Yep I'll be talking to the fashion guys tooMake sure to hit the Canon/Nikon threads also, Nick.
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!
Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test
- Thread starter fotografz
- Start date
are you talking about the P65+ compared to the Aptus II 10 (56MP due to the image format)...?
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
The Aptus II 10 and P65+ are at least similar in terms of high ISO noise.
The Sensor Plus P65+ (also P40+) file at ISO 800 is comparable to a Canon 5DMKII file at ISO 800 and comparable to an Aptus II 10/P65+ (full rez) at ISO 200 (in terms of noise).
http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/03/30/phase-one-p40-versus-canon-5dmkii-iso-800/
Steve Hendrix
You were talking about 60MP at ISO800 with and without Sensor plus ... so it was not clear to me which DBs you were referring to as the P65+ is the only 60MP DB...
An ISO comparision of the P40+ and the H40 would be interessting. From the few samples I've seen I'd say the H40 smokes the P40+ at higher ISO.
___
Anyway... the difference of the same back in single shot and multi shot mode is really impressive.
There seems to be much more NR applied in the P40+ file ...
An ISO comparision of the P40+ and the H40 would be interessting. From the few samples I've seen I'd say the H40 smokes the P40+ at higher ISO.
___
Anyway... the difference of the same back in single shot and multi shot mode is really impressive.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Boy I would like to see that myself. I'm pretty stinking happy with the P40+ full res high ISO and with Sensor + that is a whole new ballgame like 35mm land. Dead serious on Sensor Plus I will go up against anything out there at ISO 800 and 1600 . I may lose but you better get a damn big loupe out
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
I was referring to the P65+. You are correct, there is no other 60MP digital back. And Sensor Plus was the topic, so I thought that would be obvious. Sorry for not clarifying that more.
I don't quite understand how you can discern that more noise reduction has been utilized for the P40+. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean the file seems less detailed, or .....?
Both files were processed with default NR settings in Capture One 5.1. If anything, the P40+ file seems more natural looking to my eye.
Steve Hendrix
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Steve I lower the luminance some with the higher ISO Sensor Plus shots. C1 looks to have it up slightly but it is a matter of taste and I can see why the higher numbers are there . I think maybe what Thomas might be referring too is the default is a touch high.
Reference I drop ISO 800 to 10 on luminance. Adjust to taste here
Reference I drop ISO 800 to 10 on luminance. Adjust to taste here
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
I haven't really checked, but it would make sense that Capture One has a different default setting for each camera. But a luminance setting that is too high would result in less detail. Again, to my eye, it looks smooth and natural. As I mentioned in the notes, there was also a difference in exposure though the identical settings were used. It surprised me that the P40+ was actually more sensitive than the 5DMKII. Traditionally, I have seen digital backs um, kind of cheat a bit on their ISO ratings.
I'm not sure if the luminance NR is a bit too aggressive by default, or if it is just in camera that the 5D produced a sharper file based on the shutter speed/lens combination and my hand holding in natural light.
It was a pretty casual test, but I think it helps answer the question about the capability.
Steve Hendrix
Well, at the very least this livened up the MF forum a bit ... it was getting a little sleepy... :ROTFL:
In the end we all select what fits our needs and that isn't always the absolute ultimate ... especially at these prices.
I researched my MS choice with some pretty credible professional users who did have the where-with-all to get most anything ... what they didn't choose was Phase One ... so that's my antidotal input which is just as valid as anyone else's.
I do not know anything about a P40+ except what I hear here ... I do know about the H4D/40 and the high ISO full res is astounding, including full res ISO 1600 if exposed carefully. That is useful for my applications as is the very accurate True Focus feature ... which solves a real everyday issue with some types of MF photography.
Most of the other issues raised on this thread are speculation and quite frankly a few are pretty far fetched like wearing out strobe gear because shooting so much with a MS back ... as I said, if that is the case the Brinks truck will be backing up to my studio. :thumbup:
-Marc
In the end we all select what fits our needs and that isn't always the absolute ultimate ... especially at these prices.
I researched my MS choice with some pretty credible professional users who did have the where-with-all to get most anything ... what they didn't choose was Phase One ... so that's my antidotal input which is just as valid as anyone else's.
I do not know anything about a P40+ except what I hear here ... I do know about the H4D/40 and the high ISO full res is astounding, including full res ISO 1600 if exposed carefully. That is useful for my applications as is the very accurate True Focus feature ... which solves a real everyday issue with some types of MF photography.
Most of the other issues raised on this thread are speculation and quite frankly a few are pretty far fetched like wearing out strobe gear because shooting so much with a MS back ... as I said, if that is the case the Brinks truck will be backing up to my studio. :thumbup:
-Marc
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Marc, your input is absolutely valid. Just because someone doesn't choose a Phase One product doesn't mean they don't have a valid reason not to...
And no one who has purchased a multishot product should feel they have to justify it to anyone, you certainly don't, nor do any of my customers who have purchased those systems from me.
As far as speculation, nothing that I have stated is speculation, so I assume that is for other elements of the thread.
As far as wear and tear, will a multishot back shooting 4 or 16 times the normal single shot rate wear out your strobe gear? Well...I didn't say that it would. But I do know that flashtubes and power generator capacitors have a limited lifespan and the more you use them, the more life you use up. So...I don't know, do the math.
But as I stated, it is only a consideration. Wear and tear, time for the capture, extra hard drive space for the larger raw files. These aren't reasons to not purchase multishot. They are only considerations. They are valid. This is my opinion, and my customer's opinions, many of whom shoot multishot. When I sold multishot systems, these considerations were also discussed with my customers, those who purchased them....and those who didn't.
Steve Hendrix
Update, completed my first paying job with the Multi-Shot ...
Did some GM wheels which I do 5 or 6 times a year. Previously did them with the H3D-II/39 ... this time I used single shot for all the pops to refine the lighting, and once I got the lighting exact used the 4 shot for the final images. This keeps the number of 4 shots to a minimum.
The final was much more detailed and required less of the minor retouching I used to do to some details like the logo in the center cap, etc.. Saved lots of time compared to previous similar shoots. I did notice that you MUST REALLY blow off anything you shoot with this MS back because any dust is rendered sharply.
Sorry, I can't show any images as the products are all advanced models for 2011 and 2012 vehicles, and I am working under a non-disclose agreement.
I also found out that I don't necessarily need an automatic shutter to use the Rollie Xact2 and the Digitar lenses. The software allows you to set any delay you want between shots ... which on a limited basis means I could set enough delay to manually cock the lens and allow the camera to settle down between each of the 4 shots. Since I do not need to use the Rollie very often, especially after getting the HTS/1.5, I doubt I'll need to upgrade the shutter system. If I were doing volume production, yes ... but for my limited applications ... no.
-Marc
Did some GM wheels which I do 5 or 6 times a year. Previously did them with the H3D-II/39 ... this time I used single shot for all the pops to refine the lighting, and once I got the lighting exact used the 4 shot for the final images. This keeps the number of 4 shots to a minimum.
The final was much more detailed and required less of the minor retouching I used to do to some details like the logo in the center cap, etc.. Saved lots of time compared to previous similar shoots. I did notice that you MUST REALLY blow off anything you shoot with this MS back because any dust is rendered sharply.
Sorry, I can't show any images as the products are all advanced models for 2011 and 2012 vehicles, and I am working under a non-disclose agreement.
I also found out that I don't necessarily need an automatic shutter to use the Rollie Xact2 and the Digitar lenses. The software allows you to set any delay you want between shots ... which on a limited basis means I could set enough delay to manually cock the lens and allow the camera to settle down between each of the 4 shots. Since I do not need to use the Rollie very often, especially after getting the HTS/1.5, I doubt I'll need to upgrade the shutter system. If I were doing volume production, yes ... but for my limited applications ... no.
-Marc
Marc:
nice to hear this is working for you who serves as an inspiration.
I do have a general maybe historical question for discussion, however. it seems like there is always a perceived need to improve quality, more res, multi-shot, MF, live-view and fast preview, etc. but by comparison, what did the art director's settle for in the old days when you were shooting 4x5 chromes, polaroid proofs and waiting for the chromes from the lab?
at what point has digital achieved that quality, can anyone tell the difference, do they care, etc. clearly dig is way more convenient and probably more economical, but how far does it have to go?
nice to hear this is working for you who serves as an inspiration.
I do have a general maybe historical question for discussion, however. it seems like there is always a perceived need to improve quality, more res, multi-shot, MF, live-view and fast preview, etc. but by comparison, what did the art director's settle for in the old days when you were shooting 4x5 chromes, polaroid proofs and waiting for the chromes from the lab?
at what point has digital achieved that quality, can anyone tell the difference, do they care, etc. clearly dig is way more convenient and probably more economical, but how far does it have to go?
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Part of the issue is in the old days. The wait for the trannies coming back 2 days later or even 1 day later was the set was struck, everything packed up and more important the AD forgot what it it looked like. So accepting what came in was it is what it is . Digital adds issues to this scenario. You don't walk away everything gets viewed at 100 percent and if it is not right you work it till it is right than you strike the set. So now different environment and the tables turned . Now Guy's philosophy screw the client on this it does not matter crap. Sure I will do what the client asks but I am shooting for me also and I want to deliver the best I can regardless if they are using it in a 4 x 4 inch ad or not. I do not buy into it is good enough for there purpose BS. That's never been or will never be my style from this old man. I want to produce the highest quality images period be it they use it or not. I have been screwed , burned and chastised for something delivered blown up way beyond it's original intended purpose. Im out to cover my butt. If 40 mpx back is not going to do it than i got a problem. I think not. LOL
Bottom line thinking these days is its about what I want to deliver to my clients. End of day i know what they need better than they do almost every time.
Bottom line thinking these days is its about what I want to deliver to my clients. End of day i know what they need better than they do almost every time.
To add to Guys spot on reply:
Not only was the set struck, but if there was a reshoot, all the models had to be paid again ... and the PAs, and any rentals (gear or studio), and rental props ... all paid for again. Half the time now, the client walks with the images ... if it's a shoot without a client on-set, the shots can be FTPed to them for approval before striking the set and releasing the models. (Not to mention the cost of shooting 4X5 Polaroids for every set up).
However, the real issue is that all media is now digital ... so even IF you shot film it has to be scanned. Good commercial scans can be $50 or $70, on top of film and processing. Do a catalog with 100 shots and that's an extra $5,000. to $7,000. line expense added just to shoot film. Then you wait for the processing ... then wait some more for the scans before the images can be retouched. Most Clients not only won't pay for scans anymore, they won't wait that long.
Instead of paying a scanning service, we charge a digital capture fee (like a rental charge), and if you own your own MFD kit, that fee goes into your pocket rather than to the scanning service like before. $300. to $500 fee per day digital capture fee is chump change compared to scanning costs ... so, do 100 jobs over 2 or so years, added to the depreciation write offs, and the MFD system is paid for clear.
Until the more recent economic downturn, I never paid a dime for the MFD kit out of my own pocket ... the fees eventually paid for it before I upgraded. Which is why, this time, I bought a used "upgrade" unit rather than go new. Gotta keep it real and in balance based on projected work and cash flow. Nothing personal, just business
-Marc
Especially the part of saving on minor retouching is a big saving. Over a couple of hundred images this is money in the pocket as well.
My clients also love the ability to crop out any detail they like from anyplace in the image they see fit.
I don't need to make additional captures for details in most cases
Another thing your clients or their studio will like you for is when something needs to be set free from its background. This is a total breeze with the lovely transitions that MS provides.
May I ask why?
Are you setting the lightning in a different way with MS backs?
Can you clear the background more effectively in camera, or is this a matter of easier post?
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Smoother rendering (less stair-stepping) of edge detail, especially compared to same or lower resolution single shot. The degree of this varies with different capture devices.
Steve Hendrix
Yes, when comparing the same meg back to another with multi-Shot. The Wheel job was a good example of this time savings as I also had to knock out the backgrounds to pure white for the catalog use. Selecting the edges at 200% was much easier and much cleaner than it was with similar shoots previously ... cut the outlining time in half.
What I do not know is how the super high meg backs like a 60 does for this type work ... or even a 40 that has the same sized pixels ... I've never used one yet for shooting wheels. My bet is that they are also better for this type of post work. Next time I will shoot the job with my 40 also just to see. I didn't have time to screw around with this job, they release the wheels to me for a very limited amount of time.
-Marc