Phase One IQ4 - Feature Update 1

[Wayne Fox]

With XF set a timer delay around 3 to 5 sec to help keep XF vibration reduced since took doesn’t respect the XF vibration reduction seismic tool.

Mine works fine. doesn’t trigger until the camera isn’t moving. just tested it.

 

[Paul2660]

Mine works fine. doesn’t trigger until the camera isn’t moving. just tested it.

Interesting. I need to try it again.

Quickly moved back to tech camera for most of my testing.

Paul C

 

[trond]

I did a bit of testing yesterday, with frame averaging up to 12 minutes and 3440 frames, and the results are truly great.

Moving water is silky smooth, shadows with lower noise than I have ever seen.

I did come across a couple of quicks with the IQ4 on Cambo WRS1250:

1. Bug?: In the shutter speed menu, while in frame averaging, the pull down menu doesn’t work properly.
It is not possible to select the shutter speed directly as in single frame shooting. The pull down menu pops up as it should, but nothing happens if I tap the shutter speed I need. I need to use the +/- to step the shutter speed.

2. Observation: If set to record dark frame before entering frame averaging, the back stops recording the dark frame after a few shots.
Doing one single shot will reinstate the dark frame, but only to disappear again after a few frame averaging shots. I was using shutter
speed of 1/10 to 1 second.

Is it possible that the back is reusing a previous dark frame shot a few minutes earlier at the same shutter speed?

It would be nice to get other user’s comments on this and any other quirks.

Best regards

Trond

 

[SCHWARZZEIT]

The Vibration Delay Mode on the XF works with the Frame Averaging Tool. It's just not that obvious since the progress bar already shows up once you trigger the sequence. But the progress bar doesn't progress until the sequence is captured which only starts when the trigger conditions for Vibration Delay are met.

-Dominique

 

[vjbelle]

Novice Question: I don't have my back yet but what would be the advantage/disadvantage of using a slower shutter vs. a faster speed. If I wanted to smooth out water wouldn't either work well as long as the number of frames were there to average?

Victor

 

[lky888]

Indeed. Most of the downsides are, intuitively, the same as with any long exposure. Compositing/masking with a single exposure should be a powerful way to ameliorate them.

Looking forward to seeing what you do with this new tool.

I have just downloaded and installed the new firmware. It seems that the single frame exposure time can not go longer than 2s on this final public version firmware? This will be quite limiting for nature photography

 

[Paul2660]

I have just downloaded and installed the new firmware. It seems that the single frame exposure time can not go longer than 2s on this final public version firmware? This will be quite limiting for nature photography

Change your shutter speed/aperture or both.

For example at ISO 50 F11 shutter speed of 0.5 sec I can dial from 1.0 sec to 30 min. Total time is your interval and is changeable via a dial once clicked on.

Paul C.

 

[lky888]

Change your shutter speed/aperture or both.

For example at ISO 50 F11 shutter speed of 0.5 sec I can dial from 1.0 sec to 30 min. Total time is your interval and is changeable via a dial once clicked on.

Paul C.

Hi Paul,

I was not clear in my earlier post. My apology. I am a tech cam user only. On my digital back, I can only select shutter speeds of no longer than 2.0s under the "Individual Frames" column. I wonder if this is a limit set by P1 on tech cam applications.

KY.

 

[Paul2660]

Not sure what is going on there as I am on tech camera also.

Make sure your ES is turned on? Not sure if tool will show if ES in off.

Paul C

 

[SCHWARZZEIT]

Hi Paul,

I was not clear in my earlier post. My apology. I am a tech cam user only. On my digital back, I can only select shutter speeds of no longer than 2.0s under the "Individual Frames" column. I wonder if this is a limit set by P1 on tech cam applications.

KY.

2.0s is currently the longest shutter speed for individual frames in the Frame Averaging Tool. It's the same when the IQ4 is on the XF.

 

[Paul2660]

Yes, for shutter speed, I took his post to mean total time interval. As a 10 minute shot is around 1200 frames at 2.0s.

Thanks for clarification.

It's interesting that P1 choose to use no longer than the 2.0 shutter speed.

As for working with water, not sure now it all would come together until I get a chance to shoot.

Since the longest shutter speed is 2.0 sec, what will the final image look like? A true 10 minute exposure, running water will in many situations totally disappear and almost turn to smoke, but since the longest single shutter speed is 2.0, what does 1200 frames averaged together appear as? In the 7 minute shot from P1, the water in the ocean IMO took on the effect of a much longer single frame, not a single 2.0 sec shot, so I am assuming a river/creek will do the same.

I also wonder how highlights will be effected on water, as in normal daylight, even at ISO 50, you can't get close to a 1 sec exposure on water without at least a ND 6 and a CLPL, within normal operating apertures, of say F8 to F11. So if you pick 2.0 sec with only a CL-PL and as for a 5 minute shot 600 frames, what will that appear as, will the water show blown out highlights as it would on a single 2.0 exposure with only a CL-PL and F11?

I have not shot water yet but am hoping to get around it later this month. The bigger issue for me in a natural scene is the vast amount of movement blurring that occurs, even at 1/500 for shutter speed and 1/4 of a sec interval. Note, you can get different interval settings if you drop out of the 16 bit high quality setting, to either normal 16 bit or 14 bit, you get a bit more leeway.

It's just like working stacking with Star trails, you still have to pick a single image as the best image for the part of the scene without the sky as the stacking creates blur also. But since sky has a horizon line it's much easier to layer back a stacked star blended sky to the bottom image, where as in a frame averaged shot, you will have blurred leaves that are covering back ground elements, and you really can't blend it back very easily, at least I can't.

Just very dependent on the scene as to where this can be used.

Paul C

Paul C

Paul C

 

[dougpeterson]

Since the longest shutter speed is 2.0 sec, what will the final image look like? A true 10 minute exposure, running water will in many situations totally disappear and almost turn to smoke, but since the longest single shutter speed is 2.0, what does 1200 frames averaged together appear as?

In the 7 minute shot from P1, the water in the ocean IMO took on the effect of a much longer single frame, not a single 2.0 sec shot, so I am assuming a river/creek will do the same.

The raw you speak of had a fast per-frame shutter speed of 1/125 which means a sharp capture of the water followed by large gap between each capture, repeated many many times. That kinda-sorta equals out to smoke, but if you look carefully you can see where the water is many many many many many sharp waters blended together. That is subtly different than a single long exposure.

So again... if the shutter speed is relatively slow and renders motion in a blurred-per-frame-way with no gaps between frames the effect will be identical to one continuous uninterrupted exposure in terms of motion/subject, but with far less noise in the shadows (even lower than the already very low noise of a normal IQ4 capture).

If the shutter speed selected is fast and sharply renders moving objects with large gaps between frames (e.g. 1/125) then you you'll get something similar, but not identical.

I also wonder how highlights will be effected on water, as in normal daylight, even at ISO 50, you can't get close to a 1 sec exposure on water without at least a ND 6 and a CLPL, within normal operating apertures, of say F8 to F11. So if you pick 2.0 sec with only a CL-PL and as for a 5 minute shot 600 frames, what will that appear as, will the water show blown out highlights as it would on a single 2.0 exposure with only a CL-PL and F11?

Each individual frame of the averaging is exposed the same as a normal frame. Though, since the light may change while these frames are being captured, and because you don't want any pixel to blow out if you can avoid it, it will likely be deemed best practice to underexpose by a stop compared to if you were doing a normal capture. Considering this technique makes the shadows several stops cleaner, the net result should still be a significant increase in usable dynamic range.

I have not shot water yet but am hoping to get around it later this month. The bigger issue for me in a natural scene is the vast amount of movement blurring that occurs, even at 1/500 for shutter speed and 1/4 of a sec interval. Note, you can get different interval settings if you drop out of the 16 bit high quality setting, to either normal 16 bit or 14 bit, you get a bit more leeway.

Yep. It's a long exposure technique. So if your scene and desired aesthetic won't tolerate a long exposure technique (or a long exposure + single frame + compositing; which as you note sometimes is workable and sometimes is not) then Frame Averaging is not for you.

 

[Paul2660]

Since the longest shutter speed is 2.0 sec, what will the final image look like? A true 10 minute exposure, running water will in many situations totally disappear and almost turn to smoke, but since the longest single shutter speed is 2.0, what does 1200 frames averaged together appear as?



The raw you speak of had a fast per-frame shutter speed of 1/125 which means a sharp capture of the water followed by large gap between each capture, repeated many many times. That kinda-sorta equals out to smoke, but if you look carefully you can see where the water is many many many many many sharp waters blended together. That is subtly different than a single long exposure.

So again... if the shutter speed is relatively slow and renders motion in a blurred-per-frame-way with no gaps between frames the effect will be identical to one continuous uninterrupted exposure in terms of motion/subject, but with far less noise in the shadows (even lower than the already very low noise of a normal IQ4 capture).

If the shutter speed selected is fast and sharply renders moving objects with large gaps between frames (e.g. 1/125) then you you'll get something similar, but not identical.



Each individual frame of the averaging is exposed the same as a normal frame. Though, since the light may change while these frames are being captured, and because you don't want any pixel to blow out if you can avoid it, it will likely be deemed best practice to underexpose by a stop compared to if you were doing a normal capture. Considering this technique makes the shadows several stops cleaner, the net result should still be a significant increase in usable dynamic range.



Yep. It's a long exposure technique. So if your scene and desired aesthetic won't tolerate a long exposure technique (or a long exposure + single frame + compositing; which as you note sometimes is workable and sometimes is not) then Frame Averaging is not for you.

Well it does surprise me, that P1 did not attempt any type of Image alignment in C1? This is not Pixel shift I realize that, but Pixel shift on the K1 created a similar type of blur. Even on a faster shutter speed. Some raw converters (C1 not included or ACR) found ways to combine the 4 files and come out with acceptable images, not all the time but some. My question is based the ability to to to 1/500 of a second and 1/4 of sec interval, could P1 figure out an alignment solution for certain exposures. I fully realize that a 7 minute shot will never align, but on the flip side the 1/500 frame averaged images are significantly cleaner that the proof is there for very clean images, and you can see throughout the image. If later on an alignment setup was created in C1, this would be an even greater feature.

Paul C

 

[vjbelle]

Since the longest shutter speed is 2.0 sec, what will the final image look like? A true 10 minute exposure, running water will in many situations totally disappear and almost turn to smoke, but since the longest single shutter speed is 2.0, what does 1200 frames averaged together appear as?



The raw you speak of had a fast per-frame shutter speed of 1/125 which means a sharp capture of the water followed by large gap between each capture, repeated many many times. That kinda-sorta equals out to smoke, but if you look carefully you can see where the water is many many many many many sharp waters blended together. That is subtly different than a single long exposure.

So again... if the shutter speed is relatively slow and renders motion in a blurred-per-frame-way with no gaps between frames the effect will be identical to one continuous uninterrupted exposure in terms of motion/subject, but with far less noise in the shadows (even lower than the already very low noise of a normal IQ4 capture).

If the shutter speed selected is fast and sharply renders moving objects with large gaps between frames (e.g. 1/125) then you you'll get something similar, but not identical.



Each individual frame of the averaging is exposed the same as a normal frame. Though, since the light may change while these frames are being captured, and because you don't want any pixel to blow out if you can avoid it, it will likely be deemed best practice to underexpose by a stop compared to if you were doing a normal capture. Considering this technique makes the shadows several stops cleaner, the net result should still be a significant increase in usable dynamic range.



Yep. It's a long exposure technique. So if your scene and desired aesthetic won't tolerate a long exposure technique (or a long exposure + single frame + compositing; which as you note sometimes is workable and sometimes is not) then Frame Averaging is not for you.

Extremely helpful Doug..... Answered a lot of my internal questions...

Victor

 

[etrump]

Love that portfolio!!!!

I like your choice of words:

https://www.kasson.com/gallery/staccato/

View attachment 142680

Jim

 

[etrump]

The noise reduction on as short as a minute or two is incredible. Even at ISO 50 it’s immediately noticeable on the db screen. The rendering of the light is also substantially better. Cannot wait to use this tool in Prague next week.

Total game changer for my work. Seems I’m always using some type long exposure/short exposure blending. I’m thinking exposing for the highlight and being able to raise the shadows with no noise will make for some interesting results and allow me to avoid blending shadow exposures which I seem to constantly spend hours on.

 

[vjbelle]

Will be interesting to see if you can rid the Charles Bridge of people. The bridge is always crowded....

Have a great trip...

Victor

 

[etrump]

Not so bad 4:30am!

Will be interesting to see if you can rid the Charles Bridge of people. The bridge is always crowded....

Have a great trip...

Victor

 

[Mexecutioner]

Not so bad 4:30am! ��

Indeed, early worked for me for this shot. After 5AM there's just too many people.

Actually the morning I took this image there was just one other person taking almost the same framing with his Alpa STC and an IQ back. Last year when I got my Phase One system my wife told me just the day I got it: "I knew you wanted one of those since we went to Prague a year ago". The girl was paying attention.

 

[beano_z]

Indeed, early worked for me for this shot. After 5AM there's just too many people.

Actually the morning I took this image there was just one other person taking almost the same framing with his Alpa STC and an IQ back. Last year when I got my Phase One system my wife told me just the day I got it: "I knew you wanted one of those since we went to Prague a year ago". The girl was paying attention.

Well you're lucky, my wife still thinks my ALPA TC is just an overpriced aluminium ring.....

Anyway, who else tried the new averaging feature and felt limited by the 2sec single exposure limit?

I tried to shoot a high contrast scene at sunrise the other day and after I came back I realised that 15-shot frame averaged image did show quite a lot of noise in the (very) dark areas. My idea was to set a fixed total exposure time and single exposure time, then dial in the actual exposure I wanted by varying the ISO value. So I started out at ISO 3200, the moved slowly towards ISO 50 as the ambient brightness increased.

What I saw afterwards was:

1) I preferred the image taken at around ISO 1600 for its exposure (balance between artificial and natural light)
2) The images at or under ISO 200 had negligible noise levels in the deep shadows (ISO 50 was the most crisp)

So I'm faced with a dilemma here when shooting in low light: since the maximum length of every single exposure is only 2 seconds, I'm being forced to use a higher ISO when doing frame averaging, which besides noise also causes quite some hot pixels in the shadow areas.

So I'm not sure whether the situation with noise and hot pixels will improve if I take more images (longer total exposure length), has anyone systematically tried this yet?

Of course, having said that, the outcome of the ISO 1600 image was still better in the deep shadows than a single ISO 50 long exposure in "normal" mode, so I'm not really complaining, just sort of wishing Phase One would eliminate the 2 sec upper limit, even though I realise that they could be doing so for very valid reasons (as in no dark frame can be shot so heat related artefacts will become more apparent for longer single exposures).