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!

Fuji GFX 100ii vs Hasselblad x2d 100c using Color Checker Digital SG

KEVINS

Member
Some time this year I plan to pick up one of these cameras but I'm curious how the images would look when color correcting the images with the Color Checker Digital SG.

The only thing I will be using the camera for is for taking high resolution photos of my oil paintings which can be as large as 5ft (and may be larger over the next year or two) so I want the resolution and color accuracy. The studio setting and lighting is very controlled with polarizing filters to minimize any glare then the photos are color corrected using a Color Checker Digital SG.

The color accuracy of the Hasselblad seems to be superior to the Fuji right out of the camera which is a huge plus however, when using my Color Checker Digital SG would it matter?

Shouldn't images look identical when color corrected with the Color Checker Digital SG?

I'm in no hurry to make a decision but I am researching to have an idea what to expect and what will be needed with each system.

Thoughts?
Kevin
 

cunim

Well-known member
For most of us here, I don't think color accuracy is the primary thing. Many comments refer to Hassselblad's "better" colors, but that is perception, not reality. Better and real are not the same thing. Reality comes down to calibration and the way in which the image is captured (eg lens flare affects saturation and shadow depth). Sounds like you have an archival application and that is a world unto itself. I would talk to someone selling archival gear (like CI). You are probably not interested at those prices, but at least the issues will be more clear.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
You’ll get very good results with either.
Consider adding a second target for patch-independent validation of your results though, or you’ll end up with a false sense of security. Th NGT2 and ISA GoldenThread 19264 targets are the most popular with museums nowadays.
 

KEVINS

Member
Thanks Gents.

I am hoping that if the camera can capture the widest dynamic range then a color correction software should be able to get it closer. I'm just not sure if the software looks at all RAW files the exact same (or some better than others) and processes the data the same between different brands of cameras in order to have the same color outcome. I understand the ICC profile will be different but I would think each ICC profile would be generated to have the exact same outcome and the results will be the same.. or real close anyway...

KS
 
Last edited:
You can remove a lot of the uncertainty with raw processing by making custom profiles of your camera. This tells the software how your camera views color and accounts for the amount of deviation from the known standard; the color checker sg. Couple this with full spectrum lighting, placed carefully and good camera setup and you will get pretty close.
I use an X2D and H series cameras tethered to
Phocus at work (no experience with gfx). We have custom profiles for every lighting setup we use. The X2D has very accurate color performance. I’m sure the GFX would perform similarly.
 

KEVINS

Member
Yea, I have color profiles and WB for my lighting with my 5DSr but I usually create a brand new one every time I photograph a painting since it doesn't take long.

As far as cameras go it will probably come down to the accessories/lenses available and determining a workflow that I want to incorporate and I'm at the very early stages of researching/comparing so I can't predict what will come up.

Both of the models are fairly new so there's not much out there for long term reviews and personal thoughts so maybe by the time I'm ready there will be more opinions/experiences available to ponder.

(y)
KS
 

KEVINS

Member
For what you're planning Kevin, if you decide on Fuji, I would get a nice clean used 100 or 100S body instead of a 100 II. Images will be identical and your wallet will have a lot more money in it.
Really? Interesting.

I figured with the new sensor and processor the dynamic range would be better. I'm sure the majority of the extra umph is for video but figured there would be noticeable benefits in photos too..

Good info, I will look into it!

ks
 

Mexecutioner

Well-known member
The Color Checker Digital Sd is compatible with Hasselblad Phocus for camera calibration, whatever that means, according to the Xrite website
 
Really? Interesting.

I figured with the new sensor and processor the dynamic range would be better. I'm sure the majority of the extra umph is for video but figured there would be noticeable benefits in photos too..

ks
The sensor isn’t new, in terms of image quality, but it does have better autofocus.
 

KEVINS

Member
This is what I read on the sensor if anyone is interested. As mentioned above it may not be noticeable in a photo.


Sensor:
At the heart of the Fujifilm GFX 100 II is a completely new 102 megapixel high-speed image sensor called the "GFX 102MP CMOS II HS".
Along with a new processor, the new sensor delivers up to double the signal readout speed compared to the GFX 100S (which uses the same sensor as original the GFX 100), which in turn provides significant performance improvements in continuous shooting, auto-focusing and video recording.

Processor:
The GFX 100II uses the very latest X-Processor 5, which provides many features including HEIF, AI, 4:2:2 10-bit and 12-bit ProRes video.
The GFX 100S uses the previous-generation X-Processor 4 processor.

ks
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Thanks Gents.

I am hoping that if the camera can capture the widest dynamic range then a color correction software should be able to get it closer. I'm just not sure if the software looks at all RAW files the exact same (or some better than others) and processes the data the same between different brands of cameras in order to have the same color outcome. I understand the ICC profile will be different but I would think each ICC profile would be generated to have the exact same outcome and the results will be the same.. or real close anyway...

KS
Well now that’s asking a different question.

No they will not perform the same, but the difference will be pretty small in your context.

The world of color accuracy for reproduction of heritage related objects is *very* deep. If you’re entering this as a hobby then I think you have the answer you need - either of those cameras with a good profile will perform well.

If you want to dive deeper into this world, out of personal interest or business desire there are several layers beyond this one. You could research “the importance of evaluating color quality using an independent target” or read “Roy Berns color science and the visual arts” or adopt the FADGI digitization guidelines. Heck you could buy some Stellar lights so you can do dual-RGB fusion captures to greatly reduce camera sensor metamerism. Trust me the rabbit hole goes deep. You could buy a Phase One iXH that’s dedicated specifically to heritage digitization with a lens that blows anything else out of the water for flat art reproduction. Most of my day is now spent in this world with museums, libraries, and archives. In that context the work is priceless, the mission is preservation in the context of hundreds of years, and almost all the total cost staffing regardless of the level of equipment they invest in so it makes sense to invest in the absolute best. It’s the difference between “is this drill good for me to use on the weekends” vs “I’ll be doing carpentry 30 hours a week, which drill should I use?”

But if you’re just looking to make digital images of your paintings for casual use and posterity, then I’d stop with a decent target, and a custom profile. The results will be quite good for such uses.
 
Last edited:

KEVINS

Member
Do not read anything into what I originally asked about.

I simply want to know if given two different RAW files from two different cameras (Hassleblad vs Fuji) can it be expected that a color correction software that generates a ICC profile, will produce the same looking image?

I would think they will look identical, but that's what I would like others to chime in about.

ks
 

cunim

Well-known member
I made a mistake. You said photographing oil paintings, which is a thing with its own gear culture. I missed the “my”. Agreed about the 100s. Use the ssvings for lights which will make way more difference than the camera
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Do not read anything into what I originally asked about.

I simply want to know if given two different RAW files from two different cameras (Hassleblad vs Fuji) can it be expected that a color correction software that generates a ICC profile, will produce the same looking image?

I would think they will look identical, but that's what I would like others to chime in about.

ks
Color is a much more complicated phenomenon than you’d expect before you go down the rabbit hole. It’s definitely a field where the more you learn the more you learn you don’t know.

Color depends on the subject, the light, the camera lens, the camera sensor, the profile method/software, the profiling target, the reference values you have for the target and how they were collected, and the output space. Color itself is a sensory experience not a physical phenomenon- it exists in your brain not in your head. I’ve given presentations on this but this forum unfortunately forbids linking to them.

Depending on the level of scrutiny/ required accuracy it’s hard to make two serial numbers of the same make/model camera perform “the same” regarding color. When museums measure this their level of scrutiny is quite high and a difference a more casual observer would call “almost the same color” might fail by a country mile.

But in a more casual context those two cameras use nearly identical sensors so with a good well-measured target and proper profiling workflow they’ll be very similar to each other yes.

And that’s ignoring the monitor and the viewer which are non trivial components.
 

Ray Harrison

Well-known member
@KEVINS What did you end up doing with your IQ180 that you were trying to get working last year (I think the same topic)? I think you were on a DF+ body at that time (or similar).
 
Top