Mexecutioner
Well-known member
I got rid of all of mine with the IQ4150. Only ones I kept were 2 CPL. I almost bought the WineCountry 150mm contraption and I am so glad I didn't as it would have taken a lot of space in my bag.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
CI Impressions of Phase One Dual Exposure + and New Firmware 7 for IQ4
- Thread starter Steve Hendrix
- Start date
BFD
Active member
Well, the whole back is Beta...
Maybe even Alpha considering the issues we seen for the past 18 months.Craig Stocks
Well-known member
I just ran a quick test pointed an LED night light and to be honest I don't see much difference between DualExposure+ and a straight frame. However a 30 second frame average shows dramatic improvement. In fact there's so little difference that I had to check the file metadata to confirm that it was the DualExposure+ frame.
I also noticed that the frame average one is the only one that looks correct in C1. Both the straight frame and the DualExposure+ frames show significant artifacts in C1 that don't show up in exported PSDs.
See the overall frame SOC and 100% samples of the three conditions. Granted this is pushing things a lot.
I also noticed that the frame average one is the only one that looks correct in C1. Both the straight frame and the DualExposure+ frames show significant artifacts in C1 that don't show up in exported PSDs.
See the overall frame SOC and 100% samples of the three conditions. Granted this is pushing things a lot.
Attachments
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
In the Read Me from our article, it does state there will be artifacts that show in Capture One with pushed shadows of Dual EXP + files until you zoom in/process the file.
I see a significant advantage in the Dual EXP+ files in the shaodws over the single shot file. The Frame Averaged takes that further - if you have the time for the frame averaged shot. If you don't, then that is exactly what Dual EXP+ is intended for.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Craig.... although your post shows a clear advantage for FA for your taking conditions those conditions aren't reflective of how I would or intend to use Dual Exposure. I expect that all of my images will be taken outdoors with the intent of finally getting rid of my NGD filters - which means that I would be maybe pushing 2 stops and or taking shadows way up with the addition of tweaking extreme highlight in post. So far with my limited experience with this if I don't want to have a blown sky I can expose for the sky and manage the image in post with a 2 exposure push (+-), a little tweaking of highlights and shadows and this completely replaces my NGD filters which is a welcome improvement for me. It is a feature I'm sure I'll use fairly often and to me is much more useful than FA.
That said..... your post is very welcome and an eye opener for anyone who has even remotely not realized the benefits of FA...
Victor B
That said..... your post is very welcome and an eye opener for anyone who has even remotely not realized the benefits of FA...
Victor B
Craig Stocks
Well-known member
Maybe what's most surprising (to me anyway) is just how good the 4150 sensor is. Just for fun I did a comparison using my Sony a7r2 using the same angle of view. I have the Smooth Reflection app on the camera so I was also able to do an in-camera frame average of 48 frames.
I didn't make any attempt to compensate for the difference in resolution. I frame my photos based on an angle of view and I crop and print them based on the composition I want. The intent was to compare the Sony in the same shooting conditions to produce the same resulting image.
The results were pretty much what you'd expect, not nearly as good as the IQ4150.
A couple other observations too. The Sony was not nearly as easy to focus in live view as the IQ4150 - that surprised me. Also, my workflow was much simpler with the IQ4150 since I have it tethered via Ethernet (and powered with POE) so the frames go straight to my computer in an adjacent room. With the Sony I had to shoot to a card and then walk the card into the next room to import it into C1 (I know, it's absolutely stone age technology).
I didn't make any attempt to compensate for the difference in resolution. I frame my photos based on an angle of view and I crop and print them based on the composition I want. The intent was to compare the Sony in the same shooting conditions to produce the same resulting image.
The results were pretty much what you'd expect, not nearly as good as the IQ4150.
A couple other observations too. The Sony was not nearly as easy to focus in live view as the IQ4150 - that surprised me. Also, my workflow was much simpler with the IQ4150 since I have it tethered via Ethernet (and powered with POE) so the frames go straight to my computer in an adjacent room. With the Sony I had to shoot to a card and then walk the card into the next room to import it into C1 (I know, it's absolutely stone age technology).
Attachments
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Apologies if this has already been mentioned.
Both FA and DE+ are techniques available to anyone with any camera. The advantage of FA in-camera is the huge reduction in storage and processing vs doing it in post. But blending two exposures purely for shadow noise is an old trick. Given that the shadow exposure takes 8 times as long as the highlight exposure, there isn't a huge speed advantage having them both read off the same exposure. I'm not discounting the advantage of having this done in-camera; that is a Good Thing. But I'm surprised, with all the focus on DR in recent years, that the two exposure method hasn't seen more ... exposure.
Well, once again, theory says one thing, practice says another. I hope these techniques spread to other manufacturers. Kudos (again) to Phase One.
Matt
Both FA and DE+ are techniques available to anyone with any camera. The advantage of FA in-camera is the huge reduction in storage and processing vs doing it in post. But blending two exposures purely for shadow noise is an old trick. Given that the shadow exposure takes 8 times as long as the highlight exposure, there isn't a huge speed advantage having them both read off the same exposure. I'm not discounting the advantage of having this done in-camera; that is a Good Thing. But I'm surprised, with all the focus on DR in recent years, that the two exposure method hasn't seen more ... exposure.
Well, once again, theory says one thing, practice says another. I hope these techniques spread to other manufacturers. Kudos (again) to Phase One.
Matt
Last edited:
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Ok Phase One, you may have slightly redeemed yourself after teasergate ... :thumbup:
This firmware update looks like it’ll finally add something for non-XT users. The dual exposure+, like frame averaging, make me happier about the IQ4150 investment. Time to flash the firmware!
This firmware update looks like it’ll finally add something for non-XT users. The dual exposure+, like frame averaging, make me happier about the IQ4150 investment. Time to flash the firmware!
Wayne Fox
Workshop Member
Other than the fact developing these really nice and advance features is diverting resources from fixing what should have been there when it was shipped or a couple of months later.
Agreed it looks very promising, with this and frame averaging (which I do like for seascapes) I am reconsidering which camera to take to Hawaii.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
My travel camera these days is my Fuji GFX100 vs my Phase One gear. I love shooting with IQ4150 but the XF is too heavy and the Actus - actually nothing wrong with the Actus if the new LV focusing works.
It would be nice if P1 would allow non-IQ4 users access to this directly inside C1. I mean it's not dependent on the actual hardware of the IQ4 since it's basically an implementation of Guillermo Luijk's 'Zero Noise' technique from thirteen years ago - so all a user would need to do is take two images 4 stops apart (one for highlights, one 4 stops past the highlights exposure), select them in C1 and hit the 'zero noise' button (if there was one). Luijk found 3 images to be optimal, but sensor technology has come on since then so I guess you can achieve similar results with two these days (but it would be nice to have an option inside C1 to select 2 or 3 frames so it would work with older P1 backs). Until then, this is the way to do it in PS for all us other P1 users (remember us P1? Nope, didn't think so): http://jtrujillo.net/qpix/
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Thank you for posting the link!
dj may
Well-known member
I can confirm this. Since I started using Leica S in 2016, my standard procedure for extreme lighting conditions has been to do an exposure that is the best possible for a single image, and then 2 stops plus and 2 stops minus. Then, I merge all three frames.
I just did a test on an image that I had completed with three frames, using only two frames, excluding the middle frame. The result is virtually indistinguishable from the the 3-frame merge.
I agree with Matt, that other camera manufacturers should work on doing the the 2-frame averaging in-camera. I expect that a processor change would be probable for anything more than two frames. I do not know if patents come into play with this.
Something for which to compliment Phase One in the midst of this dissatisfaction.
thedigitalbean
Member
Its awesome to see Phase innovating and making the back better but this known issue:
"ES exposures on Technical Camera can have a top band of digital vignetting"
makes this a non-starter for me as all my images are shot on a tech camera with ES. Anyone else in the same boat? Really frustrating...
"ES exposures on Technical Camera can have a top band of digital vignetting"
makes this a non-starter for me as all my images are shot on a tech camera with ES. Anyone else in the same boat? Really frustrating...
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
So far, it seems to be working normally with the remote release when using Dual Exposure +.
Also, the delay between when you can take another Dual Exposure + shot (you can take another normal shot anytime), is relative to the shutter speed of the exposure. For example, 1/60th of a second show 1/8 second delay before next DE+ capture is allowed, while a .9 second exposure (the max), shows a 7 second delay.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Mexecutioner
Well-known member
I noticed the responsiveness and accuracy of my IQ4150 screen improved after this upgrade. I used to struggle sometimes clicking on the right spot, particularly at the left and right edges of the screen, so I welcome this improvement.
Liveview is much much better now, that's also great to have back.
Liveview is much much better now, that's also great to have back.
I have yet to see a small icon indicating FA. I would like to see that first as it should be easy to implement.