Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 77 of 77

Thread: Where's MFD headed ?

  1. #51
    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: Where's MFD headed ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    i don't personally have need of this function, but marc is a strong advocate of the blad true focus in certain situations. wouldn't this need be served by a moveable focus point, a la' 35mm DSLR? and why did blad choose such a rube goldberg method? seems like many cameras offer the moveable point solution and have for years
    No sure, but I think that it has to do with the real estate that has to be covered with-in a MF viewfinder. Most 35mm TTL mirrored cameras typically don't cover out to the frame edges, but are more concentrated in the center 1/3 to 1/2 or so viewfinder area, and that pattern would be semi-useless when placed in a much larger MF finder IMO. Recent 35mm FF Mirrorless cameras like the Sony A7/A7R seems to allow a much more useful scroll area for selecting the AF point. Not sure why.

    The True Focus APL feature is useful when shooting something like a portrait in portrait orientation with a shallow DOF. So when you center focus on the eyes in the top 1/3 of the viewfinder and recompose, the eyes stay in focus.

    In practice, even using a custom button access, I found that accessing the scroll AF points and setting the AF point with the A7R-II to take more time than implementing True Focus did. With TF, I needed to aim the center AF point on the critical focus area, then recompose that point anywhere in the frame composition. I didn't have to access anything and didn't have to scroll anything into place. Fundamentally, it is just the age old focus-recompose technique except the camera's CPU makes the focus adjustment.

    Contrary to your opinion, I wish 35mm cameras had the True Focus option.

    On the other hand, when you do set a focus point on a 35mm you can AF multiple times with the subject in that compositional position. So, YES ... it'd be great if MF could have a wide spread of cross type sensitive AF points to select from.

    - Marc
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  2. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    "Not sure why”
    on chip AF sensors.
    never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  3. #53
    Senior Member etrump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    As usual Marc, an extremely well reasoned response.

    I consider MF digital the consolidation of several markets that were previously segmented. You still have the professional advertising, fashion and architectural shooters who traditionally shot MF. You will always have a statistically smaller number of amateurs who appreciate the larger than 35mm formats. In addition to those traditional users you now have larger format film shooters who can finally get similar results with MF digital without the issues and costs of film. Some will find 35mm "good enough", but most will follow the curve and produce incredible stuff with the best tools available.

    The problem with tech cams, large IC glass, tilts and shifts is light does not hit the sensor at the right angle to avoid crosstalk and microlens diffraction with current sensor technology. While it can be handled in some fashion with software and LCC exposures, the higher the resolution and larger the print the more noticeable the anomaly even when corrected properly. Until that situation is remedied, if even possible, I think you will continue to see the trend away from tech cams.

    Ed


    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Where is MFD headed?

    It could be headed back to where it historically started ... in the studio, or special applications, or conceptual work, and institutional photography.

    I've rarely had a discussion about digital cameras with any of them ... they discuss ideas, lighting (lots about lighting), creativity, how to sell clients a visual idea, and such.

    Different world ... and a bigger world than most folks here might imagine.

    - Marc

    Attached are a sample of product work and one conceptual shot from a series of 10 done for a bank.
    Ed Cooley Fine Art Photography
     
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  4. #54
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Hi,

    I don't think there is anything like microlens diffraction…

    Aside from that, I am pretty sure that it would possible to make a sensor that worked well large beam angles. Leica has done that with the sensor for the M (type 240). It is quite possible that a designer optimising for large beam angles would give up on some other desirable qualities.

    Phone cam designers also have issues with large beam angles and there are new designs with shallow pixels and physical separation between pixels for small sensors. Those designs may migrate to larger sensors like APS-C, full frame MF and eventually MFD.

    Mirrorless cameras have similar issues to technical cameras. Not so much of a problem with lenses designed for DSLRs, but wide angles tend to be large. If you take the Sony A7 series, it is a very small camera using big lenses.

    So I see some hope that designs are emerging that will work better with technical cameras, but it will take time. I don't think the market is large enough to design a new sensor from the bottom up but especially the mirrorless trend (if there is such a trend) will yield sensors that are more suitable for mirrorless MFD.

    The other side of the coin is that both Hasselblad and Phase One have revamped their systems and both are SLR type devices, with lenses constructed around the mirror box. As long as MFD makers regard MFDSLR type devices their main product they won't put a lot of effort into promoting technologies helpful to technical cameras.

    Would Hasselblad make a mirrorless MFD, that would lead to a turn.

    It is a bit interesting to note what is happening with the A7 and Loxia designs. Early Loxias were revamped Contax G2 designs. The Loxia 35/2 is a Biogon design, but it has been revamped to work well with the Sony sensor. On the other hand the Loxia 21/2.8 is a Distagon type device, albeit very compact. So it is possible to make decently small "Distagon type" lenses using modern concepts like aspherics and modern glass.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 07.05.23.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	18.1 KB 
ID:	118479

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by etrump View Post
    As usual Marc, an extremely well reasoned response.

    I consider MF digital the consolidation of several markets that were previously segmented. You still have the professional advertising, fashion and architectural shooters who traditionally shot MF. You will always have a statistically smaller number of amateurs who appreciate the larger than 35mm formats. In addition to those traditional users you now have larger format film shooters who can finally get similar results with MF digital without the issues and costs of film. Some will find 35mm "good enough", but most will follow the curve and produce incredible stuff with the best tools available.

    The problem with tech cams, large IC glass, tilts and shifts is light does not hit the sensor at the right angle to avoid crosstalk and microlens diffraction with current sensor technology. While it can be handled in some fashion with software and LCC exposures, the higher the resolution and larger the print the more noticeable the anomaly even when corrected properly. Until that situation is remedied, if even possible, I think you will continue to see the trend away from tech cams.

    Ed
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 9th May 2016 at 22:06.

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Lots of valuable information in this thread but I'm surprised that there has been no mention of the real elephant in the room - diffraction. At present the 100mp Phase back has a pixel pitch of 4.65. I shoot at f11 +/- 1/3 stop which puts me at the edge of diffraction limitation. At 100% pixels I can see a difference between f8 and f11 and although most of my lenses could be shot at f8 DOF would be razor thin. None of this is visible in my prints but eventually even that will suffer. If the next iteration of the Phase backs comes in at 120mp then the pixel pitch will be 4.269 which will start to put more of a diffraction strain shooting at f11. However none of this is as bad as 35mm will be, even at a mere 60mp. At that level the pixel pitch will be 3.689 which means that f5.6 or f4.0 will become manditory for sharp images. This will eliminate all but the very best lenses available for those systems and will also mean limited DOF. It also means that using a 60mp DSLR/Mirrorless on a technical camera with MF lenses will be very taxing or impossible. The sheer size of the MF sensor has major advantages over its 35mm sibling. So, I think MF is here for a while - at least for me.

    Victor
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #56
    Senior Member JohnBrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Victor, I think your fears are well founded, not to mention what the smaller pixels will do to color fidelity. I suppose by the time we reach smaller pixel pitches in MF and even 35mm FF, technology will have advanced to the point where this issue is a thing of the past. Perhaps the boffins at Sony have already solved the problem with theory but haven't yet figured out a way to implement production?

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    Lots of valuable information in this thread but I'm surprised that there has been no mention of the real elephant in the room - diffraction. At present the 100mp Phase back has a pixel pitch of 4.65. I shoot at f11 +/- 1/3 stop which puts me at the edge of diffraction limitation. At 100% pixels I can see a difference between f8 and f11 and although most of my lenses could be shot at f8 DOF would be razor thin. None of this is visible in my prints but eventually even that will suffer. If the next iteration of the Phase backs comes in at 120mp then the pixel pitch will be 4.269 which will start to put more of a diffraction strain shooting at f11. However none of this is as bad as 35mm will be, even at a mere 60mp. At that level the pixel pitch will be 3.689 which means that f5.6 or f4.0 will become manditory for sharp images. This will eliminate all but the very best lenses available for those systems and will also mean limited DOF. It also means that using a 60mp DSLR/Mirrorless on a technical camera with MF lenses will be very taxing or impossible. The sheer size of the MF sensor has major advantages over its 35mm sibling. So, I think MF is here for a while - at least for me.

    Victor
    So far, I am finding I can get most of the loss back with tools like Focus Magic and now Piccure+ The later has some very good abilities but its very slow to run, overall worth it however. But my aging eyes, can't see it like they used to anyway.

    Paul C

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Paul..... I also use Focus Magic and I have purchased Piccure+ but don't use it much. I find Topaz 'Infocus' and Focus Magic solve my sharpening issues. As I mentioned none of this is visible in print and for me its all about the print - and I have a sense that you also have the print as a major goal. Right now things are just fine at f11 so the 100MP back has worked out well for me. I would always trade some diffraction for added pixels. My experience has shown that upsampling with lesser pixels and no diffraction is no match for more pixels and slight diffraction. From my perspective I wish they would just stop here and work on added features/improvements to the current sensor size.

    Victor
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    John, I don't know how anyone can break the laws of physics. There may be some radical designs out there but they sure would be beyond me. I have just found that in the MF world f11 is almost a necessity for any reasonable DOF and peak lens performance (for my purposes). I realize that MTF charts may counter that but even when I had my DF and was shooting the Phase/Schneider lenses they all really needed f11 for edge to edge sharpness. My Digitars are very different but have a much larger image circle to work with. I can't imagine what the 35mm world is going to be like with a 70 or 80MP sensor....lenses will hit diffraction at f4! For anyone who is serious about photography this has got to be a concern.

    Victor

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Hi Victor, I could not agree more with this from your previous post:


    "My experience has shown that upsampling with lesser pixels and no diffraction is no match for more pixels and slight diffraction".

    I kept thinking back in the 2006 to 2011 time frame that there would be some form of software solution that would allow this, but really if you look at the market today it's the same old stuff, and none of them IMO can begin got approach a non-upsampled file, i.e. 20 x 30, or 30 x 40 etc, especially at 300 and 360ppi, which are the defaults for Canon and Epson respectively.

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

  11. #61
    Senior Member routlaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    Paul..... I also use Focus Magic and I have purchased Piccure+ but don't use it much. I find Topaz 'Infocus' and Focus Magic solve my sharpening issues. As I mentioned none of this is visible in print and for me its all about the print - and I have a sense that you also have the print as a major goal. Right now things are just fine at f11 so the 100MP back has worked out well for me. I would always trade some diffraction for added pixels. My experience has shown that upsampling with lesser pixels and no diffraction is no match for more pixels and slight diffraction. From my perspective I wish they would just stop here and work on added features/improvements to the current sensor size.

    Victor
    I've been saying this for years too, way too much attention to the amount of pixels at the cost of other factors not the least of which might be better cameras for this format. But numbers seem to rule out, same thing with the 35 mm DSLR's and why I have never bought the D800/810 series. The pixels are just too small for landscape work and the requisite DOF needed. I would rather stitch several Df or D4 frames together if I need a larger file. Note I don't own a MF digital camera or back, though I have used them on a few occasions. But am willing to admits the Pentax 645z certainly has me interested.

    As for prints not exhibiting the diffraction issue I can certainly see it. Even with my Nikon 16 MP cameras I don't venture past F11 and try if possible to maintain a smaller F stop. Something else that doesn't get discussed often that exacerbates this situation is the fact that few, very few, lenses perform their best at the smaller apertures with performance easily degrading by past F8.

    Makes a guy almost want to go back to using film for this type of photography, and I've certainly considered more than once.

  12. #62
    Senior Member routlaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Hi Victor, I could not agree more with this from your previous post:


    "My experience has shown that upsampling with lesser pixels and no diffraction is no match for more pixels and slight diffraction".

    I kept thinking back in the 2006 to 2011 time frame that there would be some form of software solution that would allow this, but really if you look at the market today it's the same old stuff, and none of them IMO can begin got approach a non-upsampled file, i.e. 20 x 30, or 30 x 40 etc, especially at 300 and 360ppi, which are the defaults for Canon and Epson respectively.

    Paul C
    Just recently I was working on a print job for a client who had re-sampled some files up to a ridiculous amount of interpolation. They didn't look good putting it mildly, and this was to address some hypothetical required dpi of a given printer. I did a test print for them without any interpolation using just the native pixels for these rather large prints. It was printed at a mere 47 PPI but it was superior in every way to the vastly interpolated files at 200 and 300 PPI. Perfect, not even, but on an order of magnitude better than the interpolated files. The printer itself doesn't give a rats a** what PPI you send it, though there is some odd urban legend that implies the file should have a reciprocal of the printers native resolution, nonsense.

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    I'm just at the edge of diffraction so my prints just don't show any issues. If I shoot a resolving power chart I can certainly see a minor/small difference between f8 and f11 at 100% pixels but at the print level its not apparent. However, I wouldn't even consider shooting at f16. At that point diffraction is really severe and there is no software that will resurrect the detail..... its gone and can easily be seen at the print level. I mostly print 40 x 30 and even with 100MP my image taking and print skills need to be on the money. If I were in your shoes I would take a hard look at the Pentax. It has a beautiful sensor and the overall package seems to be well made.

    Victor
    Last edited by vjbelle; 11th May 2016 at 13:01.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Quote Originally Posted by routlaw View Post
    Just recently I was working on a print job for a client who had re-sampled some files up to a ridiculous amount of interpolation. They didn't look good putting it mildly, and this was to address some hypothetical required dpi of a given printer. I did a test print for them without any interpolation using just the native pixels for these rather large prints. It was printed at a mere 47 PPI but it was superior in every way to the vastly interpolated files at 200 and 300 PPI. Perfect, not even, but on an order of magnitude better than the interpolated files. The printer itself doesn't give a rats a** what PPI you send it, though there is some odd urban legend that implies the file should have a reciprocal of the printers native resolution, nonsense.
    I am Glad it worked for you. There are many others much more knowledge than myself that would disagree also.

    However one part I do fully disagree with in regards to the ppi and printer. Unless you are printing from a RIP you are using the printer driver either 100 percent or to some degree. Example from Photoshop you are using the printer driver 100 percent. If you send a file to the printer at 47 ppi then the driver is going to interpolate for you to either 360 or 720ppi depending on your selections on the printer (Epson) I would much rather control this process than letting a printer driver do it sight unseen. The Epson printer driver uses nearest neighbor for its interpolation which is not one of the best algorithms.

    This is why I print 100% from LR as I would rather allow LR to up sample the image to the correct ppi before sending it to the driver for the print.


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

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    I know this is a little OT but, Paul - couldn't agree more. To let the printer driver do any of the upsampling is asking for inferior results. I don't use any of the Adobe flavors for upsampling but that doesn't matter...... bottom line is upsample using your favorite method to the driver's native print PPI. It will always be better then letting the driver do the work.

    Victor

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Just to agree with most everybody...I too shoot at f11 and avoid f16. F8 is definitely sharper on screen at 100% but I can't see the difference in print.
    Bill CB

    www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #67
    Senior Member routlaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    I am Glad it worked for you. There are many others much more knowledge than myself that would disagree also.

    However one part I do fully disagree with in regards to the ppi and printer. Unless you are printing from a RIP you are using the printer driver either 100 percent or to some degree. Example from Photoshop you are using the printer driver 100 percent. If you send a file to the printer at 47 ppi then the driver is going to interpolate for you to either 360 or 720ppi depending on your selections on the printer (Epson) I would much rather control this process than letting a printer driver do it sight unseen. The Epson printer driver uses nearest neighbor for its interpolation which is not one of the best algorithms.

    This is why I print 100% from LR as I would rather allow LR to up sample the image to the correct ppi before sending it to the driver for the print.


    Paul C
    While I wouldn't want to turn this into an argumentative affair I've never heard, read or experienced what your discussing. And yes we are OT a bit here from the OP, but FWIW worth in the conversation I am on my 3rd LF printer. Started with Espon 10000 back in the late 90's or early 2000's, bad printer, but thats another conversation, then the Espon 9600 which I kept for several years. Both of the Epsons are now in the land fill and I currently use a Canon iPF 8300 which utilizes (if you choose to their print plug in module) which is vastly superior to the PS print command. IOW's I've been printing for well over 15 years and have done what has to be thousands of prints for artist, photographers, corporations, and myself.

    What I previously stated, I stand behind and can prove to anyone. Printer dpi and PS/image PPI are two totally different critters, and the printer does NOT interpolate a file up to some imaginary number of PPI. The printer simply prints XXX number of PPI at what ever DPI you have the printer set to. Anyone would have to be blind not to see the difference between the two prints previously mentioned, and its obvious that the 47 PPI print was NOT interpolated because some minor pixilation is evident (but way less than either of us would have guessed), yet in this case its still far less offensive than the other prints interpolated to 200 or 300 PPI which looked very mushy and unnatural. This was obvious from clear across my studio without squinting. The client ended up settling for a smaller size print which provided roughly 84 PPI almost but not quite double the large print at less PPI but it was a huge improvement over all the rest, albeit at a smaller size.

    I keep about a dozen test prints laying around, all very large that have been printed at very odd PPI structure just to prove my point when the conversation comes up. Without fail anyone, graphic designer, photographer, artist, art directors and so on have all been dumbfounded at the results because it flies in the face of conventional wisdom and urban legends that will not die on the vine.

    I hope this helps. Due to the OT nature I will not post anymore regarding printing on this thread but more than willing to continue discussing if someone feels the need to take it further in a new thread.

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    As I stated, if it works for you, then that is all that matters. The facts I mentioned are available in any number of books on printing, inkjets. etc. I would start with "The Digital Print" by Jeff Schewe, one of the best.

    I have also been printing now over 20 years, but still can't begin to have the knowledge base of Mr. Schewe.

    In his book, one of the first discussion points is do you want to let the Printer driver make the print. All Epson printers will print at 360 or 720ppi if the driver is in use, and Canon it's 300ppi. The only way around this is if you use a RIP or LR or similar software. The Canon print module, works in a similar fashion, however I am not sure what algorithm it uses for interpolation. With Epson, if you allow the printer driver to interpolate, then you in essence have given a driver the final control of your print, and it will interpolate.

    Those are facts based on how the Epson/Canon print pipeline works, and unless a RIP is used (or LR as it uses it's own up sampling to get the print to 300/360/720ppi before sending it to the printer) then the printer driver is making the final sizing to get it out on paper.

    Not at all trying to be argumentative, just stating facts.

    Your method works for you and customers and that is the most important part. I prefer to work a different way and base that decision on how the Epson print pipeline works, based on the information I have picked up from various books on the subject and classes.

    I also can see your point in that with certain larger prints, say 75 x 120 inches, I also preferred to send the output at 180ppi, from LR as I was not as happy with the up sampled images at 360ppi. But that was an exception, as for most sizes I work with from 20 x 30 to 38 x 96 I have tried to keep the output at 360ppi and use LR not CC for the printing due to the reasons I have stated.

    As in the darkroom, most people will agree that there is no one correct way to make a print, instead it a process that each person learns about and then develops a process that best works for them. And I agree that we have gotten a bit of track for sure on this.

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

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    In theory the format size shouldn't matter in terms of diffraction, as you can compensate with a larger aperture. You don't get shorter DoF as you use a shorter focal length for the same FoV so it's a zero-sum game. The challenge with the smaller ones is however that you need to have tighter tolerances in manufacturing and have sharper lenses, so you can shoot at that larger aperture to really resolve all those pixels.

    When I started out with MFD I thought the smaller formats wouldn't make lenses that sharp, but with lenses like the Zeiss Otus I'm not sure anymore.

    The other problem with smaller format is the smaller area to gather light, which indeed can be an issue. It's not all about chip area though, it's about how much of the chip area that actually captures photons, today one can make smaller pixels with better well capacity than before, although the difference is not huge.

    In any case, nothing is as clear-cut as it was in the film days, so one needs to simply look at how the images look produced by the systems.

    Personally I'm less bothered by diffraction than many others, and at the same time more bothered by aliasing and false details. This means that I generally shoot at f/16 with my 6um pixels, while most others would choose f/11.

    To me the worst effects of diffraction is not pixel-peep related, but the low frequency effects making the global image become more dull. It can be somewhat fixed in post though, and it's only getting visible with the really small apertures.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Morning

    I like shooting with MF, I also like new technology, although as with most people, I'm not that keen on paying extra for things that I don't use but that's just the nature of things. I would like to see advances in technology translate to lower prices, whilst I can see the 3100 is a superb piece of engineering, it doesn't make sense for me when upgrade costs from the IQ260 are higher than just buying a refurbished or good used IQ1/250 and keeping the IQ260, it would definitely suit me to have the 60 on the tech cam and the 50 on the XF, plus the added benefit of some built in protection should I have an issue with a back.

    I am opposite to most in that I don't particularly need advances in AF, eye focus and all that gubbins, I can appreciate that some really want it though, for me I just want continued excellent image quality and flexibility with tech cams and SLR type bodies with costs coming down as technology advances. Owning rodenstock glass on the cambo, I can't really see where they can be improved, they are that good, I do miss the quality of the S glass though, those lenses are simply brilliant, I don't have the new blue ring schneider lenses but the previous versions feel horrible in comparison.

    Anyway, as long as there is continued options and choice then all is good!

    Mat

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    I know this is a little OT but, Paul - couldn't agree more. To let the printer driver do any of the upsampling is asking for inferior results. I don't use any of the Adobe flavors for upsampling but that doesn't matter...... bottom line is upsample using your favorite method to the driver's native print PPI. It will always be better then letting the driver do the work.

    Victor
    Victor and Paul, again, sorry to cause further thread drift, but sometimes a particular print engine gives better results, all from software upsampling or whatever is going on.

    I've been printing at home for almost 20 yrs now, currently on my second 44" Epson, the Surecolor P9000. Along the way I've tried this on various other printers, from 13 to 17 inch size, my other one is the P800.

    I only say this to illustrate the point that I am familiar with printing.

    What I can tell you is that I can see a difference in my prints even at 4X6 size (no typo) when printed via QImage vs anything else. I have to run a Windows shell on my Mac to do this, but it's well worth it. I've compared the prints with using LR, PS, Aperture, not even close.

    The prints not only are sharper (without halos or other artifacts) but the colors are better. To use a cliche`, they just pop off the paper.

    All I can say is to try it. Mike Chaney has done some magic with his algorithms.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    No doubt Qimage does a great job, but I have never figured the interface out, (I know many love it), I just gave up.

    Mike is using a secret sauce for sure, but last time I check he is still using the Epson and or Canon recommended pip's of 360 and 300, he just has some very good up sampling routines.

    For my files, LR gets close enough with it's process, but Qimage does do a very nice job for sure and I appreciate the fact that Mike has been able to keep his software going for this long.

    Paul C

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Ok..... I'll bite. Yes, Qimage is a great program... I've used it for years especially when printing from my Epson 9900. And...... Paul is right - the interface is a little clunky and takes awhile to get used to. Now that I've switched to Canon (ipf8400) I find the results I get from the Canon 16 bit plugin are equally as good or within a hairs breath. I've gotten used to it so I stay with that workflow. I also continue to support Qimage with paid subscriptions for updates when necessary. I use both Mac's and PC's but when I want speed and power its always a nod to the PC side.

    Victor

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    QImage has an unbelievably retro and clunky interface, I can't stand it. However, the results are worth it, even with the small volume that I print.

    Mike needs to shed the idea of developing a RAW engine and Image manipulator or at least separate it out from the main QI program. He would also benefit from developing a Mac version, but he just does not think it worth it for him.

  25. #75
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Hi

    Been reading this thread and it has drifted into printing and drivers. I am surprised nobody is using or mentioned ImagePrint RIP.

    I have always been satisfied with the results with my Epson LF, Started using using to avoid the changing of the ink (Matte - Glossy) and stayed with it with the new Epson,

    Thanks

    Phil
    Last edited by alajuela; 12th May 2016 at 13:53.

  26. #76
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    i used imageprint with my 480m and liked it; great convenience in arranging photos on the page as well.

    too damned expensive for the 9900, however, so i'm using the epson drivers and genuine fractals to re-rez to 360 output at the size i want to print
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  27. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where's MFD headed ?

    Quote Originally Posted by alajuela View Post
    Hi

    Been reading this thread and it has drifted into printing and drivers. I am surprised nobody is using or mentioned ImagePrint RIP.

    I have always been satisfied with the results with my Epson LF, Started using using to avoid the changing of the ink (Matte - Glossy) and stayed with it with the new Epson,

    Thanks

    Phil
    Hi Phil, ImagePrint is too expensive, especially for those of us who have more than one LF printer. QImage is only $60 for any number of printers, while IP would cost me almost $3400 for my two printers.

    I am so happy with QImage that I really don't need anything else. Everyone's mileage would be different naturally.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

Posting Permissions

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