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!

Phase One on CCD Tonal Subtelty

Lobalobo

Member
Let me state at the outset that I know the question of whether CCD is inherently different from CMOS is old and that both sides in the debate have not only beaten the dead horse but beaten it into dust. Despite this, I couldn't help but notice what seems to me a fairly recent statement on Phase One's product site:

If unmatched tonal subtlety and detail retention is a must, the CCD sensor technology of the IQ3 80MP is a perfect fit. If ISO flexibility and LiveView workflow are needed, the IQ3 100MP and IQ3 50MP CMOS solutions are at your disposal.​

So there seems to be something of a concession by a leading manufacturer that CCD has qualities not yet matched by CMOS. This strikes me as particularly interesting inasmuch as Hasselblad no longer lists any CCD back on its site.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Or a blatant pander to sell of the last remaining stock of backs the have no live view.

Please understand that I have lived by the S Leica CCD for the past 6 years ... nothing approached it.

Recently moved to a RF without a LCD or EVF ... but with a CMOS and am pleased at the rendering.

So take the Phase statement with a couple grains of salt.

Bob
 

Lobalobo

Member
Or a blatant pander to sell of the last remaining stock of backs the have no live view.
Maybe, but doesn't Hasselblad also have old backs to sell? I guess the question will be whether Phase One continues to produce new CCD backs after current stock runs out (at least for technical cameras, which don't use live view).
 
So there seems to be something of a concession by a leading photographer that film has qualities not yet matched by CCD. This strikes me as particularly interesting inasmuch as brand X no longer lists any film on its site.
 

bab

Active member
Film has a different look to me it's like slides vs prints, and if you look at the resolution or sharpness a better word film can't get as sharp as digital sensor when pixel peeping. However when viewing large prints I think you can make them look about the same if you using a large negative like 8x10, my guess is even with a 4x5 negative vs 100MP back some people would still choose one or the other depending on how they judge the overall qualities of the image. but for sure I'm not going back to shooting film!
 

f8orbust

Active member
I've looked at the images ... I've read the reports ... I've heard from the boffins that 'numbers are numbers' ... and yet, in my completely subjective and unabashed opinion, under conditions at which they can excel (lots of light), CCD backs produce images that have an extra 'something' that I find immensely appealing.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
It is a interesting subject and very individual in nature, as I see more tonality in the the CMOS backs, IQ250 and now IQ100, vast amount of tonality in the 100. Never have seen the CCD unique look as I can make CMOS and CCD look the same to my eyes.

It's all in what you want and how you want it to look, as there is always more than one way to work anything.

Paul C
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
I think there is something to do with the "maturity" of the profiles in C1 Pro. As improvements are made, it will become easier (less work) to make minor adjustments to prepare a digital file for PS/Retouching/Print/Final output.
 

f8orbust

Active member
Putting color aside for a moment, it's interesting that various studies put the number of distinct shades of gray that humans can discern at around the 450 level (i.e. <10 bit).

So, if you are into B&W, then pretty much any DB produced in the last 20 years can produce images yielding more shades of gray than you, or anyone viewing your images, can ever actually see.
 

jerome_m

Member
Putting color aside for a moment, it's interesting that various studies put the number of distinct shades of gray that humans can discern at around the 450 level (i.e. <10 bit).

So, if you are into B&W, then pretty much any DB produced in the last 20 years can produce images yielding more shades of gray than you, or anyone viewing your images, can ever actually see.
There is a slight flaw in your reasoning. Even if we, as human, can only see 450 levels of gray, a bit more than that are necessary to describe the dynamic range of a typical scene. Then, the object of post-processing is to compress the dynamic range of that scene into what humans can see (which is not a trivial operation, but leave that aside for a moment).

Still: we need a bit of headroom for post-processing. More than a bit, actually a few bits (pun intended).
 

f8orbust

Active member
There is a slight flaw in your reasoning...
That's not unexpected, I'm gladly out of my depth when it comes to hardcore technical nerdism :p

The object of post-processing is to compress the dynamic range of that scene into what humans can see (which is not a trivial operation, but leave that aside for a moment).
Still, no getting away from the fact that we just paid $$$$ for a device that can capture 65,536 shades of gray, but we can't even see 65,086 of them. At best, we can hope to discern ~450 shades in our final image.

Speaking of which, unless we happen to be a nocturnal gecko, I doubt either that we'll ever be able to see all the 64,000 shades of gray Jon Cone claims his piezography system can produce.

My real point (yes, there is one) - is that as nice as it is to have the latest and greatest, the CCD backs that are out there are still capable of producing tremendous images. Of course people are going to write stuff like '...my IQ3-100 just smokes my old IQ1-80...' - but that just says more about human nature than anything meaningful about the creative process. Loads of used MF CCD backs are appearing (privately) at knock-down prices, so if anyone was thinking about dipping their toe in the water, dive right in.
 
My real point (yes, there is one) - is that as nice as it is to have the latest and greatest, the CCD backs that are out there are still capable of producing tremendous images. Of course people are going to write stuff like '...my IQ3-100 just smokes my old IQ1-80...' - but that just says more about human nature than anything meaningful about the creative process. Loads of used MF CCD backs are appearing (privately) at knock-down prices, so if anyone was thinking about dipping their toe in the water, dive right in.
Sorry but I just could not help... I hope you wouldn't mind!

My real point (yes, there is one) - is that as nice as it is to have the latest and greatest, the film backs that are out there are still capable of producing tremendous images. Of course people are going to write stuff like '...my IQ180 just smokes my old 4x5 Provia...' - but that just says more about human nature than anything meaningful about the creative process. Loads of used LF film backs are appearing (privately) at knock-down prices, so if anyone was thinking about dipping their toe in the water, dive right in.

My real real point (yes, there is another one) - is that as nice as it is to have the latest and greatest, the iPhones that are out there are still capable of producing tremendous images. Of course people are going to write stuff like '...my Canon 5D just smokes my iPhone...' - but that just says more about human nature than anything meaningful about the creative process. Loads of used iPhones are appearing (privately) at knock-down prices, so if anyone was thinking about dipping their toe in the water, dive right in.
 

f8orbust

Active member
Sorry but I just could not help... I hope you wouldn't mind!
I don't think 4x5 is (necessarily) 'smoked' by digital (at least not from the work that I see being done with it), and IIRC, the iPhone came out after the 5D.

Other than that, well done.
 

tjv

Active member
If you can't be bothered contributing to this forum in a constructive way, perhaps forget about logging in.

Sorry but I just could not help... I hope you wouldn't mind!

My real point (yes, there is one) - is that as nice as it is to have the latest and greatest, the film backs that are out there are still capable of producing tremendous images. Of course people are going to write stuff like '...my IQ180 just smokes my old 4x5 Provia...' - but that just says more about human nature than anything meaningful about the creative process. Loads of used LF film backs are appearing (privately) at knock-down prices, so if anyone was thinking about dipping their toe in the water, dive right in.

My real real point (yes, there is another one) - is that as nice as it is to have the latest and greatest, the iPhones that are out there are still capable of producing tremendous images. Of course people are going to write stuff like '...my Canon 5D just smokes my iPhone...' - but that just says more about human nature than anything meaningful about the creative process. Loads of used iPhones are appearing (privately) at knock-down prices, so if anyone was thinking about dipping their toe in the water, dive right in.
 

jerome_m

Member
Still, no getting away from the fact that we just paid $$$$ for a device that can capture 65,536 shades of gray, but we can't even see 65,086 of them. At best, we can hope to discern ~450 shades in our final image.
Which is a little less than 9 bits can reproduce, yes.

Speaking of which, unless we happen to be a nocturnal gecko, I doubt either that we'll ever be able to see all the 64,000 shades of gray Jon Cone claims his piezography system can produce.

My real point (yes, there is one) - is that as nice as it is to have the latest and greatest, the CCD backs that are out there are still capable of producing tremendous images. Of course people are going to write stuff like '...my IQ3-100 just smokes my old IQ1-80...' - but that just says more about human nature than anything meaningful about the creative process. Loads of used MF CCD backs are appearing (privately) at knock-down prices, so if anyone was thinking about dipping their toe in the water, dive right in.
I got that point long ago. As your example about piezography shows, the Internet is full of web sites preying on photographers' desire to stand out of the crowd on their technical merits. The message is always the same: "because you'll have this print with 64000 shades of gray (1), because you have this camera with so many bits, because you have this lens with such sharpness... your pictures will stand out of the crowd". In truth, these sites are teaching photographers to take sharp images of fuzzy concepts.


(1) isn't that the title of a soft porn novel? :rolleyes:
 

JeRuFo

Active member
It doesn't really matter if the specific CCD traits can be emulated with a CMOS sensor yet, or if they really exist in the first place. If you can see a merit in one or the other and you can exploit that to help you in your photography or marketing, then good for you.

I personally leave or use gear for specific images I have in mind all the time. Even though I don't have as much gear to choose from as some of you here, I change film, lenses and developers to get the look and feel I want. Maybe nobody else sees that highlights glow a little with certain developers or that a certain lens is a bit softer so I can avoid crispness in a print easier, that doesn't matter to me. It helped me make the image and although not everyone notices all the subtleties unless you point them out, I do still believe that they all help to make the image what it is and they do affect the mood of a picture, even if it only enabled me to find the composition or to conceptualize a series of images. It stimulates me if I have to work with certain technical constraints and so I like to pick gear before I go out to shoot landscapes to help me find images that fit a certain technique. Sometimes that's based on actual facts, but just as often on a gut feeling.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
It is a interesting subject and very individual in nature, as I see more tonality in the the CMOS backs, IQ250 and now IQ100, vast amount of tonality in the 100. Never have seen the CCD unique look as I can make CMOS and CCD look the same to my eyes.

It's all in what you want and how you want it to look, as there is always more than one way to work anything.

Paul C
I feel the same way about my files from the IQ3 100 vs the IQ180 or 380. So much detail and amazing tones, great dynamic range.

As far as looking the same, I will admit that I struggled with d800 files, and still struggle with A7rII files. Not that I don't like what I get, I just feel working with them is quite a bit different and sometimes I feel like they have something missing.

I'm sure it's all in my head ...
 

tjv

Active member
Thank you for this constructive comment. While you enjoy CCD, it is not necessarily wrong for the others to enjoy film.
Strange that your original post has been modified, as has the quote embedded in my reply. For your information, 50% of my work is shot on 4x5", 6x7cm and 6x12cm film. I own 2x Imacon / Hasselblad scanners and a Leaf Credo back. If anyone is qualified to talk about the differences between different capture mediums, it's me.

You are a real bore and your posts have done a lot to turn me off even reading this and other forums in the past. The post I replied to of yours was nothing like the one that has been modified above. It was not in the least constructive and more than a little condescending.
 
Top