-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Quattro & Merrill Moon Shot
- Thread starter rick decker
- Start date
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
No surprises there.
The Quattro look soft and the Merrill harsh.
I like the Quattro better. You can enhance local contrast if you want to.
EDIT:
Looking again I see that the Quattro is a bit too soft. Is it really sharp?
--
/Roland
Kalpanika X3F tools:
https://github.com/kalpanika/x3f
The Quattro look soft and the Merrill harsh.
I like the Quattro better. You can enhance local contrast if you want to.
EDIT:
Looking again I see that the Quattro is a bit too soft. Is it really sharp?
--
/Roland
Kalpanika X3F tools:
https://github.com/kalpanika/x3f
Last edited:
Thanks for posting, Rick.Tonight:
Quattro Moon
Merrill Moon
BTW, no contest, ;-)
:-D
--
Ted
I always thought that the Quattro has some drawbacks compared to the sensor in the Merrill models. Assuming that everything was set up in the same way, this comparison clearly shows that the Quattro has a disadvantage in S/N and acutance.Thanks for posting, Rick.Tonight:
Quattro Moon
Merrill Moon
BTW, no contest, ;-)
:-D
--
Ted
I own both models (SD1 and sdQH) and would really love to see a clear advantage for the Quattro. Sigh....
Very interesting Rick. Thank you for posting these. Now it might be not just clouds anymore that the Merrills excel at, huh?
BTW, how many shots did you try before you got those two? . . . and can we play with the raw files?
I'm actually surprised what a difference there seems to be. I see that the Merrill shot was made at f5.6 and the Quattro shot was made at f8. Could that be the cause of the softness? Are these OOC jpegs or what?
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com
BTW, how many shots did you try before you got those two? . . . and can we play with the raw files?
I'm actually surprised what a difference there seems to be. I see that the Merrill shot was made at f5.6 and the Quattro shot was made at f8. Could that be the cause of the softness? Are these OOC jpegs or what?
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com
Last edited:
Feel like shooting some photos of the moon with each of your two cameras, using your longest high-quality lens and posting your results here?I always thought that the Quattro has some drawbacks compared to the sensor in the Merrill models. Assuming that everything was set up in the same way, this comparison clearly shows that the Quattro has a disadvantage in S/N and acutance.Thanks for posting, Rick.Tonight:
Quattro Moon
Merrill Moon
BTW, no contest, ;-)
:-D
--
Ted
I own both models (SD1 and sdQH) and would really love to see a clear advantage for the Quattro. Sigh....
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
Interesting. I have not seen this big a disparity between the two, as a matter of fact I have seen better results from the Q detail wise.
Somehow the Q image isn't all it could be i think. It looks like it was either movement or out of focus in the enlargement.
Somehow the Q image isn't all it could be i think. It looks like it was either movement or out of focus in the enlargement.
DavidWright2010
Senior Member
Good comparison, Rick. All the Quattro moon images I've seen are inferior to the best Merrill ones.
And concerning my effort here - there were some high clouds, and the Moon was only about 30 degrees above the horizon when I shot this.
That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.
David
And concerning my effort here - there were some high clouds, and the Moon was only about 30 degrees above the horizon when I shot this.
That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.
David
jande9
Senior Member
Whoa. That takes me back! Squinting through my Patterson focusing aid while reaching back over my head for the knob, getting that Tri-X grain nice and sharp. Nice memories.
Jan
rick decker
Forum Pro
I picked the best of the group and set sharpening to -1.0. It was difficult to decide about how much contrast to add. Probably especially subjective in this type of shot.
rick decker
Forum Pro
I picked the best of several shots for each. I had more issues with noise on the Q than the M. The had NR off and Detail 0 (left). Some contrast work. I can make RAW available
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
Last edited:
rick decker
Forum Pro
I used the older 500 f4.5....Here is an old Merrill from years ago:
Sharpened and upsized quite a bit and 1.4 tc:
500 4.5 + 1.4 tc
--
Sharpened and upsized quite a bit and 1.4 tc:
500 4.5 + 1.4 tc
--
Galleries by Rick Decker
www.pbase.com
DavidWright2010
Senior Member
Heavily processed (600 mm):I used the older 500 f4.5....Here is an old Merrill from years ago:
Sharpened and upsized quite a bit and 1.4 tc:
500 4.5 + 1.4 tc
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
David
TN Args
Forum Pro
Yes please.
Note that robbing the Quattro of a stop of light is always going to be unfair. Where have I seen that done before? ;-)
rick decker
Forum Pro
1st one is noticeably (and excellent) sharper than 2nd. I find a lot of contrast work necessary where I am. Probably true for you also?
LOL.
As I recall in those halcyon early Quattro days, wasn't Sigma talking about an extra stop of light compared with Merrill?
So maybe Rick was trying for "equivalent" shots?
rick decker
Forum Pro
Args: Please ask Quattro to forgive me. However, unless I am mistaken which is possible, the Quattro showed and needed a half to a stop less light. However in the interests of "truth, justice and the American way", I will make the RAW files available.
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
LOL.
As I recall in those halcyon early Quattro days, wasn't Sigma talking about an extra stop of light compared with Merrill?
So maybe Rick was trying for "equivalent" shots?
TN Args
Forum Pro
since Trump, have those become 3 opposing things? ;-)
richard stone
Senior Member
I have read most of the posts in this thread and it seems to me the Q image needs some sharpening and more NR and higher contrast. But that might not fix what looks like some other problem with blurring and noise.Tonight:
Quattro Moon
Merrill Moon
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
I do not think SPP NR is as good as it needs to be to deal with the sdQ in some situations. I am puzzled by this, because the dpQ0 doesn't seem to suffer from noise that same way. Just thinking about the sdQ and its sensor, in terms of concept, it ought to do better, and some part of SPP might be the problem. The Q sensor at High Resolution is really not very much like the full-on, three colors at each pixel concept of all the earlier sensors.
From my use of the sdQ my feeling is that the maximum smooth setting of SPP seems to eliminate the detail from the top layer. Without that detail there is not much to recommend High Resolution for any use. Better, I think, if we are going to stay with SPP, more in the middle with the smooth-crunchy settings, and the same goes for NR and slightly increased contrast. And some sharpening is necessary: I think -1.0 sharpening might be good if further work is going to be done in another program. But if we propose, as some argue, that the Q looks/works more like a Bayer sensor, then sharpening is not optional, it is required, and +.5 sharpening in SPP is not extreme.
Finally, there appears to be some interaction between these various settings in SPP, and changing one seems to have some influence on the others. SPP as a "post" processing program seems to be adequate for fast work, in simple cases, and the results can be good, but the best results require minimal work in SPP to convert to a .tif file, and then some work in RT or another similar program.
--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox
Similar threads
- Trade
- Trade
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum