Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 67 of 67

Thread: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    And my version created under duress.
    Think I like yours the best but it just goes to show you it's all down to subjective editing in the end and no one final conversion will please everyone. In fact, I think personal preference (more than skill) probably plays a more significant role in the final (subjective) print quality than dedicated software.

  2. #52
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by dfarkas View Post
    Here's my take on the file.
    Looks pretty nice to me... much more 3-dimensional and mf-ish than the other files I've seen. Thanks for the crop as well.

    I still have some obvious trouble finding where "in-focus" starts and ends on some S2 landscape files. I swear there must be something wrong with my eyes, because some things in the (somewhat) far BG look pretty stable while other objects closer to the plane of focus seem not so acute.

    Must be me because it's late at night, lol!!!
    Last edited by Shelby Lewis; 14th June 2010 at 21:19.

  3. #53
    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: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by dfarkas View Post
    Here's my take on the file.

    Imported into LR3, applied my default S2 preset.

    Warmed up about +300K, brought down exposure 0.4, added a touch of recovery and a dab of fill light.

    Done. Exported to JPG.

    All in all, took about 30 seconds to season to taste. The hardest part was getting the final JPGs to be under 976K for the forum limit. Of course, in LR3, you can now just have LR manage your compression settings to get down to a specific file size.

    Personally, I like deep shadows and bright highlights (not blown, but bright). To me having too much shadow info with no black and too much highlight detail without white makes for a very flat and very "digital" looking file. My taste certainly isn't everyone's but I like my files to have depth and richness to them.

    David
    Perhaps some of this can be chalked up to slight differences in monitors and or course personal taste ... but sorry David I would find this rendering unacceptable for a MFD file, and I do not agree with Shelby either. There is little to no detail in the highlight areas in this version, and the scene lacks any sort of character that I would like ... character like Jims Boatyard series done with an old school V camera and a 16 meg DB. Same sort of images often shot in very similar light that were simply terrific.

    In fact, for me this little exercise in variable processing tastes by different members mirrors my experimentation with my own S2 files where I tried various approaches and was never quite satisfied.

    All my best wishes to S2 owners and may their journey be filled with great shots.

    -Marc

  4. #54
    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: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    Mark...it doesn't look flat on my monitor at all. Is Roger's version more to your liking?

    So hard to judge these images without knowing what the original scene looked like.....

    Gary
    I agree, Mark's version is not bad ... maybe just needs a bit more punch ... but at least the highlight areas have some detail ... which is what MFD is all about ... DR that provides data across the tonal range then lets the user decide what creative mojo to use for a final rendering.

    -Marc

  5. #55
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    I agree, Mark's version is not bad ... maybe just needs a bit more punch ... but at least the highlight areas have some detail ... which is what MFD is all about ... DR that provides data across the tonal range then lets the user decide what creative mojo to use for a final rendering.

    -Marc
    i agree with marc. but let us keep in mind that the DNG was flat while the scene is really high contrast. this is IMHO why the conversions look artificial.
    peter

  6. #56
    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: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    ACR and LR3 may have a different engine right now. Not sure

    I do not have LR on my system and most likely never will given I use C1.
    Guy, yes LR3 is better than 2 ... but these preliminary explorations with an S2 file reveal that for this type of shot in this sort of light, the improvements may be minimal.

    However, LR3 has visibly improved noise rendering in lower light scenes ... and it would be very interesting to see a high ISO S2 shot processed in LR3 where the benefit may be more readily discernible not to mention valuable. My higher ISO M9 and Sony A900 files have noticeably improved in LR3.

    When I get a moment I am going to reload my S2 files into LR3 and see if I can do better than I did in my previous explorations.

    I'm still convinced, and in agreement with you, that not having proprietary dedicated software doesn't help the S2 cause.

    -Marc

  7. #57
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    I think everyone is really missing the point hear big time. Your all struggling to get a decent image from it and how much time is this taking. Bottom line no doubt about it if this was tuned to a raw processor we would not have clipping shadows as much as there is and the highlights would not be blowing on a scene that any meter can handle. You know how many times i actually used fill on a Phase file , I could maybe count them on one hand. I hardly ever ever have to use fill. Highlights at times yes. The color is off and your making adjustments. Go back and read what adjustments and debate is going on. Frankly to me this is going back to the days where I had to work a file to death to get anything from it. I rarely do that anymore and only if I want something as a option. Not a color corrected , DR capable image that is shot in sunlight that is about the easiest file to deal with. This file should be much better out of the gate.

    Marc we posted the same time here but what I see here is a file that has a very minimal amount of DR. Not sure why this is at all either. The clipping is too much and the highlights too blown for a image that looks like the metering system captured just fine. This is a normal scene by all accounts and the color sucks right out of the gate.

    Maybe I'm nuts but I just don't like these files. I'll stay out of this for now on.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  8. #58
    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: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis View Post
    Looks pretty nice to me... much more 3-dimensional and mf-ish than the other files I've seen. Thanks for the crop as well.

    I still have some obvious trouble finding where "in-focus" starts and ends on some S2 landscape files. I swear there must be something wrong with my eyes, because some things in the (somewhat) far BG look pretty stable while other objects closer to the plane of focus seem not so acute.

    Must be me because it's late at night, lol!!!
    Shelby, I have to disagree.

    Of course it's purely subjective ... but perhaps at least an explanation as to why I disagree is in order.

    For me, the expectations of a MFD file is one of data capture that exceeds smaller formats in DR. What is done with it afterwards is the subjective, creative part.

    My issue with the original file, and some of the post renderings, is that the highlight areas lack the details that are actually there. David may subjectively prefer bright highlights (which you may also prefer) ... however, what if a user doesn't have the same subjective vision? This reveals the clipping issue that both Guy and Jack discussed in their S2 review ... which lead to the opinion that the S2 suffers from not having a highly tuned proprietary software solution that deals with the very specific characteristics of the S2 imaging chain.

    I cropped a foreground detail as demonstration of the highlight detail that the original file actually has. The one marked A is the original, B is David's rendering (ignore the lack of sharpness as I only had his up-load to work with), and C shows the highlight detail more fully.

    I still think the image was overexposed, and with LR3's better handling of shadow areas it may have been preferable to deal with opening the shadows than restoring the brights.

    Again, purely subjective, but a subjectivity based on dealing with all sorts of lighting scenarios with various MFD systems and their dedicated software ... where getting to a good file is not such a struggle and provides a pretty wide latitude for creative interpretation with less sacrifice.

    -Marc

  9. #59
    Member VICTOR BT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    75
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    as i already posted in the forum, i doing my studies for 40mp MFD. leica S2 is there but very soon i have realized, partly from many good arguments on this forum, that the S2 is not a fully ready tool. now i just downloaded some DNG files from Guy's iDisk public folder and tried to play with them in LR myself. just for example, contrary to the dull light were are talking here, i know the issues with some of those photos guy uploaded, i live in israel and playing with sun-light is familiar to me, i know what to expect from film, and from digital.
    now i really realize what Marc has commented about the FLAT look of S2 files. i really tried, tried hard and was sitting half a hour on those, i simply could not get a pleasing to me file. what takes minutes to bring a scanned file, or a digital file (like from leaf, or even like from canon 5d2 that im not exactly exited about) was a hard work with S2 and never got there. FLAT.
    i just compare it with a slide film (provia medium format) that i have made for fashion in sunny-light... what a depth to the photographs, on light table or scanned proof printed etc...
    more over... there are some ugly artifacts, like in hair for example. i know it can happen with MFD, but i simply had troubles with it more than i could imagine. some more issues, but those mentioned are enough.
    now, the resolution seems great, the lens quality and character seems great too as far as i could put it apart from general experience of tuning the files. but FLAT.
    so ok, i understand this is a conversion issue, and guy talked about it in his review, and nothing really changed since then, or not improved enough. but as it is now, leave aside the completition from pahse/leaf/hassy 40mp, as it is now, i would rather prefer film slides than S2. simply because i have MUCH better look, and the extra work with film does not look like a big issue compared to the extra work with S2 dng.

    since i really like this camera, aesthetic, concept design etc ... i have to say, that my experience i described is very limited, but enough for me not to look at this camera as an option, until there significant improvements. again, im not talking about "creative" part, this is very personal indeed, i also like contrast, punch etc... im talking about experience when working on the file and the result i get, especially "look"/"character" etc...

  10. #60
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    marc:

    thanks for your comment, your input is always appreciated

  11. #61
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Thanks to all. Leaving out the going in biases (richer color, more, less 3D look etc) I am surprised that the raw shows better than the LR 'defaults" (remmeber tha's what I did.
    Yes, I suppose there was a slight over exposure, but with the available DR (and the extra detail by 'exposing to the right" I see that the more important result is the better detail. David's looks the most natural, Roger's and marc's more interesting. Mark's in the middle. In Guy's shot, I think it isn't oversharpening that is bottering me, but the heavy mascara! (on the girls, that is.)

    Bottom line here (and this makes it twice in 2 days! ) I have to agree with Guy that the data are there, and that the initial raw processing is what will drop the exposure in a way to preserve the DR for final 8-10 bit printing from going in 14-16 bits.

    That said, my mistake was to 'trust' LR AUTO defaults - they just mess things up out of the box. Need to do WB (and yes, I have a passport but not for this shot) and then make the exposure/fill/recovery manually. The LR auto just over does it and then it is too late. Again this is where a raw is needed.

    NOW, I am surprised LR doesnt use the best and latest ACR. DNG is, after all, Adobe's baby. If they cannot handle DNG files, what he hell!

    Anyway, thx again. The S2 is no Phase--thank goodness! If it were I wouldn't see the option. It\\S2 has a way to go, but may yet be in my future, but more because "if you can't carry the camera, you'll not get the shoot" It was very easy to use. (Now how about a brighter top lcd?....)

    Thx again all
    Victor
    Last edited by gogopix; 15th June 2010 at 03:38.

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    284
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    There is a new test from a german magzine Leica S2 vs Hasselblad H4D-40:

    http://www.colorfoto.de/kiosk/colorfoto_3956396.html

    Here the conclusion (translated with google..:-):

    "Both cameras comply with its excellent image quality, high resolution and low noise, high expectations. Compared replaced the Leica fine details a little better, while the Hasselblad offers more resolution and the dynamics in the lead has. If there is a tie, the image quality. Hasselblad relies on classical control plan with many keys for quick shortcuts, Leica "intelligent" soft keys. In comparison, the Hasselblad can operate faster, but Leica learn more intuitive. Central locking works only with Hasselblad, Leica offers Central and slot closure. Conversely, only the Hasselblad viewfinder is interchangeable and it also comes in the handling and equipment at a stalemate.
    The H4D-generation is a successful development of the H3D-series, which offers the H4D-40 with an average of € 13 000 and 40 megapixel resolution is an interesting and low-priced entry level into the professional medium format. Leica can not (yet) offer the diversity of Hasselblad system, but the start was managed technically perfect, with an equivalent image quality, celeverem operating concept as well as dust and splash protection. However, the surcharge is € 7500 including lens. Thus although there was no winner, but the Hasselblad offers the better price / performance ratio."

    Original text:

    "Beide Kameras entsprechen mit ihrer ausgezeichneten Bildqualität, höchster Auflösung bei geringem Rauschen den hohen Erwartungen. Im Vergleich erhält die Leica feine Details etwas besser, während die Hasselblad etwas mehr Auflösung bietet und bei der Dynamik die Nase vorn hat. Bei der Bildqualität herrscht Gleichstand. Hasselblad setzt auf klassisches Bedienkonzept mit zahlreichen Tasten für schnelle Direktzugriffe, Leica auf "intelligente" Softkeys. Im Vergleich lässt sich die Hasselblad schneller bedienen, aber Leica intuitiver erlernen. Hasselblad arbeitet ausschliesslich mit Zentralverschlüssen, Leica bietet Zentral- und Schlitzverschluss. Umgekehrt ist nur der Hasselblad-Sucher austauschbar, und so kommt es auch bei der Handhabung und Ausstattung zum Patt.
    Die H4D-Generation ist eine gelungene Weiterentwicklung der H3D-Serie, wobei die H4D-40 mit durchschnittlich 13000 Euro und 40 Megapixel Auflösung ein interessantes und günstiges Einstiegmodell ins professionelle Mittelformat bietet. Leica kann (noch) nicht die Systemvielfalt von Hasselblad bieten, doch ist der Einstieg technisch perfekt gelungen, mit einer gleichwertigen Bildqualität, celeverem Bedienkonzept sowie Staub- und Spritzwasserschutz. Allerdings beträgt der Aufpreis inklusive Objektiv 7500 Euro. Damit gibt es zwar keinen Sieger, aber die Hasselblad bietet das bessere Preis/Leistungsverhältnis."

  13. #63
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    well, last bit of fooling around
    no AUTO..was overcast, here the bigger ship red is closer..

    But overall, better to just wait till the sun comes out

    In gerenal I prefer a more natural look. Boosting saturation can help 3D but I save that for printng
    Detail looks good here

  14. #64
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Shelby, I have to disagree.

    Of course it's purely subjective ... but perhaps at least an explanation as to why I disagree is in order.

    -Marc
    Good points Marc,

    These are helpful thoughts for me... not seeing many of the files, quite possibly the lack of focal clarity (to my eyes, and again looking a web files) might just be a lack of acuity at the focal plane due to the blown-out whites in the these samples.

    Thanks for the thoughts... again, pretty helpful to someone who's admittedly not spent much time with S2 files... even though that scene still looks strange to my eyes.

    Guy... spot on in my estimation.

  15. #65
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Notwithstanding the software and/or other shortcomings the S2 may have I think it's still capable of generating some pretty impressive images in the right hands. For example, the images shot by Jorge Alvarez (processed in C1) which are showcased on Capture Integration's website. I had the pleasure of visiting with Jorge a while back... he's a nice guy and, IMHO, an outstanding photographer.


    http://www.captureintegration.com/20...t-impressions/

  16. #66
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    Notwithstanding the software and/or other shortcomings the S2 may have I think it's still capable of generating some pretty impressive images in the right hands. For example, the images shot by Jorge Alvarez (processed in C1) which are showcased on Capture Integration's website. I had the pleasure of visiting with Jorge a while back... he's a nice guy and, IMHO, an outstanding photographer.


    http://www.captureintegration.com/20...t-impressions/
    Thanks for posting this. Many Chris could clue us in how they got such a nice rendering out of C1 . Seems to be pretty much to the point Kurt raised by his post.

  17. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    76

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    ... For example, the images shot by Jorge Alvarez (processed in C1) which are showcased on Capture Integration's website. I had the pleasure of visiting with Jorge a while back... he's a nice guy and, IMHO, an outstanding photographer...[/url]
    I agree. Jorge is a really nice guy and extremely talented. I had the pleasure of meeting Jorge and being present for a portion of the shoot that David K linked. Here is a link to his website. The model's name is Lane Lindell and she is a very nice person as well.

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
  •