Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 70 of 70

Thread: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Tim, sorry but I'm with Marc and Shashin on this one and the fact that P45's and H3D39's have been used for years without user reports of the greens being off just goes to support this. If you said you preferred the green rendering of another camera then that is one thing but a blanket comment about the Kokak 39Mpix chip being "off" is wrong.

    If you don't like how the P45 (and H3D39) captures green, then just set a custom colour profile that is applied on import in C1 and all the greens come in to your liking.

    To me this debate is a little like people who judge the severity of a colour cast without applying an LCC. Sure some lenses look worse that others but what matters is the end result and if the lens cast, fall off or green rendering looks good in the final output who cares how you get there......
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Tim,

    The observer can be anything. I am not doubting that camera will reproduce objects differently. But what I am saying, with an known illuminant, and unknown target, and an unknown result, simply saying it is down to metamerism (and nothing to do with a profile) is too much of a stretch. Your fern picture, at least going through my system, shows the two patches on the left do not match and nor do their values (the choice of sample point is a little dodgy too).

    Clearly film and digital see the world differently, but that in and of itself is not metamerism. There is not a lot of choice in the filters used for a Bayer array. We never see RAW data, just what is transformed through the RAW processor. The Kodak sensor that is in my Pentax 645D is the same one that is in many other camera from other companies, but the color my camera produces is not the same. Convince me it is not the profile, but the sensor spectral response.

    Except for some nice outdoor photographs, I don't see anything that points to a clear cause for color difference as simply metamerism. Especially since you simply discount profiles that would bias color information in the file.

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    Hi Shashin,

    I've just been rushing to catch a train but I'm now sitting with a bit of spare time so I thought I'd discuss a few things relating to metamerism.

    The idea of metamerism doesn't have any reliance on a human observer, although the majority of literature talks about biological systems and you could be mistaken to think this was so.

    The spectral energy of a system can be defined as the combination of the illuminant spectral power distribution, the surface reflectance function and the sensor spectral response (which for a bayer sensor is itself is a combination of the colour filter array tramission spectral response and the silicon spectral absorption).

    So E is illuminant, S is the subject reflectance spectrum and C is the sensor response.

    The "colour" of the object is then derived from three of these spectral energies using a tristimulus approximation.

    Pr = E.S.Cr
    Pg = E.S.Cg
    Pb = E.S.Cb

    However for a single colour in the tristimus you can have many different illuminants **or sensors** that will create the same colour

    Pr = E.S1.C1r = E.S2.C2r

    Pr = E1.S1.C1r = E2.S2.C1r

    This is the scientific definition of metamerism

    Now the situations I have shown you are drawn from the same mathematics.

    The first example I showed with the ferns showed two substances that looked the same on one camera but different on another but on another camera they looked the same.

    This would be because of the interaction of the substance spectral reflectance with the sensor absorption spectrum (this is a simplification as mentioned previously).

    Now the main issue with this is that if my eye saw these two substances as different and I wanted to represent this in my photograph, I could not..

    The second example showed a colour calibrated image using an IT8 target but where the cobalt blues and powder blues had shifted towards magenta to some extent on different sensors.

    This isn't much different than the problems discussed in this paper about accurate painting reproduction.

    http://www.rmimaging.com/information...hotography.pdf

    This exceptionally 'illuminating' paper explains the sorts of problems a photographer needs to be aware of when trying to reproduce images that match the typical human tristimulus response. It's well worth a read and I would recommend paying particular attention to the part about CCD spectral response and colour filters.

    The paper also explains why very strong infra red filters are not installed in cameras by default..

    Tim

  3. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    Tim, sorry but I'm with Marc and Shashin on this one and the fact that P45's and H3D39's have been used for years without user reports of the greens being off just goes to support this. If you said you preferred the green rendering of another camera then that is one thing but a blanket comment about the Kokak 39Mpix chip being "off" is wrong.

    If you don't like how the P45 (and H3D39) captures green, then just set a custom colour profile that is applied on import in C1 and all the greens come in to your liking.

    To me this debate is a little like people who judge the severity of a colour cast without applying an LCC. Sure some lenses look worse that others but what matters is the end result and if the lens cast, fall off or green rendering looks good in the final output who cares how you get there......
    I think you've missed the point of the discussion. It's not that the green is something I don't like. It's that some green substances are rendering differently.

    e.g In my scene I might have a moss green and a grass green that are looking different. With a certain camera rendition the two greens can end up looking the same. No amount of colour profiling can fix this.

    i.e. a photograph of green on a colour checker comes out correctly but the colour green of something chlorophyll based comes out differently

    Here's a sample image taken from an iq180 and a p45 side by side.

    Try to make the P45 look like the IQ180 through profiling is impossible

    http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/p45.jpg
    http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/iq180.jpg

    You can see more comparisons here..

    http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static...t-2/800px.html

    This has nothing to do with LCCs either (we used an LCC on both)

    Tim

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Hard to see on such small images but the IQ180 looks more sensitive to red which can be seen visually and by looking at the histogram but I don't see anything wrong or "off" as you put it either.

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Tim,

    The observer can be anything. I am not doubting that camera will reproduce objects differently. But what I am saying, with an known illuminant, and unknown target, and an unknown result, simply saying it is down to metamerism (and nothing to do with a profile) is too much of a stretch. Your fern picture, at least going through my system, shows the two patches on the left do not match and nor do their values (the choice of sample point is a little dodgy too).
    Yes but in the comparison of the photographs taken with the P45 and IQ180 (amongst others) we have known illiminant, known subject and two different sensors which when profiled so that a colour target produces identical results fails for certain substances.

    The only explanation for this is metamerism as far as I can tell - I'd be interested in what you think could explain it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Clearly film and digital see the world differently, but that in and of itself is not metamerism. There is not a lot of choice in the filters used for a Bayer array.
    Don't be silly! There is a huge range of choices for colour filter arrays and they come in varying densities too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    We never see RAW data, just what is transformed through the RAW processor. The Kodak sensor that is in my Pentax 645D is the same one that is in many other camera from other companies, but the color my camera produces is not the same. Convince me it is not the profile, but the sensor spectral response.
    Well I suggest that if you take two pictures on two cameras and fully profile them but certain substances still don't match then this is down to spectral response. The Leica IR response is a classic example - nothing to do with profiling. Some blacks looked black, some blacks looked purple.

    This problem is exhibited by the P25 and P45 too - take a look at this thread

    PHASEONE color profiling - Open Photography Forums

    This is mostly due to infrared issues but the complex spectra of chlorophyll interacts with these sorts of spectral response to shift colours. If a green doesn't have a lot of chlorophyll then the colours don't shift. You can't apply a profile that corrects one and not the other.

    If you want a simple test whether cameras sensors can cause metameric shifts, try taking a photograph of a GATF/RHEM light indicator under a light source where the colours all look the same for your eye. I guarantee the colours will look different to the camera sensor - that is metameric failure.

    Except for some nice outdoor photographs, I don't see anything that points to a clear cause for color difference as simply metamerism. Especially since you simply discount profiles that would bias color information in the file.
    I don't discount profiles - I've used them based on an IT8 target in one example and a Hutch target in the other. the colours of the targets in the profiled pictures match but some objects in the scene don't.

    Tim

  6. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    Hard to see on such small images but the IQ180 looks more sensitive to red which can be seen visually and by looking at the histogram but I don't see anything wrong or "off" as you put it either.
    If you can't see the differences in the greens of the fields in the centre of the picture then it's no point continuing the conversation. Perhaps I've become more attuned to greens as a landscape photographer (who lives in britain).

    This is primarily a chlorophyll issue and I have seen few problems with other colours. Unfortunately chlorophyll green is pretty common in the landscape (especially in the UK)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    If you throw those images in Photoshop and just hit auto color, you get two very similar, but butt ugly, images. The saturation is a hair higher for the p45, but depending how that went through the RAW processor, the difference in DR could account for that. When you map the difference in layers with the autocolor images, there is not a great deal to see. I even tried playing with making the image similar, I could get them closer, but clearly saturation/contrast is not the same in each that it makes it difficult to get a perfect match. Here again, just a difference in DR? I suspect, these images have been processed, at least LCC were applied, and how that impacts results, who can say.

    There are so many variables that can affect the color output beyond the the simple spectral response of the sensor, that is is difficult to make any kind of judgement. And this is hardly a controlled test.

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    If you throw those images in Photoshop and just hit auto color, you get two very similar, but butt ugly, images. The saturation is a hair higher for the p45, but depending how that went through the RAW processor, the difference in DR could account for that. When you map the difference in layers with the autocolor images, there is not a great deal to see. I even tried playing with making the image similar, I could get them closer, but clearly saturation/contrast is not the same in each that it makes it difficult to get a perfect match. Here again, just a difference in DR? I suspect, these images have been processed, at least LCC were applied, and how that impacts results, who can say.

    There are so many variables that can affect the color output beyond the the simple spectral response of the sensor, that is is difficult to make any kind of judgement. And this is hardly a controlled test.

    If you want a controlled test why don't you take a look at DxOs metameric index using the ISO standard methodology... I'll save you the trouble and show you the values for some of the cameras we've been discussing and a few more.. 100 is perfect - 50 the sort of metameric failure you get from an illuminant change from daylight to flourescents.

    Sony A900 87
    Canon 5D 84
    Nikon D700 83
    Nikon D90 82
    Panasonic G3 81
    Nikon V1 81
    Phase IQ180 80
    Phase P40 80
    Canon 5dMkII 80
    Nikon D3200 80
    Panasonic GH1 79
    Nikon D3S 79
    Nikon D3X 79
    Hassleblad H50 78
    Canon 7D 78
    Nikon D800 77
    Panasonic GH2 77
    Phase P65+ 76
    Leica M9 76
    Leica M240 75
    Panasonic LX5 75
    Hassleblad H39 75
    Aptus Leaf 75
    Canon 5Dmk3 74
    Phase P45 72
    Canon 6D 69

    Of course if you don't believe in sensor metamerism or you don't think DxO can do measurements properly or that ISO can set an standard....

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    If you can't see the differences in the greens of the fields in the centre of the picture then it's no point continuing the conversation. Perhaps I've become more attuned to greens as a landscape photographer (who lives in britain).
    You live in Britain so are more sensitive to green is a classic and because I don't agree with you I shouldn't continue with this conversation...... BRILLIANT!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    No need to get hard-edged.

    This article I think was quite good introduction at metameric error in digital photography for anyone interested:
    http://dougkerr.net/pumpkin/articles...eric_Error.pdf

    It is clear that cameras vary in their ability to capture colors so they render in the same way the eye see them. In a camera the issue is that many spectrums can get registered with the same R, G and B values and thus be registered as the same color, despite that the eye may see different colors.

    We can argue about if this actually affects green in KAF-39000 sensor, if its easy to correct for and if it matters. I'm no expert in that area so I'm open for that it could be any answer to these, but I don't really trust the general "noone has complained therefore its perfect", in fact I've seen people "complain" indirectly by saying that Dalsa sensors have more accurate color.

    After all this hard-edged discussion it doesn't seem to matter much though. The H3D-39 is okay, buy it if you find a good deal

  11. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    You live in Britain so are more sensitive to green is a classic and because I don't agree with you I shouldn't continue with this conversation...... BRILLIANT!
    Actually I said if you can't see any difference in the colour in the pictures we've shown then there is little point in continuing. Some people are more sensitive to colour than others and if you're not that sensitive then the issue isn't bad enough to bother you.

    However given that I showed you a set of scientific comparisons that demonstrated that metamerism was a scientific issue and that the P45 had been measured to be one of the worse performing sensors but you chose to selectively requote a small portion of my reply and ROTFL me - I think I can see how engaged with the actual topic you are. :-)

    I've put down as much evidence as I can and any more posts will be just finding new ways to state the same thing..

  12. #62
    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: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    No need to get hard-edged.

    This article I think was quite good introduction at metameric error in digital photography for anyone interested:
    http://dougkerr.net/pumpkin/articles...eric_Error.pdf

    It is clear that cameras vary in their ability to capture colors so they render in the same way the eye see them. In a camera the issue is that many spectrums can get registered with the same R, G and B values and thus be registered as the same color, despite that the eye may see different colors.

    We can argue about if this actually affects green in KAF-39000 sensor, if its easy to correct for and if it matters. I'm no expert in that area so I'm open for that it could be any answer to these, but I don't really trust the general "noone has complained therefore its perfect", in fact I've seen people "complain" indirectly by saying that Dalsa sensors have more accurate color.

    After all this hard-edged discussion it doesn't seem to matter much though. The H3D-39 is okay, buy it if you find a good deal
    I don't think anyone is saying any of these backs are perfect ... some excel in some areas and some in others. I've not seen general comments referencing Dalsa sensors as empirically producing better colors, as much as how they subjectively render skin tones to more people's liking.

    The most accurate color rendering I've seen, and others also subscribe to, is from the Multi-Shot backs ... including the CF39 MultiShot that uses the same Kodak KAF-39000 sensor being discussed. While my H4D/60 could equal the CF39MS in file quality with one shot, it never matched the color accuracy of the MultiShot ... and the H4D/60 uses a Dalsa sensor.

    I agree that the H3D/39 is okay, and can be a way into getting a MF look and feel ... or an entry into basic tech camera use which can be fun ... especially if the camera has full movements. For Landscape work specifically that is a subjective call IMO, and one I have no opinion on since I don't do landscapes.

    -Marc

  13. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    I don't think anyone is saying any of these backs are perfect ... some excel in some areas and some in others. I've not seen general comments referencing Dalsa sensors as empirically producing better colors, as much as how they subjectively render skin tones to more people's liking.

    The most accurate color rendering I've seen, and others also subscribe to, is from the Multi-Shot backs ... including the CF39 MultiShot that uses the same Kodak KAF-39000 sensor being discussed. While my H4D/60 could equal the CF39MS in file quality with one shot, it never matched the color accuracy of the MultiShot ... and the H4D/60 uses a Dalsa sensor.

    I agree that the H3D/39 is okay, and can be a way into getting a MF look and feel ... or an entry into basic tech camera use which can be fun ... especially if the camera has full movements. For Landscape work specifically that is a subjective call IMO, and one I have no opinion on since I don't do landscapes.

    -Marc
    I think accuracy of colour rendering depends on lighting conditions and the subject being photographed. And accuracy isn't the be all and end all of photography either. However, knowing about the potential colour 'issues' relating to any photographic device is useful and I would say if you photograph a lot of greens and were thinking about buying the KAF-39000 sensor then you should consider the comparisons we've shown. If you're happy with them then no problem. A lot of people are - some aren't..

    The camera is without doubt capable of stunning results and from what I've seen is excellent at portraying skin, on which I have no opinion as I don't do portraits ;-)

    Tim

  14. #64
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    I am 100% with Tim on this colour debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    Don't be silly! There is a huge range of choices for colour filter arrays and they come in varying densities too.
    This is true.

    On top of that, there is also manufacturing variation in the spectral responses of CFAs, certainly within a sensor (pixel to pixel), and probably also between sensor batches. What you see in the datasheet for a sensor is only indicative. Shashin, look up the KAF-40000 datasheet for your 645D's sensor. The title over the spectral response curve says "KAF-40000 Average QE", while the next plot is captioned "Typical GR - GB QE Difference" [my underlining].

    Then look up the KAF-31600 datasheet (same sensor size and microlensing, just slightly bigger pixels) and you'll see a noticeably different set of curves.

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    You can't apply a profile that corrects one and not the other.
    Exactly, and this is the nub of the matter. Shashin talked about getting Photoshop to correct the disputed metamerism. But a pixel's colour is just a set of 3 numbers for R,G,B. If a fern pixel has an R,G,B of 30,94,12 and a moss pixel has an R,G,B of 30,94,12 also, how can you ask Photoshop to treat them differently from each other?!

    Once the image capture has taken place, you can play with and rescale the ratios between the 3 R/G/B numbers in post processing, and this gives the illusion of infinite colour flexibility, or the illusion of perfect colour accuracy if you've taken a lot of trouble to profile things. But no playing or profiling can drive equal valued pixels away from each other. You can make them dance all over the gamut diagram, but they are always moving as a unit.

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    If you want a simple test whether cameras sensors can cause metameric shifts, try taking a photograph of a GATF/RHEM light indicator under a light source where the colours all look the same for your eye. I guarantee the colours will look different to the camera sensor - that is metameric failure.
    Or do this simple test: shoot a street or garden in daylight, and again at night under low pressure sodium street lighting. All the varieties of object and foliage colour in the day shot collapse to essentially the same, almost monochromatic colour in the night shot. Ah, you say, but that's a metamerism problem due to the light sources, not the camera sensor. But wait, there's more! Do the test twice - use both a Kodak sensored MFD unit and a Dalsa sensored one, or if you can't manage that, use both a Kodak sensored MFD unit and a DSLR. Equalise their colours to each other as best you can in the daylight shots - and then apply those settings/profiles to the night shots. And be prepared for the shock of vastly different colours! Kodak sensors, at least the older ones like the KAF-18802 and KAF-2002CE that I have used in my MFDB and DSLR, record the yellow-orange (589 nm) emission of traditional low pressure sodium lights as yellow-green! [See my examples below]. That is an undeniable example of getting the colour "wrong". It can't be profiled away, nor fixed with a white balance correction; if you attempt to do so then you throw off the colours of anything in the photo which was not merely reflecting the sodium lights...such as car headlights and the objects they illuminated, or the Moon, or the remnants of a twilight sky.


    Moon, Venus, and a few stars. 200/2.8 APO and Kodak DCS645M on a Mamiya 645AFD, 4 second exposure. I took this from just outside my house. The foreground bushes, which had bare brownish-gray branches in daylight, were very close to a sodium streetlight (it was just over my right shoulder). They should therefore look yellow-orange, but instead they are a stark yellowish green. The Moon, slightly warmed up by the hazy twilight, shows that there was no major white balance problem elsewhere in the scene. If I were to click white balance off the moon to make it more neutral grey, it would "cool" the colours of everything else in the scene, which would only drive the bushes further from the warm orange they should be.

    So I have seen clear cases where Kodak sensors deliver weird colour because of where the CFA response curves rise, fall and cross each other in wavelength space. The green filter is either not falling quickly enough at 589nm, or the red filter is too slow in its rise into the orange region, or both.

    If this is a pronounced issue in monochromatic light, it will be a more subtle - but no less real - issue in daylight.

    Now, while this greenish colour is clearly "wrong", I sometimes prefer it to the "right" orangey colour, because green trees and bushes are more natural than orange ones! The yellow-green is not so lurid when the objects are not as close to the steetlight(s). See the next example.


    Second example - Orion, Jupiter and the crescent Moon. A pano made with the same camera and back, 45/2.8 S lens, 30 second exposures. Where a high-pressure sodium security floodlight caught the treetops, they are the correct orange-yellow colour (because high-pressure lights are broadband, not monochromatic). But look under the treetops at the rest of the trees, especially over on the right - there's that yellow-green again! Those parts of the trees are dimly illuminated by low-pressure sodium streetlights. It's the monochromatic nature of this light that is so unforgiving: if your CFA filtration bandpass is slightly off, then there's no fixing the colour.

    To the eye, both types of light were yellowish, but to the camera, reflecting off the same material, they record as completely different colours. [I guess this is like the inverse of metamerism - is there a name for that?]

    Ray

  15. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    There is no 60mm HC lens.
    Just been told by Andrew whose Hasselblad it was that the lens was the 80mm 208 HC lens

  16. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southport Gold Coast QLD
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    So Tim
    The bottom line is that this sensor is not able to differentiate small differences in greens. But it may be better in other colors. But I still see a big difference in the end result due to the size of the sensor. I shoot with 35mm also and its always different. Ok MartinE

  17. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinE View Post
    So Tim
    The bottom line is that this sensor is not able to differentiate small differences in greens. But it may be better in other colors. But I still see a big difference in the end result due to the size of the sensor. I shoot with 35mm also and its always different. Ok MartinE
    It's not just greens but more specifically a certain substance of green. In this case chlorophyll. So the sensor can probably differentiate all sorts of greens but you get a hue shift when you try and photograph chlorophyll greens.

    This hue shift just happens to be in the 'wrong' direction, making a lot of chlorophyll greens more yellow which is similar - Velvia also has a shift but it's 'good' (in my eyes anyway) as the shift seperates colour rather than merges them.

    Tim

  18. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southport Gold Coast QLD
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Thanks for the explanation. Still recommend this sensor as a great starter in medium format. I used 35mm for many years and the change to medium format was major for me on many different levels. I was thinking of moving to H4d40 but it does not add value. H5D50 is the next logical step I believe.

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    Hi, looking at the image from one of the links you posted: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static...test/dpi3.html
    its really hard to make any solid conclusions, specially in regards to resolution since I see quite a bit of motion blur on the h3d39 image. The D800 side does show cleaner shadows and deeper blacks.

    From all info ive been able to gather on the net, the tests, reviews, commentaries regarding the D800/e image quality and from using the camera myself, at least for Landscape, the Nikon is about equal and in some cases better than the lower MP backs (if you dont need the movements of a tech camera). To really Wipe the Floor with a D800/e IQ, again, in landscape situation, low iso, workable light and using wide angles, you need one of the newer 60MP or 80MP backs and a tech camera with good lenses. The Nikon just cannot touch those rigs.

    The larger sensor backs (no matter the pixel count) do offer a very different look than the Nikon when shooting People. Mainly due to them being a larger format but also to sensor tech and processing. Also, lenses have a pretty big effect on the way a scene is rendered.

    Even in a landscape scene, like the links posted, the lens will have a big effect on the final result, not only in sharpness (the most popular concern), but in color and contrast. A very contrasty lens will render deeper shadows and when you go and try to bring them up in processing you will get more noise than if you used a lens that has a bit lower contrast (given equal sharpness). (There is a reason cinema lenses are purchased in sets most of the time)

  20. #70
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: H3D39 as first step to MFDB/Technical (& vs DSLR)

    As someone who was looking to dip their toe into DMF, with this model in particular, you make very interesting posts Tim. Thanks for taking time to explain it all too. I subscribed to your magazine for a year, great to read on the ipad.

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
  •