Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 61

Thread: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Took delivery of a CF/39 Multishot recently, and during the dealer training session in my studio we did some comparison shots. Thought some of you would be interested in the results.

    This is about as perfect a test as can be done for comparisons ... literally everything is exactly the same. Same camera and lens, same sensor, same lighting. Nothing is touched. The only difference is selecting the Multi-Shot toggle button in the Phocus software to tell the camera to shoot Multi-Shot instead of Single Shot ... and hitting the shoot button on the software.

    While I have commissioned many photographers for product work that used Multi-Shot cameras, this is the first time I've owned one and shot with it myself.

    Side-by-side 200% crops tell the story. While the full sized shot of both look fine, pixel peeping reveals some interesting differences ... like the color on the pink dot.

    Over-all, in many cases it probably wouldn't matter ... but I shoot a lot of fabrics for auto catalogs where both detail and accurate color is important ... or product details that includes tiny type, etc. Plus, on some jobs clients crop out pieces of a shot for use larger than initially intended.

    Net impression ... I should have got into MS a long time ago.

    -Marc

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Thanks, Marc. I've never seen the comparison before. Thanks heavens it only works tethered or I'd be contemplating where I could stump up the cash for one.
    Cheers,
    Jeff
    www.jeff-grant.com

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    314
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    here is a shot to explain the capabilities of an Imacon 384 back i took several years ago. The last image is the Microstep one, really impressive.

  4. #4
    Senior Member routlaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    The only difference is selecting the Multi-Shot toggle button in the Phocus software to tell the camera to shoot Multi-Shot instead of Single Shot ... and hitting the shoot button on the software....

    Over-all, in many cases it probably wouldn't matter ... but I shoot a lot of fabrics for auto catalogs where both detail and accurate color is important ... or product details that includes tiny type, etc. Plus, on some jobs clients crop out pieces of a shot for use larger than initially intended.

    Net impression ... I should have got into MS a long time ago.

    -Marc
    Marc this is pretty indicative of the test I have seen in the past too comparing MS vs Single shot capture. Its not just the additional detail but also the difference, or rather the added separation in hue and value. The images from the MS backs are more three dimensional as well. I debated purchasing one of these things long and hard before buying my Betterlight due to its versatility and added usability but still felt the BL had the slight advantage in its rather natural look if done right, not to mention the use of LF cameras. How much that difference would ever show up in print is debatable. I have printed some very large prints from the MS files, and they are awesome indeed.

    Anyway good test, well done! I am surprised however to learn you have to be tethered to use the MS function on these backs.

    Congrats on the new back.

    Rob

  5. #5
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Boy I wish you hadn't posted these. Never gave any thought to the MS backs but man...they do some job. You've got the gears in my head turning

  6. #6
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Awesome Marc -- the results are even better than I'd expect, like a 50% gain on resolution
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  7. #7
    tetsrfun
    Guest

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Amazing results with the MS. Does the MS in single shot mode have identical results to a single shot 39 MP back?

    Steve

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Marc, considering the enormous hourly depreciation of MF digital gear versus the relatively "really cheap" route of film (albeit more time consuming) with superior results (yes superior) what is the point?

    As a casual shooter and not conversant with the tax advantages as you pros, I simply don't get it.

    You spend more and get less.

    If your goal is resolution, why waste money on a inferior solution.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Wow, that's like going from 40 to 60 mp's. Truly an amazing difference. I can see something like latent moire is gone in the MS shot!
    Eduardo

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    561
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Thanks for the test Marc!

    Perhaps we should pop this over on LL as a side note to their MS test.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Wow, pretty impressive difference. It's a real pity though that it's not really possible to realize this gain out in the field. Perhaps soon we will see an evolution in sensors that don't require multiple exposures to see the same definition in final files.
    I imagine this MS stuff is like sexy dreams to a product photographer though.

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    Wow, pretty impressive difference. It's a real pity though that it's not really possible to realize this gain out in the field. Perhaps soon we will see an evolution in sensors that don't require multiple exposures to see the same definition in final files.
    I imagine this MS stuff is like sexy dreams to a product photographer though.
    I think Jack probably gets this kind of resolution from his 60 meg back. So, it's already possible for the field.

    I don't shoot landscape photography for big art prints like a lot of folks here do. This MS set-up will probably never leave my studio unless used in single shot mode as back-up to the H4D/40.

    Some shooters that I read on the Hassey digital site do use these tethered to a laptop on location. From what I understand they occasionally shoot a single shot and a multishot and layer them ... then erase any movement areas of the 4 shot overlay. I've never tried doing that, and may never try it as I have no need.

    -Marc

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by David Grover / Hasselblad View Post
    Thanks for the test Marc!

    Perhaps we should pop this over on LL as a side note to their MS test.
    No thanks David.

    I'l stay here where Jack and Guy keep things balanced and straight up

    -Marc

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Uaiomex View Post
    Wow, that's like going from 40 to 60 mp's. Truly an amazing difference. I can see something like latent moire is gone in the MS shot!
    Eduardo
    Yeah Eduardo, in my research of MS backs I got info from tech wizards responsible for doing copy work of Art pieces at a University, and beyond the gain in resolution they touted the color accuracy ... which is important for color matching the fabrics I shoot. Less anomalies makes that easier to accomplish.

    -Marc

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Yeah Eduardo, in my research of MS backs I got info from tech wizards responsible for doing copy work of Art pieces at a University, and beyond the gain in resolution they touted the color accuracy ... which is important for color matching the fabrics I shoot. Less anomalies makes that easier to accomplish.

    -Marc
    The MS pics also do give a better idea of how the tactile feeling of the fabrics will be. The textures look more defined and clear.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    561
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    Some shooters that I read on the Hassey digital site do use these tethered to a laptop on location. From what I understand they occasionally shoot a single shot and a multishot and layer them ... then erase any movement areas of the 4 shot overlay. I've never tried doing that, and may never try it as I have no need.

    -Marc
    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

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Tex View Post
    Marc, considering the enormous hourly depreciation of MF digital gear versus the relatively "really cheap" route of film (albeit more time consuming) with superior results (yes superior) what is the point?

    As a casual shooter and not conversant with the tax advantages as you pros, I simply don't get it.

    You spend more and get less.

    If your goal is resolution, why waste money on a inferior solution.
    I understand your points well Tex, and your passionate post deserves a considered response.

    As I have said in the past ... If I were just shooting for myself, had all the time in the world, wasn't so lazy, and not addicted to immediate need gratification ... I'd still be shooting film. I only recently sold my Imacon 949 scanner as the last break from the hybrid world of fiim/digital, but can still do it if the bug bites me because the H2F takes film backs and I kept 3 of them just in case ... and my B&W darkroom is still fully intact and very well equipped (if everything hasn't rusted from lack of use). IF I ever do shoot more film I will do it the "purists" way ... in the darkroom making true silver prints by hand

    Unfortunately, the rest of the world I live and work in has moved to digital.

    Commercial clients expect immediate digital results to use for publication in what is now virtually 100% digital media, and most certainly are unwilling to pay enormous scanning fees to convert a slew of film shots into digital. A catalog of 100 shots could be at least $5000. to $6000. additional in scanning costs. Instead of paying for scans with a scanning service, they pay me a digital capture fee of up to $400. per day ... which helps pay for this stuff over the long haul. Plus, since the client sees the results on set and approves the shots, there are virtually no reshoots with all the attendant overages involved.

    Most wedding clients want digital ... with stuff posted the next day on their social site or SmugMug, and half of them don't even want an album anymore. Personally, I think that is a shame as a family's archive is compromised ... but I don't make the rules, they do.

    Lastly, for once, I avoided the big depreciation you mention and bought this used ... a Hasselblad refurbed back for less than 1/2 its original price including an extra year extended Depot Warranty ... it was a DB used by a Hassey tech guru that had less than 1,300 shots on it.

    -Marc

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    Boy I wish you hadn't posted these. Never gave any thought to the MS backs but man...they do some job. You've got the gears in my head turning
    Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here!"




    -Marc

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Awesome Marc -- the results are even better than I'd expect, like a 50% gain on resolution
    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.

    Honesty is the best policy. Yet, for a lot of my commercial subjects this will be a step up from what I was offering.

    -Marc

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by tetsrfun View Post
    Amazing results with the MS. Does the MS in single shot mode have identical results to a single shot 39 MP back?

    Steve
    From my previous experiences using a H3D/39 and H3D-II/39 in the same environment and same subjects, I would say yes, they are identical. Same chip.

    IMHO, the SS 39 backs from Hassey and Phase One are very, very good on their own, and more than enough for most subjects. As my rep said, "not until you view a side-by-side test like this, and zoom in for a 200% pixel Peeping exercise do you really see the substantual differences" ... differences that will show up even in reproduction with better clarity and color separation for critical works when needed.

    -Marc

  21. #21
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    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

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    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!

  23. #23
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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!
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  24. #24
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    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

  25. #25
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    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

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    561
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    561
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    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

  28. #28
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    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...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  29. #29
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    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
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by David Grover / Hasselblad View Post
    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 . I'll give that a try. Thanks David!

    -Marc

  31. #31
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Just wondering how you H40 would have done here.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    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

    As someone said above, pictures speak ...

    -Marc

  33. #33
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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! )

  34. #34
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    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.

  36. #36
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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

  37. #37
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    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!

  39. #39
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Does that mean i will need a new back soon. Oh joy. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  40. #40
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick-T View Post
    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
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    Make sure to hit the Canon/Nikon threads also, Nick.
    Yep I'll be talking to the fashion guys too

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    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...
    are you talking about the P65+ compared to the Aptus II 10 (56MP due to the image format)...?

  43. #43
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    are you talking about the P65+ compared to the Aptus II 10 (56MP due to the image format)...?

    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/20...dmkii-iso-800/


    Steve Hendrix
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    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/20...dmkii-iso-800/
    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.

  45. #45
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    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...

    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.
    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  46. #46
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    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...

    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.
    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
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller

  47. #47
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  48. #48
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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.

    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
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller

  49. #49
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Well, at the very least this livened up the MF forum a bit ... it was getting a little sleepy...

    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.

    -Marc

  50. #50
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Single Shot verses Multi-Shot: Test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Well, at the very least this livened up the MF forum a bit ... it was getting a little sleepy...

    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.

    -Marc
    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
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •