Reading mode: Light Dark

Using a Hasselblad X2D with One Hand, "correct" Exposure

Go to last post
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
Rich42 said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Rich42 said:
But they don't make embarrassing claims about mystery numbers and silly astronomical figures of color depth.)
Click to expand...
Fuji also claims that 16-bit colors are essential for IQ. Fuji raises Hasselblad's silliness level by claiming that 16 bits allow "... crush highlights without distorting the picture, keeping it looking clean and natural." (link)
Rich42 said:
<snip>.

The color balance from an X2D looks different (a little) than the same scene from a GFX 100(x).

Using the same sensor data.
Click to expand...
I doubt that the sensor data is the same (different toppings likely), but Hasselblad likely massages raw data differently than Fuji.
Rich42 said:
<snip>.
Click to expand...
 
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
Click to expand...
Yes but only 14 bits are "good."
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Click to expand...
Into the 16 bit RAW file. And pads it with null values. In 16 bit mode it writes all 16 bits of info from the sensor including the last 2 bits of noise data.
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
But they don't make embarrassing claims about mystery numbers and silly astronomical figures of color depth.)
Click to expand...
Fuji also claims that 16-bit colors are essential for IQ. Fuji raises Hasselblad's silliness level by claiming that 16 bits allow "... crush highlights without distorting the picture, keeping it looking clean and natural." (link)
Click to expand...
Hmm . . . They say essentially that they "can record RAWs in 16-bit quality." It's the file size they're talking about. They stay away from saying there is any goodness in the last 2 bits of data. They're not being as outrageously dishonest as the other guys.

Yes, they are skating on thin ice, too. Just not as close to the edge.
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
<snip>.

The color balance from an X2D looks different (a little) than the same scene from a GFX 100(x).

Using the same sensor data.
Click to expand...
I doubt that the sensor data is the same (different toppings likely), but Hasselblad likely massages raw data differently than Fuji.
Click to expand...
The sensor data is essentially the same. It's the same sensor, despite "topping" customization. After that the circuitry is most likely somewhat different. But there isn't a lot of variation in ways to do the analog to digital conversion.
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
<snip>.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
Click to expand...
Yes but only 14 bits are "good."
Click to expand...
We are talking whether Hasselblad pads 16-bit readouts with noise, not whether only 14 bits are "good."
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Click to expand...
Into the 16 bit RAW file.
Click to expand...
The 14-bit mode raw contains 14-bit data.
Rich42 said:
And pads it with null values. In 16 bit mode it writes all 16 bits of info from the sensor including the last 2 bits of noise data.
Click to expand...
The files generated in 14-bit mode are much smaller; therefore, I do not think that Fuji writes out padded 16-bit data in 14-bit mode.
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
But they don't make embarrassing claims about mystery numbers and silly astronomical figures of color depth.)
Click to expand...
Fuji also claims that 16-bit colors are essential for IQ. Fuji raises Hasselblad's silliness level by claiming that 16 bits allow "... crush highlights without distorting the picture, keeping it looking clean and natural." (link)
Click to expand...
Hmm . . . They say essentially that they "can record RAWs in 16-bit quality." It's the file size they're talking about. They stay away from saying there is any goodness in the last 2 bits of data. They're not being as outrageously dishonest as the other guys.
Click to expand...
You did not read it:

"So, we know RAWs are great for editing, but how come 16-bit RAWs are better than others?"

"This is all down to the levels of color that a 16-bit file can contain. An 8-bit file has 256 shades of red, green, and blue, combining to make over 16 million colors. A 12-bit RAW file can contain 4096 shades of red, green, and blue, contributing to a potential 68 billion colors. Raise the bar to 16-bit, and you’re looking at 65,536 shades of red, green, and blue, and a potential 281 trillion colors"

"Now, if you have trillions of colors instead of millions or billions, you can stretch the tones more without the same banding and blocking appearing, allowing more freedom and scope in adjustments."
Rich42 said:
Yes, they are skating on thin ice, too. Just not as close to the edge.
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>.

The color balance from an X2D looks different (a little) than the same scene from a GFX 100(x).

Using the same sensor data.
Click to expand...
I doubt that the sensor data is the same (different toppings likely), but Hasselblad likely massages raw data differently than Fuji.
Click to expand...
The sensor data is essentially the same. It's the same sensor, despite "topping" customization. After that the circuitry is most likely somewhat different. But there isn't a lot of variation in ways to do the analog to digital conversion.
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
Click to expand...
Yes but only 14 bits are "good."
Click to expand...
We are talking whether Hasselblad pads 16-bit readouts with noise, not whether only 14 bits are "good."
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Click to expand...
Into the 16 bit RAW file.
Click to expand...
The 14-bit mode raw contains 14-bit data.
SrMi said:
And pads it with null values. In 16 bit mode it writes all 16 bits of info from the sensor including the last 2 bits of noise data.
Click to expand...
The files generated in 14-bit mode are much smaller;
Click to expand...
No. They're not.
SrMi said:
therefore, I do not think that Fuji writes out padded 16-bit data in 14-bit mode.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. In uncompressed mode. It's a 16 bit file. Something has to be in there up to the file boundary.
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
But they don't make embarrassing claims about mystery numbers and silly astronomical figures of color depth.)
Click to expand...
Fuji also claims that 16-bit colors are essential for IQ. Fuji raises Hasselblad's silliness level by claiming that 16 bits allow "... crush highlights without distorting the picture, keeping it looking clean and natural." (link)
Click to expand...
Hmm . . . They say essentially that they "can record RAWs in 16-bit quality." It's the file size they're talking about. They stay away from saying there is any goodness in the last 2 bits of data. They're not being as outrageously dishonest as the other guys.
Click to expand...
You did not read it:

"So, we know RAWs are great for editing, but how come 16-bit RAWs are better than others?"

"This is all down to the levels of color that a 16-bit file can contain. An 8-bit file has 256 shades of red, green, and blue, combining to make over 16 million colors. A 12-bit RAW file can contain 4096 shades of red, green, and blue, contributing to a potential 68 billion colors. Raise the bar to 16-bit, and you’re looking at 65,536 shades of red, green, and blue, and a potential 281 trillion colors"

"Now, if you have trillions of colors instead of millions or billions, you can stretch the tones more without the same banding and blocking appearing, allowing more freedom and scope in adjustments."

SrMi said:
Yes, they are skating on thin ice, too. Just not as close to the edge.
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
<snip>.

The color balance from an X2D looks different (a little) than the same scene from a GFX 100(x).

Using the same sensor data.
Click to expand...
I doubt that the sensor data is the same (different toppings likely), but Hasselblad likely massages raw data differently than Fuji.
Click to expand...
The sensor data is essentially the same. It's the same sensor, despite "topping" customization. After that the circuitry is most likely somewhat different. But there isn't a lot of variation in ways to do the analog to digital conversion.
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
<snip>.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well shame on them too, then.

This was not about Hasselblad vs Fuji. It was about Hasselblad (for years) claiming such nonsense and now encouraging Youtube "influencers" to parrot it.

Hey, but otherwise all that gear is "just a free gift."

I hadn't seen the Fuji nonsense.

Marketing's a cut-throat, less-than-honest business.

For the record, the numbers of real colors that these "color science" systems deal with, at the precision the circuitry can actually deliver, and not imaginary ones or mathematically describable but non-existent in nature, is in the few millions.
 
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
Click to expand...
Yes but only 14 bits are "good."
Click to expand...
We are talking whether Hasselblad pads 16-bit readouts with noise, not whether only 14 bits are "good."
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Click to expand...
Into the 16 bit RAW file.
Click to expand...
The 14-bit mode raw contains 14-bit data.
Rich42 said:
And pads it with null values. In 16 bit mode it writes all 16 bits of info from the sensor including the last 2 bits of noise data.
Click to expand...
The files generated in 14-bit mode are much smaller;
Click to expand...
No. They're not.
Click to expand...
They are when using compression.
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
therefore, I do not think that Fuji writes out padded 16-bit data in 14-bit mode.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. In uncompressed mode. It's a 16 bit file. Something has to be in there up to the file boundary.
Click to expand...
You can check with Rawdigger. In 14-bit mode, Fuji stores 14-bit values, likely padded with zeros at the front, not in the two lower bits.
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
But they don't make embarrassing claims about mystery numbers and silly astronomical figures of color depth.)
Click to expand...
Fuji also claims that 16-bit colors are essential for IQ. Fuji raises Hasselblad's silliness level by claiming that 16 bits allow "... crush highlights without distorting the picture, keeping it looking clean and natural." (link)
Click to expand...
Hmm . . . They say essentially that they "can record RAWs in 16-bit quality." It's the file size they're talking about. They stay away from saying there is any goodness in the last 2 bits of data. They're not being as outrageously dishonest as the other guys.
Click to expand...
You did not read it:

"So, we know RAWs are great for editing, but how come 16-bit RAWs are better than others?"

"This is all down to the levels of color that a 16-bit file can contain. An 8-bit file has 256 shades of red, green, and blue, combining to make over 16 million colors. A 12-bit RAW file can contain 4096 shades of red, green, and blue, contributing to a potential 68 billion colors. Raise the bar to 16-bit, and you’re looking at 65,536 shades of red, green, and blue, and a potential 281 trillion colors"

"Now, if you have trillions of colors instead of millions or billions, you can stretch the tones more without the same banding and blocking appearing, allowing more freedom and scope in adjustments."
Rich42 said:
Yes, they are skating on thin ice, too. Just not as close to the edge.
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>.

The color balance from an X2D looks different (a little) than the same scene from a GFX 100(x).

Using the same sensor data.
Click to expand...
I doubt that the sensor data is the same (different toppings likely), but Hasselblad likely massages raw data differently than Fuji.
Click to expand...
The sensor data is essentially the same. It's the same sensor, despite "topping" customization. After that the circuitry is most likely somewhat different. But there isn't a lot of variation in ways to do the analog to digital conversion.
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well shame on them too, then.

This was not about Hasselblad vs Fuji.
Click to expand...
It sounded much like that, scolding Hasselblad and praising Fuji on the topic of 16-bit color nonsense.
Rich42 said:
It was about Hasselblad (for years) claiming such nonsense and now encouraging Youtube "influencers" to parrot it.
Click to expand...
You will find plenty of Fuji influencers parroting the same thing. I had a hopeless argument thread on the Fredmiranda.com Fuji forum, trying to persuade GFX owners that 16-bit does not matter.

I do not blame the influencers. Most people are unaware that 16-bit does not improve performance with 44x33 sensors. They are sharing what the manufacturers are telling them. Most of them do not know much about PSAT.
Rich42 said:
Hey, but otherwise all that gear is "just a free gift."

I hadn't seen the Fuji nonsense.
Click to expand...
I have seen it a lot more because there are many more GFX owners.
Rich42 said:
Marketing's a cut-throat, less-than-honest business.

For the record, the numbers of real colors that these "color science" systems deal with, at the precision the circuitry can actually deliver, and not imaginary ones or mathematically describable but non-existent in nature, is in the few millions.
Click to expand...
 
boastar said:
He's talking about unbalanced histograms. And how a fixation on technological perfection can be detrimental to a creative process.
Click to expand...
Technological perfection is only useful if it helps fulfill a photographic purpose. If the result meets the artist's requirements completely, you can't get more perfect than that.

Technology should be a servant, not a master.
 
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
SrMi said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Click to expand...
If you set the precision to 14 bits, Fuji pads the file with zeros to make the samples start and end on byte boundaries.
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
But they don't make embarrassing claims about mystery numbers and silly astronomical figures of color depth.)
Click to expand...
Fuji also claims that 16-bit colors are essential for IQ.
Click to expand...
Essential? If true, that's certainly on oopsie.

 
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
Click to expand...
Yes but only 14 bits are "good."
Click to expand...
We are talking whether Hasselblad pads 16-bit readouts with noise, not whether only 14 bits are "good."
Click to expand...
The noise comes off the sensor in both 14 and 16 bit precision. The 16 bit files that result from 14-bit readouts are the result of extra bits added during the calibration process.
 
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
Click to expand...
Yes but only 14 bits are "good."
Click to expand...
We are talking whether Hasselblad pads 16-bit readouts with noise, not whether only 14 bits are "good."
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
Rich42 said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Click to expand...
Into the 16 bit RAW file.
Click to expand...
The 14-bit mode raw contains 14-bit data.
Rich42 said:
And pads it with null values. In 16 bit mode it writes all 16 bits of info from the sensor including the last 2 bits of noise data.
Click to expand...
The files generated in 14-bit mode are much smaller;
Click to expand...
No. They're not.
Click to expand...
Let's be clear here. The 14 bit precision uncompressed files and the 16-bit precision uncompressed files from the GFX cameras are the same length if you ignore the JPEG preview images. The 14-bit GFX files are easier to losslessly compress than the 16-bit GFX files. Noise is hard to compress losslessly.
 
SrMi said:
Most people are unaware that 16-bit does not improve performance with 44x33 sensors.
Click to expand...
Shame on them. It's not hard to test that.
 
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
JimKasson said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
JimKasson said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Click to expand...
If you set the precision to 14 bits, Fuji pads the file with zeros to make the samples start and end on byte boundaries.
Click to expand...
Regardless of compression settings, the max value in a GFX raw file in 14-bit mode is always 2^14.
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
But they don't make embarrassing claims about mystery numbers and silly astronomical figures of color depth.)
Click to expand...
Fuji also claims that 16-bit colors are essential for IQ.
Click to expand...
Essential? If true, that's certainly on oopsie.
Click to expand...
 
SrMi said:
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
SrMi said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
SrMi said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Click to expand...
If you set the precision to 14 bits, Fuji pads the file with zeros to make the samples start and end on byte boundaries.
Click to expand...
Regardless of compression settings, the max value in a GFX raw file in 14-bit mode is always 2^14.
Click to expand...
I think you’re off by one.
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
SrMi said:
But they don't make embarrassing claims about mystery numbers and silly astronomical figures of color depth.)
Click to expand...
Fuji also claims that 16-bit colors are essential for IQ.
Click to expand...
Essential? If true, that's certainly on oopsie.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SrMi said:
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
Most people are unaware that 16-bit does not improve performance with 44x33 sensors.
Click to expand...
Shame on them. It's not hard to test that.
Click to expand...
Funnily, they are sometimes referring to your test (link) where there is a black point issue with 14 bits, and saying, "See, there is a difference."
Click to expand...
CDS works better with more precision, but you can calibrate out the black point errors in either 14 or 16 bit precision in raw development. Some people seem to have a difficult time understanding this.
 
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
Rich42 said:
JimKasson said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
The Sony sensor and its associated electronics can supply 14 bits of usable image information (dynamic range). As do other camera makers, such as Fuji, Hasselblad saves that information into a 16 bit file. What to do with that "extra room" in the file?

It can be filled (padded) with "nothing" (null data) or it can be filled with non-useable noise information from the sensor circuitry.

Hasselblad apparently pads the file out from 14 bits to the 16 bit byte boundary with noise.
Click to expand...
Hasselblad pads if shooting in 14-bit mode. It reads 16 bits from the sensor, like Fuji, when in 16-bit mode.
JimKasson said:
<snip>

(Fuji does exactly the same thing, and gives one a choice of padding out the 16 bit file with either noise or with "nothing."
Click to expand...
How do you choose with Fuji whether to pad or not? In 14-bit mode, Fuji writes 14-bit data into the raw file.
Click to expand...
If you set the precision to 14 bits, Fuji pads the file with zeros to make the samples start and end on byte boundaries.
Click to expand...
Regardless of compression settings, the max value in a GFX raw file in 14-bit mode is always 2^14.
Click to expand...
I think you’re off by one.
Click to expand...
Yes :), once one adds the black point to the max values.
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
But they don't make embarrassing claims about mystery numbers and silly astronomical figures of color depth.)
Click to expand...
Fuji also claims that 16-bit colors are essential for IQ.
Click to expand...
Essential? If true, that's certainly on oopsie.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
Most people are unaware that 16-bit does not improve performance with 44x33 sensors.
Click to expand...
Shame on them. It's not hard to test that.
Click to expand...
Funnily, they are sometimes referring to your test (link) where there is a black point issue with 14 bits, and saying, "See, there is a difference."
Click to expand...
CDS works better with more precision, but you can calibrate out the black point errors in either 14 or 16 bit precision in raw development. Some people seem to have a difficult time understanding this.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
FIRMWARE v1.1.9.2 HASSELBLAD X2D II 100C
Replies
2
Views
4K
Knorp
Knorp
SrMi
Capture Integration's experience with X2D II 100C
Replies
0
Views
2K
SrMi
SrMi
M
Hasselblad X2D with Pentax 645 Telephoto Zooms
Replies
3
Views
4K
areallygrumpyoldsod
areallygrumpyoldsod
TechTalk2
Unsponsored Review "Hasselblad X2D II Opinion and Test with old Lenses, XCD 80 1.9"
Replies
1
Views
12K
BostonBoy
BostonBoy
Mathew Anderson
DPR Article: Hasselblad X2D II 100C in-depth review: hitting its stride
Replies
15
Views
70K
areallygrumpyoldsod
areallygrumpyoldsod

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