Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

[Bob]

It is also interesting what you can do with multi-shots with a single-shot back too.
No matter how hard you try, without some serious stabilization, such as subject and camera mounted on a granite slab floating in a pool of mercury, there will be minor movement of subject and camera due to room vibration and even due to the movement of air.
Such vibration is hard to exactly duplicate, so with multiple shots, it can work to your advantage in eliminating stuff like moire and enhancing apparent resolution. I use the phrase apparent resolution carefully, since once, software has been used to combine several images, resolution is really something that is not well defined in any rigorous way or at least in any commonly accepted way.
One package that does this is photoacute.
I have used it in the past and the results I achieved with it look remarkably similar to what I see in the examples below.
So perhaps someone with access to both SS and MS backs might try to take the same number of exposures with the SS back as the MS back (4) and then run the results through photoacute before comparison. I will bet a quarter that the results would be remarkably close.
-bob

 

[tjv]

Marc - I'm thinking more along the lines that someone might eventually advance high end systems in a way that eliminates the need to use MS technology to get equal per pixel accuracy in color and detail by doing something similar (but hopefully better) to the Foveon chip, ie. one that doesn't involve de-mosaicing. Until then, we're still spoilt for choice!

 

[Jack]

They were better than I had hoped also Jack ... BUT, my Hassey rep warned me that is won't be this apparent in all shots depending on subject matter.

Totally understand that, but for table-top or product at typical product shooting distances and in typical product shooting conditions, it's a pretty significant gain!

 

[Bob]

Marc - I'm thinking more along the lines that someone might eventually advance high end systems in a way that eliminates the need to use MS technology to get equal per pixel accuracy in color and detail by doing something similar (but hopefully better) to the Foveon chip, ie. one that doesn't involve de-mosaicing. Until then, we're still spoilt for choice!

Actually I posit that the moire reduction is due to the multiple shots and that a foveon type chip would not have that same benefit.
-bob

 

[Bob]

Totally understand that, but for table-top or product at typical product shooting distances and in typical product shooting conditions, it's a pretty significant gain!

Fabrics have always been the showcase demo for a MS back.
-bob

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

It is also interesting what you can do with multi-shots with a single-shot back too.
No matter how hard you try, without some serious stabilization, such as subject and camera mounted on a granite slab floating in a pool of mercury, there will be minor movement of subject and camera due to room vibration and even due to the movement of air.
Such vibration is hard to exactly duplicate, so with multiple shots, it can work to your advantage in eliminating stuff like moire and enhancing apparent resolution. I use the phrase apparent resolution carefully, since once, software has been used to combine several images, resolution is really something that is not well defined in any rigorous way or at least in any commonly accepted way.
One package that does this is photoacute.
I have used it in the past and the results I achieved with it look remarkably similar to what I see in the examples below.
So perhaps someone with access to both SS and MS backs might try to take the same number of exposures with the SS back as the MS back (4) and then run the results through photoacute before comparison. I will bet a quarter that the results would be remarkably close.
-bob

Ill bet you $50 it won't.

For reducing moire, for sure, I think the above method could be interesting.

But multi shot backs aren't simply taking four of the same scene, they are sampling each pixel four times, R G B G. Thats very different from composite RGB x 4.

As for movement, yes you do need a decent tripod, but if it was super hard to do, then the technology wouldn't be useable.

I would say that doing a 16 shot capture was definitely more of a challenge in terms of stability.

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

Actually I posit that the moire reduction is due to the multiple shots and that a foveon type chip would not have that same benefit.
-bob

In theory the Foveon chip would be the ultimate, if the technology was ever introduced to larger format CCD's or CMOS.

What was interesting is that Kodak was delving into Panchromatic technology but that has gone a bit quiet.

http://pluggedin.kodak.com/post/?id=624876

 

[Jack]

I demoed the PhotoAcute software a few years back and found it to definitely add detail as per the MS examples above, but it did zero for color fidelity. But this was with a DSLR file, probably 10-bit color in reality, and not a 14-bit MF file. I know from my Betterlight days that true-color capture is a very real advantage, so I'd also suspect the MS result will be superior overall to the PhotoAcute result.

However, I wonder about the P45+ monochrome back using three exposures with primary or maybe even secondary filtration? Too much of a PITA to process out for me to ever seriously consider it, but the results could be stellar...

 

[Steve Hendrix]

I've had many years of selling multi-shot digital backs from the 6MP era onward (both Sinar and Imacon/Hasselblad products). The difference between a single and multi-shot at 6MP was staggering. Increased resolution of single shot captures has dramatically reduced the negative elements that multishot solves for digital capture. Even comparing P45+ and P65+ files, I can see reduced color artifacting and improved edge detail in the file from the P65+. The same could be said going from P25+ to P45+, P20+ to P25+, etc. The difference between a single shot file from a 16MP/22MP and a P65+ (or even P45+) in these aspects is substantial.

Viewing a high quality 6,11,16 MP file in single and multishot mode produced a very easily discernible difference. But really beginning at 22MP and up to 40MP, 60MP, etc, the difference is still there but can be very, very subtle.

Fabrics are the best subject for extracting that difference with multishot. That said, I do have a customer who owned a Hasselblad CF-39MS that traded for a P45+. He felt the P45+ single shot file was better that the CF-39MS single shot and close enough to the CF-39MS multishot capture that he could shoot everything single shot.

He owns a studio in High Point and shoots furniture exclusively. This is not to say that his finding is the bottom line for all users, just his experience.

Multishot is great for quality. There is a cost, however. 4 or 16 times the strobe pop, 4 or 16 times the shutter use, for each shot. This may be worth it for some and depends on the subject matter. The differences between a high resolution single shot capture and a multishot may not factor enough to offset the workflow compromises. YMMV.


Steve Hendrix

 

[fotografz]

Never say never.

Think.. bottle and glass (as an example)

Shoot Champagne Bottle and empty glass in 4 shot (for quality)

Fill champagne glass, shoot several single shot... pick the best one, comp in PS in about 5 seconds!

D

Or a Beer Pour! Never thought of that ... well, never just came :ROTFL:. I'll give that a try. Thanks David!

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Just wondering how you H40 would have done here.

 

[fotografz]

I've had many years of selling multi-shot digital backs from the 6MP era onward (both Sinar and Imacon/Hasselblad products). The difference between a single and multi-shot at 6MP was staggering. Increased resolution of single shot captures has dramatically reduced the negative elements that multishot solves for digital capture. Even comparing P45+ and P65+ files, I can see reduced color artifacting and improved edge detail in the file from the P65+. The same could be said going from P25+ to P45+, P20+ to P25+, etc. The difference between a single shot file from a 16MP/22MP and a P65+ (or even P45+) in these aspects is substantial.

Viewing a high quality 6,11,16 MP file in single and multishot mode produced a very easily discernible difference. But really beginning at 22MP and up to 40MP, 60MP, etc, the difference is still there but can be very, very subtle.

Fabrics are the best subject for extracting that difference with multishot. That said, I do have a customer who owned a Hasselblad CF-39MS that traded for a P45+. He felt the P45+ single shot file was better that the CF-39MS single shot and close enough to the CF-39MS multishot capture that he could shoot everything single shot.

He owns a studio in High Point and shoots furniture exclusively. This is not to say that his finding is the bottom line for all users, just his experience.

Multishot is great for quality. There is a cost, however. 4 or 16 times the strobe pop, 4 or 16 times the shutter use, for each shot. This may be worth it for some and depends on the subject matter. The differences between a high resolution single shot capture and a multishot may not factor enough to offset the workflow compromises. YMMV.


Steve Hendrix

Geez Steve, are you Phase sales guys getting so desperate that you have to counter every post about Hasselblad products? I recall when you were selling Hasselblad, that Phase One was on the other end of the stick. I'm sure David could counter every swap over story you have with one from Hasselblad. But what's the point?

4 times use of the support equipment? I should be so lucky to have so many jobs that becomes a consideration :ROTFL:

As someone said above, pictures speak ...

-Marc

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Geez Steve, are you Phase sales guys getting so desperate that you have to counter every post about Hasselblad products? ...

I'm not really getting that vibe marc... and to think of it, the increased wear on lighting and all COULD be substantial for the high-end shooter who uses it all day long. I mean, four pops at 2400ws per "shot" as opposed to 1 (or similar) could make a difference in the long run if you use it a lot.

I don't think Steve is just talking "pictures" here... but more about value... which speaks more to a combination of "pictures" and amortization (and depreciation and ... and... and...).

IMO, he wasn't calling into question the quality of your back's output, nor the quality of hasselblad's products... only pointing out that high-res single-shot capture is pretty freakin' incredible these days.

(At a cost, though! )

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I get the same thing and to be honest the single shot on this has me puzzled a little. I am thinking your H40 can almost match the multi shot. Now i could be wrong but given how good these 6 micron sensors are, it certainly makes you wonder.

 

[fotografz]

Hey guys, just posted a little direct comparison of a 39 meg single shot verses a multi-shot for folks to take a look. Nothing more, nothing less. No mention of Phase One one way or the other.

IMO, all the rest is a bunch of words, speculation and sales spin ... and no pictures.

If I wanted to spend $40K plus to get the same level of image quality I needed, I would have waited for the H4D/60. Instead I paid under $15K used for a back with less than 1300 shots, and can use the back on all my MF cameras without sending the camera to have the mount changed.

To me, that's "value" for money spent.

BTW, here's hoping that my Profotos get eaten alive due to four shot (unlikely) ... I'll be making so much money it won't matter.

 

[Bob]

Hey guys, just posted a little direct comparison of a 39 meg single shot verses a multi-shot for folks to take a look. Nothing more, nothing less. No mention of Phase One one way or the other.

IMO, all the rest is a bunch of words, speculation and sales spin ... and no pictures.

If I wanted to spend $40K plus to get the same level of image quality I needed, I would have waited for the H4D/60. Instead I paid under $15K used for a back with less than 1300 shots, and can use the back on all my MF cameras without sending the camera to have the mount changed.

To me, that's "value" for money spent.

BTW, here's hoping that my Profotos get eaten alive due to four shot (unlikely) ... I'll be making so much money it won't matter.

I hope they do.
-bob

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Hey guys, just posted a little direct comparison of a 39 meg single shot verses a multi-shot for folks to take a look. Nothing more, nothing less. No mention of Phase One one way or the other.

IMO, all the rest is a bunch of words, speculation and sales spin ... and no pictures.

If I wanted to spend $40K plus to get the same level of image quality I needed, I would have waited for the H4D/60. Instead I paid under $15K used for a back with less than 1300 shots, and can use the back on all my MF cameras without sending the camera to have the mount changed.

To me, that's "value" for money spent.

BTW, here's hoping that my Profotos get eaten alive due to four shot (unlikely) ... I'll be making so much money it won't matter.

Mark

You did well on your purchase. A 39MP multishot back in great shape for under $15K is a wonderful thing.

I love the quality of multishot.

I think one of my points is that the difference between a Hasselblad single shot and a Hasselblad multishot might lead to a different conclusion than a multishot compared to a single shot from another product. While the quality of all medium format digital backs is amazing, there are differences. And that is what was deduced by the exampled client I mentioned. Yes, I know David and I can swap stories (and I feel readers benefit from those stories, on all sides), this is just one of mine. And given the real-worldness of it, I feel it is legitimate. This is a long time customer from my PPR days and he actually contacted me about switching, not the other way around.

I only mention some of the workflow issues because years ago in the era of 11MP or 16MP, it didn't matter. The quality difference between single and multishot was too great, it was a no brainer. But today with higher resolution products, the difference is increasingly minimal.

You're absolutely right - it is a line I have to walk, having sold Hasselblad (and worked for Imacon) for years, and now not selling it and selling a directly competitive product. I try to confine anything I say about a competitive product to how the content of what I comment on might affect someone considering the product I sell. And I will always do my best to not be negative and to keep things relative and in perspective...and most of all, accurate. This forum is a great place with all kinds of helpful information and that is a big reason for its popularity. Anyone interested in multishot would likely want as much experienced perspective as possible in considering that technology vs single shot.

Having said that, I do not wish to overemphasize the wear and tear from multishot. If I am the photographer, and multishot is absolutley what I have to have, then it's not even a question. But I think with the advent of high rez single shot, that is in many cases not so clear cut, so indeed wear and tear/workflow might indeed be a (minor) factor in consideration.


Steve Hendrix

 

[Nick-T]

From now on I will be commenting on any Phase thread that mentions "Sensor +" and advising people against it, as the increase in shooting speed will cause additional wear and tear on cameras and lights.

Thanks for the input Steve!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Does that mean i will need a new back soon. Oh joy. LOL

 

[Steve Hendrix]

From now on I will be commenting on any Phase thread that mentions "Sensor +" and advising people against it, as the increase in shooting speed will cause additional wear and tear on cameras and lights.

Thanks for the input Steve!

Ok. But I am not advising anyone against it. It is a reasonable consideration as a measure against the added image quality, which may or may not be significant, depending on the product used.

And I think the differences between a Sensor + 60 megapixel file at ISO 800 and a non-Sensor + 60 megapixel file at ISO 800 are much greater than the difference between a 39 megapixel single shot and 39 megapixel multishot.

But sure, faster shooting speeds means faster recycle of a power pack, which means some additional measure of wear on the capacitors, flashtubes, etc.

Make sure to hit the Canon/Nikon threads also, Nick.


Steve Hendrix