Mind Blown

Hi I have Fuji 24M pixel cameras as well as a DP1M and an SD1.

I find the RAW processor makes a huge difference when it comes to Fuji camera, Capture 1 is the preferred raw processor. Did you shoot Raw or JPG? What processor do you use?

Can you post raw images?

Hi I have Fuji 24M pixel cameras as well as a DP1M and an SD1.

I find the RAW processor makes a huge difference when it comes to Fuji camera, Capture 1 is the preferred raw processor. Did you shoot Raw or JPG? What processor do you use?

Can you post raw images?

dellaaa wrote:

Hi I have Fuji 24M pixel cameras as well as a DP1M and an SD1.

I find the RAW processor makes a huge difference when it comes to Fuji camera, Capture 1 is the preferred raw processor. Did you shoot Raw or JPG? What processor do you use?

Can you post raw images?

You can't post raw image files on this forum, or on web pages generally.

You can post the files to a site such as DropBox.

Don

Stillton wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

D Cox wrote:

tohereknowswhen wrote:

Stillton wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

TommyNeutron wrote:

... I liked film for the discipline and the way the images look. I think that Foveon, for me, may be the digital film equivalent.

I've read on these boards and elsewhere, that the Quattro sensor is good, but different than the Merrill sensors. In your opinion(s), is the SD Quattro the last, best Foveon based camera, or do the Merrill's reign supreme?

Neither one, although I've never used a Quattro but it uses interpolation to produce the final image; and I have no need for anything "bigger" than my 1920x1200px 24" monitor and I don't print.

So it is that I've ended up with just a 3.4MP SD9 after buying and selling a good few Sigma/Foveon cameras - see my gear list.

Dp1, 2, 3 Merrills can downsize RAW as well. It natively supports Raw full, RAW medium, and RAW low resolution.

True and very useful but there's still no way to bypass the sharpening/microcontrast boost from SPP for Merrill files.

I think a setting of -2.0 bypasses all the sharpening,

Sorry, Don, but I find it rather a pity that this lore persists in this Forum.

Firstly, the term "bypass" implies that something is de-activated.

Secondly, I have show here with slant-edge testing by QuickMTF that -2.0 gives less than "neutral" sharpness, i.e. it softens the output.

Do you know what value on that slider would correspond to "neutral" per MTF, xpat?

-2 looks under-sharpened to me, kinda like default film scan is.

Also make sure you have SPP’s luminance NR on lowest (not default) setting, when making that adjudication.

Like Ted also mentioned in another post, it’s lens dependent, and may I add especially with zoom lenses, it will be lens-sample-dependent. And needless to say, the lens typically needs to be about 1-2 stops below max aperture, and examined in the centre of the image.

Final point: with luminance NR set to lowest (it’s never ‘off’ with a Merrill sensor, especially since they need non-negotiable NLM as pointed out by Roland Karlsson), when you turn the sharpening slider down, noise continues to drop all the way to -2.0 ie the minimum sharpening. So it could be that the lens is causing the MTF softening below about -1.2, not the software, which might actually still be sharpening. Would take more analysis to determine where, if anywhere, on the sharpening slider the software truly adds zero sharpening.

Conclusion: it’s impractical to state a generic slider position that will provide neutral MTF effect. It will depend on your particular lens sample and its sharpness, which part of the image you focused on and where that sits in the lens image circle, what f/stop you used, whether you focused with laser-like precision, and whether you clamped the camera to prevent any movement during exposure.

Cheers

Here are the two RAW files. The date on the Sigma file is wrong by one day and the time was off by an hour. The X100V file was taken immediately after the Sigma with as close a settings as I could get to. f5.6 / 10 secs @ ISO 160 for the X100V, f5.6 / 13 secs at ISO 100 for the Sigma.

Link to RAW files

Just looking at the large rock in the center at 100%, side by side, the Sigma is so much more detailed than the X100V shot.

I have the DP2M an X100V and Ricoh GR III.

The IQ at best on the DP2M is in a class of its own. A Tactile like definition. The X100V image not in the same class. The GR is in the middle and exhibits some DP2M like clarity while maintaining a reasonable image from a higher ISO.

The X100v is very good operationally. The GR different but still good.

Imagine a DP2M sensor in a X100v !

TommyNeutron wrote:

Here are the two RAW files. The date on the Sigma file is wrong by one day and the time was off by an hour. The X100V file was taken immediately after the Sigma with as close a settings as I could get to. f5.6 / 10 secs @ ISO 160 for the X100V, f5.6 / 13 secs at ISO 100 for the Sigma.

Link to RAW files

Just looking at the large rock in the center at 100%, side by side, the Sigma is so much more detailed than the X100V shot.

If you use the same processor, in this below case Affinity Photo, the difference is modest and a little ‘raw capture sharpening’ of the mosaic-ed file, as they naturally need and Foveon files do not, will probably bring the amount of detail into line. As one would expect, with 15 MP of Foveon probably offering a very similar amount of resolution to a 26 MP mosaic-ed file.

Affinity Photo, matched subject size (not matched % magnification, which is misleading)

I think the SPP software is responsible for some of the enhanced edginess of images from Foveon files, which gives users a gratifying feel of huge detail. But if one gives a similar amount of ‘enhanced edginess’ (technical term LOL) to the Fuji file in PP, a very similar look should be in the offing, based on what I see above.

Merrill files out of SPP are reputed for their overblown micro-contrast, above what the natural subject actually looks like by eye. With the right subject matter, it does indeed ‘blow one’s mind’. But the impression that it is yielding more detail from the subject itself is illusionary.

Some further analysis on this matter in this forum,link.

cheers

TN Args wrote:

TommyNeutron wrote:

Here are the two RAW files. The date on the Sigma file is wrong by one day and the time was off by an hour. The X100V file was taken immediately after the Sigma with as close a settings as I could get to. f5.6 / 10 secs @ ISO 160 for the X100V, f5.6 / 13 secs at ISO 100 for the Sigma.

Link to RAW files

Just looking at the large rock in the center at 100%, side by side, the Sigma is so much more detailed than the X100V shot.

If you use the same processor, in this below case Affinity Photo, the difference is modest and a little ‘raw capture sharpening’ of the mosaic-ed file, as they naturally need and Foveon files do not, will probably bring the amount of detail into line. As one would expect, with 15 MP of Foveon probably offering a very similar amount of resolution to a 26 MP mosaic-ed file.

Affinity Photo, matched subject size (not matched % magnification, which is misleading)

I think the SPP software is responsible for some of the enhanced edginess of images from Foveon files, which gives users a gratifying feel of huge detail. But if one gives a similar amount of ‘enhanced edginess’ (technical term LOL) to the Fuji file in PP, a very similar look should be in the offing, based on what I see above.

Merrill files out of SPP are reputed for their overblown micro-contrast, above what the natural subject actually looks like by eye.

By whose eye ? Some people, especially young people, have much sharper vision than others.

With the right subject matter, it does indeed ‘blow one’s mind’. But the impression that it is yielding more detail from the subject itself is illusionary.

Some further analysis on this matter in this forum,link.

cheers

D Cox wrote:

TN Args wrote:

TommyNeutron wrote:

Here are the two RAW files. The date on the Sigma file is wrong by one day and the time was off by an hour. The X100V file was taken immediately after the Sigma with as close a settings as I could get to. f5.6 / 10 secs @ ISO 160 for the X100V, f5.6 / 13 secs at ISO 100 for the Sigma.

Link to RAW files

Just looking at the large rock in the center at 100%, side by side, the Sigma is so much more detailed than the X100V shot.

If you use the same processor, in this below case Affinity Photo, the difference is modest and a little ‘raw capture sharpening’ of the mosaic-ed file, as they naturally need and Foveon files do not, will probably bring the amount of detail into line. As one would expect, with 15 MP of Foveon probably offering a very similar amount of resolution to a 26 MP mosaic-ed file.

Affinity Photo, matched subject size (not matched % magnification, which is misleading)

I think the SPP software is responsible for some of the enhanced edginess of images from Foveon files, which gives users a gratifying feel of huge detail. But if one gives a similar amount of ‘enhanced edginess’ (technical term LOL) to the Fuji file in PP, a very similar look should be in the offing, based on what I see above.

Merrill files out of SPP are reputed for their overblown micro-contrast, above what the natural subject actually looks like by eye.

By whose eye ? Some people, especially young people, have much sharper vision than others.

This is actually a good point. To me bayer files at 100% crop look under-sharpened (well, AA filter and interpolation is to blame). So the argument that this is somehow natural is just ridiculous. Foveon 1:1:1 images does look natural to me at 100% crop precisely because they have enough detail at 100% to look natural. And I dont even have 20:20 vision anymore.

Quick run through C1, Im interested to hear your thoughts

Looks much closer. I went back and looked at the Sigma version processed to JPG and the differences are still there, but not as much. Wish Capture One wasn't so darn expensive.

BTW, since we are all looking at this composition, any critiques?

Stillton wrote:

D Cox wrote:

TN Args wrote:

TommyNeutron wrote:

Here are the two RAW files. The date on the Sigma file is wrong by one day and the time was off by an hour. The X100V file was taken immediately after the Sigma with as close a settings as I could get to. f5.6 / 10 secs @ ISO 160 for the X100V, f5.6 / 13 secs at ISO 100 for the Sigma.

Link to RAW files

Just looking at the large rock in the center at 100%, side by side, the Sigma is so much more detailed than the X100V shot.

If you use the same processor, in this below case Affinity Photo, the difference is modest and a little ‘raw capture sharpening’ of the mosaic-ed file, as they naturally need and Foveon files do not, will probably bring the amount of detail into line. As one would expect, with 15 MP of Foveon probably offering a very similar amount of resolution to a 26 MP mosaic-ed file.

Affinity Photo, matched subject size (not matched % magnification, which is misleading)

I think the SPP software is responsible for some of the enhanced edginess of images from Foveon files, which gives users a gratifying feel of huge detail. But if one gives a similar amount of ‘enhanced edginess’ (technical term LOL) to the Fuji file in PP, a very similar look should be in the offing, based on what I see above.

Merrill files out of SPP are reputed for their overblown micro-contrast, above what the natural subject actually looks like by eye.

By whose eye ? Some people, especially young people, have much sharper vision than others.

This is actually a good point. To me bayer files at 100% crop look under-sharpened (well, AA filter and interpolation is to blame).

No AA filter in many Bayer files. But yes to interpolation blur.

So the argument that this is somehow natural is just ridiculous.

And who made any such argument? Did you not read my words, “with a little capture sharpening”? Of *course* Bayer files have aliasing and hence unnaturally soft at 100%. That’s not a matter of whose eye, it’s an objective fact. What’s ridiculous is that you thought anyone said anything other than that.

Foveon 1:1:1 images does look natural to me at 100% crop precisely because they have enough detail at 100%.

This is the third time you have said “at 100%”. So it is your statement that is “just ridiculous”: if you want to compare the ability of different sensors to render a scene with detail and naturalness, you need to compare them when taking a photo of a scene and viewing them at the same scene size. Which I actually have done in the section of my post that you deleted!!

to look natural.

Merrill look is completely unlike pre-Merill. Hence your comment makes no sense: two very different looks can’t both be natural looking.

And I dont even have 20:20 vision anymore.

So you disagree with Don’s vision argument? So what is his ‘good’ point??

TN Args wrote:

Stillton wrote:

D Cox wrote:

TN Args wrote:

TommyNeutron wrote:

Here are the two RAW files. The date on the Sigma file is wrong by one day and the time was off by an hour. The X100V file was taken immediately after the Sigma with as close a settings as I could get to. f5.6 / 10 secs @ ISO 160 for the X100V, f5.6 / 13 secs at ISO 100 for the Sigma.

Link to RAW files

Just looking at the large rock in the center at 100%, side by side, the Sigma is so much more detailed than the X100V shot.

If you use the same processor, in this below case Affinity Photo, the difference is modest and a little ‘raw capture sharpening’ of the mosaic-ed file, as they naturally need and Foveon files do not, will probably bring the amount of detail into line. As one would expect, with 15 MP of Foveon probably offering a very similar amount of resolution to a 26 MP mosaic-ed file.

Affinity Photo, matched subject size (not matched % magnification, which is misleading)

I think the SPP software is responsible for some of the enhanced edginess of images from Foveon files, which gives users a gratifying feel of huge detail. But if one gives a similar amount of ‘enhanced edginess’ (technical term LOL) to the Fuji file in PP, a very similar look should be in the offing, based on what I see above.

Merrill files out of SPP are reputed for their overblown micro-contrast, above what the natural subject actually looks like by eye.

By whose eye ? Some people, especially young people, have much sharper vision than others.

This is actually a good point. To me bayer files at 100% crop look under-sharpened (well, AA filter and interpolation is to blame).

No AA filter in many Bayer files. But yes to interpolation blur.

So the argument that this is somehow natural is just ridiculous.

And who made any such argument? Did you not read my words, “with a little capture sharpening”? Of *course* Bayer files have aliasing and hence unnaturally soft at 100%. That’s not a matter of whose eye, it’s an objective fact. What’s ridiculous is that you thought anyone said anything other than that.

Mostly it is done by those who subjectively define Bayer look as more natural looking.

This is the third time you have said “at 100%”. So it is your statement that is “just ridiculous”: if you want to compare the ability of different sensors to render a scene with detail and naturalness, you need to compare them when taking a photo of a scene and viewing them at the same scene size. Which I actually have done in the section of my post that you deleted!!

I cant delete sections of of your posts. I usually shorten quotes that I am replying to, if they are irrelevant to what I am replying to or commenting on, to avoid the whole post being 2 miles long.

to look natural.

Merrill look is completely unlike pre-Merill. Hence your comment makes no sense: two very different looks can’t both be natural looking.

I did not say that Bayer has a natural look, and so there is no contradiction. Besides,"natural look" is a subjective thing..

And I dont even have 20:20 vision anymore.

So you disagree with Don’s vision argument? So what is his ‘good’ point??

No, I did not disagree with him.

Why so confrontational, btw? I wasn't even talking to you, or implying that you said anything incorrectly. Why getting so emotionally invested in something that is just subjectively defined?

Welcome to the Foveon world, if you are looking at the best of the compact Merrill’s, forget the DP1 and go straight for the DP3, which has a lens at least (if not better) than the DP2 and supposedly a bit tweaked colors that a lot of people seem to like better. Since I got one has rapidly become my fav Merrill for sure.

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Welcome to the Foveon world, if you are looking at the best of the compact Merrill’s, forget the DP1 and go straight for the DP3, which has a lens at least (if not better) than the DP2 and supposedly a bit tweaked colors that a lot of people seem to like better. Since I got one has rapidly become my fav Merrill for sure.

Great camera, but you may have trouble finding one.

The main fault of these cameras is the very small battery. You get about as many shots per charge as you do in a cassette of film. Just carry a couple of spares.

Don

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Welcome to the Foveon world,

Thanks! I’ve been posting here about 20x longer than you though, so maybe I should welcome you!

if you are looking at the best of the compact Merrill’s, forget the DP1 and go straight for the DP3, which has a lens at least (if not better) than the DP2 and supposedly a bit tweaked colors that a lot of people seem to like better. Since I got one has rapidly become my fav Merrill for sure.

Enjoy.