Reading mode: Light Dark

Quattro & Merrill Moon Shot

Go to last post
richard stone said:
richard stone wrote: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.
Click to expand...
This might be old, and things might be better now, but Quattro detail really is lost when noise suppression in SPP is increased. I'll take grain instead of smear, myself.


SPP 6.5.0 Luminance noise suppression effect. ISO 800 monochrome shot, auto binning set in SPP.

--
Tom Schum
Every day a new paradigm.
 
Last edited:
Tom Schum said:
Tom Schum said:
richard stone wrote: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.
Click to expand...
This might be old, and things might be better now, but Quattro detail really is lost when noise suppression in SPP is increased. I'll take grain instead of smear, myself.


SPP 6.5.0 Luminance noise suppression effect. ISO 800 monochrome shot, auto binning set in SPP.

--
Tom Schum
Every day a new paradigm.
Click to expand...
Yes, an interesting and unfortunate result. I have not see such a dramatic result in my images, but I have stayed at ISO 400 and below. Doesn't auto binning equate to the low resolution setting? There should not be that much noise in those images.

Honestly, generally I use the 17-50 f2.8 lens and OS, so I set the aperture at 3.5 or 4.0 and ISO 200 (or at most 400) and let the camera set the shutter speed. Usually that ends up being 1/100 or so. So I don't end up with auto binning. I think the OS is a big help at moderate settings. At extremes it is of course less helpful. (That is of course a somewhat circular concept, because the breakdown itself is related to how we recognize and define the extremes.)

I will have to go back and look at what SPP luminance NR is doing to the details. It is in the relationships between these settings where things get confusing, and somewhat difficult to manage.

Richard

--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox
 
Tom Schum said:
Tom Schum said:
richard stone wrote: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.
Click to expand...
This might be old, and things might be better now, but Quattro detail really is lost when noise suppression in SPP is increased. I'll take grain instead of smear, myself.


SPP 6.5.0 Luminance noise suppression effect. ISO 800 monochrome shot, auto binning set in SPP.

--
Tom Schum
Every day a new paradigm.
Click to expand...
Wow, Tom!

Those images are most instructive. While maintaining a healthy disinterest in all things Q, one could not help but take a 400% peep at the lady with the baby:

7279ef2260274fe188dc0b597ccfd288.jpg

Now we know what "smearing" is (lady's coat at left).

I wonder what that smooth patch is at right.

--
Ted
 
xpatUSA said:
Wow, Tom!

Those images are most instructive. While maintaining a healthy disinterest in all things Q, one could not help but take a 400% peep at the lady with the baby:

7279ef2260274fe188dc0b597ccfd288.jpg

Now we know what "smearing" is (lady's coat at left).

I wonder what that smooth patch is at right.
Click to expand...
This is not the first thread that have shown noise in not so well lit parts for Q.

Maybe I have to change my view a bit? Or not?

Generally I think Merrill images are to "dirty" with exaggerated local contrast. Might look hefty, but is a bit tiresome in the long run.

But it seems like Quattro might be very sensible to low exposure.

We have seen in B&W rendering that the top layer of Merrill is much better than the top layer of Quattro.

Sometimes things are difficult.

--
/Roland
Kalpanika X3F tools:
github.com

GitHub - Kalpanika/x3f: Tools for manipulating X3F files from Sigma cameras

Tools for manipulating X3F files from Sigma cameras - Kalpanika/x3f
github.com github.com
 
xpatUSA said:
xpatUSA wrote:Wow, Tom!

Those images are most instructive. While maintaining a healthy disinterest in all things Q, one could not help but take a 400% peep at the lady with the baby:

7279ef2260274fe188dc0b597ccfd288.jpg

Now we know what "smearing" is (lady's coat at left).

I wonder what that smooth patch is at right.
Click to expand...
Good spotting there! I have seen these from time to time, need to look more closely at many images, and maybe I can resolve it down to maybe an oil spot or something simple such as this.

--
Tom Schum
Every day a new paradigm.
 
At first when I saw Quattro image, I thought - what a nice image of the Moon!

But then I saw Merrill...
I would choose Merrill in a heartbeat. It is so much better. It's a shame Sigma does not want to develop it.
 
The Merrill shot is so much more satisfying on pretty much every level, Rick.
 
SigmaChrome said:
The Merrill shot is so much more satisfying on pretty much every level, Rick.

--
Click to expand...
It certainly seems to have been executed so much more satisfyingly on every level. ;-)

raw or it didn't happen :-)
 
Last edited:
TN Args said:
SigmaChrome said:
The Merrill shot is so much more satisfying on pretty much every level, Rick.

--
Click to expand...
It certainly seems to have been executed so much more satisfyingly on every level. ;-)

raw or it didn't happen :-)
Click to expand...
Ah yes, two cameras compared by the "output-referred" method. ;-)
 
TN Args said:
xpatUSA said:
TN Args said:
SigmaChrome said:
The Merrill shot is so much more satisfying on pretty much every level, Rick.

--
Click to expand...
It certainly seems to have been executed so much more satisfyingly on every level. ;-)

raw or it didn't happen :-)
Click to expand...
Ah yes, two cameras compared by the "output-referred" method. ;-)

--
Ted
Click to expand...
Your point evades me -- and anyone else who prefers the common tongue. ;-)
Click to expand...
Short memory then, eh? I was actually agreeing with you. I thought you would get that. :-(

You and I have discussed that terminology before. Just because you disagree with someone's "tongue" doesn't make it go away, in spite of any feigned misunderstanding. ;-)

I am talking about comparing two cameras by looking at some final outputs, like Millier's 8x10 prints. :-D

--
Ted
 
Last edited:
I'm only keeping an eye on this thread in case the OP posts the promised raws. Or PM me a download link if he wants to keep them off public boards.
 
It may be that you will find the RAWs much the same, but:

Somewhere along the way to making an image the files of Merrill series cameras use or get processed by some version of the "haze removal" process based on "unsharp mask sharpening," or in the RT system terms, the "Retinex" filter. The result is cutting through haze of all types, even local fog.

See:

Loading…

rawpedia.rawtherapee.com

Read the whole section.

This is not entirely that great a mystery. It is an excellent demonstration of why the Merrill cameras series cameras do so well at distances, an effect we see again and again, and the Q system does not produce that effect, because it produces an accurate version of the scene. This may not be the entire explanation, but it is part. Meanwhile, removing, or negating, the effects of the atmospheric haze could go a long to explaining this. The Q cameras are way better than this particular comparison shows.

Richard
 
richard stone said:
It may be that you will find the RAWs much the same, but:
Click to expand...
May, or may not. Speculation is a poor substitute.
richard stone said:
Somewhere along the way to making an image the files of Merrill series cameras use or get processed by some version of the "haze removal" process based on "unsharp mask sharpening," or in the RT system terms, the "Retinex" filter. The result is cutting through haze of all types, even local fog.

See:

https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Retinex#Retinex_at_the_beginning_of_the_processing

Read the whole section.

This is not entirely that great a mystery. It is an excellent demonstration of why the Merrill cameras series cameras do so well at distances, an effect we see again and again, and the Q system does not produce that effect, because it produces an accurate version of the scene.
Click to expand...
Yes, well understood that Merrill fabricates ultra-small detail instead of accuracy.
richard stone said:
This may not be the entire explanation, but it is part.
Click to expand...
I want to examine and comment on other parts of the explanation. With raw files.
richard stone said:
Meanwhile, removing, or negating, the effects of the atmospheric haze could go a long to explaining this. The Q cameras are way better than this particular comparison shows.
Click to expand...
Yes, Roland also mentioned that both cameras are nowhere near to their resolution capability in these images. Says that Moon details are largely absent, that other cameras routinely pick up.

cheers
 
TN Args said:
richard stone said:
It may be that you will find the RAWs much the same, but:
Click to expand...
May, or may not. Speculation is a poor substitute.
Click to expand...
Speculation is a beginning. My point is only that I am uncertain where the Merrill images get, shall we say, "enhanced," in regard to these distant details. The "haze removal" effect is quite dramatic in use.
TN Args said:
TN Args said:
Somewhere along the way to making an image the files of Merrill series cameras use or get processed by some version of the "haze removal" process based on "unsharp mask sharpening," or in the RT system terms, the "Retinex" filter. The result is cutting through haze of all types, even local fog.

See:

https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Retinex#Retinex_at_the_beginning_of_the_processing

Read the whole section.

This is not entirely that great a mystery. It is an excellent demonstration of why the Merrill cameras series cameras do so well at distances, an effect we see again and again, and the Q system does not produce that effect, because it produces an accurate version of the scene.
Click to expand...
Yes, well understood that Merrill fabricates ultra-small detail instead of accuracy.
TN Args said:
This may not be the entire explanation, but it is part.
Click to expand...
I want to examine and comment on other parts of the explanation. With raw files.
TN Args said:
Meanwhile, removing, or negating, the effects of the atmospheric haze could go a long to explaining this. The Q cameras are way better than this particular comparison shows.
Click to expand...
Yes, Roland also mentioned that both cameras are nowhere near to their resolution capability in these images. Says that Moon details are largely absent, that other cameras routinely pick up.
Click to expand...
Considering Roland's level of expertise in these matters, that is interesting.
TN Args said:
cheers
Click to expand...
Richard
 
TN Args said:
richard stone said:
It may be that you will find the RAWs much the same, but:
Click to expand...
May, or may not. Speculation is a poor substitute.
TN Args said:
Somewhere along the way to making an image the files of Merrill series cameras use or get processed by some version of the "haze removal" process based on "unsharp mask sharpening," or in the RT system terms, the "Retinex" filter. The result is cutting through haze of all types, even local fog.

See:

https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Retinex#Retinex_at_the_beginning_of_the_processing

Read the whole section.

This is not entirely that great a mystery. It is an excellent demonstration of why the Merrill cameras series cameras do so well at distances, an effect we see again and again, and the Q system does not produce that effect, because it produces an accurate version of the scene.
Click to expand...
Yes, well understood that Merrill fabricates ultra-small detail instead of accuracy.
Click to expand...
"Fabricates", you say. Methinks you fabricate ultra-small facts. Fake facts, if you will.
TN Args said:
TN Args said:
This may not be the entire explanation, but it is part.
Click to expand...
I want to examine and comment on other parts of the explanation. With raw files.
TN Args said:
Meanwhile, removing, or negating, the effects of the atmospheric haze could go a long to explaining this. The Q cameras are way better than this particular comparison shows.
Click to expand...
Yes, Roland also mentioned that both cameras are nowhere near to their resolution capability in these images. Says that Moon details are largely absent, that other cameras routinely pick up.

cheers
Click to expand...
 
SigmaChrome said:
TN Args said:
richard stone said:
Somewhere along the way to making an image the files of Merrill series cameras use or get processed by some version of the "haze removal" process based on "unsharp mask sharpening," or in the RT system terms, the "Retinex" filter. The result is cutting through haze of all types, even local fog.

See:

https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Retinex#Retinex_at_the_beginning_of_the_processing

Read the whole section.

This is not entirely that great a mystery. It is an excellent demonstration of why the Merrill cameras series cameras do so well at distances, an effect we see again and again, and the Q system does not produce that effect, because it produces an accurate version of the scene.
Click to expand...
Yes, well understood that Merrill fabricates ultra-small detail instead of accuracy.
Click to expand...
"Fabricates", you say. Methinks you fabricate ultra-small facts. Fake facts, if you will.
Click to expand...
Better understood by some than others, it seems. Besides, I am only agreeing with Richard's last sentence, so suggest you redirect your accustions of lying to the source.

How do you think 'haze removal' works? If you had read the article you might be much more agreeable! You take the original (literal) information which is rather hazy, then you create a series of masks by fabricating new information (positive and negative) for each site based on surrounding information, then you overlay the fabrications to the original. The result is you remove some information (image information loss), and you create some new image information (fabrication).

Merrill famously removes haze. Guess what? It wasn't by magic! We know what has happened.
 
Hi Tn: As far as my two go, I shot several with each camera on a wimberly. The moon was almost directly overhead. I chose the best of each. There were noticeably worse with the Quattro. I rarely shoot skies at night at my place as there is generally haze from the volcano. It was a very good night although not completely haze free.

Rick
 
TN Args said:
SigmaChrome said:
TN Args said:
richard stone said:
Somewhere along the way to making an image the files of Merrill series cameras use or get processed by some version of the "haze removal" process based on "unsharp mask sharpening," or in the RT system terms, the "Retinex" filter. The result is cutting through haze of all types, even local fog.

See:

https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Retinex#Retinex_at_the_beginning_of_the_processing

Read the whole section.

This is not entirely that great a mystery. It is an excellent demonstration of why the Merrill cameras series cameras do so well at distances, an effect we see again and again, and the Q system does not produce that effect, because it produces an accurate version of the scene.
Click to expand...
Yes, well understood that Merrill fabricates ultra-small detail instead of accuracy.
Click to expand...
"Fabricates", you say. Methinks you fabricate ultra-small facts. Fake facts, if you will.
Click to expand...
Better understood by some than others, it seems. Besides, I am only agreeing with Richard's last sentence, so suggest you redirect your accustions of lying to the source.

How do you think 'haze removal' works? If you had read the article you might be much more agreeable! You take the original (literal) information which is rather hazy, then you create a series of masks by fabricating new information (positive and negative) for each site based on surrounding information, then you overlay the fabrications to the original. The result is you remove some information (image information loss), and you create some new image information (fabrication).

Merrill famously removes haze. Guess what? It wasn't by magic! We know what has happened.
Click to expand...
The haze removal failed badly in this shot.

original.jpg


All the fog and haze is still exactly the way I remember it.

--
Regards,
Vitée
Capture all the light and colour!
www.pbase.com

Galleries by Vitee

www.pbase.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

xpatUSA
  • Poll Poll
Does the Quattro have a Monochrome Mode, like Merrill?
2
Replies
29
Views
417
xpatUSA
xpatUSA
CornyCob
  • Trade Trade
FT: My Sigma SD Quattro, Sigma DP3 Merrill, Sigma 18-300mm, for your Fujifilm 150-600mm
Replies
1
Views
160
MrImprovement
M
CornyCob
  • Trade Trade
For Trade: Sigma SD Quattro OR Sigma DP3 Merrill for Sigma SD1 Merrill
Replies
0
Views
410
CornyCob
CornyCob
xpatUSA
Merrill Microcontrast - old Article
Replies
5
Views
6
Stillton
S
Ceistinne
Partial moon eclipse
Replies
2
Views
3
Ceistinne
Ceistinne

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top