Site Sponsors
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 227

Thread: Fuji GFX 100

  1. #151
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    148

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    It is my belief that the engineers who design and create these products know a whole lot more about what they are doing and most importantly, why they are doing it, than anyone else who is measuring certain things after the fact. And I guess I also find it sort of insulting that in a way, their whole process is called into question in such a limited way when you really don't have the whole story. And there is almost this implication of cheating, or worse, marketing, to make something seem more than it is (not that this doesn't happen, but that's a different department). Phase One engineers did not sit there, and perhaps at the urging of marketing just make up something called a 16Bit EX mode that has absolutely no advantage over a 14 bit capture or even a normal 16 bit capture, and I don't that that Fuji did either. There are detectives here, and some very good detectives here, but when the results contradict your conclusions, then you're missing something.
    There is no doubt that a 16-bit image has advantages over a 14-bit one. But what exactly is it? Car companies make Supercars that cost millions of dollars that are amazing machines. But they still will not get me to work any faster than my Toyota--there are practical limits to speed. I can also get the fastest computer available, but it will not change the efficiency of my email correspondence. And as you said, it is complicated. Engineers tend to simply focus on performance in an absolute sense without the actual implications on the final result (I know, I worked with the engineers at a camera company). And seriously, how many here will be able to take advantage of a 100MP sensor? Even with a 42" printer, these images will be idling.

    Yup, you can show all kinds of advantages with quantitative data. The problem is images are finally filtered through the human visual system. That is a similar problem of putting your Supercar on a crowded road with a posted speed limit of 35mph. (Or rounding your tax returns to four decimal places.)

    Lets not forget, engineers are incentivised to produce better products. If any one of them come out and simply states the current products are fine and we can stop development, they might be out of a job.

    I am all for developing photographic tools, but I also think photographers need to understand what those developments mean in real terms.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #152
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    148

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by JimKasson View Post
    There is a difference in the precision required in for scene-referred captures and output-referred files after editing. Some editing operations can make things not visible in the input files visible in the output files. Capture noise has the property of reducing the visibility of artifacts related to inadequate capture precision, just as noise is sometimes introduced in the editing process to reduce the visibility of artifacts created during editing.

    Jim
    Jim, I really don't want to repeat what I have already posted, but I have already clarified that. But likewise, there is so much your ADC can do for photographers that can't expose. Getting into a lack of skill will make this a bottomless pit that still will not show that 16-bit has significant advantages over 14-bit.

  3. #153
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    Well, I have done so in the past.
    Steve, are you talking about GFX 100 files?

    Jim

  4. #154
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    627
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by JimKasson View Post
    Steve, are you talking about GFX 100 files?

    Jim

    No, I unfortunately have not yet had the opportunity to shoot the 100S (though looking forward to it), I am referring to Phase One files.


    Steve Hendrix/CI
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Authorized Reseller Digital Cam: • Phase One | Fuji | Leica | Sinar •
    Authorized Reseller TechCam: • Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar •

  5. #155
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    No, I unfortunately have not yet had the opportunity to shoot the 100S (though looking forward to it), I am referring to Phase One files.
    I see. I'm in the same boat with the GFX.

    Is there a GFX 100S? I thought it was just the GFX 100?

    Jim

  6. #156
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    627
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by JimKasson View Post
    I see. I'm in the same boat with the GFX.

    Is there a GFX 100S? I thought it was just the GFX 100?

    Jim

    You know, thank you for pointing that out. I feel like I saw it referred to as GFX 100S somewhere on our price sheet, but now that I look back, it just says GFX 100. Maybe I saw it somewhere else and it stuck in my noggin.


    Steve Hendrix/CI
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Authorized Reseller Digital Cam: • Phase One | Fuji | Leica | Sinar •
    Authorized Reseller TechCam: • Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar •

  7. #157
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    543
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    The difference between 14 bits and 16 bits is entirely in the shadow detail.
    You won't seen any difference in the midtones and highlights.

    - Leigh

  8. #158
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    You know, thank you for pointing that out. I feel like I saw it referred to as GFX 100S somewhere on our price sheet, but now that I look back, it just says GFX 100. Maybe I saw it somewhere else and it stuck in my noggin.
    Before the camera was introduced, that used to be a common way to refer to it, just like X2D is used today. When and if Hassey announces the actual X-series IMX461 camera, they may not call it the X2D, and we'll have to recalibrate our shorthand.

    Jim

  9. #159
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    This whole issue with bits and gradations is a very easy experiment to conduct for the human visual system.

    I did something like this when I was selecting monitors.

    Make a photoshop file in a rectangular format that is 256 pixels long.

    Create a black to white gradient with the start at end points at each end of the rectangle.

    You will get 1 linear pixel length per step, and see if your eyes can pick it apart or get banding.

    I have tried this and I could see banding in 256 steps.

    This can be replicated using different sizes for the rectangle and choosing how many steps you will see.

    For your reference:

    8 bits: 256 steps
    10 bits: 1024 steps
    12 bits: 4096 steps
    14 bits: 16384 steps
    16 bits: 65536 steps


    You can use whatever value for your respective gradient to test your own visual system.

    Another interesting note I found is Photoshop limits its 16 bit values to 0-32,768.

    So in Photoshop you are essentially limited to a 15 bit file.

  10. #160
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Not to perpetuate this aside to the title of this thread, but 16 bits vs 14 bits could be helpful when purposefully underexposing a scene with a large dynamic range, then pulling the shadows in post by several stops. I routinely shoot trees this way, and recently compared a 12- vs. 14-bit image of the same scene post-processed this way, with much better results pulling the detail in the shaded trunk without creating a sea of noise from the 14-bit image.

    Whole scene (14-bit):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tree of Destiny 6-tiny.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	991.3 KB 
ID:	142216

    Trunk crop at 100% (post-processed from 14-bit):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-06-08 at 3.22.52 PM.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	19.8 KB 
ID:	142218

    Trunk crop at 100% (post-processed from 12-bit):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-06-08 at 3.23.47 PM.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	19.8 KB 
ID:	142217

    (No, that's not moss that only appears in a 12-bit workflow... it's noise which I tried (and failed) to post-process to look more moss-y :P)

    Admittedly, this isn't a perfect example for the 14 vs 16-bit argument because it's 12 vs. 14, and because I post-processed each image by hand independently so the process wasn't identical. And the difference is magnified by the fact that the trunk was SO underexposed that there were probably only a handful of bits of value depth within the trunk. But it's a vivid demonstration to me of how a couple extra bits of shadow values can make a difference in the final photo.

    Now I propose we return this thread to discussion of the GFX100
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    287
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Are photon transfer curves available for the major cameras so you can compare them? I've never seen one referred to, but then I've never gone looking for them.

  12. #162
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    Are photon transfer curves available for the major cameras so you can compare them? I've never seen one referred to, but then I've never gone looking for them.
    Check out Bill Claff’s meticulous work:

    http://photonstophotos.net/

  13. #163
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Boinger View Post
    This whole issue with bits and gradations is a very easy experiment to conduct for the human visual system.

    I did something like this when I was selecting monitors.

    Make a photoshop file in a rectangular format that is 256 pixels long.

    Create a black to white gradient with the start at end points at each end of the rectangle.

    You will get 1 linear pixel length per step, and see if your eyes can pick it apart or get banding.

    I have tried this and I could see banding in 256 steps.

    <snip>
    The results of this experiment depends on the brightness of the image. As the image gets brighter, the number of steps that can be seen discreetly increases. It is also affected by the tone curve of the RGB color space in which the experiment is conducted. If you simulate photon noise, the number of steps deceases. The color of the ramp affects the results.

    Of course, it also depends on the precision of the signal sent to the monitor, and whether monitor calibration is performed at the input precision or not. Best to do this test with a 10-bit monitor and a 10-bit data stream. If the program putting up the image performs dithering, that will invalidate the results.

    I once saw an SPIE paper presented that found that, with sRGB at a 100 cd/m2 white point, the typical number of (linear in the gamma-corrected space) steps necessary for no visible posterization for the average of college undergraduate hired subjects was 400. I looked for it a year or two ago and couldn't find it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boinger View Post

    Another interesting note I found is Photoshop limits its 16 bit values to 0-32,768.

    So in Photoshop you are essentially limited to a 15 bit file.
    That's right. It's basically 15-bit unsigned integer plus one state. They did that to get a convenient middle value.

    Jim

  14. #164
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by onasj View Post
    Check out Bill Claff’s meticulous work:

    http://photonstophotos.net/
    Here's a link right to the PTC's. You can pick your camera from the list on the right and see them:

    http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PTC.htm

    Jim

  15. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    287
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by onasj View Post
    Check out Bill Claff’s meticulous work:

    Photons to Photos
    Makes my head hurt. I am asking myself whether it worth investing the time to understand it? Am I going to use the information in deciding which new camera to purchase? For example, is lens selection more important, or will photon transfer function trump it? Or is photon transfer function more fun facts to know and tell? I guess you can't have too much information.
    Last edited by faberryman; 8th June 2019 at 12:51.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #166
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    148

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    Makes my head hurt. I am asking myself whether it worth investing the time to understand it? Am I going to use the information in deciding which new camera to purchase? For example, is lens selection more important, or will photon transfer function trump it? Or is photon transfer function more fun facts to know and tell?
    This will have nothing to do with the optics. Basically, there is no point to understanding it, except for maybe in conversations like this. Most of what it is saying can be described in easier ways. It will not help in your workflow or, more to the point, you can intuitively come to the same results without that detail. For those that like the technical aspect of digital imaging, it is interesting. For the type of photography that people do here, it is not helpful for most.

    Bottom line? Learn to expose for your scene and camera and know how to process that image for a pleasing result.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #167
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    Makes my head hurt. I am asking myself whether it worth investing the time to understand it? Am I going to use the information in deciding which new camera to purchase? For example, is lens selection more important, or will photon transfer function trump it? Or is photon transfer function more fun facts to know and tell? I guess you can't have too much information.
    Most cameras are good enough these days that DR is not the long pole in the tent when it comes to picking a camera. In the film days you could pick film and developers without knowing your posterior from your elbow about H&D curves, color shift with exposure, or the Zone System. Those folks that understood that stuff thought it made them better photographers, but there were plenty of top-notch photographers who didn't understand it, didn't care, didn't process their own work, and were very successful.

    But you're here on the MF forum, so by your presence you've indicated that you're not totally satisfied with what you can get from FF cameras, and are at least interested in spending a lot of dough and time to move beyond that. So it may be worthwhile learning the ins and outs of digital photography at a technical level. Just like with the Zone System, there are those who get obsessed with the technical part of the process, and for them the knowledge may not be a good thing. But if you use it to make better images, it is.

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

  18. #168
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    The amount of steps for a gradation to appear smooth doesn't directly relate to a certain number of steps the sensor has to capture anymore, because almost every modern sensor can capture more than enough. It's about how much you can distort the gradations in post while still maintaining a smooth appearance to the gradation. The difference between 240 and 480 fps in video playback is also virtually imperceptible, but it can still be beneficial to shoot that way, even if you only ever use it in a 25fps video. If you need to slow down the footage in post the difference can become quite obvious. It's the same with photos, if you need the ability to stretch out small portions of a gradation, you need more steps in your RAW-file.
    The reason that film has long stayed popular among landscape photographers is that there is no limit to the amount of steps, so even if you shot a forest scene with only greens you could still get differentiation, whereas sensors often had trouble.

  19. #169
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    952
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    135

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    The discussion is about the perception of the final image. The human visual system cannot distinguish between a 14-bit image and a 16-bit one.
    There are a lot of steps from that 14 and 16bit capture to an image on a piece of paper, and lot of very complex calculations and manipulations going on.

    is the data “different” on a 16 vs 14 bit capture? If it’s different, isn’t it possible that all of what happens between the capture and the output could make a difference in color accuracy or other factors?

    After all, we’re judging this by looking at a print that isn’t printed in 14-bit or 16 bit but a de- moisaced and contrived interpretation of what was original data reconstructed and manipulated to achieve a visual image that we expect it to be. Shooting in 16bit might even be considered a type of over sampling, something often used to get more accurate results from digital to analog systems.

    I might agree that differences of a simple gradient on a print derived from a 14 bit vs 16 bit image might not be resolvable by the human eye, but I think that’s an over simplification of what’s going on with a digital sensor and system.
    wayne
    My gallery

  20. #170
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,389
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by JimKasson View Post
    Thanks for the kind words. It's quite freeing to not feel I have to a) read every post on that forum, b) not correct statements that are objectively, verifiably wrong there, and not be drawn into what seem like endless, circular, acrid, logic-free, no-testing allowed, tribal discussions.



    Attachment 142002

    Jim
    Hi Jim,

    Sorry for that, I know what you mean. Your knowledge will be missed.

    Best regards
    Erik

  21. #171
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,389
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    Makes my head hurt. I am asking myself whether it worth investing the time to understand it? Am I going to use the information in deciding which new camera to purchase? For example, is lens selection more important, or will photon transfer function trump it? Or is photon transfer function more fun facts to know and tell? I guess you can't have too much information.
    Hi,

    I would suggest that you can just check the Photographic DR curve. Keep in mind, though that the ISO axis is not calibrated. There is a lot of liberty in ISO settings.

    The left side of the curve is DR at base ISO. It says how many stops below clipping there will be acceptable detail. That number is normalised, it can be compared for different pixel counts and sensor sizes.

    Next you can see if there is a sudden increase on DR between two ISO steps. That indicates analogue gain increase (good) or noise reduction.

    On the Sony A7rII, the camera switches to high analogue gain at 640 ISO. That means that you will get somewhat less shadow noise at 640 ISO than at 400 ISO.

    You can also look at the shadow noise improvement curves. They tell you how much noise improves with increasing EV.

    Modern MF cameras use Sony CMOS and they are somewhat similar but GFX100 has dual gain conversion while GFX 50 has not.

    With increasing ISO you normally loose DR. The curves by BClaff help in finding a good exposure strategy.

    Just as an example, assume that you are shooting handheld at an exhibition in a pretty dark church. The church has mosaic windows and you want to keep some detail.

    On the Sony A7rII you can set ISO 640 and underexpose two steps. That gives you 2560 effective ISO but keeps much of the DR, thus protecting highlight detail.

    The GFX 100 also has dual gain conversion, but it seems to kick in earlier. It may be that GFX 100 handles high ISOs differently from the GFX 50
    Best regards
    Erik
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 8th June 2019 at 21:13. Reason: Adding example
    Homepage: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
    Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/in.../photoarticles
    Portfolio: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #172
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,389
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Hi,

    In essence, the number of usable bits is given by the engineering DR. If per pixel engineering DR is say 14 EV you need 14 bits to represent it. Prior this year, the only MFD sensor delivering more that 14 bits of DR was the 100 MP 54x41 mm sensor introduced with IQ 3100MP. Before that all Phase One backs used a fake 16 bit file format, actually using 14 bits and blowing up the data to 16 bits opening the file.

    With the IQ3100 MP Phase One introduced a 16 bit file format.

    16 bits may be useful on the GFX 100, it has a 16-bit readout mode, but it slows the camera down, to 2 FPS if I recall correctly.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by onasj View Post
    Not to perpetuate this aside to the title of this thread, but 16 bits vs 14 bits could be helpful when purposefully underexposing a scene with a large dynamic range, then pulling the shadows in post by several stops. I routinely shoot trees this way, and recently compared a 12- vs. 14-bit image of the same scene post-processed this way, with much better results pulling the detail in the shaded trunk without creating a sea of noise from the 14-bit image.

    Whole scene (14-bit):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tree of Destiny 6-tiny.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	991.3 KB 
ID:	142216

    Trunk crop at 100% (post-processed from 14-bit):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-06-08 at 3.22.52 PM.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	19.8 KB 
ID:	142218

    Trunk crop at 100% (post-processed from 12-bit):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-06-08 at 3.23.47 PM.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	19.8 KB 
ID:	142217

    (No, that's not moss that only appears in a 12-bit workflow... it's noise which I tried (and failed) to post-process to look more moss-y :P)

    Admittedly, this isn't a perfect example for the 14 vs 16-bit argument because it's 12 vs. 14, and because I post-processed each image by hand independently so the process wasn't identical. And the difference is magnified by the fact that the trunk was SO underexposed that there were probably only a handful of bits of value depth within the trunk. But it's a vivid demonstration to me of how a couple extra bits of shadow values can make a difference in the final photo.

    Now I propose we return this thread to discussion of the GFX100

  23. #173
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    148

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    I might agree that differences of a simple gradient on a print derived from a 14 bit vs 16 bit image might not be resolvable by the human eye, but I think that’s an over simplification of what’s going on with a digital sensor and system.
    I could not agree more. Oddly enough, that was my main critique that simply stating shoot at 16-bit is going to result in a perceptually different result than a 14-bit file was an oversimplification itself. I certainly would not suggest not using technology for its benefits. I also think the these improvements are having diminishing returns and their significance is not being understood. If someone asks me if buying a 16-bit camera is going to improve the quality of their images from the 14-bit camera they have now, I could not state it would.

    I get photographers can be a little OCD and FOMO is a real problem. But I could setup a randomized blind test that would show that many of these factors are not in fact perceptible in images. While technical issues are easy to talk about--just pick the biggest number to get the better results--we never really discuss the cognitive aspects of the perception of what we make.
    Last edited by Shashin; 9th June 2019 at 07:42.

  24. #174
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    515
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Not to... well, whatever, I love the Portland tree! So @onasj, this is Hasselblad SWC Ektar 100 (I think)



    Clearly moss :-). Full view



    Flextight 848 scan. We now return you to the scheduled GFX100 discussion.

  25. #175
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by richardman View Post
    Not to... well, whatever, I love the Portland tree! So @onasj, this is Hasselblad SWC Ektar 100 (I think)



    Clearly moss :-). Full view



    Flextight 848 scan. We now return you to the scheduled GFX100 discussion.
    Even better, if you ever have the chance to rescan this on a modern system (e.g. DT Film Scanning Kit) I think you'll be shocked how much more there was on the film than a Flextight or drum scanner was able to extract, especially when it comes to deeply saturated colors in a shadow area. My appreciation for film and the lab coats that engineered film emulsions has definitely increased over the past few years of doing R+D on modern approaches to film scanning.
    Last edited by dougpeterson; 10th June 2019 at 07:23.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  26. #176
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    627
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    There is no doubt that a 16-bit image has advantages over a 14-bit one. But what exactly is it? Car companies make Supercars that cost millions of dollars that are amazing machines. But they still will not get me to work any faster than my Toyota--there are practical limits to speed. I can also get the fastest computer available, but it will not change the efficiency of my email correspondence. And as you said, it is complicated. Engineers tend to simply focus on performance in an absolute sense without the actual implications on the final result (I know, I worked with the engineers at a camera company). And seriously, how many here will be able to take advantage of a 100MP sensor? Even with a 42" printer, these images will be idling.

    Yup, you can show all kinds of advantages with quantitative data. The problem is images are finally filtered through the human visual system. That is a similar problem of putting your Supercar on a crowded road with a posted speed limit of 35mph. (Or rounding your tax returns to four decimal places.)

    Lets not forget, engineers are incentivised to produce better products. If any one of them come out and simply states the current products are fine and we can stop development, they might be out of a job.

    I am all for developing photographic tools, but I also think photographers need to understand what those developments mean in real terms.

    Yes, and it is important to note that engineers are not marketers, and while they may do a fantastic job of extracting maximum quality, marketing does not always do a great job of showing that quality to potential purchasers (which is their job). Ultimately, this is likely because the differences can often be subtle, and subtle is not an easy sell.

    The thing about the quantitative data state and the human visual state is that there is a lot in between that happens to the quantitative data that presents it to the human eye to visualize, and this takes numerous forms, ink on paper (and the myriad options and variations that entails), pixels on a display, etc. If the entirety of superior image quality (noise, dynamic range, color reproduction, rendering, etc.) can be viewed at the end result stage, then that is what matters. I'm saying that it may be too subtle for marketing to get interested in telling that difficult story.

    Yes, engineers must continue to develop. The key is in how much extra quality can they extract from a 16 bit image from the same sensor vs a 14 bit image that will matter to the end user. The fact that it is a subtle difference says they have done their job well with a high quality device even at 14 bit. But at the very high end of imaging, those small differences can and should matter. In any event, given a choice, I'll choose the higher quality image, even if it is just a teensie weensie bit. I'm not interested in shooting at a faster capture rate (some may be in certain situations) or worried about optimizing the amount of hard drive space I have.

    The nice thing is that anyone who has a device capable of generating both 14 bit and 16 bit files is capable of viewing the results themselves and making a choice (though that does not guarantee they will see or appreciate the differences).


    Steve Hendrix
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Authorized Reseller Digital Cam: • Phase One | Fuji | Leica | Sinar •
    Authorized Reseller TechCam: • Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar •

  27. #177
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    515
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    Even better, if you ever have the chance to rescan this on a modern system (e.g. DT Film Scanning Kit) I think you'll be shocked how much more there was on the film than a Flextight or drum scanner was able to extract, especially when it comes to deeply saturated colors in a shadow area. My appreciation for film and the lab coats that engineered film emulsions has definitely increased over the past few years of doing R+D on modern approaches to film scanning.
    I believe it! I will save up $ for a test scan!

  28. #178
    Senior Member JoelM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA USA
    Posts
    493
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    I think records sound much better than CDs.



    Joel
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #179
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,389
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Hi Erik,

    It think that camera is called the GFX 100.

    What improvements would you expect from the GFX 50S Mark 2?

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Lundqvist View Post
    Very excited about the GFX100S, but I don't think this is the camera for me. Hopefully, I will manage to bide my time here and see what Fuji (and Hasselblad) does next. I'd be much more interested in a GFX50S Mark 2 right now.

  30. #180
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    303
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Nobody mentioned the new Alpa XO?

    Is that because it’s just a cage and 15mm rod system similar to those made by numerous other manufacturers only not at Alpa pricing?

    Don’t think any other manufacturer has dipped their toe in the water with a similar product yet though but that will happen if the GFX gets traction in the film world.
    They are just tools for a job.

  31. #181
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi Erik,

    It think that camera is called the GFX 100.

    What improvements would you expect from the GFX 50S Mark 2?

    Best regards
    Erik
    In GFX 50S M2 I would expect better ergonomics and better EVF.

  32. #182
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by SrMphoto View Post
    In GFX 50S M2 I would expect better ergonomics and better EVF.
    As an owner of a 50S not very enticing.
    More to my liking the GFX 100, while also keeping the 50S.
    With best regards, K-H.

  33. #183
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Munich/Guangzhou
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Monitors - as far as I know - show either 8 bit or 10 bit dynamic range, print maybe only 5 bit.
    So: How to see the difference of a sensor output of 12, 14 or 16 bit dynamic range (apart from lifting the shadows in raw)?

  34. #184
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by chrismuc View Post
    Monitors - as far as I know - show either 8 bit or 10 bit dynamic range, print maybe only 5 bit.
    So: How to see the difference of a sensor output of 12, 14 or 16 bit dynamic range (apart from lifting the shadows in raw)?
    Once a curve, dodge, burn, or highlight/shadow recovery tool is used.
    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

  35. #185
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    693
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    24bit via LUT https://imagescience.com.au/products...edge-cg319x-4k

    [the 10 bit mentioned is the serial digital signal for broadcast BVM monitors]


    Quote Originally Posted by chrismuc View Post
    Monitors - as far as I know - show either 8 bit or 10 bit dynamic range, print maybe only 5 bit.
    So: How to see the difference of a sensor output of 12, 14 or 16 bit dynamic range (apart from lifting the shadows in raw)?

  36. #186
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Munich/Guangzhou
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Satrycon View Post
    24bit via LUT https://imagescience.com.au/products...edge-cg319x-4k

    [the 10 bit mentioned is the serial digital signal for broadcast BVM monitors]
    Digital sensors only detect brightness information. The typical Bayer array adds green, blue and red filters in front of each sensor pixel. The other two color channels are interpolated from the colors of the neighbour channels. So, in a certain way, the DR is for example 14 bit brightness, but converted/interpolated to 3x 14 bit color information.

    The 24 bit via LUT mentioned here is only 3x 8 bit (isn't it?).
    So again: how to really see the DR of a raw image, if not first compressed?

    I get your point Doug, if a curve is applied, that theoretically could make a difference. But the compression or cut-off from the raw image to the DR of a monitor or print is so tremendous that I really have doubts that on a on a 8/10 bit DR monitor or a 5 bit DR print the difference between a 14 bit DR sensor and a 16 bit (which actually mostly is only 15 bit real DR) sensor can be seen. Can you show comparison samples?

  37. #187
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,714
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    This thread has gone off song for me.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #188
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by chrismuc View Post
    I get your point Doug, if a curve is applied, that theoretically could make a difference. But the compression or cut-off from the raw image to the DR of a monitor or print is so tremendous that I really have doubts that on a on a 8/10 bit DR monitor or a 5 bit DR print the difference between a 14 bit DR sensor and a 16 bit (which actually mostly is only 15 bit real DR) sensor can be seen. Can you show comparison samples?
    Output dynamic range is almost irrelevant to this conversation. The only question is what range of contrast is in the original scene, and what parts of that scene you wish to contain detail (as opposed to being clipped black or clipped white), and only in situations where you can't control the lighting contrast (e.g. you can't turn off the sun in a landscape or add a fill card like you can in the studio). One can demonstrate this even with 1 bit output (black or white only) provided you can use a bit of dithering. If you record it in the scene, you can represent it in the print. Of course, whether it is aesthetically useful to do so depends on the scene, the artist, and the intention of the work; a drive to always include all tonal range from a scene is a great way to get very low contrast muddy looking prints, or worse, garish HDR-looking images.

    This isn't just theory, but can be seen in real-world images, albeit only in problematic scenes (e.g. contrasty light). We have 14 bit vs 16 bit raw file tests we've done with the IQ3 100mp in central park a couple years ago that shows it quite clearly. I'd be stepping on this thread to post them here, but feel free to email me.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  39. #189
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by chrismuc View Post
    Monitors - as far as I know - show either 8 bit or 10 bit dynamic range, print maybe only 5 bit.
    This depends entirely on the tone curve. If linear, 5 bits corresponds to a print Dmax of -log10(2^-5) = 1.5 at SNR = 1.

    Jim

  40. #190
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    Output dynamic range is almost irrelevant to this conversation.
    Agree. In a practical sense, not completely irrelevant, but certainly not very important. That was the basis of my comments about scene-referred vs output-referred files. (That was here, right? [Yes, it was; I see it at the bottom of this page.]).

    Also you can't compare the precision of linear files with those that have tone curves applied.*

    Jim

    *Nerdy clarification: you can do such comparisons if you take into account the first derivative of the tone curve and its effect on precision when mapped back to linear.
    Last edited by JimKasson; 12th June 2019 at 06:53.

  41. #191
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by JimKasson View Post
    Agree. In a practical sense, not completely irrelevant, but certainly not very important. That was the basis of my comments about scene-referred vs output-referred files. (That was here, right? [Yes, it was; I see it at the bottom of this page.]).

    Also you can't compare the precision of linear files with those that have tone curves applied.*

    Jim

    *Nerdy clarification: you can do such comparisons if you take into account the first derivative of the tone curve and its effect on precision when mapped back to linear.
    Jim, you're one of my very favorite posters here. You're always accurate and practically informative without being demeaning, oversimplifying, or pedantic*– a rare ability for someone who knows so much of the technical nitty gritty. If you're ever in NYC I'd be very glad to buy you a beer.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #192
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    My 2c, as someone who has shot a lot of high quality images on Phase backs. For me 16bit worked at 100asa only, and was just just noticeable in darkest shadow discrimination (around 1-8 of 255). And I mean only noticeable by extreme pixel peeping. Anything without deepest shadow detail, I couldn't see any difference at all, compared to 14bit.

    Choosing 16bit brought slower shutter speeds, longer writes (not ready for next capture =missed images) and less storage on cards. I settled happily on 14 bit, especially as 200asa is my default (one extra stop: 1/250 vs 1/500, when handheld) and once you move off base ISO, 16bit was redundant, as DR dropped.

    Of course my needs are not yours, so YMMV.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #193
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,389
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by chrismuc View Post
    Monitors - as far as I know - show either 8 bit or 10 bit dynamic range, print maybe only 5 bit.
    So: How to see the difference of a sensor output of 12, 14 or 16 bit dynamic range (apart from lifting the shadows in raw)?
    Hi,

    That is a good question...

    The way I see it we may have a great dynamic range. Than we have the task of converting that range to something we can show on screen or print.

    Here is an image I am working on right now:


    Dynamic range is great and a piece of magic light. But how can I fit in in the DMax of matte paper?!

    Best regards
    Erik
    Homepage: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
    Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/in.../photoarticles
    Portfolio: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #194
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    2,245
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    It’s my understanding that the 16bit Capture with a P1 back is really advantageous at base ISO. I might have it wrong as very little has been published on it. For sure it slows down the Capture with the ES on both 3100 an IQ4. I am hoping that with the IQ4 the 16 bit Capture is still useable past 50.

    Still seems like the thing to use when conditions allow.

    Paul C

  45. #195
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    When taking an image I naively assume there must be a number of more important considerations than worrying about 14 or 16 bit capture, no?
    With best regards, K-H.

  46. #196
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    287
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    When taking an image I naively assume there must be a number of more important considerations than worrying about 14 or 16 bit capture, no?
    Like a lot of menu choices, choosing 14 or 16 bit is a set and forget operation so you don't have to think about it once you have made your decision.

  47. #197
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    That is a good question...

    The way I see it we may have a great dynamic range. Than we have the task of converting that range to something we can show on screen or print.

    Here is an image I am working on right now:


    Dynamic range is great and a piece of magic light. But how can I fit in in the DMax of matte paper?!

    Best regards
    Erik
    Erik - that is a lovely lovely image, I think the best you've posted. Congrats!

  48. #198
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Erik - that is a lovely lovely image, I think the best you've posted. Congrats!

    +1, great light, colors, and composition.
    With best regards, K-H.

  49. #199
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    693
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    neat video..can clearly see the IBIS "cage"

    https://youtu.be/AgwlbI4gE18

  50. #200
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,389
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji GFX 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Erik - that is a lovely lovely image, I think the best you've posted. Congrats!
    Hi Geoff,

    Thanks for that kind comment!

    Best regards
    Erik

Posting Permissions

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