p.26 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I always felt like when I shot the 100S in 16-bit, I could push editing further without getting banding in large areas of smooth gradients like blue skies. I'm not talking about making comically extreme color and contrast edits, I'm talking about b&w conversions to make nearly black skies, which require going to almost max of the cyan and blue sliders in the b&w conversion panel. That usually causes some posterization of the sky in 14-bit. Maybe it was all in my head, IDK. I never tried a side-by-side test to know for sure. Either way, the GFX RAW files seemed literally unbreakable in C1/LR.
p.26 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
The extra precision is across the whole gamut. Working in that higher precision, even if downsampled to 8 bit when viewing, still has advantages, IMHO. Otherwise we’d all be happy with 8 bit RAWs.
p.26 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tsdevine wrote:
Baby steps. I'm fine with f/8+ for my use cases. And I did research the 35-70 vs the 32-64, knowing I'd be stopped down a bit. Maybe if I had caught the $500 off on the 32-64 I would have considered it more.
At least I could add the 20-35 or 45-100 later. With the RF I would be adding a camera along with the lenses.
I get it. And my copy of the lens could have been subpar. If I shot it in the middle of the zoom range, f/8, and medium to long distances, it did pretty well. MFD at 70mm was probably its weakest scenario.
p.26 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Yeah, I read about the MFD softness at 70. It seems like a very competent lens though at f/8’ish and smaller aperture (excepting the above), at least for a kit lens. I realize there are better lenses for the system.
I just wasn’t prepared to slide down the slope that fast. I had preordered the RF, committed to $1,000 more by getting the 100S II and 35-70, which leaves the door open to more lenses down the road.
I suspect this won’t be the end of the road for me.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I get it. And my copy of the lens could have been subpar. If I shot it in the middle of the zoom range, f/8, and medium to long distances, it did pretty well. MFD at 70mm was probably its weakest scenario.
p.26 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
highdesertmesa wrote:
I always felt like when I shot the 100S in 16-bit, I could push editing further without getting banding in large areas of smooth gradients like blue skies. I'm not talking about making comically extreme color and contrast edits, I'm talking about b&w conversions to make nearly black skies, which require going to almost max of the cyan and blue sliders in the b&w conversion panel. That usually causes some posterization of the sky in 14-bit. Maybe it was all in my head, IDK. I never tried a side-by-side test to know for sure. Either way, the GFX RAW files seemed literally unbreakable in C1/LR....Show more →
As long as I do not see a proof that it matters and considering that the two lowest bits in the 16 bit raws are mainly noise, I consider 16-bit advantage imaginary. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
p.26 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tsdevine wrote:
Yeah, I read about the MFD softness at 70. It seems like a very competent lens though at f/8’ish and smaller aperture (excepting the above), at least for a kit lens. I realize there are better lenses for the system.
I just wasn’t prepared to slide down the slope that fast. I had preordered the RF, committed to $1,000 more by getting the 100S II and 35-70, which leaves the door open to more lenses down the road.
I suspect this won’t be the end of the road for me.
p.26 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
SrMi wrote:
As long as I do not see a proof that it matters and considering that the two lowest bits in the 16 bit raws are mainly noise, I consider 16-bit advantage imaginary. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
I don't think anyone said it was imaginary, even the small amount of extra DR was visible in Jim's test. It was just in a file pushed really hard and not a whole lot. Giving that turning on 16 bit comes with some downsides like slower readout speed and bigger files sizes I think the conclusion was it was ok to use 14 bit in most normal cases.
p.26 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Guys, I give up on the quotes. I'm sorry I quoted the wrong guy on my response somewhere above, but I was responding to a guy that quoted someone else 6 layers in, and since there is no threaded view here and every response just goes to the bottom of the 27th page and the thread becomes completely impossible to follow. Apologies. But that IQ comment needed correcting and whoever above is saying that they get something extra out of shooting 16 bit is also incorrect. The scientists have proven it and I also for years have tried it and can see absolutely no difference. The vast majority (probably all) of GFX shooters with experience do not shoot 16 bit. The ones that do are holding out for the possibility that it could come into play with some future post processing tech, but I think they are wasting their time shooting 16 bit but go ahead and shoot 16 bit. It doesn't hurt except for file size. But don't delude yourself into thinking it maters because it does not. There are new GFX shooters on this site that are learning what we already learned 5-6 years ago. Pay heed to the guys who shoot and know. We all learn from each other. Cheers.
p.26 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
AZSteve wrote:
Likely the wiser course.
Hey Steve, go on over and see what Jim is saying about the new Fuji RF MTF charts. The lens is fixed and can't be isolated, so it will have to be a whole system MTF at some point when the science and tester guys over on DPR finally get the camera. I think all of the worry about this lens is way overstated and that is coming from a guy who will not buy this camera because of no stab. But the guys complaining about this fixed 35 because of corner stretch and digital correction are probably in the same can of worms as the guys who shoot at the Q3 fixed 28 because of digital correction. That Summilux 28 is absolutely superb, and I bet this Fuji fixed GF 35 will be too once guys who know the deal get their hands on it vs some pre-release guys that have the camera for 2 days. I bet this lens is really good.
p.26 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rbf_ wrote:
I don't think anyone said it was imaginary, even the small amount of extra DR was visible in Jim's test.
I meant "imaginary" in refence to 16 bits providing better color and less banding. Yes, there is a tiny bit less noise with 16 bit. Not worth the trouble in practice.
It was just in a file pushed really hard and not a whole lot. Giving that turning on 16 bit comes with some downsides like slower readout speed and bigger files sizes I think the conclusion was it was ok to use 14 bit in most normal cases.
p.26 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
SrMi wrote:
As long as I do not see a proof that it matters and considering that the two lowest bits in the 16 bit raws are mainly noise, I consider 16-bit advantage imaginary. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
Completely fair. I don't have a GFX at the moment, or I would test it.
p.26 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
“quote]SrMi wrote:
The advantage of 16 vs. 14 bits for color is a myth. In theory, 16 bits could help with dynamic range, but they do not do much for a sensor size of 44x33. Most use 14 bits instead.
It isn’t quite a “myth.” But while there are some potential benefits, they are often exaggerated. It is true that they are only significant in a very small subset of cases, mostly related to people who regularly push files in specific and quite extreme ways in post, and not the way that most people are thinking of.
It isn’t a perfect analogy, but the “It has 16 bits so it must be better!” argument is close to a future, predictable “it has 32 bits instead of 30, so it must be better!” argument. ;-)
You literally would not be able to sense any difference in two SOOC images, particularly if you are shooting in jpg mode, where one is 14 bit and the other is 16 bit. You could view them on a very good and very large screen or you could make prints of them — it would not matter.
The same is true for the results of typical post-processing workflows beginning with raw files.
So, it is not a myth that there is a “difference,” but it is arguably a myth that there will be a meaningful visual difference in all but certain extreme cases.
If you can have 16-bit files “for free,” then why not? But if you have to give up other important things to get them, you’ll have to balance those things agains the (very small) potential improvement in a few edge cases from 16-bit.
p.26 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
That issue is over-rated. And it isn’t all THAT different in the 102MP miniMF format. (The size difference between miniMF and FF is about half that of the difference between APS-C and FF.)
What I do know is that
- I can make a very sharp and very large print from 50MP 5DsR images.
- for various reasons, it is eventually going to be time to upgrade from that camera to something newer.
- much of my landscape photography is of a sort where a GFX system would have some pluses, but…
- …the GFX system does not provide the range of focal lengths (without compromises) that I rely on for my landscape photography.
- in optimal cases, there are pluses for detail resolution in a 80MP FF sensor. (If there weren’t, why would anyone ever be interested in, say, a future Sony 150MP miniMF sensor?)
make sense?
I’ll try not to pursue these question in this thread since the GFX 100 RF’s feature set would not make it a candidate for this kind of photography in any case. ...Show more →
You mentioned about the 50MP 5DsR, I have the 5Ds. The biggest print I've done is no more than 11 x 14 in. and @ 50 MP it already has a huge amount of cropping power. Plus I have the X100VI for travel and everyday use. The 102 MP will definitely be overkill for me. BTW, I intend to use my 5Ds again this year (lately I've been shooting with the R6MKII) after I went back to my old files. And good timing, Amazon has a sale on Crucial X10 4TB SSD so I just ordered one.
p.26 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
SrMi wrote:
The 16-bit claim has been considered by knowledgeable people as PR's razzle dazzle 😄.
And, that's kind of a faulty logic perspective, in your "appeal to authority" ... since there are plenty of knowledgeable people who indicate otherwise.
But, you go on believing there is no difference ... I mean, how many people on the Fuji forum alone (and have done so for years) have heralded how much greater the color is in the GFX systems than other (FF / APS-C ... both of which are 14 bit vs. GFX 16 bit), and continue to use the GFX ... I mean, if there's truly no difference.
How long did you say you've been shooting with both 16 bit and 14 bit systems in your bag at the same time ... for real world shooting / pp? Or, are you just parroting others who are pitching their perspective, and agreeing with them. I suppose there's no difference between 14 bit and 12 bit either, or 12 bit and 10 bit. Heck just shoot jpg's 8 bit, there's no difference between that and 10 bit, since it's all PR.
Do you really think that the Fuji GFX system and the Hassy system has sustained itself on a "ruse" of PR marketing?
That, and IF there truly is no difference ... then, why in the world would they incur the 1/3 sec readout for 16 bit, when they could just stick with the 1/6 sec readout for 14 bit?
Just "PR razzle-dazzle" is non-sequitur.
p.26 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
And, that's kind of a faulty logic perspective, in your "appeal to authority" ... since there are plenty of knowledgeable people who indicate otherwise.
But, you go on believing there is no difference ... I mean, how many people on the Fuji forum alone (and have done so for years) have heralded how much greater the color is in the GFX systems than other (FF / APS-C ... both of which are 14 bit vs. GFX 16 bit), and continue to use the GFX ... I mean, if there's truly no difference.
How long did you say you've been shooting with both 16 bit and 14 bit systems in your bag at the same time ... for real world shooting / pp? Or, are you just parroting others who are pitching their perspective, and agreeing with them. I suppose there's no difference between 14 bit and 12 bit either, or 12 bit and 10 bit. Heck just shoot jpg's 8 bit, there's no difference between that and 10 bit, since it's all PR.
Do you really think that the Fuji GFX system and the Hassy system has sustained itself on a "ruse" of PR marketing?
That, and IF there truly is no difference ... then, why in the world would they incur the 1/3 sec readout for 16 bit, when they could just stick with the 1/6 sec readout for 14 bit?
Just "PR razzle-dazzle" is non-sequitur.
Rusty, the 14-bit versus 16-bit thing for the 33mm x 44mm sensors used by Hasselblad and Fuji has been thoroughly hashed out over at DPReview.
In the words of the inestimable Jim Kasson, who forgot more about colour science this morning than most people know, claims regarding 16-bits and color from both Hasselblad and Fuji are "cow pucks". https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67943086 The thread is really interesting and clarifies what is going on.
p.26 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rdeloe wrote:
Rusty, the 14-bit versus 16-bit thing for the 33mm x 44mm sensors used by Hasselblad and Fuji has been thoroughly hashed out over at DPReview.
In the words of the inestimable Jim Kasson, who forgot more about colour science this morning than most people know, claims regarding 16-bits and color from both Hasselblad and Fuji are "cow pucks". https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67943086 The thread is really interesting and clarifies what is going on.
I've read it before ... and I understand Jim's position, etc. as well regarded. That doesn't change my experience with my scenes and my PP. Agree to disagree.
Now, everyone can sell their 16 bit cameras and just go back to 14 bit files. OF course, only those who are buying into the ruse will by them, right.
Oh, and someone should tell Fuji and Hassy they can quit making them, too.
p.26 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
16bit files edited on 8 bit screens 😁
16 bit math, edited ... still capable of exceeding 8 bit outputs, after math operations.
You guys are missing the point that where you start ... gives you more latitude ... en route to where you end (staying north of 8-10 bit, etc.).
14 bit has less "wiggle room" than 16 bit. To Dan's point "edge cases" for some. Yet, appreciated for others.
If you're not going to consider the 16 bit difference of value to your files, then why even bother with MF ... more $$$, more weight, more bulk, slower lenses, etc. Might as well drop the premise of the GFX 100RF being of any value over the X100VI for consideration ... oh, wait 100MP for cropping down to a 60mp or 40mp files (same as FF or APS-C, options).
p.26 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
I've read it before ... and I understand Jim's position, etc. as well regarded. That doesn't change my experience with my scenes and my PP. Agree to disagree.
Now, everyone can sell their 16 bit cameras and just go back to 14 bit files. OF course, only those who are buying into the ruse will by them, right.
Oh, and someone should tell Fuji and Hassy they can quit making them, too.
I think there's some confusion here. The testing of 16 bit mode vs 14 bit mode revealed some small improvement in DR under extreme inspection. But several photographers reading it noticed that one was obviously better. It also revealed some not as well stated drawbacks in sensor readout speed, obviously file size and maybe fps. Some people have been hearing about the 16 bit color advantage for longer than others. I think getting the data out there just helps photographers make a choice depending on what they are doing at the time and is a good thing. It's some pros and cons that a photographer needs to weigh to make a choice about which mode he wants to be using. It has some drawbacks as well. I view it as a "Good Thing" for photographers to know them. But using it is at the end a valid photographs choice.
