What's wrong with the Quattro

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
What's wrong with the Quattro
5 months ago

can be seen in another comparison to the DP2 Merrill.

Same scene, roughly same time of day, a month apart. Apart from a small X3F and exposure increase no other adjustments to the DP2 Q in SPP - noise reduction sliders in the leftmost position. Finally USM with 100% and radius 1 applied (same as to the DP2 Merrill shot). No further colour corrections.

DP2 Quattro:

DP2 Merrill:

There is no issue caused by atmospheric conditions - look at the lower left corner and the white buildings in the distance.

The rendering of the Quattro (or lack of) of the trees in the distance is plain wrong (and ugly) - this also shows very clearly in an A3+ print, unfortunately.

To me it looks that the Quattro in its current iteration is a 'two-headed beast' - capable of producing stunning pictures (Wesley Wong has shown what the DP2 Quattro is capable of) and then a plain failure when it comes to simple landscape pictures as in the examples above.

Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP2 Quattro
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner
Forum ProPosts: 18,645Gear list
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to mroy, 5 months ago

How do you find it wrong?

To me it seems odd the Quattro would be worse in print as the background trees look more detailed than the Merrill.

What does need more work is sharpening artifacts from SPP though.  I was thinking that may be your real issue with the image...

Have you tried using Mike's recent approach of sharpening all the way down and then re-sharpening?

 Kendall Helmstetter Gelner's gear list:Kendall Helmstetter Gelner's gear list
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
I'm not surprised
In reply to Kendall Helmstetter Gelner, 5 months ago

Kendall Helmstetter Gelner wrote:

How do you find it wrong?

To me it seems odd the Quattro would be worse in print as the background trees look more detailed than the Merrill.

What does need more work is sharpening artifacts from SPP though. I was thinking that may be your real issue with the image...

Have you tried using Mike's recent approach of sharpening all the way down and then re-sharpening?

if you can't find anything wrong.

And no - this has nothing to do with sharpening artifacts in SPP - sounds like clutching at straw to me.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
maple
Senior MemberPosts: 2,760
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to mroy, 5 months ago

Agree with Kendall. Nothing's wrong with Q's, just different.

P has finer details with smoother tonal transition. M has greater micro contrast that makes distant subjects look being closer, thus more vivid, though not necessarily natural.

It seems that both images could benefit from finer sharpening. 1 pixel at 100% seems a lot, for Q and M. But I'm no expert in pp.

-- hide signature --

Maple

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jennyrae
Senior MemberPosts: 2,189Gear list
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to mroy, 5 months ago

maybe ask Wesley Wong what you are doing wrong with Quattro. because Wesley seem to find how to make great use of camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richard stone
Senior MemberPosts: 1,621
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to mroy, 5 months ago

Once again you are comparing different images, taken many days apart. The corn and red flowers have been growing. The leaves on the hillside trees have been getting darker.

First: Failure? That's the wrong word.

Second, as to rendering... The trees are still there, the leaves are there, it's just different. Meanwhile, the contrast is much more realistic in the q. And it's a more pleasant picture.

Third, the sharpening artifacts in the q are disturbing. The M image does not show that kind of damage. At that point it's even more difficult to properly compare the two images.

I remember, years ago, reading a comment about the Foveon "look," made by a very capable photographer, who liked the technology, and he noted that the Foveon look really worked best with nearby subjects. The Merrill seems to show a hyper-reality in terms of even distant contrast, but it is not sharper than the q. And the color from the M is not better than the q. It's just different.

Maybe you could try try the "haze removal" sharpening technique on the q image? It's really very detailed.

But really, no one is going to force you to buy a q. At least I very much doubt that.

Richard

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MarkWW
Contributing MemberPosts: 616
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to mroy, 5 months ago

I said it before in reference to another photo and I'll say it again - the Quattro image looks "sharpened, not sharp" right down to halos around the central tree. The trees in the background looks more washed out & "same" on the Quattro whereas you can see depth and texture on the Merrill. The grass also looks taller on the Quattro... oh wait. There's also that "spray of sand" look to the sky & the "oil paint" look to the grass.

What happens if you take the sharpness down in SPP? What I think we're seeing in SPP is blurring AND sharpening or different kinds of sharpening (color edge detection & luminance sharpening) doing weird things to each other.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jennyrae
Senior MemberPosts: 2,189Gear list
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to richard stone, 5 months ago

why torture one self? if Quattro is not camera for person, just return and be done with it. no use kicking dead dog over and over. looking for validation? ask people to convince self eventhough already made decision? very counter-productive and asinine discussion from what I see.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 8,757
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to maple, 5 months ago

maple wrote:

Agree with Kendall. Nothing's wrong with Q's, just different.

P has finer details with smoother tonal transition. M has greater micro contrast that makes distant subjects look being closer, thus more vivid, though not necessarily natural.

It seems that both images could benefit from finer sharpening. 1 pixel at 100% seems a lot, for Q and M. But I'm no expert in pp.

I'm not convinced that Foveon images need any sharpening at all.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
maple
Senior MemberPosts: 2,760
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to D Cox, 5 months ago

D Cox wrote:

I'm not convinced that Foveon images need any sharpening at all.

Yes, I agree with that for DP. For SD, it depends on the lens.

-- hide signature --

Maple

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Raist3d
Forum ProPosts: 33,371Gear list
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to mroy, 5 months ago

I honestly think in this shot, overall, it looks better on the Quattro. Thought it seems to have some sharpening artifacts, but nothing that seems to me that couldn't be fixed.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wesley Wong
Regular MemberPosts: 380
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to mroy, 5 months ago

Just wait for an upcoming version update of SPP to rectify or mitigate this.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Thanks, Wesley!
In reply to Wesley Wong, 5 months ago

Wesley Wong wrote:

Just wait for an upcoming version update of SPP to rectify or mitigate this.

I very much respect your work (both as a photographer and a printer (for instance the collaboration on Ultra Prints with Ming Thein)) and I'm glad to hear that there is hope

There is so much to like about the Quattro - like the new design, which in my opinion is a stroke of genius, the exceptional build quality, the responsiveness.

If they can fix the 'foliage' issue, then I'm prepared to give the Quattro another try.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Has it ever occured to you
In reply to jennyrae, 5 months ago

jennyrae wrote:

why torture one self? if Quattro is not camera for person, just return and be done with it. no use kicking dead dog over and over. looking for validation? ask people to convince self eventhough already made decision? very counter-productive and asinine discussion from what I see.

that I might also be thinking about the future, where Sigma might go down the 'mainstream' road and leave all those DP Merrill lovers alone and without any alternative but to clutch to their Merrils and hope they still work in 5 years time, say?

Has it ever occured to you that I very much like the rendering of the Foveon sensors so far and don't see me buying a Bayer camera and be as happy with that as with my DP2 Merrill?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to richard stone, 5 months ago

richard stone wrote:

Once again you are comparing different images, taken many days apart. The corn and red flowers have been growing. The leaves on the hillside trees have been getting darker.

The corn and the red flowers are not the point. Have you not read my post?

First: Failure? That's the wrong word.

Second, as to rendering... The trees are still there, the leaves are there, it's just different. Meanwhile, the contrast is much more realistic in the q. And it's a more pleasant picture.

It isn't. It's actually pretty bad. I had taken a walk in exactly the same location today and paid close attention to te details. I can assure you that the Q picture is wrong in the distance.

Third, the sharpening artifacts in the q are disturbing. The M image does not show that kind of damage. At that point it's even more difficult to properly compare the two images.

I remember, years ago, reading a comment about the Foveon "look," made by a very capable photographer, who liked the technology, and he noted that the Foveon look really worked best with nearby subjects. The Merrill seems to show a hyper-reality in terms of even distant contrast, but it is not sharper than the q. And the color from the M is not better than the q. It's just different.

Maybe you could try try the "haze removal" sharpening technique on the q image? It's really very detailed.

There is no 'haze removal' sharpening technique.

But really, no one is going to force you to buy a q. At least I very much doubt that.

See my reply to jennyrae below for some possible reasons why I might want the Q to be a success.

But really - no one is going to force you to comment on each and every post on this forum ...

Richard

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RitterRunkel
Regular MemberPosts: 142Gear list
Like?
Re: What's wrong with the Quattro
In reply to maple, 5 months ago

maple wrote:

Agree with Kendall. Nothing's wrong with Q's, just different.

P has finer details with smoother tonal transition. M has greater micro contrast that makes distant subjects look being closer, thus more vivid, though not necessarily natural.

It seems that both images could benefit from finer sharpening. 1 pixel at 100% seems a lot, for Q and M. But I'm no expert in pp.

That's what I'm thinking as well. But it's difficult to see anything here, since one has to compare images after USM with 1px @ 100% ... Both images are pretty f*cked up due to PP and not worth close consideration.

 RitterRunkel's gear list:RitterRunkel's gear list
Sigma DP1 Sigma DP2x Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma SD14
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Another one who can't read
In reply to RitterRunkel, 5 months ago

maple wrote:

Agree with Kendall. Nothing's wrong with Q's, just different.

P has finer details with smoother tonal transition. M has greater micro contrast that makes distant subjects look being closer, thus more vivid, though not necessarily natural.

It seems that both images could benefit from finer sharpening. 1 pixel at 100% seems a lot, for Q and M. But I'm no expert in pp.

That's what I'm thinking as well. But it's difficult to see anything here, since one has to compare images after USM with 1px @ 100% ... Both images are pretty f*cked up due to PP and not worth close consideration.

No pp in the first image apart from USM, as mentioned in my post. Minimal pp in the second pic, including USM.
F****d up??

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RitterRunkel
Regular MemberPosts: 142Gear list
Like?
Re: Another one who can't read
In reply to mroy, 5 months ago

mroy wrote:

maple wrote:

Agree with Kendall. Nothing's wrong with Q's, just different.

P has finer details with smoother tonal transition. M has greater micro contrast that makes distant subjects look being closer, thus more vivid, though not necessarily natural.

It seems that both images could benefit from finer sharpening. 1 pixel at 100% seems a lot, for Q and M. But I'm no expert in pp.

That's what I'm thinking as well. But it's difficult to see anything here, since one has to compare images after USM with 1px @ 100% ... Both images are pretty f*cked up due to PP and not worth close consideration.

No pp in the first image apart from USM, as mentioned in my post. Minimal pp in the second pic, including USM.
F****d up??

USM = pp. Don't know what the images look to your eyes (maybe you have a screen with a very very high pixel density?), but to me your USM is way too heavy - especially with X3 images. I wouldn't even USM most of my Bayer images that heavily. Obviously you like accentuated pixel textures. But USM rather destroys the real detail to show more artefacts / halos due to USM. This may look like even more detail afterwards, but it's not.

 RitterRunkel's gear list:RitterRunkel's gear list
Sigma DP1 Sigma DP2x Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma SD14
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JohnLindroth
Senior MemberPosts: 2,330
Like?
I agree with you mroy...
In reply to mroy, 5 months ago

The Q image is nothing like the M, and much worse.

Can you post the Q image with sharpening set to 0 and no extra sharpening?

-- hide signature --

http://gallery.johnlindroth.com/
john@johnlindroth.com
My future starts when I wake up every morning ...
Every day I find something creative to do with my life.
--Miles Davis

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Earthrise
Regular MemberPosts: 442Gear list
Like?
Re: I agree with you mroy...
In reply to JohnLindroth, 5 months ago

JohnLindroth wrote:

Can you post the Q image with sharpening set to 0 and no extra sharpening?

-- hide signature --

http://gallery.johnlindroth.com/
john@johnlindroth.com
My future starts when I wake up every morning ...
Every day I find something creative to do with my life.
--Miles Davis

Yep, could you post the Q shot again with no USM? It sure looks ugly with it.  Since you mentioned you applied the USM to the Merrill image as well it looks like your demonstrating that you can sharpen Merrill images to your hearts content which is a "Foveon" trait.  But, try the same with the Quattro then it will break down.  Which is a bayer like tendency.  However, if the Quattro image is fine without the USM why apply it?  And for that seeing the un-USM'd Quattro image would be very useful.

Thanks Al

 Earthrise's gear list:Earthrise's gear list
Ricoh GXR Mount A12 Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 Super Wide Heliar Voigtlander 28mm F2 Ultron Voigtlander 40mm F1.4 Nokton Classic +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads