf]

I found this blog interview on copyright and creative commons laws to be educational.

 

[cly]

Hi, allow me to steal your IQ180 image and attempt to ruin it by the noob filters in Color Efex Pro:

View attachment 115670

It's a nice image btw. I just wanted to demonstrate the tiling issue. I know you would never ruin an image like this, and perhaps you have ways to work around it. (If you dislike this I will remove this post.)

Apologies but in this particular case, I don't get the strong reactions. To me, but I'm not a native speaker and I may be used to a different concept of copyright and authorship, this is quite a polite posting - and showing what can happen in certain situations and with a particular kind of processing is helpful: it's a bit of information quite a few people don't come across. I view this as a constructive contribution.

Chris

 

[stephengilbert]

Chris,

I don't know whether there was a copyright violation or not, but don't you see how the "author" of the photo might object to someone appropriating and manipulating it?

Steve

Appropriate: to take something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.

 

[cly]

Chris,

I don't know whether there was a copyright violation or not, but don't you see how the "author" of the photo might object to someone appropriating and manipulating it?

Appropriate: to take something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.

Steve,

Sure, I see that the author of the image might object (and, in fact, he did) but in this context I can't see that the usage was harmful: it was an attempt to show a certain technical problem in the context of a technical discussion to the readers of this section of getDPI. If this would have been my image, I wouldn't have objected.

But I don't think we should discuss this in more detail, I don't want to derail this threat.

Chris

 

[Lobalobo]

Well, the thing is, if you only saw and read what the handful (but the most vocal and prolific) posters on this forum (and the other one) post about the Phase backs you would think they are junk. They work hard at creating and looking for the very worst of these backs, the limits or failure points. Imagine if this were an airplane forum, you would never get on a plane ever again...Ever.

Even the older backs can be used to make amazing images.

Even Yunli (voidshatter) has created some stunning images made using the purportedly "useless" IQ260.

The fact is cameras and backs are tools to make photographs. They ALL have limits. Cool to see people finding those limits (which in most cases nowadays are VERY extreme!) but they do not exemplify the complete user experience.

Got it. Thanks to you (and all) for responding. Truly interesting.

 

[Lobalobo]

Even Yunli (voidshatter) has created some stunning images made using the purportedly "useless" IQ260.

Just took a look at Yunli's site, and no kidding there are some brilliant images, including those taken with an IQ260, and even including taken with an IQ260 with long exposure and sky, and no visible lines.

 

[narikin]

Okey, I have removed it and you have my apologies.

Yunli, thanks for all your hard work on this - it is most enlightening. Despite the odd turn of this topic, I want you to know that I, and doubtless many others, appreciate your efforts, and public release of all your work and discoveries.

I remember going from P65+ to IQ180, and being confounded by the changes, like stronger lens cast, inability to use Schneider wide angles, worse battery life, etc. Now here we are, and many of us wonder if it's wise to leave our venerable IQ180's for the IQ3-100. Your information is invaluable in the light of this expensive upgrade question.

Thank You!

 

[voidshatter]

In total agreement Bob. The ownership of any image belongs to the photographer. Just because I share an image here or anywhere else do not mean I give carte blanche to it's usage or sharing. Simple, ask first and wait for the response before proceeding.

Yes, I'm being grouchy however this is how I make my living.

Don

I merely attempted to grab the first test shot posted in this thread http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...cks/53546-help-wb-exposure-when-shifting.html and applied a filter to demonstrate how obvious the tiling issue is for the IQ180 (In a nice way of asking I think, then removed it).

Sorry that it affects your living. :facesmack:

PS: I thought this how it works at getdpi when you grab someone else's test shot and ask during discussion: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...l-backs/52893-cfv50c-images-2.html#post621417.