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!

S2 Chromatic Aberration - how big an issue is it?

Dale, I changed Defringe to "all edges" and moved the red/cyan slider down to -7 and that took care of it. Super simple to do. Next I will try your approach, which seems simple as well.
 

tjv

Active member
Good example! It's amazing what can be accomplished in software these days. This also illustrates why it's best to evaluate, for ourselves and within our own workflow environment, complete systems. I say complete systems meaning as opposed to "I ran both through processor 'A' using "default settings" and compared the 100% views." In this case, it's obvious Leica's chosen software is not so good at eliminating certain artifacts and the competition is ahead. Then again, if one is serious about maintaing a Lightroom catalogue and processing workflow (which I am,) there is no real alternative anyway. I'm all about saving time and energy at the computer these days. I guess there are trade offs no matter where you look. :deadhorse:

This morning I downloaded some more of Guy and Jack's S2 review DNG's and played around with them in LR3. To be honest, speaking as someone who only uses 100ISO MF slide film, I was really impressed with the files up to and including (if only marginally) 640ISO. In my experience, 400ISO colour neg scans horribly under similar conditions to Guy's torture test, and is especially grainy in the shadows. Combined that with the effect of grain aliasing and MF colour neg can look downright ugly at time. (Just my humble opinion. If I was making true optical prints it would be a different story.) 320ISO S2 files look a heck of a lot better to my eyes. Are they $30K good, or better / worse than the competition? I really don't know. I just know I'd have a lot less stress in my life if I gave up using film!

As TJV pointed out, the big unknown here is the raw editor. The software companies are not fully transparent in explaining how their editors work - understandably so since that's core to their app's design / performance/ differentiators. The problem comes into play when using one app for one camera, and another app for another camera. There list of unknowns is lengthy and all we can do is look at the net result and make judgements & best guesses. I posted this a while back -



At the time C1 was automatically suppressing purple CA, there was no toggle switch to turn it on and off in the non-pro version. So I could go on and on for years believing XYZ lens didn't have CA simply because C1 filtered it out and I was none the wiser. I'm not defending Leica here, just illustrating TJV's comments. And I hope Leica re-evaluates their raw editor strategy.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Interesting thread. I am also curious how well the LR solution allows taming of CA. Those who advocate use of dedicated system software (and we already KNOW who you are :D ) may have a good point.

As always, pixel peeping only makes sense if everyone who sees your work gets to do it too. Were those who have seen CA in the S2 lenses still able to see it in a 40"x60" print? Okay, now 20"x30"?
I'm not much for pixel peeping for its own sake either ... and think it's overused for the sake of internet arguments. However, I DO think 100% and 200% inspections have some value for the photographer in that something like CA can have an effect on apparent sharpness at 100% renderings @ viewing distances ... as well as how smoothly tonal transitions are rendered.

Leica's renowned but mystical "micro contrast" helps make OOF objects clearer which adds to the over-all impression of clarity ... or snap, crackle, and pop ... without messing with edge sharpness to do it ... (or so I've been repeatedly told by larger brains than mine ;)

However, the point about actual size is well taken. Frankly, what little CA I saw in any S2 shots that I shot was pretty minimal considering that a 100% rendering @ 300 ppi is 16.5" X 25" or so ... and a 200% rendering would be 33" X 50".

By comparison, the M9 produces a 11.5" X 17.37" native rendering @ 300 ppi and would require approx. a 143% rendering to match the S2's native 100% rendering.

This notion also has to be applied in reverse to the rendering of images from something like Jack's P65+, which produces a much larger native image than the S2 ... so even IF there were a touch more CA, it wouldn't be as apparent in a print equal in size to a 100% one from the S2. Add the world class software corrections from either Phase One or Hasselblad, and the touted lens advantage of the S2 diminishes.

Basically, the highly corrected and expensive S2 lenses aren't a luxury, they are a necessity for a "Tweener" sized sensor IMO ... a feat which Leica apparently has accomplished pretty well, but not perfectly as implied. I'd wager that dedicated software would deal with the small remainder.

Attached are a few 200% screen grab crops ... two from the S2 and 70mm, and two from the M9 with a 75/1.4 ... all shot wide open. Sorry, I don't have comparible focal length conversions ... I wasn't testing the S2 that way when I demo'ed it. A bit of green fringe in OOF areas on the S2 shots, but at native print size @ normal viewing distances it's virtually invisible to the viewer. I must admit my amazement concerning the old 75/Lux if you consider it was shot at f/1.4 or 1.5.

Marc
 

NotXorc

New member
I'm not much for pixel peeping for its own sake either ... and think it's overused for the sake of internet arguments. However, I DO think 100% and 200% inspections have some value for the photographer in that something like CA can have an effect on apparent sharpness at 100% renderings @ viewing distances ... as well as how smoothly tonal transitions are rendered.

Leica's renowned but mystical "micro contrast" helps make OOF objects clearer which adds to the over-all impression of clarity ... or snap, crackle, and pop ... without messing with edge sharpness to do it ... (or so I've been repeatedly told by larger brains than mine ;)

However, the point about actual size is well taken. Frankly, what little CA I saw in any S2 shots that I shot was pretty minimal considering that a 100% rendering @ 300 ppi is 16.5" X 25" or so ... and a 200% rendering would be 33" X 50".

By comparison, the M9 produces a 11.5" X 17.37" native rendering @ 300 ppi and would require approx. a 143% rendering to match the S2's native 100% rendering.

This notion also has to be applied in reverse to the rendering of images from something like Jack's P65+, which produces a much larger native image than the S2 ... so even IF there were a touch more CA, it wouldn't be as apparent in a print equal in size to a 100% one from the S2. Add the world class software corrections from either Phase One or Hasselblad, and the touted lens advantage of the S2 diminishes.

Basically, the highly corrected and expensive S2 lenses aren't a luxury, they are a necessity for a "Tweener" sized sensor IMO ... a feat which Leica apparently has accomplished pretty well, but not perfectly as implied. I'd wager that dedicated software would deal with the small remainder.

Attached are a few 200% screen grab crops ... two from the S2 and 70mm, and two from the M9 with a 75/1.4 ... all shot wide open. Sorry, I don't have comparible focal length conversions ... I wasn't testing the S2 that way when I demo'ed it. A bit of green fringe in OOF areas on the S2 shots, but at native print size @ normal viewing distances it's virtually invisible to the viewer. I must admit my amazement concerning the old 75/Lux if you consider it was shot at f/1.4 or 1.5.

Marc
Very helpful comments Marc! I actually find the OOF green CA more distracting in your examples than the red aberrations seen in Mark's spiral parking garage. Further, I agree with Jack that they are pretty mild, and surmise they would not draw attention in a 300ppi print. I have to use Visolve to even pick out (working on an uncalibrated monitor at the moment) the red fringing.
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Very helpful comments Marc! I actually find the OOF green CA more distracting in your examples than the red aberrations seen in Mark's spiral parking garage. Further, I agree with Jack that they are pretty mild, and surmise they would not draw attention in a 300ppi print. I have to use Visolve to even pick out (working on an uncalibrated monitor at the moment) the red fringing.

Dear OP

It's probably not an issue at all

I went out and had my eyes tested again, as I just couldn't see any CA, frinbging etc (thx NotXorc for admitting to need help in seeing)

CA, fringing, grain, hard boket...these are all part of the game.. like a little splotchiness in a $70million impressionist painting?

This thread has got to be one of the most positive for the S2 I've seen in a while.

You think the above is fringing? that's not fringing
see below the water, splash etc THAT's FRINGING :ROTFL:

[or is it sensor bloom... oh well, looks red...]

(3:1, 1:1 and the the crop I might use. BTW the colors on the seaweed are all good, even thougfh I took a bit of magenta out) Also, watch that nasty green/magenta slider in LR, it was +25 or so in the 3:1!)

A bit of CA/ see the wire back lit etc etc. I increased saturation to see, but sure, looks like quacks like etc

"....and on your left side red,
and on your right side green,...
do the hokey pokey...." to the tune of...

I must say that Jack's comment holds a lot of sway...he had a LOT more time than I did, and if he said it wasn't obvious that means a lot. Until this thread, I didn't even think about it.

That said, just like my profile for the M8 magenta issue, if you are doing a lot of auto chrome, plate or flatware with hard lite you may need some help in ,most cases this seems these aberrations right in line with what I see from Zeiss glass as well..

Also, remember there is diffraction in nature; many times a laquer coat will cause a spectrum, same with bright surfaces that are curved, that is, it isn't always the lens

The botton line is that nature causes some of these aberrations, and taking all out of splashed water etc will start to seem artificial. I'm not saying ignore, but when you have to look that closely, it aint a problem.

best all
Victor

PS Happy 4th to all the Yankees!
 

narikin

New member
Dear OP

It's probably not an issue at all

CA, fringing, grain, hard boket...these are all part of the game.. like a little splotchiness in a $70million impressionist painting?
Sorry, but it IS a big problem working near wide open on a bright day - classic Leica territory - the CA on the files is unacceptable, and Phase, however they do it, give me far better results, despite cheaper lenses.

If a software solution is required, then Leica needs to come up with one, a.s.a.p.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Sorry, but it IS a big problem working near wide open on a bright day - classic Leica territory - the CA on the files is unacceptable, and Phase, however they do it, give me far better results, despite cheaper lenses.

If a software solution is required, then Leica needs to come up with one, a.s.a.p.
Sorry but I have to agree also. It is a problem
 

markowich

New member
Sorry but I have to agree also. It is a problem
i have never seen such a CA/purple fringing problem on my H3DII50 files or on my P65+ files (with schneiders and rodenstocks). very reminiscent of not the best nikon glass...makes me think twice about going the S way.
peter
 

yaya

Active member
Dear OP

It's probably not an issue at all

I went out and had my eyes tested again, as I just couldn't see any CA, frinbging etc (thx NotXorc for admitting to need help in seeing)

CA, fringing, grain, hard boket...these are all part of the game.. like a little splotchiness in a $70million impressionist painting?

This thread has got to be one of the most positive for the S2 I've seen in a while.

You think the above is fringing? that's not fringing
see below the water, splash etc THAT's FRINGING :ROTFL:

[or is it sensor bloom... oh well, looks red...]

(3:1, 1:1 and the the crop I might use. BTW the colors on the seaweed are all good, even thougfh I took a bit of magenta out) Also, watch that nasty green/magenta slider in LR, it was +25 or so in the 3:1!)

A bit of CA/ see the wire back lit etc etc. I increased saturation to see, but sure, looks like quacks like etc

"....and on your left side red,
and on your right side green,...
do the hokey pokey...." to the tune of...

I must say that Jack's comment holds a lot of sway...he had a LOT more time than I did, and if he said it wasn't obvious that means a lot. Until this thread, I didn't even think about it.

That said, just like my profile for the M8 magenta issue, if you are doing a lot of auto chrome, plate or flatware with hard lite you may need some help in ,most cases this seems these aberrations right in line with what I see from Zeiss glass as well..

Also, remember there is diffraction in nature; many times a laquer coat will cause a spectrum, same with bright surfaces that are curved, that is, it isn't always the lens

The botton line is that nature causes some of these aberrations, and taking all out of splashed water etc will start to seem artificial. I'm not saying ignore, but when you have to look that closely, it aint a problem.

best all
Victor

PS Happy 4th to all the Yankees!
Victor what you show in these crops is moire/ aliasing ("Christmas tree" effect), which is another big problem when there's no easy software solution....
 

markowich

New member
Victor what you show in these crops is moire/ aliasing ("Christmas tree" effect), which is another big problem when there's no easy software solution....
well, i have seen all those image defects in M8/9 files with various LUXES. but i tend to accept -my fault- non perfect M files rather than non perfect MF files. M photography is -for me- different, inspired by the moment, in the sense of 'street photography, where small imperfections do not matter. in some sense the M9 is an imprecise tool anyway, so my expectations are limited.
MF photography should be free of artifacts as much as possible and i have NO intention to write 10 or more photoshop actions myself to eliminate artifacts which should have been dealt with by the MF-producer's company software developers. unfortunately leica went the cheap way....every S buyer gets an LR license...wonderful. cheap on software, ultra high expensive on hardware.
peter
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I think that's an excellent point Peter: At various levels in the imaging game, we put up with deficiencies in various gear configurations depending on our needs/uses for that system. (The GF1 has tons of them, but it's such a great little camera for what it does well, I own an entire 3-body, multi-lens G series kit. The M8 and even 9 have their issues, but we love the system for what it does so well.) But once we're at the highest level of the imaging chain, we expect most of the technical deficiencies to be attenuated to the point of invisibility or at least insignificance.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
When we buy MF, we accept we don't get the same amazing variety of lenses, the same high ISO performance, or the same sheer versatility as we get from high end 35mm but we DO get (or at least should get), a superior end product in terms of file quality. Thus, my Sony A900 does things that my H4D-50 could not do, but excellent though the A900 is, the Hasselblad will thrash it every time in terms of absolute file quality, and I don't just mean better resolution, but superior "everythingness". I accept the Phocus works in tandem with the lenses to remove any defects, but the end result is very good, and its the end result I am looking for.

So I simply don't understand why at the very least Leica would not have supplied the S2 with a post shoot software fix.

I wonder if in fact the S2 is a true medium format system on a par with Phase and Hassy, or whether the smaller S2 format is partly to blame? In other words, are we looking as a system limitation or an arguably bodged job by Leica? A bodge can be fixed more easily than a system limitation.

Quentin
 

markowich

New member
When we buy MF, we accept we don't get the same amazing variety of lenses, the same high ISO performance, or the same sheer versatility as we get from high end 35mm but we DO get (or at least should get), a superior end product in terms of file quality. Thus, my Sony A900 does things that my H4D-50 could not do, but excellent though the A900 is, the Hasselblad will thrash it every time in terms of absolute file quality, and I don't just mean better resolution, but superior "everythingness". I accept the Phocus works in tandem with the lenses to remove any defects, but the end result is very good, and its the end result I am looking for.

So I simply don't understand why at the very least Leica would not have supplied the S2 with a post shoot software fix.

I wonder if in fact the S2 is a true medium format system on a par with Phase and Hassy, or whether the smaller S2 format is partly to blame? In other words, are we looking as a system limitation or an arguably bodged job by Leica? A bodge can be fixed more easily than a system limitation.

Quentin
a phase/kodak collaboration could probably fix it, i am not sure about leica in house. there is no precedence for it, so i am doubtful.
peter
 
I have shot few thousand S2 photos to date and recently went back through just about all of them specifically looking for CA and purple fringing. I only found a handful of images (one posted above) that showed the issue. As a result, I consider this to be a non-problem for me and the stuff I normally shoot. If I routinely photographed strongly backlit items or highly reflective objects in bright sunlight, then I would expect to see it more often. In that case, I would just add the correction to a preset in LR. It is easy really.

It is good to keep this in perspective.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I wonder if in fact the S2 is a true medium format system on a par with Phase and Hassy, or whether the smaller S2 format is partly to blame?
It may be the S2 is simply in its own class -- a tweener class between the highest rez DSLR's and current league of MF cameras.
 

markowich

New member
I have shot few thousand S2 photos to date and recently went back through just about all of them specifically looking for CA and purple fringing. I only found a handful of images (one posted above) that showed the issue. As a result, I consider this to be a non-problem for me and the stuff I normally shoot. If I routinely photographed strongly backlit items or highly reflective objects in bright sunlight, then I would expect to see it more often. In that case, I would just add the correction to a preset in LR. It is easy really.

It is good to keep this in perspective.
Mark, LR3 cannot deal with it at all- in my experience. Peter
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well I wrote 6 responses in this thread that I deleted after I reread them. Maybe better left unsaid. I have done my due diligence on the S2 topic at large. I'm going to start drinking now. :D
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
It may be the S2 is simply in its own class -- a tweener class between the highest rez DSLR's and current league of MF cameras.
Could be. We have got used to medium format meaning only 645 or something close thereto. 6x6 and 6x7 digital does not figure (no 6x7 digital I am aware of and the 6x6 digital such as the Kodak back is now historic). We therefore use similar points of reference for all MF digital cameras but perhaps the S2 should be appraised as a system apart from and different to both 35mm and 654 type sensors. Or maybe the hardware is great but the software is cr*p. Ho hum. :cool:

Quentin
 

gogopix

Subscriber
It may be the S2 is simply in its own class -- a tweener class between the highest rez DSLR's and current league of MF cameras.
Jack,

Yes likely a lot of things particular to the S2, both good and bad.

Mark,

spot on comment; keep it all in perspective...
please feel free to ignore this question, but as a prospective buyer I have to ask...with your experience now,

....would you buy it again?

best regards
Victor
 
Top