Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

  1. #1
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    I'm almost embarrassed to post this but I just spent the day shooting with my new IQ150 on DF+ fw 2.3.1 and ... It seems to have been transformed in terms of usability. Seamless integration between the body and back, and I just noticed that the back now has up to seven bracketing stops as an option (which I don't recall seeing before).

    Live view is a real transformer. Totally integrated with the DF+ too in the right modes (well, it was before but now it's usable).

    There, I said it, DF+ & IQx50 at least seems like a world of difference to my IQ260 already. Let's see how long the honeymoon lasts
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 11 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Congratulation , Graham .

    You pointed it out yourself:
    There, I said it, DF+ & IQx50 at least seems like a world of difference to my IQ260 already. Let's see how long the honeymoon lasts
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Does the DF+ enter Live View mode the same way as the DF with the 150?

    Move the shutter speed dial on the DF or DF+ to timer, (T) hit Live view from the back, the hit the shutter button on the DF or DF+.

    Or does the DF+ have a more integrated flow like a dedicated button on the camera the is communicating to the back?

    PS, Congratulations on the 150 and FPS, I keep seeing the CMOS back as my future, just can't justify the $$ loss I would take currently, hopefully Phase will bring some new program out to help other 260 customers who have seen the "light"

    Paul
    Last edited by Paul2660; 20th February 2015 at 05:47.
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Does the DF+ enter Live View mode the same way as the DF with the 150?

    Move the shutter speed dial on the DF or DF+ to timer, (T) hit Live view from the back, the hit the shutter button on the DF or DF+.

    Or does the DF+ have a more integrated flow like a dedicated button on the camera the is communicating to the back?

    Paul
    With the latest body and back firmware, all Credo, IQ, and IQ2 backs can automatically put the body mirror and shutter up when the user pushes the live view button on the digital back.

    You can see this in the IQ250 Merry Go Round Live View video.

    It also automatically closes the mirror and shutter when the user exists live view on the digital back.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    With the latest body and back firmware, all Credo, IQ, and IQ2 backs can automatically put the body mirror and shutter up when the user pushes the live view button on the digital back.

    You can see this in the IQ250 Merry Go Round Live View video.

    It also automatically closes the mirror and shutter when the user exists live view on the digital back.
    By the latest back, you mean the DF+? Sadly I still have the DF and the cost to get to the DF+ is 5K, so that won't be happening anytime soon.

    I assume for those of us still laboring with the DF, you still have to get there they way I describe?

    Paul

  6. #6
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    With the DF+ you no longer need the rigmarole of messing with timer mode etc. You just hit the LV button on the back and it all works just like it would on a D800 etc, albeit in M/A modes.

    Regarding $5k for a DF+, that's the new price if you buy it alone. I got mine when I upgraded my IQ160 -> IQ260 and it was less than half that price in a bundle.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    I was not given any email notification when Phase One offered a "trade in", for a DF to DF+, at the time I was more focused on tech solutions so I did not pursue it. However when I did look at the 260 first back in Mid 2013, I did ask about moving to a DF+ and was told 4995.00. No interest in trade in at that time.

    Glad to see that Phase finally got it to work like normal on the DF+

    When they announce the "new" body sometime later this year or next, then DF+ may start to show up on the used market.

    Paul

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Yes that one single feature (LV without rigamorol) was worth the upgrade for us. I crowed about it a lot on the boards but the feature got lost in all the other new stuff at the time like the Credo etc. and many people seem to genuinely dislike the DF camera
    I am glad its getting some press because the DF+ has some great improvements that make the whole experience better.
    We were able to sell our old DF for over $2500 so it was almost a wash on the new Credo Kit
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Graham, the wifi- capture pilot feature + an iPad will blow your mind!
    I think its only available on wifi enabled backs but should work on IQ260?
    We use it on our IQ250 and I think the app is free (Capture Pilot)

    We sometimes use it while tethered to IQ250 via Firewire and walk around the studio showing the composition to art director in a different room. If she likes it, we can change settings, shoot from the iPad, zoom in, check focus..review...all wirelessly anywhere in the building. Really impressive for MF!

    For some odd reason, the camera closes down the lens in LV, and the best results are with the lens wide open, so its an extra step to remember (opening the lens for LV, then remembering to close it back down for the exposure). Also, white balance in LV would be nicer. But all in all, a really great feature and a long ways from the gymnastics just a few years ago with our Aptus/DF

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Egor View Post
    Graham, the wifi- capture pilot feature + an iPad will blow your mind!
    I think its only available on wifi enabled backs but should work on IQ260?
    We use it on our IQ250 and I think the app is free (Capture Pilot)

    We sometimes use it while tethered to IQ250 via Firewire and walk around the studio showing the composition to art director in a different room. If she likes it, we can change settings, shoot from the iPad, zoom in, check focus..review...all wirelessly anywhere in the building. Really impressive for MF!

    For some odd reason, the camera closes down the lens in LV, and the best results are with the lens wide open, so its an extra step to remember (opening the lens for LV, then remembering to close it back down for the exposure). Also, white balance in LV would be nicer. But all in all, a really great feature and a long ways from the gymnastics just a few years ago with our Aptus/DF
    No, the IQ260 is a CCD, and Capture Pilot for streaming of Live View on it is "broken".

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Egor View Post
    Graham, the wifi- capture pilot feature + an iPad will blow your mind!
    I think its only available on wifi enabled backs but should work on IQ260?
    We use it on our IQ250 and I think the app is free (Capture Pilot)

    We sometimes use it while tethered to IQ250 via Firewire and walk around the studio showing the composition to art director in a different room. If she likes it, we can change settings, shoot from the iPad, zoom in, check focus..review...all wirelessly anywhere in the building. Really impressive for MF!

    For some odd reason, the camera closes down the lens in LV, and the best results are with the lens wide open, so its an extra step to remember (opening the lens for LV, then remembering to close it back down for the exposure). Also, white balance in LV would be nicer. But all in all, a really great feature and a long ways from the gymnastics just a few years ago with our Aptus/DF
    Glad to see that maybe Phase One has written some code to allow this to work better for the 250.

    With the 260, Capture Pilot, will not stream live view, and of course live view on the CCD back requires a few more steps, see other posts on this in this forum.

    However I was an early adopter to Capture Pilot, as soon as it came out for my 260. Results?

    Not good, and I have tried with the latest 260 back firmware and still same results:

    1. Slow to connect wifi and not consistent connection, it will often drop even in the field when there are no other wifi networks around.
    2. Zoom to 100% is pretty much worthless as Capture Pilot STILL can't resolve the images from the 260 at 100%. They appear off register, and blurred just enough that you can't really get an idea of critical focus. This is with "respect retina" on in settings.
    3. The speed of transfer is very slow to tedious at times and other times very fast, but it never stabilizes. Eventually all of my sessions will required either a reboot of the ipad, 260 or both, most times both.
    4. If you are working in a area with multiple wifi networks, then the weak signal from the 260 can drop and you then pick up a stronger signal, then you have to reboot everything again.

    Still with all of that, if Phase could have just made the view at 100% as good as the view from the back's own LCD, I would still mess with it, but I consistently have to zoom back to around a 70% view and in critical areas, you just can't tell focus.

    These issues and more have led to most CCD back users tethering to a Surface Pro2 or 3 instead,, just overall much more reliable and the info being viewed is much better to gauge the image.

    I can easily see the advantages you have pointed out, especially the ability to move around from the back and show images. But on the CCD backs, it seems a bit half baked, and from your reports is seems that the CMOS system of the 250 works much better.

    Paul

  12. #12
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    I haven't tried this out as I have no need to run around the studio with a tablet---but this should work for USB3 enabled MFDBs when tethered to the Surface Pro.

    The Microsoft Surface Pro 2 and 3 are Miracast capable devices. You should be above to wireless project or mirror the screen to compatible viewing devices, such as monitors, HD TV, and tablets. Live view may be iffy on CCD MFDBs, but it's hard to beat the 100% zoom in view on a RAW in C1Pro8.

    ken

  13. #13
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    I completely wrote off the wifi capabilities with my 260 for exactly the reasons cited by Paul. It was a waste of time and energy in the field - perhaps ok in a studio but worthless at 5am in the middle of a field when trying to connect, stay connected or checking accurate focus results.

    It was so bad that I even bought some microsoft devices!
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    I don't own a CCD that also has wifi so can't comment on that. Sounds like a bummer.
    For our CCD back like the Credo80 we just tether to large screen projection. Its OK, but CCD Live View is pretty lame in comparison to CMOS

    On the IQ250, it is infinitely better and coupled with the DF+, a joy.
    We haven't experienced too many problems with the WiFi LV Capture Pilot thing. So I guess its a "your mileage may vary..." kindle thing.
    We even use the WiFi to iPad to AppleTV to Large Screen projection sometimes

    Bummer it didn't work for you on the IQ260, Graham. If it had you may have gotten the IQ250 and checked it out.

  15. #15
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Truly usable live view on the IQ260 would probably been enough reason to not upgrade. Once I'd tried live view with the CMOS sensor in the 645Z, Credo 50c & IQ250 that I'd had hands on with, my wallet was doomed ...

    I've never really had any challenges with the image quality or DR with the IQ260 since I'm always shooting off a tripod anyway and could bracket if required. (Ok, that's not quite true - the rare centrefolding with stretched B&W tones was annoying).
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Truly usable live view on the IQ260 would probably been enough reason to not upgrade. Once I'd tried live view with the CMOS sensor in the 645Z, Credo 50c & IQ250 that I'd had hands on with, my wallet was doomed ...

    I've never really had any challenges with the image quality or DR with the IQ260 since I'm always shooting off a tripod anyway and could bracket if required. (Ok, that's not quite true - the rare centrefolding with stretched B&W tones was annoying).
    If bracketing was a viable option for me I would have continued to use my IQ260. I'm yet to see anyone who claimed to have no issue with alignment in blending to succeed in my test shots: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5i9dgi756...Zuupv3E1a?dl=0. Feel free to download these RAW files if you are up to a challenge


  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    I bracket pretty much everything with the 260/rm3di and have never really had issues with alignment. If there is any slight alignment problem it is very easy to load the images into CC and auto align them.

    Exposure brackets all manual as I using the Copal shutter.

    Stitched images always work also.

    28mm 35mm 40mm 60mm 90mm and now 120mm all work well.

    Paul
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    I bracket pretty much everything with the 260/rm3di and have never really had issues with alignment. If there is any slight alignment problem it is very easy to load the images into CC and auto align them.

    Exposure brackets all manual as I using the Copal shutter.

    Stitched images always work also.

    28mm 35mm 40mm 60mm 90mm and now 120mm all work well.

    Paul
    I'd be curious to see 100% crop of the edge between the buildings and the sky (both leftmost side and rightmost side) if you can really align my images provided above

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Hi Void,
    Took a quick look at your raw files and not sure why they don't line up, but they clearly don't, as you have pointed out. If I didn't know better, I'd say they were shot at slightly different apertures?
    In any case, a simple 100% overlay-difference map shows where they do not line up. I could do it using helicon or even warp tools if it were mine, but I'd be curious as to why they don't line up too.
    I have shot many multiple exposure-blended images with Credo80 and IQ250 (for masking reasons with fly-away hair on products and models) and have not experienced this problem. But Mine are in studio conditions using a DF+ standard primes, etc...

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Egor View Post
    Hi Void,
    Took a quick look at your raw files and not sure why they don't line up, but they clearly don't, as you have pointed out. If I didn't know better, I'd say they were shot at slightly different apertures?
    In any case, a simple 100% overlay-difference map shows where they do not line up. I could do it using helicon or even warp tools if it were mine, but I'd be curious as to why they don't line up too.
    I have shot many multiple exposure-blended images with Credo80 and IQ250 (for masking reasons with fly-away hair on products and models) and have not experienced this problem. But Mine are in studio conditions using a DF+ standard primes, etc...
    Hi, thanks for confirming this!

    They were shot at the same aperture and same focus, but the foreground was shot with only the centerfilter, while the sky was shot with both the centerfilter, the ND filter and the ND grad filter. With 2 additional layers of filters the angle of view slightly changes. This distortion is perhaps non-linear and more complicated than the traditional breathing issue that Helicon Focus can deal with.

    The reason why I can't shoot both frames with the same set of filters on:

    a) I was shooting long exposure for a sunset;

    b) For CCD sensors the darkframe NR is vital for long exposure, otherwise the image is completely unusable; (Sony CMOS sensors don't have this limitation)

    c) To expose the foreground with ND and ND grad on, I would need triple or quadruple the time as for the sky (with changes of light over the sunset into consideration), which means it's going to be in the 10+ minutes territory;

    d) If I expose the foreground before the sunset starts, the darkframe NR countdown of 10+ minutes would occupy the whole sunset phase;

    e) If I expose the foreground after the sunset ends, then I would have to wait for the darkframe NR countdown for the sky to end first, after which I would then only be able to shoot a night scene for the foreground. This not only captures the wrong light for the foreground for blending, but also would easily force the exposure time into the 1 hour territory with the same ND and ND grad on (as the light gets dimmer and dimmer), and that would include another hour of darkframe NR countdown, which is totally not practical;

    You may ask why I have to shoot so long exposures. Two reasons:

    a) Sometimes the clouds are not moving that fast and it would be good to have the extra exposure time to further smooth out;

    b) To justify the so called "Long Exposure Mode" of the IQ260 - otherwise why the hell shouldn't I buy an IQ280 instead?

    Sadly even a Nikon D5300 can do this scene in just one single exposure and achieve better image quality than the IQ260.

    I agree that you might be able to eventually align these bracketed exposures perfectly with dedicated efforts, but life is too short and I have no more time for that.

    This is the most important reason why I dumped the IQ260 for an IQ250 instead. Bracketing isn't going to work for me. Sony CMOS sensor is of my taste (i.e. single frame of long exposure straight out of the camera, no darkframe NR, no bracketing, no harassment in post-processing).


  21. #21
    Senior Member Dogs857's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Thursday Island - Australia
    Posts
    307
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Curious why you would shoot with an GND if you are bracketing shots??

    Expose for the foreground, add your ND filter then shoot the sky exposure. The GND is not worth putting into this. Unless of course you didn't have enough ND filtration to get the effect you were after.

    Can't say I have ever experienced this problem bracketing and aligning shots myself. I noticed in the shots you posted here that the vignette in the upper part of your frame is larger in the ND shot as well.

    Anyway at least you found something that suits your photography, I can't be sure but I think you are a fan of CMOS???
    Stop chasing gear, start chasing photos instead.

    Jeff, but my friends call me Dogs

  22. #22
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Regarding matching exposure images at the pixel level, I'm actually not totally surprised that you couldn't achieve it between shots given the filter on/off steps between exposures. I can easily understand there being very slight movement of the camera/tripod/lens just but touching the filter assembly, not to mention environmental aspects such as wind and vibrations. Heck even the shutter release.

    Now if we were talking multiple pixels it might be a different situation.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Dogs857 View Post
    Curious why you would shoot with an GND if you are bracketing shots??

    Expose for the foreground, add your ND filter then shoot the sky exposure. The GND is not worth putting into this. Unless of course you didn't have enough ND filtration to get the effect you were after.

    Can't say I have ever experienced this problem bracketing and aligning shots myself. I noticed in the shots you posted here that the vignette in the upper part of your frame is larger in the ND shot as well.

    Anyway at least you found something that suits your photography, I can't be sure but I think you are a fan of CMOS???
    a) An ND filter itself without an ND grad would cause the same alignment problem as well. I deliberately chose this example to show people why ND grad cannot always workaround the dynamic range limitations of a CCD sensor - see how the ND grad cuts the buildings in this example?

    b) Yes I'm a fan of the Sony CMOS sensors, just like many here are fans of the Kodak CCD sensors

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Egor View Post
    Hi Void,
    Took a quick look at your raw files and not sure why they don't line up, but they clearly don't, as you have pointed out. If I didn't know better, I'd say they were shot at slightly different apertures?
    In any case, a simple 100% overlay-difference map shows where they do not line up. I could do it using helicon or even warp tools if it were mine, but I'd be curious as to why they don't line up too.
    I have shot many multiple exposure-blended images with Credo80 and IQ250 (for masking reasons with fly-away hair on products and models) and have not experienced this problem. But Mine are in studio conditions using a DF+ standard primes, etc...

    Bingo. Thx for posting.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Actually the two images line up fine. I will try to post some crops later today.

    I simply converted them in C1, made sure that any "lens" corrections were off, then opened them in CC 2014, via bridge. Loaded them into photoshop layers via the tool menu, then ran an auto align. They line up 100%, no problems with the bulidings, the Belfast, (I love that ship), etc. The only thing that won't align is one of the cranes on the left side, but that is obviously motion of the crane. You can clearly see that it "moved" considerably in position in the two images. All the other stationary cranes all line up If you are doing this I have found it's "key" to turn off any type of lens corrections in C1 or LR as these tend to screw up the alignment process. It's much simpler to combine. C1 really doesn't have any corrections for most of the tech lenses, however I believe in the latest version they have added some for the rodies. I wasn't sure which lens was used anyway. All the building aline fine, my way to test this is paint back one layer from the other and see if you get any misalignment in the lines of the buildings, which I did not.

    There are some very very faint movements on the tall building's edge on the right but no where near enough to matter, I found it very easy to combine the two with a soft edge brush. There are also a few issues on the extreme left where some people are standing on a quay or dock, but I believe that may be movement.

    I also did not apply the LCC in my test, but I can't see how that would alter anything, but will try that later.

    After I ran auto align layers, I simple painted back to get the composition I wanted.

    This is standard proceedure for me with any bracketed images where I am not using the camera to shoot the bracket, and I have hands on the lens, i.e. in this case the shutter speed setting. Considering that several filters were added etc. the alignment is very good IMO.

    In the crop, I have brought back the lighter shot of the building, you can see that one of the cranes on top has moved. That is not an alignment issue, nothing would align that. It moved. But the building have no issues at all. There is a slight slight halo on the right edge, that would be very simple to remove, just did not take the time. The other hot spots just show where I painted in the other image so you can see both are aligned around the building edges.


    Paul
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Actually the two images line up fine. I will try to post some crops later today.

    After I ran auto align layers, I simple painted back to get the composition I wanted.

    But the building have no issues at all. There is a slight slight halo on the right edge, that would be very simple to remove, just did not take the time. The other hot spots just show where I painted in the other image so you can see both are aligned around the building edges.
    Could you upload the psd file, or a full sized uncropped jpg?

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Actually the two images line up fine.
    Hi Paul,

    Many thanks for spending the time and effort to demonstrate, and also I appreciate that you took the time to upload the psd file to dropbox!

    I agree that to some extent CC 2014 does a better job than my CS6 (that you get better alignment than I could), however I can still see misalignment in the psd file you uploaded. For some people this may not be of a problem, but for people who dumped a serious amount of cash into MFDB and obsessed in pixel peeping to justify the investment, it may still be less than ideal / total satisfactory. The problem with such misalignment is the excessive amount of effort in post-processing attempting to remove halo, as well as decreased sharpness in the transition areas of blending (which defeats the purpose of image quality). With a Sony CMOS sensor (e.g. IQ250 / D800E / D5300) instead I could just push the shadow from a single exposure and be done with it and spend my time for other stuff in my life.

    Below shows the 100% crop of the two aligned layers on both sides of the psd file you offered:




  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Yes, I agree it was not perfect, but I think that I could have gotten even better if I had just laid the two on top of each other and then faded opacity on one and moved the other around. That takes a bit more time.

    However it's pretty close, not exact, but I could have made a print from it.

    The areas you have pointed out may not even matter when blended, I need to look at them again later.

    Paul

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Yes, I agree it was not perfect, but I think that I could have gotten even better if I had just laid the two on top of each other and then faded opacity on one and moved the other around. That takes a bit more time.
    I spent 6 hours on that using various things like the warp tool in Photoshop (50% opacity for the layer above), or Helicon Focus, trying to justify my IQ260. In the end I reached a conclusion that I would give up and accept the fact that even a Nikon D5300 could handle that scene better. This forced me into the decision to give up the IQ260 for an IQ250.

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Looking at the shot again, I still feel I can get it to pass inspection, really with just a bit of tweaking, I know we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

    The vast majority of the stuff lines up with no problem, I don't see the issue on the tall pointed building as it blended perfectly. The egg shaped building is problematic, but there is a lot of green aberration on the right side of the file, (I did not check C1 to have it work on CA, and the top of the egg building, on the right side has a lot of it. Still easy to fix with the clone stamp.

    I thought I was picky, but I would have no problem printing this shot up to 30 x 40, as the eye will not see the issues, at least my eye.

    One other point, it's really amazing to see just how much detail the lens can pull in as you are getting some really fine details to show up, like the airplane warning lights on building tops, the finer cranes, antennas, a lot of detail on the Belfast, etc. I assume this was with a tech lens, the 32 Rodie?

    The only thing that bothered me was the noise in the sky on the left side near the buildings but a round of neat image takes that out easily.

    Here again, is a good example of CCD needing light. You have excellent details on the buildings, in the longer exposure shot, probably not as good as shadow detail that a D810 would get, but this is almost 2x the resolution. If you uprez'd the D810 shot to this level of resolution you would lose a good bit of the details, so it's a pretty good trade off.

    Just one opinion.

    Thanks again for sharing.
    Paul

  31. #31
    Senior Member Dogs857's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Thursday Island - Australia
    Posts
    307
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    That's the difference Paul, between printing and pixel peeping I think.
    Stop chasing gear, start chasing photos instead.

    Jeff, but my friends call me Dogs

  32. #32
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Paul,

    As you mentioned, the secret really for the IQ260 is simple - lot's of light. One thing I'd never complain about was the highlight recovery potential of the back and when I transitioned to shooting tethered it was immediately obvious that I was often shooting up to 1.5 stops under exposed compared to what C1 Pro would very comfortably handle, especially with C1 v8 and highlight recovery.

    What I have already noticed is that the IQ150 works the other way around and shadow recovery is this sensor's forte.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs


  34. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DF+ & CMOS IQ Backs

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    I for one am excited about this. It'll be interesting to see what developments come out of Sony simply for consolidating the manufacturing lines from two different types into one (CCD and CMOS into CMOS only) as well as what R&D budgets would turn out when they combine CCD and CMOS.

    This presumes, of course, that they're going to combine them, and it's not just a total shutdown/erasure of the CCD side of things. I feel like the resources would be combined, but that's just a gut instinct on my side of things.
    Chris Valites
    Research, Marketing & Support, Capture Integration
    Email-Me

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
  •