Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Hi all -

    If anyone has evaluated a Phase One back against the Sinar for product photography in the 1:1 to 1:2 magnification range, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.

    Use would be exclusively on a view camera (Capcam) in a studio (well, bedroom!) environment, using constant light source.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.

  2. #2
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    I suspect you won't find anyone who has done this specific comparison. Hopefully though someone has reasonably contemporary experience with a recent high-res Phase and Sinar, as comparisons based on 40mp or 60mp backs and Capture One v6 and earlier will not properly represent the current state of single vs multishot. The improvements made in detail extraction and color accuracy in Capture One v7 and later and with 80mp sensors is significant as compared to legacy comparisons.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Hi Doug -

    Yes, I'm aware that it is highly unlikely anyone has done the specific comparison as per the thread title (not least because of the 2+ month delays in shipping IQ3 80's), but those are the top of the line options on the market right now.

    I mentioned in the post "If anyone has evaluated a Phase One back against the Sinar", because that's what I'm interested in hearing from people.

    The eXact multishot capability lifts it to a claimed 192MP resolution. Do you really believe that Capture One with an 80MP full frame back from Phase One (of any generation) would deliver results that could compare well?

    I'm also interested to hear from people who have used the Sinar as to what the workflow is like, and how that compares in general to P1.

    Kind regards,

    Gerald.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    239
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    Hi all -

    If anyone has evaluated a Phase One back against the Sinar for product photography in the 1:1 to 1:2 magnification range, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.

    Use would be exclusively on a view camera (Capcam) in a studio (well, bedroom!) environment, using constant light source.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.
    Capture Integration sell both...so You should get in contact with them...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by daf View Post
    Capture Integration sell both...so You should get in contact with them...
    Thanks - I've already dropped Steve a private message asking him to comment here when he gets the chance. I suspect he's currently on vacation though as he's not been active on the forum for a couple of weeks, so I can be patient

    Very interested to hear from users though of course.

    Kind regards,

    Gerald.

  6. #6
    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: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Any comparison shouldn't be about resolution exclusively. From my experience, the Multi-Shot backs are more about accurate color fidelity perhaps the source of Sinar's name "Exact" (???).

    - Marc

  7. #7
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    I haven't compare the particular backs, but I have a big experience with multishot backs in both 4x and 16x modes, as well as own two currently (a Sinarback 54H and a Hasselblad CF-39MS)... I have also used hi resolution full size sensor backs out of curiosity on how they would perform in similar (still) subjects... IMO (and everybody else's that has the experience) no single shot back can compare for image quality with any multishot back... not even with any of the lower resolution 4x only backs...
    Last edited by T.Dascalos; 28th August 2015 at 06:01. Reason: bad grammar

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Any comparison shouldn't be about resolution exclusively. From my experience, the Multi-Shot backs are more about accurate color fidelity perhaps the source of Sinar's name "Exact" (???).

    - Marc
    I fully agree. But one thing that has occurred to me is that the eXact will deliver a higher print magnification, whilst requiring a lower shot magnification, which would be a significant benefit.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald

  9. #9
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    I fully agree. But one thing that has occurred to me is that the eXact will deliver a higher print magnification, whilst requiring a lower shot magnification, which would be a significant benefit.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald
    Actually Gerald it's not only about color either... it's also the complete absence of artifacts, or abberations, or even mistakes that are related with the image processor that exists in every single shot back... With a multishot back there is no image processor involved, it is pure true color capturing for each pixel... So it all comes down to per pixel quality... DR is improves by more than a stop also...

  10. #10
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    I fully agree. But one thing that has occurred to me is that the eXact will deliver a higher print magnification, whilst requiring a lower shot magnification, which would be a significant benefit.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald
    It all depends on the size of the subject shot... IMO you won't see the difference in a large print up to size of subjects that are of 180ppi with (say) a Sinarback 75H while the same would be of 360 ppi with an Exact... IMO the eXact will only benefit in subjects bigger than 2m^2 (two square meters in size) than a 75H for an 1:1 print... The difference than an old Sinarback 54H will be even less, lets not forget that the Exact will offer more resolution but the larger pixel backs will have even better per pixel quality and that the multishot process will be more accurate....

  11. #11
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Well this conversation has taken the typical path already.

    The last thing I'll add is to look at institutions such as The Getty, Smithsonian, Library of Congress, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. 5-10 years ago most of these institutions were using multishot backs. They have extremely high quality standards, and in most cases have specific image quality guidelines (typically FADGI based) which mandate specific sampling efficiency (per pixel sharpness) color accuracy (in the form of scientifically measured Delta E) and other metrics such as uniformity of illumination and tonal accuracy.

    Every institution I named (and all the ones here: Division of Cultural Heritage Clients and more) NOW use high-res Phase One backs, with Capture One 8 or Capture One 8 CH. Institutions using multi shot digital backs are now in a small minority.

    Again, I hope you get a chance to do your own evaluation or speak with someone who (unlike me) is unbiased and has modern experience with both. There is a lot of lore built up around multishot leftover from the days when it was the only game in town for high quality color and per-pixel sharpness.

    It's the same kind of out of date lore that leads people to laugh when we tell them our film scanning kit will outperform a drum scanner... until we get them to do a comparison scan with us.
    Last edited by dougpeterson; 28th August 2015 at 07:59.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    Thanks - I've already dropped Steve a private message asking him to comment here when he gets the chance. I suspect he's currently on vacation though as he's not been active on the forum for a couple of weeks, so I can be patient

    Very interested to hear from users though of course.

    Kind regards,

    Gerald.

    Hi Gerald -

    Yes, you nailed it, I am on vacation - your PM woke me from my slumber, and now my wife Rachel is not happy, so one post then I'm out until next week {he says....}.

    So, just some quick reflections.

    I have been selling multi-shot and single shot capture solutions since the days of 6 megapixel (ms from Sinar, Leaf, Imacon/Hasselblad, Jenoptik, single shot from all those, plus Phase One), and am familiar with the differences, advantages, disadvantages.

    Phase One stands alone as the stubborn, never has produced multi-shot products manufacturer, though they did begin with the scanning backs. Their initial foray into single shot capture (LightPhase) was groundbreaking in the quality produced from a single shot capture in terms of color and ability to handle single shot deficiencies (edge aliasing, color artifacts, moire, etc). This holds true more than ever today.

    In the early days, the difference between a single shot capture and a multi-shot capture was enormous. Shoot a curved table, shoot a watch face, the differences leaped out, and it was often a matter of well, how many "stair steps" do you want to see with the single shot?

    Today, major increases in resolution and algorithms have dramatically reduced the differences, and as has been pointed out, those differences need to be quantified (for example, in terms of output size).

    There is a difference in color fidelity, as well as aliasing, and artifacts, however, I feel that the differences in color are largely due to the lack of specialized quality from default profiles (this includes a multi-shot back's own single shot quality as well as a dedicated single shot back). I can capture some colors more accurately with a single shot capture from a Leaf Credo than a single shot capture from a Phase One IQ or Sinar Exact single or multi-shot (and vice versa), depending on how I have profiled the digital back (CI and DT both offer custom color profiling).

    The real factors in why institutions use a Phase One or Leaf digital back are mostly about the software and the workflow. All modern digital backs are capable of producing a comparable quality file, if prepared optimally. But with digitization ramping up in recent years among institutions, agility and productivity, not to mention an aggressive evolution of the software platform in terms of added features, speed, etc, are critical components. Even turn around times can be an issue in the event of a repair, so are there adequate systems available for rental or loaner if say, an institution with 8 stations has a problem.

    These are all factors. I'm not trying to be measured - I've sold Sinar eXact digital backs into museums for use with the Sinar Repro Camera, and naturally Phase One and Leaf systems.

    If you can handle a slower workflow with less editing capability at the raw level, then there's no reason to not investigate a multi-shot option, keeping in mind that the multiple shots will add some degree of complexity to each situation and impose some limitations on the camera/lens options, by putting 4 or 16 shots into every capture.

    I do not have an eXact to Phase One or other single shot comparison. I did perform a test some years back with an IQ180 Phase One and a Hasselblad 50MS 4 shot, and found that I did not see an edge aliasing issue with the subject I shot (bone) if I reduced the single shot IQ180 to the same tif size as the 50M. However I did see it with the 50MS file when I up-rezzed the 50MS shot to the dimensions of the IQ180 file. So the required resolution may be a factor.

    Gerald - in general, I would say that if you are open to working with the color profiles of the various digital backs, as well as the raw processing capabilities, you'll find the results very close. The workflow and raw capability weighs in favor of Capture One. Obviously, the eXact produces a much larger raw capture from the 16 shot capability, and this would enable you to back away from the subject to some degree and increase depth of field, which may be what you're after.

    Back to my vacation...


    Steve Hendrix
    CI
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Speaking about profiling, one must say that Sinar is well ahead of competition on that matter... On Sinarbacks, when one installs the software there is a white reference (supplied by the factory) which is installed to it... There is also a "calibrate" function where one all he has to do is to shoot a (well preserved) calibration chart by puting it infront of the subject... that's it! it's calibrated! Then, when one shoots the subject, there is (automatically) a blank pre-shot where a black reference is detetected (the shutter doesn't open so that the sensor records the black enviroment inside the camera) taking into acount the temprature of the sensor!!! This way the software adapts the calibration card to both the white reference and the black reference for each shot... One doesn't even have to worry about having the monitor he uses perfectly calibrated! It really makes the process much faster and with astonishing colour accuracy...

    An extra feature of the Sinarbacks is also that one can export the (calibrated) file directly to FOGRA 27 or FOGRA 39 format... This is precious if used for publications, because the file doesn't need any conversion or adaptation at all by the offset lab... Much easier and much more efficient than any other process... perfect!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Black calibration data is captured with every exposure on every Phase One back, including the temperature at the time of capture. In recent backs there is even a real time read out of the sensor temperature to help with the capture of long exposures. White reference (called LCC) is a powerful feature in C1.

    Target based ICC profiling is possible with every version of Capture One and extremely precise profiles are included for a variety of supported lighting in Capture One CH. In our testing they are a significant improvement over in situ profiling (capture of a single target in a single lighting condition) in both workflow efficiency and absolute colorimetric accuracy.

    Capture One CH | DTDCH

    I dont know much about FOGRA. I've never had a client ask about it. Maybe it was more commonly requested in the past? Or maybe it's just not common in the markets I know well (NYC, Miami, LA)? Maybe others in other markets can chime in on that? What exactly is it? A CYMK ICC profile, or a different file format? If it's a CYMK profile C1 supports soft proofing and processing to any CYMK profile. If it's a file format it is not supported in C1, only JPG, JPG2000, TIFF, PSD and PNG formats are supported.
    Last edited by dougpeterson; 28th August 2015 at 17:00.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  15. #15
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    The Fogras are standard CMYK profiles used for publications, if a software offers ability to export the file in Fogra form, (alogside TIFFs etc...) one doesn't need to convert the RGB file to the respective CMYK with PS thus avoiding the inaccuracies that happen during the conversion...

  16. #16
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Dascalos View Post
    The Fogras are standard CMYK profiles used for publications, if a software offers ability to export the file in Fogra form, (alogside TIFFs etc...) one doesn't need to convert the RGB file to the respective CMYK with PS thus avoiding the inaccuracies that happen during the conversion...
    If it's an ICC CYMK profile then Capture One can soft proof or process it directly; no photoshop required.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Thanks all for the spirited discussion, and Steve in particular for jumping in whilst he is on vacation with some very useful comments that help to put some perspective on a lot of what has been said.

    If I may, I just want to steer this back in the right direction, because it's veered off into areas that are not important to my requirements. After all, it's my money that's being spent here.

    A few pointers -

    I'm not interested in cultural heritage. At all.

    I'm shooting watches at approaching 1:1 magnification. I don't care about archiving, I don't care about scientifically accurate colour. I have no doubt P1's cultural heritage offerings are just great for Getty et al, but I absolutely guarantee you one thing - they aren't using them to shoot what I'm interested in shooting. In fact, P1 say as much in the marketing material for this sector "When tilt & shift movements are required, the best quality is obtained with a technical camera, in combination with an IQ digital back."

    Two paragraphs from Steve's post draw out what is relevant to my requirements -

    "If you can handle a slower workflow with less editing capability at the raw level, then there's no reason to not investigate a multi-shot option, keeping in mind that the multiple shots will add some degree of complexity to each situation and impose some limitations on the camera/lens options, by putting 4 or 16 shots into every capture."

    "Gerald - in general, I would say that if you are open to working with the color profiles of the various digital backs, as well as the raw processing capabilities, you'll find the results very close. The workflow and raw capability weighs in favor of Capture One. Obviously, the eXact produces a much larger raw capture from the 16 shot capability, and this would enable you to back away from the subject to some degree and increase depth of field, which may be what you're after."

    Perhaps I should go into a little more detail here as to how I'm coming up with a single image. I'm not shooting for catalogues here. The number of watches I'd ever expect to have in hand and to shoot in a single session might number 3 or 4 at the absolute maximum. We're talking about watches that are typically in the $50k to $200k+ value range. In fact, I fully expect to be shooting $1M+ watches within the next six months. This is not a production line!

    Typically it might take me anything between 10 minutes and an hour to set up one shot. If I get one good shot that I might consider for printing after an evening's work, I'm happy.

    If I end up with half a dozen shots that I consider good enough to actually invest in printing each month, I'd be ecstatic. Bear in mind print costs that I'm doing cost me upwards of $500 each.

    I respect that if an institution is archiving something like a book, they might want to work a little faster than that.

    So - absolutely. I'm happy to consider a slower workflow.

    This is the point Steve mentioned that I'd like to drill into if possible -

    " Obviously, the eXact produces a much larger raw capture from the 16 shot capability, and this would enable you to back away from the subject to some degree and increase depth of field, which may be what you're after."

    Regardless of whether I would use a FF P1 sensor or the cropped Sinar sensor, I would still create the same composition within the frame. Superficially, this means I'd be further from the object to get the same framing with the Sinar, which would mean more depth of field. But wouldn't this be negated by the higher effective resolution of the eXact in 4 or 16 shot mode?

    I can't get my head around the 4 and 16 shot modes both producing a 192MP file. I know one's a single pixel shift, and the other a half-pixel shift, but I'm struggling here. If I'm not anally obsessive about colour fidelity, would the 4 shot mode be sufficient for my requirements, or will I see a benefit from 16 shot?

    Are there depth of field considerations to be made when shooting 1 shot, 4 shot, or 16 shot? It's messing with my brain trying to think about this.

    At the end of the day, remember the camera system I'm using here. With the Capcam I can program a focus stack perpendicular to the plane of focus very easily. Right now with the IQ180, I'm typically looking at between 5 and 15 images in the stack. The time per shot is not really an issue. Shooting 16 shots per frame rather than just one would simply mean I take more time drinking my tea. If there is a DoF challenge here, and I needed to shoot 50% or 100% more images in the stack, that wouldn't be ideal, but if the end result made it worthwhile, I'd be more than happy to accept it.

    As I see it, the worst-case scenario comparison here is that, once everything has been set, the time to produce the images for focus stacking with the P1 back might be as much as a minute for a 15 shot stack. With the Sinar, it might take 16x as long per image, and possibly another 2x as long for DoF issues. So 30 minutes. That's worst case, yes?

    And there's no getting away from the fact that the resultant file from the Sinar is 16k by 12k pixels, and the one from the Phase is "only" 10k by 8k, yes? And we're talking "true" resolution here, yes***?


    Kind regards,


    Gerald.

    /edit
    *** - by which I mean if I upscaled the file from the Phase One to 16x12k resolution and compared to the Sinar, the Sinar would show more detail.
    Last edited by gerald.d; 28th August 2015 at 22:42.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Ok so I'm very slow off the mark here.

    I see there is also a multi-shot version of the 50MP Sony sensor from Hasselblad, so I guess throw that into the mix for comments as well!

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    A few things to bear in mind.
    Your floor. A modern building/concrete floor is great, a wooden bouncy floor less so.
    Your lighting, it needs to be very accurate in output as any discrepancy between the multi exposures will show in your file, I had issues with shooting cars and using only one tungsten light as small variations in output caused the tell-tale square edges in the shot, adding another light seemed to cure this. Not sure if it was because of minute power fluctuations or the filament vibrating and changing the light?
    Time. If your time costs you nothing and you literally have all day then it's obviously not an issue but don't underestimate the increased shoot time with multi shot, especially if things move and you get the jaggies and have to take another shot.

    This was my experience using an imacon/HB 528

    While the results are great I personally wouldn't go multi-shot as its too restrictive way of working and the time/ ratio is not biased towards my wellbeing
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

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

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Gerald, you haven't mentioned how you are lighting your watches. That can have an impact on workflow when using a Multi-shot back. Depending on which strobe is being used and at what power output, you have to program a delay that allows time for full recycle so each step exposure is exactly the same.

    BTW, when working with a multi-shot, you work with single shot until you get the lighting/composition/focus exactly the way you want it then shoot the multi-shot image.

    IMO, scientifically accurate color isn't necessarily the same as color fidelity. If shooting a rose gold watch, the subtile transitions of color can have a profound effect on presenting the true presence of the product.

    I do not know about the Sinar back (but I suspect it is the same), the Hasselblad MS backs do not increase resolution when done in 4 shot. A 50 meg single shot at 50 meg 4 shot produce the same resolution. The difference is apparent in clarity of detail and more definitive color separation that adds to that detail.

    As I understand it, the newer Hasselblad H5D/50C Multi-Shot or H5D/200C is a more cropped CMOS sensor compared to the Hasselblad H4D/50 or H5D/50 or 200 with a CCD sensor. All of them use 1 shot, 4 shot and the 200 version uses 6 shots to achieve the higher res file (200 meg RAW = 600 meg Tiff). 16 shot backs were older Imacon designs.

    - Marc
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    It's interesting to see when "good enough image quality and convenience" becomes a sales argument for Phase One products

    But that's probably the case, the 80 MP single shot backs are so much more convenient to work with than multi-shot that the reduction in image quality is acceptable to most. It's the same argument that has caused some to move to smaller formats, so it's a dangerous discussion to have.

    The weakest aspect of single shot cameras I think is the aliasing, but if you don't shoot textiles etc it's quite easy to live with.

    With macro perhaps you need to throw in focus stacking into the mix? Or do you think you can do with single shots using the Capcam? Maybe the Capcam can do automated stacking too?
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Thanks all. In one post so as not to clog things up...

    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    A few things to bear in mind.
    Your floor. A modern building/concrete floor is great, a wooden bouncy floor less so.
    Your lighting, it needs to be very accurate in output as any discrepancy between the multi exposures will show in your file, I had issues with shooting cars and using only one tungsten light as small variations in output caused the tell-tale square edges in the shot, adding another light seemed to cure this. Not sure if it was because of minute power fluctuations or the filament vibrating and changing the light?
    Time. If your time costs you nothing and you literally have all day then it's obviously not an issue but don't underestimate the increased shoot time with multi shot, especially if things move and you get the jaggies and have to take another shot.

    This was my experience using an imacon/HB 528

    While the results are great I personally wouldn't go multi-shot as its too restrictive way of working and the time/ ratio is not biased towards my wellbeing
    Thanks - I'm on the 40th floor of a modern skyscraper, with marble tiles laid on a concrete floor. Camera is on a 125kg Cambo studio stand, watch on a shooting table that I've drilled a hole through so that I can position the watches on a platform that's mounted to an Arca Swiss Cube, with the cube connected through the table to a tripod underneath (perhaps not what Arca ever had in mind for the Cube, but it is extremely useful to be able to dial in whatever angle I want to present the watch to the camera, whenever I want to).

    With regards lighting...

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Gerald, you haven't mentioned how you are lighting your watches. That can have an impact on workflow when using a Multi-shot back. Depending on which strobe is being used and at what power output, you have to program a delay that allows time for full recycle so each step exposure is exactly the same.
    Lighting is continuous - from a Schott KL2500 LED with a triple lightguide (flexible goose-neck fibre optic). My understanding is that this light source is very stable. And before anyone takes offence, yes - I am fully aware that a white-light LED spectrum isn't perfect and that others may cringe at the thought of using this, but I like working with this set-up, and am very happy with the results.

    BTW, when working with a multi-shot, you work with single shot until you get the lighting/composition/focus exactly the way you want it then shoot the multi-shot image.

    IMO, scientifically accurate color isn't necessarily the same as color fidelity. If shooting a rose gold watch, the subtile transitions of color can have a profound effect on presenting the true presence of the product.

    I do not know about the Sinar back (but I suspect it is the same), the Hasselblad MS backs do not increase resolution when done in 4 shot. A 50 meg single shot at 50 meg 4 shot produce the same resolution. The difference is apparent in clarity of detail and more definitive color separation that adds to that detail.

    As I understand it, the newer Hasselblad H5D/50C Multi-Shot or H5D/200C is a more cropped CMOS sensor compared to the Hasselblad H4D/50 or H5D/50 or 200 with a CCD sensor. All of them use 1 shot, 4 shot and the 200 version uses 6 shots to achieve the higher res file (200 meg RAW = 600 meg Tiff). 16 shot backs were older Imacon designs.

    - Marc
    Ok this confuses me enormously. Hasselblad market their multishot back as delivering a 200 megapixel file. Is this not the case then? There's no mention of file size - why would anyone care about that?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    It's interesting to see when "good enough image quality and convenience" becomes a sales argument for Phase One products

    But that's probably the case, the 80 MP single shot backs are so much more convenient to work with than multi-shot that the reduction in image quality is acceptable to most. It's the same argument that has caused some to move to smaller formats, so it's a dangerous discussion to have.

    The weakest aspect of single shot cameras I think is the aliasing, but if you don't shoot textiles etc it's quite easy to live with.

    With macro perhaps you need to throw in focus stacking into the mix? Or do you think you can do with single shots using the Capcam? Maybe the Capcam can do automated stacking too?
    Yes, as mentioned, the Capcam does automated stacking. Just set the focal plane wherever you want, and then enter three numbers - the step-size, focus delta from current position to start at, focus delta from current position to stop at. All entered in 1/100ths of a mm (although I don't need to go to anything like this level of accuracy - DoF for a typical shot that I'm taking is in the 0.5mm to 1mm range).

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.

  23. #23
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    I agree that alising will be the major issue to avoid with watches, but also the extended DR of multishot should be a considerable advantage too.

    IMO, resolution is not an issue to have great large prints of watches if multishot mode is to be used, I would guess that an inexpensive 54H would be more than enough for the job, to the extend that I have a feeling that one would never miss higher resolution even with the most demanding of subjects. I also believe that the more than twice the size pixel area would make the process much easier to perform in 16x mode.

    I don't know what Sinar means when they claim 192mp in one of their 4x modes, but I suspect that it is an interpolated mode rather than a true color one, I know that Hasselblad's 6 step mode is interpolating the 4x "true color" mode (it does 50mp "true color" and then uses the 4x info of color to apply it in dofferent position) so it's not the same as shooting in 16x mode.

    IMO, Sinar should have made a version of their 75H back with 16x mode ability for 132mp "true color" file, if they did, one would have a choice for either 33mp (4x) or 132mp (16x) and thus overcome the 54H 22mp "true color" 4x mode which may be considered too low for demanding work... Personally I use a Hasselblad CF-39MS next to my 54H exactly because many times 88mp multishot is an overkill but also to be able to have a self contained single shot back next to the multishot ability.

    Having extensively used multishot backs (I used to have an Imacon 528c before), I have to say that Sinar is a step further from Hasselblad when color accuracy is a crucial factor, the files from my 528c where exactly of the same resolution and DR from my 528C as they are from my 54H and the abscence of artifacts is also the same, but Sinar is a step further when one aims for absolute color accuracy.... If accuracy is not what one is after, he may as well aim for a 528c or a CF-39MS.

    Only to conclude, I think that resolution with multishot shouldn't be treated as with single shot backs, I would print the same size any 4x file out of a 75H and I'm sure I would much prefer it that any modern 80mp back... Just my 2 cents.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Dascalos View Post
    I agree that alising will be the major issue to avoid with watches, but also the extended DR of multishot should be a considerable advantage too.

    IMO, resolution is not an issue to have great large prints of watches if multishot mode is to be used
    Why would it not be an issue?

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.

  25. #25
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    Why would it not be an issue?

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.
    This both easy and difficult to answer Gerald... Generally speaking a "clean" file where there are no artifacts, both shows considerably more visual resolution (depending on the complexity of the subject) and can be printed at lower value of ppi... this is because with a file that exhibits artifacts, the more ppi one uses for a print, the more he hides the artifacts. If the artifacts where absent from the file (as happens with multishot), one can print down to ...72ppi (!!!) and still have an amazing (ultra large) print! So it all comes down to two factors when printing a multishot file, one is per pixel quality, which is amazing since there is complete absence of artifacts and the second is the higher (visual) resolution that the file exhibits because (other than the absence of artifacts) each pixel has no other that is identical to it... (hardly the case if the color was interpolated - especially between neighboring pixels)...

    Of course printing experience for preparing optimally the files as to be printed perfectly is another aspect to be taken in mind, but this is both a different (although very interesting) conversation and is supposed to be the same for both a multishot or single shot interpolated files.

  26. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    57
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Do any of the modern MS backs support the compositing in-back, i.e., without being tethered?

    Like Gerald, I shoot a lot of little stuff and don't care about heritage-grade color accuracy. But I do think the sensitivity (spatial and color) is night and day with the MS samples I've seen. I don't shoot in a studio, though, so I'm waiting for a back that can do it all in the field, or at least write the intermediates to the card in the field and defer the compositing until I get back to the computer.

  27. #27
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebster View Post
    Do any of the modern MS backs support the compositing in-back, i.e., without being tethered?

    Like Gerald, I shoot a lot of little stuff and don't care about heritage-grade color accuracy. But I do think the sensitivity (spatial and color) is night and day with the MS samples I've seen. I don't shoot in a studio, though, so I'm waiting for a back that can do it all in the field, or at least write the intermediates to the card in the field and defer the compositing until I get back to the computer.
    I believe this is not feasible... To shoot in multishot mode one needs parameters that are set in the software, further more the back integrates a piezzo electric crystal that needs to be be directed very accurately and more than that, the final image is a synthesis of the multiple single shot captures that are performed that needs special software as to be processed...

  28. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    57
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Dascalos View Post
    I believe this is not feasible... To shoot in multishot mode one needs parameters that are set in the software, further more the back integrates a piezzo electric crystal that needs to be be directed very accurately and more than that, the final image is a synthesis of the multiple single shot captures that are performed that needs special software as to be processed...
    At the end of the day, it's just software running on hardware. The image pipeline chips in a modern DSLR are probably hundreds of times faster than the computers people used to tether and composite the imagery off MS backs ten years ago.

    Note that several (inexpensive) smaller format cameras are now doing full MS in-camera.

    The question is whether someone has done it yet in one of these modern MF backs, like the Hasselblad CMOS one, to facilitate MS in the field. That would awesome.

  29. #29
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebster View Post
    Note that several (inexpensive) smaller format cameras are now doing full MS in-camera.
    Which smaller format camera does FULL MS in camera? ...if you refer to Sumsung's technology the uses the VR system to multiply analysis, this is NOT full MS in camera... it doesn't shoot in true color for each pixel position that it captures... (which is the purpose behind multishot).

  30. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    57
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Dascalos View Post
    Which smaller format camera does FULL MS in camera? ...if you refer to Sumsung's technology the uses the VR system to multiply analysis, this is NOT full MS in camera... it doesn't shoot in true color for each pixel position that it captures... (which is the purpose behind multishot).
    Take a look at the Olympus E-M5 II.

  31. #31
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ3 80 vs Sinar eXact for product photography

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebster View Post
    Take a look at the Olympus E-M5 II.
    Oups... To be honest, I don't follow the news of micro 4/3 cameras nor the forums, I just had a look on the E-M5II (thanks for pointing that up) and was really impressed... It looks like its multishot mode works very similarly to Hasselblad where it first creates 16mps of true color and then it samples the true color information to up res it at 40mp... I immediately thought that if one combines the OLY with a Cambo Actus and use some really good quality old Nikkor AI-S lenses, he'll end up with a very capable system indeed...

Posting Permissions

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