Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              31      
32
       33              43       44       end
  

Archive 2011 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?
  
 
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.32 #1 · p.32 #1 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


@ theSuede: what are your recommendations re. good programs for sharpening (I too use Aperture [and C1Pro], but have been playing with RPP, as well? Thanks for your contributions here, too.


Feb 17, 2012 at 03:20 AM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.32 #2 · p.32 #2 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


@ Mitch: yes, I have been playing with RPP, and I do like the look of the files (I am using the K64 look). I have not run any of my interiors through it yet; too busy with work, but will. I will revisit your tutorial on this, too, and if it works out, will add how I integrate with Aperture (as the sorting tool) and especially with batch processing.


Feb 17, 2012 at 03:22 AM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #3 · p.32 #3 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Hmm, RPP seems to do a lot better for handling aliasing and that could be one of the reasons why I have not find any grounds to complain much. I was never pleased with ACR though, in retrospect it did not do anything especially good for my files.




Feb 17, 2012 at 05:35 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #4 · p.32 #4 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Tariq Gibran wrote:
Using softening diffraction, again suggested in another thread by Joakim, appears to be a way around moire as the diffraction acts like an AA filter. The problem would be in situations where you might want to use brighter F-stops for shallow dof or due to lighting conditions. I could see a portrait being one prime example of where I would not want to use F11 or smaller but something at 5.6 or brighter.


I don't think moire and aliasing would be of any significant concern at wide apertures and shallow DOF, especially at portrait distances. Probably for portraits under studio lighting where small apertures are used the situation may be worse, but I don't see a problem with closing the diaphragm a bit more in such cases.



Feb 17, 2012 at 08:37 AM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #5 · p.32 #5 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


edwardkaraa wrote:
I find it interesting that in Matt's house pics, the one at f/11 looks pretty much like what one would get at f/5.6 with AA. Since I started using AA cameras, my smallest aperture became f/8, while in the past I had no problem shooting at f/16 regularly. So I think this is something additional to consider that one can shoot at smaller apertures without AA, get rid of moire, get more DOF, and still be within the sharpness performance of an AA cam.


A camera without an AA filter has VERY GOOD base capabilities for getting long DoF's....!
The AA filter is as I've said a very angle-dependent piece of material. Light falling on to the sensor from straight ahead doesn't even notice the AA filter, it isn't blurred at all. Light falling on to the sensor from an angle gets blurred, and MORE blurred the more you increase the angle (and hence the better corner- and F1.4-performance of cameras without AA filters). Both corners and large apertures mean the same thing - increased incoming light angles.

This means that spherical aberrations (undercorrected, soft-bokeh-lenses) get amplified as well, and this shortens the DoF by a quite noticeable amount if you have an AA filter. This is one of the things that can be labeled "digitally corrected" about new lenses, they optimize the lens differently.

So, if you KNOW that you're going to shoot a lot at F11, if you KNOW that you're going to do a lot of product / close range shots with DoF requirements being without an AA filter is all positive. Your shots will be sharper, you will have no visible moire/aliasing AND as a bonus you get a deeper DoF than a filtered camera would give you in the same situation. All good.

My problem is that more than 50% of all my shots are at medium distance, with very good lenses at F2.8-F5.6, in good light. Smack in the middle of "uh-oh... here comes trouble..." range.

Kit Laughlin wrote:
@ theSuede: what are your recommendations re. good programs for sharpening (I too use Aperture [and C1Pro], but have been playing with RPP, as well? Thanks for your contributions here, too.


As long as you know your way around the limitations of the program, PS still rules for overall flexibility. I don't know of ANY other program that allows for "real-world scenario" sharpening.

I'll try to explain very briefly.
What you REALLY want to sharpen is the image as the sensor captured it. As the lens conveyed the light. After all, this is where most of the "sharpening need" exists - barring for "output sharpening" which is a visual / artistical choice - it has nothing to do with compensating for lens blurryness.

Basically, to get optimal results you want to sharpen the image as it is in the first stage after the de-mosaic stage - before you start mucking about with color corrections, added contrast curves and gamma-corrected RGB color spaces. You want to work on linear, non-processed "as it was captured" data if you want to compensate for lens blur.

Unfortunately this is NEVER the case in commercial software, what you get is that the image is distorted (tonemapped, curved and so on) and really "pre-baked" before it actually arrives at sharpening. This means that you sharpen on something that is non-linear - your sharpening will effect bright- mid- and dark regions differently. It will also effect color differences in a weird way, and generally muck about with everything.

You WILL have oversharpened dark-on bright details long before your sharpening will do even close to anything useful for "surface structure" in bright regions. This is what in my opinion gives the "plastic look" that many find to be a lot worse with AA-filtered systems (and it IS worse... if you follow all the "normal" processing flows!).

Noise reduction makes this even worse, as it tries to keep high-contrast edges and smooth low-contrast regions.

All detail needs to be sharpened by the same amount, no matter if it's bright-on-dark, dark-on-bright, surface structure (low contrast) in bright regions or in dark regions. Anything else than this will give a slightly "processed", unbalanced or unnatural look. And unfortunately the normal workflows makes this happen almost every time.



Feb 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Mitch Alland
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #6 · p.32 #6 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Kit Laughlin wrote:
@ Mitch: yes, I have been playing with RPP, and I do like the look of the files (I am using the K64 look). I have not run any of my interiors through it yet; too busy with work, but will. I will revisit your tutorial on this, too, and if it works out, will add how I integrate with Aperture (as the sorting tool) and especially with batch processing.


Kit, that will be very useful because I've been using RPP in a pedestrian way, not having gone for an sort of efficiency. I think a lot of people will be interested in the integration with Aperture and in how to do batch processing. And, then, I also am short inspiration these days...just too busy.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Surgace



Feb 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #7 · p.32 #7 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


theSuede wrote:
A camera without an AA filter has VERY GOOD base capabilities for getting long DoF's....!
The AA filter is as I've said a very angle-dependent piece of material. Light falling on to the sensor from straight ahead doesn't even notice the AA filter, it isn't blurred at all. Light falling on to the sensor from an angle gets blurred, and MORE blurred the more you increase the angle (and hence the better corner- and F1.4-performance of cameras without AA filters). Both corners and large apertures mean the same thing - increased incoming light angles.

This means that spherical aberrations (undercorrected, soft-bokeh-lenses) get
...Show more

Wow! That was great info, Joakim. Many thanks for that!



Feb 17, 2012 at 05:26 PM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.32 #8 · p.32 #8 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Joakim,

That's very helpful; so with an AA-filter-equipped camera, you are recommending 'capture sharpening' as step one and this is just enough sharpening to remove lens blurryness.

I recall that this is the procedure recommended by PK Sharpener (capture sharpening on import before any adjustments; then any 'effect' sharpening; then output sharpening to suit final medium); I just updated my copy.

What about a non-AA equipped camera—what is your recommendation there?



Feb 17, 2012 at 10:59 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #9 · p.32 #9 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


I only tone-map the input on AA-less cameras used at optimal apertures, sharpening is only done at export size images. I do try to use the same general guidelines as in all my work - if you need a 20MP output file, get a 40MP original. If you need a 10MP output file, get an at least 20MP original.

Bayer "kind of works", and it's the best compromise we've seen so far. But it's never good to strain the format. And since we now have more resolution than what we need, things are looking all rosy.

Made a quick & dirty reason why the sharpest use of a lens on an AA-less camera is very hard to handle for a raw-converter.
This is a line, with colour (low green content, the worst possible scenario). But the same applies for a white line, or a black line on a white surface. I overlay that line on top of a Bayer pattern, and see what happens. Then I add some blur to the line (in linear format, as in the raw file) and see what happens.



This is the effect making the lines on the house on the last page go a bit whacky.
As you can see, already a very small amount of blur will lessen the aliasing effect (the line goes alternating brighter / darker) by quite a lot.

The larger the pixels, the larger this effect will be.

This effect is present on EVERY single contrast edge in the image. No exceptions. It's just that when you see it on an item you recognize ("this is supposed to be a line!") you see the damage instantly. On pixel-level detail, you don't see the error as easily - but it's still there.



Feb 18, 2012 at 12:13 AM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.32 #10 · p.32 #10 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


That is a remarkable demonstration, Joakim.

So, with respect to the GXR M-module, can you go into a bit more detail about what you mean by tone-mapping (I only recognise the term in relation to HDR images). Do you mean that you add a tiny amount of blur (depending on the pixel size) to the image once imported before any other optimisation (so, in a sense, the reverse of what you do for an AA-equipped sensor)? And, if this is what you mean, is there a particular kind of blur you recommend? And given what we know about the GXR's M module, what's your recommendation re. blur amount as a starting point?

And (re. the suggestion " If you need a 10MP output file, get an at least 20MP original"), what downsizing protocol do you recommend? Sorry for so many questions, but this info. is gold for me, and many others, I am sure.



Feb 18, 2012 at 12:55 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #11 · p.32 #11 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Very interesting Joakim.

This is not a remarkable contribution to follow that but at least one that might have some interest as to the actual usage of the GXR M what with moire and false color and what my files look like when opened up in PS after RAW conversion in RPP:

Images are quite dull as I have done no post pro, so I can show how it looks from the get go.
I dialed in a little contrast boost on the full size image because the light this morning is very flat. Apart from that, no alterations. Image shot with a 35/1.2 at f2.

Full image:


The moire inducing blinds across the street:


Roof steel mesh, small detail, unsharpened:


I am not sure if it is just me, but I see very little to no false color, I see no objectionable moiré and the vents under the windows and the window posts look clean.

And, before anyone starts screaming about the "stairstepping" in the cable on the last image; there is no stairstepping, it is a coiled cable, it is supposed to look like that.

A snippet from RPP on how the processing is done;
"RPP uses slow and precise 32-bit floating point calculations to provide best conversion results and this kind of processing speed doesn’t go along with any kind of real time previews. Most of other converters use integer math which is a lot faster, but it is very rough and inconsistent. It creates a lot of artifacts, noise, decreases dynamic range, resolution, posterize and spoil colors. To cover all those issues up vendors have to introduce various smoothing and noise filtering techniques which degrade images even farther. Just do a simple comparison - difference is easy to see on a sharp shot.
Since good math requires a lot of power RPP can use all available CPUs on your system. By default it will use 2 cores and usually this is enough since most of modern Macs have only 2 cores. On Mac Pro and some iMacs RPP can use all available (4, 8 or more) but this feature available only to donators."

Could this be why my RPP files look way better than with ACR, and possibly a lot of other RAW converters which will introduce a lot of funny stuff I didn't ask for? I won't judge any camera/sensor/RAW-converter combination before I tried it myself, or someone I trust has tried it in a reasonable way.



Edited on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM · View previous versions



Feb 18, 2012 at 09:35 AM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #12 · p.32 #12 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Whoa, I just realize how much Photob*cket kills an image! The shots look way better than this, Photob*cket has managed to recombobulate the image into a mush. Also, whatever that crappy host does it has introduced false color to the blinds to a point where it is clearly visible, as well as the coiled cable.

I desperately need a good web host suggestion, like now please!

EDIT: I am willing to pay a little to have a good web based image host.





Edited on Feb 18, 2012 at 09:43 AM · View previous versions



Feb 18, 2012 at 09:39 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #13 · p.32 #13 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


How do you like that 35/1.2 so far Henrik? Thinking to get one myself.


Feb 18, 2012 at 09:41 AM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #14 · p.32 #14 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Ed: I am not 100% sure just yet. I need to shoot it in good light (though it is an f1.2 lens!) as the contrasty artificial light I have been shooting it in for starters don't do any lenses justice. With good light I mean natural light.

Also, I am not sure on close up performance just yet, it seems to be at best at midrange, though it does seem to draw nicely. Will get back with my findings a.s.a.p.

I have a day off and Jenny is working so I am having a field day at home.



Feb 18, 2012 at 09:47 AM
crazeazn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #15 · p.32 #15 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


flickr or smugmug


Feb 18, 2012 at 09:53 AM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #16 · p.32 #16 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


35/1.2 wide open.No moiré.


Sharpness falls off fast from the center at wide open and near close focus limit. Note that the "false" color on the upper right phillips screw head is actually true, it is anodized and shimmers in different angles.

More moiré, or not:








Full image contrast boosted, crops are 100% and unaltered/unsharpened. Looks crisper when not ground to pulp in Photob*cket, I am disgusted everytime I see the results. Balcony is corrugated, blinds are present and I managed to include some distant branches.

Kosmos: not impressed by... ...anything:
(Summarit 75/2.5 wide open)



Edited on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM · View previous versions



Feb 18, 2012 at 10:38 AM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #17 · p.32 #17 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Crazeazn: will check it out. Flickr any good if you don't sign up for the pay version?



Feb 18, 2012 at 10:40 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #18 · p.32 #18 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


I think photo bucket is applying its own antialiasing filter

The speaker shot is exactly what I was expecting, Henrik. When I tested your lens at the shop I took a few close ups wide open, and I was amazed by the sharpness, at least in the center at the focus point. I was also amazed by my accurate focusing abilities



Feb 18, 2012 at 10:51 AM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #19 · p.32 #19 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


You should have been a surgeon Ed... ...steady hands. Good thing you gave up drinking.


EDIT:
The speaker grille/mesh is some 15mm out from the front baffle so the screws are actually a bit off focus from scratch, as is the baffle. Maybe I should have chosen some flat object.


(Guys: FYI, Ed has not got a problem with drinking...)



Feb 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.32 #20 · p.32 #20 · Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


Haha, it's the opposite actually, I have a non drinking problem

That Kosmos shot with the 75 is absolutely amazing. I am seriously considering getting that GXR, and a cat



Feb 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM
1       2       3              31      
32
       33              43       44       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              31      
32
       33              43       44       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password