New Backs on Technical Cameras

[Lobalobo]

When I was last on this forum, a couple of years ago, I was curious about the use of full frame MF CMOS backs on technical cameras. The issues were cross-talk, microlenses, need for retrofocus wide-angle lenses, etc. So I'm curious whether the new Hasselblad or Phase One backs (or, I guess, more to the point, the new Sony sensors) are improvements over the old on this score, allowing greater movements.

Another issue was the ageless debate of whether CCD sensors truly provided more color nuance and micro-contrast than CMOS sensors, with Phase One entering the debate at that time by stating on their website that the answer is "yes" as an explanation for why they continued to sell CCD as well as CMOS sensors (the latter better for low light and live view). Now that Phase One has dropped this suggestion (presumably along with advertising any CCD sensors) and promoted the new Trichromatic CMOS back along with their new Achromatic back, I wonder whether those who saw a benefit to CCD before continue to do so. (I know there were some who never saw that benefit in the first place and I'm not asking to rehash the entire debate, just curious about whether there have been recent developments).

And now my usual disclaimer; I'm only a kibitzer here, still shooting 4x5 film, though hope springs eternal for a digital MF back some day (as long as they still sell lottery tickets). Thanks.

 

[Christopher]

I really hoped for a better performance of the new trichromatic back on any tech camera. This would have been the only real reason for that back for me. However, as we haven't heard a single thing about it, i don't think it will be any better at all perhaps even worse. Phase one would have screamed out any improvements.

 

[awolf]

Another issue was the ageless debate of whether CCD sensors truly provided more color nuance and micro-contrast than CMOS sensors, with Phase One entering the debate at that time by stating on their website that the answer is "yes" as an explanation for why they continued to sell CCD as well as CMOS sensors (the latter better for low light and live view). Now that Phase One has dropped this suggestion (presumably along with advertising any CCD sensors) and promoted the new Trichromatic CMOS back along with their new Achromatic back, I wonder whether those who saw a benefit to CCD before continue to do so. (I know there were some who never saw that benefit in the first place and I'm not asking to rehash the entire debate, just curious about whether there have been recent developments).

Been wondering that myself. I find the CMOS “look” of the new backs depressingly Sony like (cold, uninviting and unnatural). I am surprised no one is complaining, and since that is the case, we may be stuck with this look forever

 

[Wayne Fox]

I think the IQ3 100 performs worse in regards to crosstalk and color cast than the CCD backs. Retro focus for wider lenses pretty much a necessity. I don't think I can shift my 28mm at all, and I think the edges are borderline without shifting. 40 rodie better, 70 and 90 don't even need an LCC unless you are shifting or perhaps if stitching to correct slight density vignetting which is really undetectable in a single image.

 

[jng]

I was surprised at the amount of color cast when I tried out the Rodie 40HR on the IQ3100 back, which in my opinion really needs the LCC correction to make things right, even unshifted. Now that I'm shooting my own tech cam setup with the IQ160, I am finding the LCC almost optional with the 40HR in the absence of shift. Ditto with the 70HR. The main issue when shifted seems to be light fall-off. Oh, and the sensor dust bunnies, which the LCC takes care of nicely. And under good lighting conditions, the tonality from the combination of the Rodie's and CCD back leave nothing to be desired, IMHO.

John

 

[Wayne Fox]

A little clarification, 40 is better than the 28, but still really needs the LLC. The 40 unshifted on the IQ180 was borderline unnecessary.

 

[vjbelle]

I really hoped for a better performance of the new trichromatic back on any tech camera. This would have been the only real reason for that back for me. However, as we haven't heard a single thing about it, i don't think it will be any better at all perhaps even worse. Phase one would have screamed out any improvements.

You bet they would have.....

Victor

 

[vjbelle]

I really think that the pluses of the 3100 far outweigh its minuses. I use the 35XL which needed lots of correction with my IQ180 and it sure does with the 3100 but less. I can shift or use rise a little further than I could with the IQ180 and the LCC does a very nice job out to about 8mm. I mostly use rise with the 35XL so sky becomes an issue and, again, I can rise about 8mm, sometimes 10mm and get very nice results. Dead blue skies might need a little touch up but its really doable without much post. From the 35XL I go to the 60 Schneider which also needs some LCC when shifting but cleans up very well. Its rare for me to shift or use rise beyond 10mm so can't comment on extreme movements. My 72mm Schneider (a wonderful lens) is CC free out to 10mm as are all of the remaining longer lenses. I would never revert back to a CCD back......

Victor

 

[algrove]

A little clarification, 40 is better than the 28, but still really needs the LLC. The 40 unshifted on the IQ180 was borderline unnecessary.

Wayne

Seldom hear of one using the 28. Even though it has a small image circle, how do you find the lens and do you have a tilt adapter for increased DOF or do you normally use it level?

 

[Wayne Fox]

Wayne

Seldom hear of one using the 28. Even though it has a small image circle, how do you find the lens and do you have a tilt adapter for increased DOF or do you normally use it level?

I don't use the 28 too often. Occasionally a situation requires a wider view than the 40 gives and I can't stitch, so the 28 comes into play.

I use the lens on a Cambo DB, so tilt is readily available, although often depth of field is more than adequate for the scene. Where it seems to struggle on the IQ3 100 is scenes like oceanscapes through a ND filter. Edges just have issues that I can't clean up with an LCC.

 

[algrove]

I don't use the 28 too often. Occasionally a situation requires a wider view than the 40 gives and I can't stitch, so the 28 comes into play.

I use the lens on a Cambo DB, so tilt is readily available, although often depth of field is more than adequate for the scene. Where it seems to struggle on the IQ3 100 is scenes like oceanscapes through a ND filter. Edges just have issues that I can't clean up with an LCC.

Thanks Wayne

I am trying to decide on either the 23 , 28 or lastly the 32, but with such a huge lens I feel it just might defeat the smallness of my current Alpa kit. Maybe I should just go with a 17+17 on my 40 thereby allowing some additional Scheimpflug options other than shift on my STC.

 

[Lobalobo]

I really think that the pluses of the 3100 far outweigh its minuses. I use the 35XL which needed lots of correction with my IQ180 and it sure does with the 3100 but less. I can shift or use rise a little further than I could with the IQ180 and the LCC does a very nice job out to about 8mm. I mostly use rise with the 35XL so sky becomes an issue and, again, I can rise about 8mm, sometimes 10mm and get very nice results. Dead blue skies might need a little touch up but its really doable without much post. From the 35XL I go to the 60 Schneider which also needs some LCC when shifting but cleans up very well. Its rare for me to shift or use rise beyond 10mm so can't comment on extreme movements. My 72mm Schneider (a wonderful lens) is CC free out to 10mm as are all of the remaining longer lenses. I would never revert back to a CCD back......

Victor

And you don't share the view of some participants in this thread (and, previously, PhaseOne) that the CMOS backs are flatter (less color nuance, less micro-contrast) than the CCD backs? Or do you think the newest CMOS backs solve that problem?

 

[Paul2660]

I can't speak for Victor, but having shot the P45+, IQ160, IQ260, IQ180 and the IQ250 and now the IQ3100, basically color is moot. I just see the CCD look that so many "see". I thought the files from the CCD backs were fine, albeit, lacking in any ability to push shadows and on the P45+ highlights were very tricky. The colors from the IQ250 and 3100 are amazing. Deep, rich, possibly a bit over saturated on greens, but no issues. Color on a P1 back is really really raw, nothing like shooting any other camera. WB is wacky and hard to pin down many times especially when shooting into the sun or from the side. The LCD preview many times is only helpful on focus and noise. The colors can be way way off until you open the files in C1 and then apply a correct WB. BTW, this has always been the case for me from the P45+ to 3100. Just like P1 still loads "flash" as the default WB when you open the files in C1. Even if you have picked "outdoor" on the camera, C1 still goes to Flash. So my point is that it's really hard to make any color decisions and determine CCD vs CMOS look and feel, at least for me.

I would like to see comparisons side by side, and downloadable, between the new Tricolor and 3100 as I personally don't feel the differences will be that big unless you are working art repo or similar jobs. But without any side by sides, it's really hard to tell. I also realize that outdoors, side by side shots can be hard to capture due to sunlight differences between backs/shooting.

As for micro contrast, I put that much more in the realm of the lenses in use. The older Mamiya AF glass APO included don't have the same look as the newer Schneider lenses, and I have shot them across the CCD and CMOS backs. The current Schneiders are very expensive and the Blue Rings out of reach for many. However the 1 generation older non blue rings have mostly the same optics besides the 150 2.8 and 45mm and 35mm. (probably missed one or two).

The only issue that I know for certain is that the current CMOS backs, have a huge issue with tech cameras. Massive Magenta shift on movements, and huge amount of saturation loss. (worse on the IQ250/350) but still quite visible with the 3100. The LCC process does an amazing job, pulling color back on 10mm shifts that appear almost B&W at times (note this is with wides only), 28mm, 40mm, 32mm, From 60mm and up the CMOS backs do very well still need a LCC IMO however. It's also apparent that this issue more than likely will not be something that is resolved with the new generation backs next year.

Paul Caldwell

 

[Wayne Fox]

To help with one part of the original post question, I thought this might help. here’s some comparison between LCC’s on the 180 and the 3 100.

The obvious challenge is the 28mm. It’s really borderline correcting with LCC, and depending on the scene it might leave some residual color.
Also note where the 180 fall is dark and tends to go green, the 3 100 fall off tends to go magenta.

Heres’ a shot with the 28mm that is corrected, but I feel there is still some “pink” on the edges that remain. Maybe there’s some red cross talk on the 28mm due to the steep angle, something an LCC probably just can’t handle perfectly.

 

[Lobalobo]

The only issue that I know for certain is that the current CMOS backs, have a huge issue with tech cameras. Massive Magenta shift on movements, and huge amount of saturation loss. (worse on the IQ250/350) but still quite visible with the 3100. The LCC process does an amazing job, pulling color back on 10mm shifts that appear almost B&W at times (note this is with wides only), 28mm, 40mm, 32mm, From 60mm and up the CMOS backs do very well still need a LCC IMO however. It's also apparent that this issue more than likely will not be something that is resolved with the new generation backs next year.

Paul Caldwell

Thanks, Paul. I wonder if Phase One will leave CCD backs in production for use on technical cameras. It would be odd for technological advance to retract a tool as it moves forward with others, but I suppose it could happen.

 

[Lobalobo]

To help with one part of the original post question, I thought this might help. here’s some comparison between LCC’s on the 180 and the 3 100.

The obvious challenge is the 28mm. It’s really borderline correcting with LCC, and depending on the scene it might leave some residual color.
Also note where the 180 fall is dark and tends to go green, the 3 100 fall off tends to go magenta.

Heres’ a shot with the 28mm that is corrected, but I feel there is still some “pink” on the edges that remain. Maybe there’s some red cross talk on the 28mm due to the steep angle, something an LCC probably just can’t handle perfectly.[/IMG]

Thanks, Wayne. My understanding is that LCC can't handle cross talk at all, and so I suppose that does explain the pink. The image looks great though. (If it were me, I'd worry more about de-saturation than color fidelity, but as I've mentioned, I still shoot film so don't have a first-hand opinion, at least not yet.)

 

[Paul2660]

One note,

The pink is not really from cross talk (I don't believe), it's from the fact that the lens rear most element is so close to the sensor, thus the angle of the light hitting the sensor vs overall pixel pitch is problematic. And the more you move the move the lens across the sensor, the worse it becomes. You can still get some magenta color on extreme shifts with the CCD backs, especially the IQ180 and the 23mm, 28mm 43mm Schenider

Voidshatter and others have done a very detailed examination of the actual crosstalk issue and somewhere deep in this forum are a whole bunch of examples. You start to see actual color inaccuracies at the pixel level. The work/examples were mainly done on the Digital Transitions examples taken in a Library (Vanderbuilt?) not sure anymore where you have books of different colors and mosaics on the ceiling. When viewed with the correct software you can see where a pixel has recorded an inaccurate color, green instead of blue or red etc.

I don't see P1 continuing to make CCD backs, just not much market in it as the overall market is small. However their backs are made extremely well, and you can still get a huge amount of life from a P45+ (still probably one of the best overall CCD backs for tech cameras) and the IQ160 or Credo 160. I would not waste time with a 260. It doesn't do long exposure any better than the 160 (I owned one) and it's the same chip as the 160. The IQ160 is an excellent back, great color and wonderful LCD. The P65+ is the same chip but doesn't have the IQ interface, and on a tech camera having the LCD for looking at the taken shot at 100% is really an important feature. Live View on any CCD is really not going to work very well outdoors. You can get away with some by using a strong ND filter, but you still get a lot of blooming with any changes to the aperture.

Paul Caldwell

 

[voidshatter]

You could wait for IMX411 and IMX461 which are supposed to be available in 2018. I was told by my friend in Sony's sensor department that they've sent engineering samples of both BSI and FSI versions to Phase One. He told me the BSI version may be able to help with cross-talk issues, but could be significantly more expensive, so Phase One might sell the FSI version first. In such case, it could be worth to wait for Phase One to actually start selling the BSI version.