GH6 Standard vs HHHR vs HR examples

I am doing some HR as I have had the opportunity to shoot some landscapes recently

Generally the images come slightly brighter (I prefer the look of the standard ones) and the benefit is mostly SNR for HHHR with HR having some resolution benefit in essence it confirms the theory that resolution does not improve but IQ does

Here are some shots scaled down to 2048 wide as I am a slow connection during the trip

Standard shot

HHHR shot

Standard shot

HR shot

HR shot with sharpening

Generally HR shots can take more sharpening as in the last example

The 2048 size makes it hard for me to glean much from this. Also f10/ 11 is not doing the sensor any favours.

Regardless, images from the GH6 look different to me. Maybe I am wishing for something and talking myself into it, but the GH6 images look better than the 20mp sensor we are all so used to. It can't be the small extra resolution, so I wonder what it is. It's hard to find words, but "richer, smoother, more depth, greater tonality range" is my attempt to describe what I see, whereas the 20mp sensor would be "more crunchy looking details, harder, harsher tonality, flatter" looking. Dunno??? Hopefully as more people use the GH6, a pattern one way or the other will show through.

There is no issue with f/10 f/11 in general although the first shot I could have taken at f/4 as there is nothing behind the rock the second requires small apertures as the valley is km away from the rocks

With regards to the look you mention I am victim of the same effect perhaps but the images look very similar to my last APSC DSLR Nikon D7000 at ISO 100

glassoholic wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The 2048 size makes it hard for me to glean much from this. Also f10/ 11 is not doing the sensor any favours.

Regardless, images from the GH6 look different to me. Maybe I am wishing for something and talking myself into it, but the GH6 images look better than the 20mp sensor we are all so used to. It can't be the small extra resolution, so I wonder what it is. It's hard to find words, but "richer, smoother, more depth, greater tonality range" is my attempt to describe what I see, whereas the 20mp sensor would be "more crunchy looking details, harder, harsher tonality, flatter" looking. Dunno??? Hopefully as more people use the GH6, a pattern one way or the other will show through.

There is no issue with f/10 f/11 in general although the first shot I could have taken at f/4 as there is nothing behind the rock the second requires small apertures as the valley is km away from the rocks

With regards to the look you mention I am victim of the same effect perhaps but the images look very similar to my last APSC DSLR Nikon D7000 at ISO 100

A reference I have is a Nikon D700. The GH6 has that D700 smoother, richer and deeper look to it, but very similar in other technical qualities (other than the D700 being overall superior at >ISO3200).

Took this shot few days ago with the 25mm

glassoholic wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The 2048 size makes it hard for me to glean much from this. Also f10/ 11 is not doing the sensor any favours.

Regardless, images from the GH6 look different to me. Maybe I am wishing for something and talking myself into it, but the GH6 images look better than the 20mp sensor we are all so used to. It can't be the small extra resolution, so I wonder what it is. It's hard to find words, but "richer, smoother, more depth, greater tonality range" is my attempt to describe what I see, whereas the 20mp sensor would be "more crunchy looking details, harder, harsher tonality, flatter" looking. Dunno??? Hopefully as more people use the GH6, a pattern one way or the other will show through.

There is no issue with f/10 f/11 in general although the first shot I could have taken at f/4 as there is nothing behind the rock the second requires small apertures as the valley is km away from the rocks

With regards to the look you mention I am victim of the same effect perhaps but the images look very similar to my last APSC DSLR Nikon D7000 at ISO 100

A reference I have is a Nikon D700. The GH6 has that D700 smoother, richer and deeper look to it, but very similar in other technical qualities (other than the D700 being overall superior at >ISO3200).

Took this shot few days ago with the 25mm

Super skin tones to my eyes... I had that lens and am familiar with its rendering. GH6 seems to make it look even better.

Could you do something similar with your G9 and the GH6 at matching settings?

I am on a trip and I only have the GH6 but will try something when I get back

as i said it may be placebo!

Maybe the higher bit depth of the raw files helps with tonality

I always thought 12 bits was a bit busy

I don’t think I ever got past f/2.8 !

Interceptor121 wrote:

The 2048 size makes it hard for me to glean much from this. Also f10/ 11 is not doing the sensor any favours.

. . .

There is no issue with f/10 f/11 in general although the first shot I could have taken at f/4 as there is nothing behind the rock the second requires small apertures as the valley is km away from the rocks

You might want to take a look at this explanation  of diffraction about 2/3rds down the page.

The depth of field necessary to hold the details in the valley of the second image might have only needed f4 given the DOF of 12mm with a subject at 10m, everything from about 2m to infinity will be in focus.

Richandhiscat wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Maybe the higher bit depth of the raw files helps with tonality

I always thought 12 bits was a bit busy

So the RAW files are 14 bit ?

16 bits

Virtual Photon wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The 2048 size makes it hard for me to glean much from this. Also f10/ 11 is not doing the sensor any favours.

. . .

There is no issue with f/10 f/11 in general although the first shot I could have taken at f/4 as there is nothing behind the rock the second requires small apertures as the valley is km away from the rocks

You might want to take a look at this explanation of diffraction about 2/3rds down the page.

The depth of field necessary to hold the details in the valley of the second image might have only needed f4 given the DOF of 12mm with a subject at 10m, everything from about 2m to infinity will be in focus.

That website is trash. The start if diffraction effects is f/11 and doesn’t depend on pixel pitch

Interceptor121 wrote:

Virtual Photon wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The 2048 size makes it hard for me to glean much from this. Also f10/ 11 is not doing the sensor any favours.

. . .

There is no issue with f/10 f/11 in general although the first shot I could have taken at f/4 as there is nothing behind the rock the second requires small apertures as the valley is km away from the rocks

You might want to take a look at this explanation of diffraction about 2/3rds down the page.

The depth of field necessary to hold the details in the valley of the second image might have only needed f4 given the DOF of 12mm with a subject at 10m, everything from about 2m to infinity will be in focus.

That website is trash. The start if diffraction effects is f/11 and doesn’t depend on pixel pitch

If pixel peeping at 1 to 1,  diffraction will be more visible with smaller closer pixels.

However if we consider the whole image, then having smaller closer pixels 'should' not show any observable adverse effect from diffraction - at the same settings.

PS. I have always found Cambridge in Colour to be a very helpful website..

-- hide signature --

instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
Deer Photography workshops https://interceptor121.com/2021/09/26/2021-22-deer-photography-workshops-in-woburn/

Interceptor121 wrote:

I am doing some HR as I have had the opportunity to shoot some landscapes recently

Thank you, landscapes are where I would wish for more resolution!

Generally the images come slightly brighter (I prefer the look of the standard ones) and the benefit is mostly SNR for HHHR with HR having some resolution benefit in essence it confirms the theory that resolution does not improve but IQ does

Here are some shots scaled down to 2048 wide as I am a slow connection during the trip

At this size it is difficult to see any differences in resolution, DR or noise. At least not at the level of Standard vs HR modes. Perhaps you could provide some 100% details?

Standard shot

HR shot with sharpening

More difficulties:

• the Standard image is darker and has much more contrast, this makes it appear sharper.
• t f/11 the lens is nowhere near it's sweet spot. You loose about 1/3 of the highest possible resolution around f/4:

  

• as you mention, HR and HHR mode needs more sharpening than standard mode according to what I read.

Nice pictures by the way and interesting scenery!
Peter

Adrian Harris wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Virtual Photon wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The 2048 size makes it hard for me to glean much from this. Also f10/ 11 is not doing the sensor any favours.

. . .

There is no issue with f/10 f/11 in general although the first shot I could have taken at f/4 as there is nothing behind the rock the second requires small apertures as the valley is km away from the rocks

You might want to take a look at this explanation of diffraction about 2/3rds down the page.

The depth of field necessary to hold the details in the valley of the second image might have only needed f4 given the DOF of 12mm with a subject at 10m, everything from about 2m to infinity will be in focus.

That website is trash. The start if diffraction effects is f/11 and doesn’t depend on pixel pitch

If pixel peeping at 1 to 1, diffraction will be more visible with smaller closer pixels.

However if we consider the whole image, then having smaller closer pixels 'should' not show any observable adverse effect from diffraction - at the same settings.

PS. I have always found Cambridge in Colour to be a very helpful website..

Diffraction is a process driven by the lens and sensor size

This is a good website

https://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html#calc

f/9 identical to sensor resolution, f/10 not diffraction limited, f/11 start of diffraction effect

For those landscape shots I would normally shoot f/9 f/10 not f/4 if there is a feature close by. If there is nothing near I would go f/4

Interceptor121 wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Virtual Photon wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The 2048 size makes it hard for me to glean much from this. Also f10/ 11 is not doing the sensor any favours.

. . .

There is no issue with f/10 f/11 in general although the first shot I could have taken at f/4 as there is nothing behind the rock the second requires small apertures as the valley is km away from the rocks

You might want to take a look at this explanation of diffraction about 2/3rds down the page.

The depth of field necessary to hold the details in the valley of the second image might have only needed f4 given the DOF of 12mm with a subject at 10m, everything from about 2m to infinity will be in focus.

That website is trash. The start if diffraction effects is f/11 and doesn’t depend on pixel pitch

If pixel peeping at 1 to 1, diffraction will be more visible with smaller closer pixels.

However if we consider the whole image, then having smaller closer pixels 'should' not show any observable adverse effect from diffraction - at the same settings.

PS. I have always found Cambridge in Colour to be a very helpful website..

Diffraction is a process driven by the lens and sensor size.

I think we are often a little loose with terminology. The Diffraction process is certainly by lenses, and it's observable effect in our images will differ depending on sensor size.

This is a good website

https://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html#calc

That is a very interesting webpage. Thank you.

f/9 identical to sensor resolution, f/10 not diffraction limited, f/11 start of diffraction effect

For those landscape shots I would normally shoot f/9 f/10 not f/4 if there is a feature close by. If there is nothing near I would go f/4

-- hide signature --

instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
Deer Photography workshops https://interceptor121.com/2021/09/26/2021-22-deer-photography-workshops-in-woburn/