12 Bit vs 14 Bit for my macro work?

[oneofone25]

I need some assistance. I need some technical advice.

I’ve been shooting with the EM1 Mark 2 and Mark 3 for around 5 years now. 95% of my photography is using high resolution mode, manually focus bracketing images in 50 or 80MP high resolution mode to then stack in Helicon. I then take that large file (I use jpeg setting), and take it to Lightroom. There, I crop down the image to usually around 20MP (from the 80MP), getting a field of view of around 1mm to 1.25mm. Overall I’m happy with my results and my customers are too. Im using the 90mm with the MC-20 teleconverter to get 4:1.

But my question is regarding the new 12 bit vs 14 bit files with the new OM1 Mark 2. Would that add any DETAIL to my images? Or is it just about colors? I suppose I don’t understand the whole “BIT” thing? But I need to understand it in regards to this decision. Do I get the OM1 Mark 2, and bracket high resolution 80MP raw files, process them, and then stack the jpegs to get much improved results ? Or will those new results be unnoticeable with what I’m doing?

Here’s an example of one of the files I did - a butterfly wing at 4:1, high resolution 80MP, stacked around 70 images and then cropped down from there to get this 1mm field of view. It gets me SIMILAR results to if i was using a 20x or 30x objective with tube lens and automated rail…but without the hassle (and not quite the exact results).

Any thoughts are welcome
I included a sand grain photo at the end to show you what most of my work consists of…



Crop to 1mm or thereabouts



Original stack:



Pointing to the area I photographed on the wing:




what most of my sand images look like, 1mm field of view, and a full reflection:

 

[BudgetTraveller]

I also do macro work with both my full frame and MFT. While most of my macro work is done with MFT in high-res mode and stacking, specifically with my E-M5 Mark II, I sometimes noticed that there is some posterization happening in the darker background, similar to the macro stone shot you did and when the shot involves quite a number of shadow areas. This is where I think 14bit RAW helps and that's when I use my full frame camera in 14bit mode to reduce background color posterization and improves shadow detail.

I was told by a Nikon rep long ago that 14bit RAW helps smooth out the tonal transition over different tones in the shadow areas. It also helps improve detail retention, since tonal transition is smoother. However, I wish I would use my full frame more often, but sometimes the situation doesn't always warrant the need to go 14bit. I would say 10% of my work would require full frame, but 90% would be using MFT.

What I see from the OM-1 Mark II 14bit RAW files is that, it does offer smoother tonal transition in the shadow areas, thus reduce posterization and improving shadow detail retention. Personally though, I can't justify the cost of adding one anyhow, since my problem can be solved using my full frame kit.

Hope this helps.

 

[oneofone25]

I also do macro work with both my full frame and MFT. While most of my macro work is done with MFT in high-res mode and stacking, specifically with my E-M5 Mark II, I sometimes noticed that there is some posterization happening in the darker background, similar to the macro stone shot you did and when the shot involves quite a number of shadow areas. This is where I think 14bit RAW helps and that's when I use my full frame camera in 14bit mode to reduce background color posterization and improves shadow detail.

I was told by a Nikon rep long ago that 14bit RAW helps smooth out the tonal transition over different tones in the shadow areas. It also helps improve detail retention, since tonal transition is smoother. However, I wish I would use my full frame more often, but sometimes the situation doesn't always warrant the need to go 14bit. I would say 10% of my work would require full frame, but 90% would be using MFT.

What I see from the OM-1 Mark II 14bit RAW files is that, it does offer smoother tonal transition in the shadow areas, thus reduce posterization and improving shadow detail retention. Personally though, I can't justify the cost of adding one anyhow, since my problem can be solved using my full frame kit.

Hope this helps.

that does help - the issue for me would be that a full frame 14 bit setup would struggle to get the images I get unless I went to a 10x microscope objective and automated rail with tube lens setup, which just makes things more cumbersome.



Im thinking that processing the high rez 14 bit files would be extra work that is unnecessary considering I’m getting pretty great results using the high resolution images as is, and my customers are more than happy. See, I sell the sand grain images, and they come with the grains glued to the mat u set the prints. So far no complaints, and I cannot imagine the images improved…

that’s why I asked OM if I could borrow one of the new cameras for 2 days to (1) see if it connects to my focus bracketing software I had created for me so that I can bracket while in high resolution mode and (2) compare the 14 bit raw files to the 8bit high resolution jpegs I’m getting now to see if there is any noticeable improvement.

Here’s an example of my sand grain prints I call “1of1’s”….

see the grains in the small window in the mat under the print?

 

[BudgetTraveller]

I also do macro work with both my full frame and MFT. While most of my macro work is done with MFT in high-res mode and stacking, specifically with my E-M5 Mark II, I sometimes noticed that there is some posterization happening in the darker background, similar to the macro stone shot you did and when the shot involves quite a number of shadow areas. This is where I think 14bit RAW helps and that's when I use my full frame camera in 14bit mode to reduce background color posterization and improves shadow detail.

I was told by a Nikon rep long ago that 14bit RAW helps smooth out the tonal transition over different tones in the shadow areas. It also helps improve detail retention, since tonal transition is smoother. However, I wish I would use my full frame more often, but sometimes the situation doesn't always warrant the need to go 14bit. I would say 10% of my work would require full frame, but 90% would be using MFT.

What I see from the OM-1 Mark II 14bit RAW files is that, it does offer smoother tonal transition in the shadow areas, thus reduce posterization and improving shadow detail retention. Personally though, I can't justify the cost of adding one anyhow, since my problem can be solved using my full frame kit.

Hope this helps.

that does help - the issue for me would be that a full frame 14 bit setup would struggle to get the images I get unless I went to a 10x microscope objective and automated rail with tube lens setup, which just makes things more cumbersome.

Im thinking that processing the high rez 14 bit files would be extra work that is unnecessary considering I’m getting pretty great results using the high resolution images as is, and my customers are more than happy. See, I sell the sand grain images, and they come with the grains glued to the mat u set the prints. So far no complaints, and I cannot imagine the images improved…

that’s why I asked OM if I could borrow one of the new cameras for 2 days to (1) see if it connects to my focus bracketing software I had created for me so that I can bracket while in high resolution mode and (2) compare the 14 bit raw files to the 8bit high resolution jpegs I’m getting now to see if there is any noticeable improvement.

Here’s an example of my sand grain prints I call “1of1’s”….

see the grains in the small window in the mat under the print?

Totally agree. I had never had anyone complained about the hi-res images that came out of my E-M5 Mark II and so, it is my main macro rig. Dealing with 14bit RAW files and stacking with my full frame rig is a total pain in the butt compared to my MFT. And the gains are little. Only I could spot the gain, but even then it might not even show up on prints! The gains are so imperceptible that I still use full frame for some stuff, but as I said before, it's only 10% for what I use it for.

An OM system rep let me use the OM-1 Mark II during launch and the first thing I did was test its 14bit RAW. I think there were some Pros that needed 14bit RAW for nature and macro work. That's why it was put in there for.

 

[grsnovi]

Boy Ethan, that butterfly wing shot is beautiful!

Why don't you see if you could rent one and see for yourself if YOU see a difference.

 

[oneofone25]

Boy Ethan, that butterfly wing shot is beautiful!

Why don't you see if you could rent one and see for yourself if YOU see a difference.

 

[Danielvr]

But my question is regarding the new 12 bit vs 14 bit files with the new OM1 Mark 2. Would that add any DETAIL to my images? Or is it just about colors? I suppose I don’t understand the whole “BIT” thing?

The greater bit depth in the file format doesn't prove that the files will actually hold more data (just like a bigger envelope doesn't necessarily hold a longer letter).

In theory the images might have a bit less noise, i.e. a slightly better dynamic range, which would translate into slightly better tonality and a minute improvement in discernible 'real' detail. Personally I would not expect a big difference and the dynamic range chart on Photonstophotos seems to agree. Also, if you keep downsizing your files from 80 to 20 MP, surely that will reduce whatever benefit the OM-1 II offered to zero..

 

[tdekany]

Boy Ethan, that butterfly wing shot is beautiful!

Why don't you see if you could rent one and see for yourself if YOU see a difference.

looking into it, but I live far away from any large area that would have a place to rent one from

You can rent online. Very easy and fast. Are you on the east or west coast?

 

[knickerhawk]

I need some assistance. I need some technical advice.

I’ve been shooting with the EM1 Mark 2 and Mark 3 for around 5 years now. 95% of my photography is using high resolution mode, manually focus bracketing images in 50 or 80MP high resolution mode to then stack in Helicon. I then take that large file (I use jpeg setting), and take it to Lightroom. There, I crop down the image to usually around 20MP (from the 80MP), getting a field of view of around 1mm to 1.25mm. Overall I’m happy with my results and my customers are too. Im using the 90mm with the MC-20 teleconverter to get 4:1.

But my question is regarding the new 12 bit vs 14 bit files with the new OM1 Mark 2. Would that add any DETAIL to my images? Or is it just about colors? I suppose I don’t understand the whole “BIT” thing? But I need to understand it in regards to this decision. Do I get the OM1 Mark 2, and bracket high resolution 80MP raw files, process them, and then stack the jpegs to get much improved results ? Or will those new results be unnoticeable with what I’m doing?

Here’s an example of one of the files I did - a butterfly wing at 4:1, high resolution 80MP, stacked around 70 images and then cropped down from there to get this 1mm field of view. It gets me SIMILAR results to if i was using a 20x or 30x objective with tube lens and automated rail…but without the hassle (and not quite the exact results).

Any thoughts are welcome
I included a sand grain photo at the end to show you what most of my work consists of…

There will be virtually no advantage to you and a potential disadvantage of moving to the OM1ii. The extra 2-bits are all about the potential for capturing a tiny bit of extra low frequency tonal detail in the deepest shadows. This is made possible by the increased aggregate exposure times inherent in HHHR and pixel shift shots. Your shots, however, are all about high frequency detail. As you've found with your output from Helicon using 8-bit JPEGs, high frequency detail doesn't require deeper bit depth. Even 8 bits is more than sufficient for fully representing that kind of detail. Assuming you've tested Helicon's 8-bit JPEG output vs 16-bit TIFF output and you don't see any meaningful difference, then you can very safely assume that the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit input isn't going to add information that's useful for your use case.

Where the OM1 might actually let you down is with respect to use of tripod HR (pixel shift) mode because it can result in highlight clipping that you're not experiencing with your EM1ii and iii cameras when using the same mode. This issue is explained here. Subsequent posts in the thread describe a workaround based on uniWB, but you might find that to be a PITB for your type of shots. My guess is that controlling specular highlights/reflections from your sand grains is more likely to be a problem than squeezing out more deep shadow detail, so this limitation of the OM1 is something to keep in mind.

 

[Photongraphy]

Beautiful images!

As for your question, a simple test:

If you convert an optimally exposed (max DR) and sharp (detailed) RAW file (12 bit) to a 16 Bit TIFF file and to uncompressed JPEG (8 bit) and compare both side by side you can experience the effect of max 4 bits less DR (the 16 bit TIFF file will have no more DR than the RAW file). Can you see a difference in detail (if any difference at all)? Btw remember the difference between 12 and 14 bit is (at best) even 4 times smaller.