Mind Blown

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. 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

From the look of the two images you have presented here, I have to disagree with you. There is significantly more detail in the Merrill image above.

Stillton wrote:

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?

I'm sorry, but you did say, "So the argument that this is somehow natural is just ridiculous."

Use of the word "ridiculous" is most likely why Args got so "emotionally invested." You weren't talking about what Don Cox said, when you used the word "ridiculous" either, were you?

I actually get the feeling, from what you and Args both mentioned in your posts, that you two are of a similar mind. I don't think Args thinks the files from cameras with Bayer pattern CFA sensirs look natural at 100%. He did mention that they need sharpening. It appears that you don't think they look natural at 100% view either. Am I right?

Scottelly 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. 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

From the look of the two images you have presented here, I have to disagree with you. There is significantly more detail in the Merrill image above.

Exactly so: it always looks that way, but if you follow my link, it shows how it is illusory. The section of rock shown above is like the second (speckly, low-contrast) image in the link. There is probably a similar amount of true detail, based on 2D pixel count 26MP Bayer vs 15 MP Foveon, and published equivalences (Foveon resolves detail like a Bayer with 70% more 2D pixels).

TN Args wrote:

Scottelly 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. 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

From the look of the two images you have presented here, I have to disagree with you. There is significantly more detail in the Merrill image above.

Exactly so: it always looks that way, but if you follow my link, it shows how it is illusory. The section of rock shown above is like the second (speckly, low-contrast) image in the link. There is probably a similar amount of true detail, based on 2D pixel count 26MP Bayer vs 15 MP Foveon, and published equivalences (Foveon resolves detail like a Bayer with 70% more 2D pixels).

In this Forum, how something looks and how something measures are usually at variance ... so, not much new going on in this thread, eh?

1. TN Args wrote:

Scottelly 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. 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

From the look of the two images you have presented here, I have to disagree with you. There is significantly more detail in the Merrill image above.

Exactly so: it always looks that way, but if you follow my link, it shows how it is illusory. The section of rock shown above is like the second (speckly, low-contrast) image in the link. There is probably a similar amount of true detail, based on 2D pixel count 26MP Bayer vs 15 MP Foveon, and published equivalences (Foveon resolves detail like a Bayer with 70% more 2D pixels).

Not always. Sometimes it resolves as nuch detail as a "Bayer" with twice as many pixels, and sometimes it only resolves about as much detail as a "Bayer" with just a few more megapixels. It all dependa on subject matter and the AA filter, or lack of an AA filter on "the Bayer" . . . etc.

Have you ever seen this old "article" before?

https://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/

WeirdSheep wrote:

TommyNeutron wrote:

Thanks to all who have replied and welcomed me to the forum!

Yes, I am a multi-system shooter, and one who likes the underdogs. The K-1 is still an amazing camera, now 7 years from when I bought it new. But, it is an anchor/tank and along with the lenses are not suitable for me anymore for long walks. The K-1 will never leave my ownership though. I have the beautiful prime limited trinity and just love that camera. But it is DSLR, heavy and the lenses are big.

I also have the Fuji, because it is great as a family camera. It just takes great pictures, effortlessly. The leaf shutter, built in ND, good ISO performance and a flash that always knows how much light to add make the camera what it is.

Now enter the new kid (for me), the DP2M. I took a chance on a for sale ad, and am really glad I did. Something new for me, even though you all have been making great images with them for years. AND, I have a used E-M1 mkIII on the way. It, along with the DP2M, will be my travel / hobby cameras. When I am making images for me, and not for family.

DP2M F7.1, 1/800, ISO200. Pushed pretty hard to recover the detail in the mountain.

If the dynamic range is bigger than the camera can handle expose for either the highlights or shadows (depending on which is more important to the scene), pick one, you can't have both, and don't try and recover the shadows in SPP, you'll get green/purple mottling, guaranteed. Convert to tiff and export to another processor (I use DXOmark, which works well) and you should be able to raise the shadows without mottling from there. You can see the mottling in your second shot in the hills, you will always get that pushing the shadows in SPP. I recommend leaving the sharpening in SPP to 0, you can always use unsharp mask elsewhere if you want to push the sharpness a bit more. SPP is reasonable but it's pretty unsophisticated, to put it mildly, more like a using a sledgehammer when you're trying to hang a picture.

I was never much of a shadow-pusher when I had a DP2 Merrill, so I looked at those hills out of interest. I extracted the hues and saw that the green/purple in this case was a form of banding all over the image:

I too only use SPP for conversion ... doing serious editing elsewhere. It does appear from the above that getting heavy-handed in SPP does not pay ...