E versus non E. Splitting hairs

[Guy Mancuso]

Well I just got the E after a few months and a lot of shooting with the D800. Its different alright and I can only speak in C1 but you may want to take this to LR as well. Immediate visual difference the E is certainly sharper looking coming in at default and you know what they say about default , Its wrong and 9 times out of 10 it will always be wrong. LOL

Honestly i dont care what program your in you need to make a new default, preset or style for this cam. In C1 its too sharp and I have lowered my sharpening from 240 to 125 from the Non E to the E. but that was just a start it also has too much mid range contrast in the clarity. On the non E i added 15 points on the E i actually dropped it down to -15. Now let me stop right there as people that are looking for a look in there files as smooth than this is the ticket right here. Clarity is way to high coming in. So C1 and LR users you need to go play with this and drop the clarity down and do some side by sides with it at a lower setting. It smoothed the file right up. Also its a touch more contrasty too so I dropped it 5 points and than opened the shadows 4 points. Now I have my new default for the E . Now i can make a style in C1 to apply on import or you can make a preset in LR as well and apply this on import. Very important to get your base level down.

As Jack has mentioned which I do agree we can get a file to look identical with the non E and the E that is very clear now as I have the E in my hands. It just depends if you like going up with your settings or reducing them down. I tend to like reducing things down so maybe the E is better for me and yes end of day the E may have that slight micro detail advantage but you may never see it in print either. I will warn you out of the gate you start taking the E down in either program you think you are reducing the quality of your images because its not so sharp but reality is your getting them down to a better looking file. Natural for people to over sharpen digital images and it will look digital to get a smooth palette you need to drop this cam down some.

Now don't get me wrong either cam you can get to look like the other cam with the correct processing routine. Its a very very slight difference between them and end of day still not sure the E is the ticket over the D800. Maybe if you dont like to tweak things out of the camera the E will certainly look sharper. Myself I am after a look so whatever it takes to get that I have no issues of dropping sharpness and clarity levels to get it. Honestly the E looks a little too brittle ( subjective) coming out of the cam.

[Guy Mancuso]

Now I should add these are my first impressions and as I shoot the E more I may make some slight adjustments as well, I went back and shot stuff i shot with the D800 and Phase so from memory i can tell whats up with each cam and how they handle those scenes . Obviously its also subjective to how much sharpness you like or not. I know and no one take offense but people tend to over sharpen because they want there purchases to look good. Admit it now. LOL But at some point you will realize its not always a good thing.

[Paul2660]

Guy, your findings are the same as I found. The E or non E can be brought close enough with the correct sharpening that you are "splitting hairs" I have read that the area where the E may out shine the base 800 is interestingly enough in the F1.4 to F5.6 range. After F5.6 as you point out you can either sharpen up the 800 or back off the E. If you have a chance I would love to see what you think about the E with a 24mm 1.4 or the 35mm 1.4.

For sure an E file can be over sharpened quickly whereas the 800 file seems to be able to take a lot more sharpening. I am finding I like the ability to sharpen up and not back off. But as you pointed out it's an individual thing.

I hope to be able to post some examples, E at F10 with a Zeiss 21mm and 800 at 21mm with a 14-24mm. I personally can't tell much difference once the files have been worked to their optimum settings for sharpening. Currently after a direct lightening hit to my house on Wednesday I am still coming back up with my PC's and have not attempted to do much work on files.

Either way, both cameras are really amazing and have really opened a new realm in 35mm digital.

Thanks for posting.

Paul

[GrahamWelland]

Guy,

Very interesting initial observations that equate to my own experience with a non-OLPF full spectrum and normal D800 pair. I've been revisiting my converted D800's files and toning them down because basically they appear TOO sharp and digital in nature. It isn't a good look IMHO and I prefer the files from the standard D800 which actually is pretty darned sharp with my Zeiss glass already. Sometimes you really can have too much acuity and it becomes too noticeable - initially impressive but ultimately tiring.

I thought it was just me in private un-sharpening my D800e (well mine is probably e++ due to no OLPF) images. Who'd expect that to happen?

[manouch shirzad]

Hi Guy,
I also received my D800E last week and have been busy testing the camera to make
sure it doesn't have focus problem. Steel I'm learning C1 and not comfortable working
with it, I know you have a lot of experience with C1 and any information about your
workflow and settings will be very helpful and appreciated.
Best,
_________
Manouch

[Oamkumar]

Hi Guy,
I got my D800E last week and I tested and confirmed that there is no focus issues. I found a green cast over the back LCD and is not visible in the images after downloading to the computer. Now I have only 50mm f1.8D and 105mm f2.8G vr. Waiting for a wide angle lens, and got confused between 14-24 and zeiss lenses. Trying Capture NX for postprocessing. I am very happy with the camera.
Thanks and regards,
Oam

[glenerrolrd]

Are you sure that over sharpening you are seeing isn t a function of the raw convertor ? I remember doing side by side comparisons between C1 and LR using my M8 and to my surprise the C1 conversions looked like my after versions of the LR conversion. The defaults seemed optimized rather than neutral .

It seems possible that neither C1 or Lr have really developed profiles specific to the 800E but rather have a generic D800 conversion algorithm . When I process a D800E file in NX2 I see no over sharpening (and remember Nikon recommended NX2 for the D800E when it was introduced ) ...in fact the Nikon forums complain most about the out of date sharpening logic in NX2 .

The D3S/D4 have that brittle digital sharpening look you are speaking to ...by design . Sports photography has moved onto high quality Jpegs ..no time to process raws . The photo editors want those files crispy ..not my preference .

Unfortunately it looks like Nikon has biased their in camera firmware to create files that “Pop” . I would prefer a nice flat file(linear tone curve) with minimal sharpening that can be “developed” to a specific aesthetic/look etc. Its in that darn file someplace ?

[Guy Mancuso]

Roger retread my first paragraph . Of course it will always be a function of the raw converter. I can't speak for LR but I suspect it could be similar as I have read folks saying similar thoughts. In C1 it's a generic profile so the default is not exactly tuned to the E but the D800 does seem better at the default. It just needs adjustments made. If you remember the S2 in my review in C1 it was over sharpened by a large margin. Pretty similar to that at the defaults. LR I have not tried nor ACR with the E but if you are a user of those programs it could be similar. Something to look for.

For C1 try in the sharpening tab 125, .6, 1
Contrast -5 and HDR shadow go to 4
-15 Clarity as well
Seems like a pretty good base to start.

[Jack]

Way back when they were first released (), I compared D800 to D800E files and think I mentioned here that when both were optimally processed, I felt there was little to differentiate them. I agree that out of the cam, the E files are distinctly brittle and need to be dialed back to look smooth and natural -- at least to my eyes. At the same time, the D800 needs to get pumped a little to get to the same point -- and I too tend to prefer to pump instead of dial back and why I selected a pair of D800's instead of a pair of E's. Personally I didn't want one of each simply because they both require distinctly different processing workflows and I didn't want to deal with that -- yes, lazy LOLOL!

Re file "pop," I do not think it's as simple as Nikon wanting to create files that pop unless you mean jpegs. A raw file in C1 or LR is a raw file period, and in either program the E file needs to be dialed back or it looks brittle and heavily digital -- at least to my eyes. (I submit that a raw file in NX may be a different animal.) At this point I am only using and only ever likely to use C1 to process and LOVE the results.

[algrove]

Perhaps a dumb question, but when using LR can you import the 800E files as DNG's instead of NX2's?

If so what experience does anyone have doing this regarding file sharpness and overall color balance? Guess it depends on your settings, so those would help.

Got my lenses, just waiting for the camera-800E. Hordered the E model since I am used to not having an anti-aliasing filter. Thanks.

[Guy Mancuso]

I think you would have to convert the NEFS to DNGs. I never tried that myself but not sure if any advantage in doing that either. In my pea brain mind I would think you would lose any algorithms and or corrections that Nikon puts into the NEF. That would be my guess.

[Guy Mancuso]

As far as raw converters NX2 is a extreme no go for me. The workflow is horrible and frankly I did not like any of the results over C1. Again defaults in these programs unless for example a Phase IQ 160 is totally dedicated to its mother ship C1. Same with Hassy and Phocus. On C1 side any cam outside of there own a ICC profile is made. My guess C1 made the generic profile for the D800 since it was out first reason why the default looks pretty darn good out of the can. The E version coming to market later is just using that Profile. Now version 7 will most likely hit the streets at Photokinia than maybe will see a more dedicated profile for the E version. I brought this up because reading a few threads folks where saying the look of the E did not please them . Honestly the default is not pleasing me either so give those numbers a try and I forgot the biggy minus 15 clarity. I will fix that above post. Obviously tweak to taste but go by a print if you can. Monitors can be deceptive.

[Guy Mancuso]

BTW reason I have not posted this in images is it would probably be hard to see the slight variances. But play around and see what works best. Never take a default as face value as it usually can be improved on and basically the heart of this thread.

[k-hawinkler]

I just got C1, so can't speak to it, and have been using CNX2 and CS6 for my D800E NEF files. I have come across one shot in which a striped shirt was showing considerable moire when processed with CS6 but locked fine with CNX2.

Here is my question, how does C1 deal with a potential moire problem?

Best, K-H.

[Guy Mancuso]

C1 does have a Moire tool in the sharpening tab. Yet to run across it on the E YET

[eleanorbrown]

Guy I'm glad you have the same observations of the e files as I do... I have been working in post processing to get the crunchy feel and contrast softened. I will also try your suggestions of less clarity and sharpening. I have also been shooting long exposure water images at iso 64 instead of 100 and that smoothes the tonal transitions a bit in the water. Thanks, Eleanor

[glenerrolrd]

Originally Posted by Jack

Way back when they were first released (), I compared D800 to D800E files and think I mentioned here that when both were optimally processed, I felt there was little to differentiate them. I agree that out of the cam, the E files are distinctly brittle and need to be dialed back to look smooth and natural -- at least to my eyes. At the same time, the D800 needs to get pumped a little to get to the same point -- and I too tend to prefer to pump instead of dial back and why I selected a pair of D800's instead of a pair of E's. Personally I didn't want one of each simply because they both require distinctly different processing workflows and I didn't want to deal with that -- yes, lazy LOLOL!

Re file "pop," I do not think it's as simple as Nikon wanting to create files that pop unless you mean jpegs. A raw file in C1 or LR is a raw file period, and in either program the E file needs to be dialed back or it looks brittle and heavily digital -- at least to my eyes. (I submit that a raw file in NX may be a different animal.) At this point I am only using and only ever likely to use C1 to process and LOVE the results.

Please explain what you mean by “a raw file is a raw file “ . Doesn t the firmware in the camera create the basic file and established the initial tone curve ,color distribution, sharpening and noise ..even on a raw file . If you are saying thats why the files look brittle in both C1 and LR before the conversion adjustments then I am having trouble following the logic .....camera creates the raw file , conversion software uses profile /settings established to produce a suitable first cut (photographer can override these with camera calibration or initial presets ) and finally you can use processing presets to interpret the converted file .

If Nikon gives you a brittle /high contrast/saturated file in the original .NEF then what is wrong with saying they built the file to Pop. Isn t that consistent with Guy s point about dialing back the conversion settings ?

I must be missing something.

[Guy Mancuso]

Originally Posted by eleanorbrown

Guy I'm glad you have the same observations of the e files as I do... I have been working in post processing to get the crunchy feel and contrast softened. I will also try your suggestions of less clarity and sharpening. I have also been shooting long exposure water images at iso 64 instead of 100 and that smoothes the tonal transitions a bit in the water. Thanks, Eleanor

We need to get Phase to make a specfice profile for the E version. Seems to me a lot of folks may not figure this out. C1 is usually very good at these profiles and I'm almost proof positive it was made for the D800 and not the E version. Like many of these systems there are growing pains. Nature of the game. I'll do some more testing this week and see what else I can figure out. The nice part for the D800 is the profile is very good in regards to sharpening and all that. Try those settings Eleanor see if your seeing what I am. The clarity one is the one that really smooths it down.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by glenerrolrd

Please explain what you mean by “a raw file is a raw file “ . Doesn t the firmware in the camera create the basic file and established the initial tone curve ,color distribution, sharpening and noise ..even on a raw file .

No, a raw file should be a linear read of data directly off the sensor -- unless said sensor has a sidecar processing engine attached in series with it and I've seen no mention of that in regards to the D800/E sensors. How that raw data gets interpolated to useful image data is then 100% up to the raw processor. Most raw processors will apply some kind of a curve to that linear readout as default, and then of course some basic color profile assumptions, else-wise the image would look terribly flat and have inaccurate color. (In C1 we can choose from several curves, though "film standard" is C1's default.) Dedicated raw processors (NX in this case) may additionally utilize camera-specific user-input jpeg image parameters like saturation, sharpening and color bias settings to alter the look of the image, however C1 does not. Moreover, all of these can -- or at least should be able to -- be zeroed or deleted in a dedicated converter to get to the native raw file data back to what it was as it streamed off the sensor.

If you are saying thats why the files look brittle in both C1 and LR before the conversion adjustments then I am having trouble following the logic .....camera creates the raw file , conversion software uses profile /settings established to produce a suitable first cut (photographer can override these with camera calibration or initial presets ) and finally you can use processing presets to interpret the converted file .

Again, C1 does NOT use any of the camera's internal settings in determining conversion parameters, so that is one flaw in your "conversion software uses profile /settings established to produce a suitable first cut" assumption above.

If Nikon gives you a brittle /high contrast/saturated file in the original .NEF then what is wrong with saying they built the file to Pop. Isn t that consistent with Guy s point about dialing back the conversion settings ? I must be missing something.

You're only missing the fact that a raw file has no pop on its own, any of that has to be added by the raw processor or it has to be a difference in the sensor itself.

To be clear, what I am saying is *to my eyes* the E's files look brittle at base settings in LR and C1 while the D800 files behave normally or as expected in both. IOW, I see a distinct difference in how these two raw converters are rendering E raw data versus D800 raw file data. Logic dictates the difference I'm seeing has to be the presence of the OLPF since that's the only fundamental difference we've been told about. However, based on my experience the looks represent a much bigger difference than can be from no OLPF v OLPF alone. So the primary conclusion I am left with is there is possibly more different about these two sensors than we are privy to. The other possibility is I'm simply wrong about what I'm seeing...

[Bill_Green]

So here is what I want to know. How close is the D800E to the look of the DMR?

[glenerrolrd]

Jack

Sorry to be a pain in the *** ..but this is important and I can t agree with your explanation as I understand it .

Just to clarify .....I completely understand that the raw conversion software is applying its own presets and calibration in the RC software.

Lets just focus on what happens in the camera ....the cameras processor takes the raw sensor data and creates the initial raw file (along with an embedded profile ) . How the camera manufacturer decides to map that data ..does have an impact on the raw file . Lets just look at the Sony sensor used in both the Sony A900 and D3X (or use any over example you want ) . We know for sure that the D800 and D800E have the same sensor. Nikon decides exactly how to map the tones and colors into the raw file and they have a different approach than Sony . It is how they do this that is the key to some of their high ISO performance . The “raw file “ represents processed sensor data and each manufacture has its own signature .

I understand the problem Guy is speaking to is really about the fact that neither C1 or Lr appear to have a D800E profile and this is the source of his “need to change “ . However I would tell you that the same exact problem occurred with the D3s and D4 ..where they have had time to get the profile correct .

This only matters because I have found (starting with the s2) that some raw files just never quite get there until the raw conversion software is refined enough to handle the new raw file ....even though you would think that you can adjust all the parameters in post processing . It also explains why no one seems to be able to match cameras from different manufacturers (if its not mapped into the raw file you aren t getting it in post ).

I realize this is beyond the discussion that Guy initiated .

[Guy Mancuso]

Roger I think your getting into a area also that is wrapping the instructions ( camera profile that is) into a file extension. Aka NEF, DNG, Tif and others that certain raw processors see differently. Not all programs like C1 for instance likes a DNG file, it sees it as a generic file and will dump some or all of the instructions from the manufacter and use its own engine to interpret it.
I think this is what your getting at. Regardless of the OEMs instructions the raw processor may interpret it differently or ignore those instructions.

[Guy Mancuso]

Example here Roger the D800 has instructions for distortion correction built into the wrapper of the file extension. C1 does not see that but LR and ACR does.

[Steen]

Originally Posted by Bill_Green

So here is what I want to know. How close is the D800E to the look of the DMR?

Not an easy question to answer with any adequate accuracy.
Personally I have a feeling there will always be a rendition difference between CCD sensors and CMOS sensors but I wouldn't know exactly how to describe it.
I would rather offer you a D800E RAW file to develop to your own taste with your own favorite RAW processor so that you can try to judge the D800E CMOS sensor rendition for yourself.

Here's a link to a D800E RAW file with a really good Nikon optic (85mm f/1.4 G), a picture captured in dull light on an overcast day.
It would be interesting to see some different conversion results from different RAW converters, with links to full size of course.

801_0127_D800E_85mm_f1.4_G_at_f5.6.NEF

Here's a Lightroom 4.1 conversion - click for native size (7.4 Mb)


Nikon D800E • AF-S Nikkor 1.4/85mm G • 1/250 sec. at f/5.6 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4.1

[glenerrolrd]

Guy

I have deviated from your original intent ..which was to speak to the differences in best practices using C1 for conversions of D800 and D800E files.

Given a .NEF and the adjustments you and Jack have found to be most useful ..directly implies that the D800E file has more resolution ,higher micro contrast ...and what else ? Of course if C1 had a specific D800E profile established the raw conversions might look much closer . This makes complete sense and your thoughts on normalizing the different files is precisely in line with my thinking .

You simply want good raw conversions that work for your personal and professional work .

My point was intended to take this farther and to do that , we need to understand the next level down . The camera maker creates the raw file using the sensor data as interpreted by the firmware . Its not right off the sensor its processed . This is why improvements in noise reduction often come at the expense of the mid tone s . It is also why Nikon files don t have the same color as Sony . I believe Jack indicated a different point of view ..he disagrees . Or maybe I need yet another expresso .

You are also correct in that the raw files often contain embedded profiles (like the old DMR files ) which can be used by the adobe products . C1 has always done a great job of creating their own profiles for most raw files ....they are very very good at creating great color ...not necessarily at matching those pesky color charts but most photographers are happy . But they do this on their own and I would be surprised if their NEF conversion looks even close to a Leica DNG . It never did when I was comparing C1 and LR .

Whats the point ..its that the camera manufacturers play a key role in establishing that initial raw file and the look carries thru even with great post processing .

I also believe the the camera firmware and the raw conversion software have to be tuned together ..which requires great cooperation . Take a .NEF file from your d800e ...hold your nose and just view it in NX2 . Thats how the file was intended to look . You may hate it ,think its a waste of time but it provides a reference point . I found the conversions to be subtle , with balanced color (using auto WB in the camera ) and fine detail without sharpening . Plenty of things wrong with Nx2 ..but I found it revealing in how the file should look .

Sorry for going off topic .

[Jack]

Originally Posted by glenerrolrd

....the cameras processor takes the raw sensor data and creates the initial raw file

That's the incorrect assumption creating the confusion. The sensor itself creates the raw file and the camera's processor has nothing to do with it. The camera's processor may create a jpeg out of that data, and it may create sidecar files that add processing instruction sets for certain dedicated raw processors, but it does not directly alter the raw data streaming off the sensor. That's why I say the raw data is raw data period. Then the methodology by which each raw processor renders that raw data into usable image data -- their proprietary debayering and processing algorithms -- explains why one raw processor can create "better color" or "sharper images" or "a more natural looking" image all from the same raw file.

[Paratom]

Do you guys think that less need for sharpening would be good for higher ISO because more sharpening would probably also mean that noise would become more visible?

[Guy Mancuso]

This is my thinking with the E version. At least it is a assumption that less sharpening would hold noise down going into the higher ISOs. One reason I wanted to try the E version. Now there is a catch to this a AA filter also may help diffuse the noise per say with higher ISOs but again you still have to sharpen it more to get to the same level as the E. now this maybe the real splitting hairs situation. I could see a argument either way on this and make some sense. This is a test I would like to see or do. My D800 is coming back to me for a day before it goes in to repair for a new buyer and I want to try a quick test of this real quick. My gut says the E maybe better at the same level of sharpness of both cams that the noise would be less. It's a question or test that no one has done that I have seen yet.

[glenerrolrd]

jack

Let me concede the point on the in camera processing because I believe its not central to the logic. The point I was trying to make (and not doing so well) was that the camera mfg do tune the sensors to create a specific rendering . (it does not matter where or how this is done). Characteristics of the raw file are established in the camera .

Sony sensors are used all over the market and have very different characteristics when used by different makers . I know Leica determines the color pallet for the output of their raw files ...I spoke to the guys that do it at lunch in Solms .

This may or may not be relevant to the discussion of the d800/d800e because we know the sensors (as reported by Nikon are identical) and we know that the files you and Guy are looking at in C1 are different . In this case the differences maybe 100% do to the differences in filtration and it appears that only one camera profile is being used in C1 .

My point is that the initial raw file as established in the camera (doesn t matter where) has a set of characteristics that define a range of possible outcomes in post processing . (yes different processing algorithms can yield distinctly different results out of post and in most cases it only matters that the photographer obtains results they like ) .

As I noted earlier ..if you are comparing the D800/d800e ...sensor discussions are probably not relevant .

The implication in these discussions is that everything is established in post processing ...which is only true in situations where the camera generated raw file is identical . This is the important aspect of my response .

Apologize for taking this off topic but you probably remember form other posts that I have been trying to develop a consistent work flow that handles multiple brands ....Leica and Nikon . I can get close in post especially if I have reference image to match but finding a repeatable solution has proven elusive . (here is an example at the US Open the wind shades on the courts are deep blue ...when I shoot Nikon and Leica they don t match ..the sensors render them differently ....so I develop a reference image and then build a preset for the Nikon to match the Leica rendering . You can’t show different shading in the same collection of images ).

Consider two other attributes often discussed ...DR and Noise . Nikon and Sony appear to use the same sensor for the A900 and D3x . From the look of the files ..Sony appears to have favored native and low ISO performance while Nikon went for a wide DR and high ISO performance . How did they get such different performance characteristics from the same sensors ? Nikon compressed the mid tones providing more head room in the highlights and pull back in the shadows . The also kick in more in camera noise suppression ..so the raw files come out different . And its almost impossible to get the Nikon files to look like the Sony files . Are they different sensors ..I guess so after the manufacturer tunes them to a spec . But the differences are established at creation in the camera ..not by the algorithms in post .

Ok I beat this one to death and from the OP this is off topic so I will quit while I am behind .

[eleanorbrown]

Yes reduction in clarity and sharpening is vital to smooth out the e files. Makes all the difference in the world. On another note, I had converted some of my 800e files to DNG and C1 can't handle them... They look awful. Does Phase have any plans to handle these in the in the future? Eleanor

Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso

We need to get Phase to make a specfice profile for the E version. Seems to me a lot of folks may not figure this out. C1 is usually very good at these profiles and I'm almost proof positive it was made for the D800 and not the E version. Like many of these systems there are growing pains. Nature of the game. I'll do some more testing this week and see what else I can figure out. The nice part for the D800 is the profile is very good in regards to sharpening and all that. Try those settings Eleanor see if your seeing what I am. The clarity one is the one that really smooths it down.

[k-hawinkler]

Originally Posted by eleanorbrown

Yes reduction in clarity and sharpening is vital to smooth out the e files. Makes all the difference in the world. On another note, I had converted some of my 800e files to DNG and C1 can't handle them... They look awful. Does Phase have any plans to handle these in the in the future? Eleanor

Isn't that how Adobe locks you in so that those files only work with their software? Do you still have the original NEF files? They would work. IIRC that has been extensively discussed on the LUF forum.

Regards, K-H.

[eleanorbrown]

I'm not converting my NEF's to DNG anymore but i don't think this is Adobe...isn't this Phase One's refusal to open up their software to DNG?? I could be wrong, but personally I like to have all my files in DNG because I can save my changes to the file and not have to rely on a sidecar file or Lightroom catalog or C1 for that matter. Correct me if I'm wrong. Eleanor

Originally Posted by k-hawinkler

Isn't that how Adobe locks you in so that those files only work with their software? Do you still have the original NEF files? They would work. IIRC that has been extensively discussed on the LUF forum.

Regards, K-H.

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by eleanorbrown

...and not have to rely on a sidecar file...

And that is the reason I like RAW--the adjustment is never applied to the original data, it is just recorded to metadata--the sidecar file. So none of my changes to the file are destructive--I can always get back to the starting point. From what I understand, dng is no different as it uses metadata as well.

[Uaiomex]

Eleanor and Guy:
Very interesting thread to me despite I don't even own one single Nikon piece of equipment. However, this post in answer to Guy's suggestion to diminish clarity and sharpening, touched me in some way to chime in.

If sharpening works by creating extra separation at pixel level, it is understandable the image will get brittle if overdone. (it does when I over do it with my Canon equipment) but if Clarity is some sort of Local Contrast enhancement as suggested by Thomas Knoll a few years ago for PS, this shouldn't produce the same effect but in some way just the opposite as the radius is gigantic.

I may be entirely wrong here but thinking about the D800E and how to avoid brittleness, it occurs (ed) to me that a way would be to back the sharpening tool and use the Clarity to the right to regain sharpening but this time not at the pixel level, adding at the same time some pop and vibrancy which btw, many Nikon D800 detractors say it's missing.

Local Enhancement is used by many dslr users to gain some pop trying to emulate a bit the medium format look.

If it doesn't work like this for the D800 or any other camera, I'd love to understand why.
Thanks
Eduardo

Originally Posted by eleanorbrown

Guy I'm glad you have the same observations of the e files as I do... I have been working in post processing to get the crunchy feel and contrast softened. I will also try your suggestions of less clarity and sharpening. I have also been shooting long exposure water images at iso 64 instead of 100 and that smoothes the tonal transitions a bit in the water. Thanks, Eleanor

[eleanorbrown]

What I understand is that I can save to the dng file but this is stored as metadata separate and does not in any way, alter the RAW data. I can "reset" the RAW any time I want and get to the original RAW file info. eleanor

Originally Posted by Shashin

And that is the reason I like RAW--the adjustment is never applied to the original data, it is just recorded to metadata--the sidecar file. So none of my changes to the file are destructive--I can always get back to the starting point. From what I understand, dng is no different as it uses metadata as well.

[Alon]

This the London Eye RAW file as processed in C1.

The first image is C1 Standard settings.
The second image is C1 Auto settings.
The third image is C1 Manual PP.




1- C1 Standard Settings






2- C1 Auto Settings






3- C1 Manual PP

[Guy Mancuso]

Originally Posted by Uaiomex

Eleanor and Guy:
Very interesting thread to me despite I don't even own one single Nikon piece of equipment. However, this post in answer to Guy's suggestion to diminish clarity and sharpening, touched me in some way to chime in.

If sharpening works by creating extra separation at pixel level, it is understandable the image will get brittle if overdone. (it does when I over do it with my Canon equipment) but if Clarity is some sort of Local Contrast enhancement as suggested by Thomas Knoll a few years ago for PS, this shouldn't produce the same effect but in some way just the opposite as the radius is gigantic.

I may be entirely wrong here but thinking about the D800E and how to avoid brittleness, it occurs (ed) to me that a way would be to back the sharpening tool and use the Clarity to the right to regain sharpening but this time not at the pixel level, adding at the same time some pop and vibrancy which btw, many Nikon D800 detractors say it's missing.

Local Enhancement is used by many dslr users to gain some pop trying to emulate a bit the medium format look.

If it doesn't work like this for the D800 or any other camera, I'd love to understand why.
Thanks
Eduardo

The issue here is the local contrast is too high at the zero default otherwise you are correct. What it does is knock back some contrast on a global level. The D800 needs about 10 to 15 to get the snap the E just has slightly too much. I also need to play with this more too since I am going by very early outdoor contrasts images. So maybe more flatter cloud cover images will be okay at the zero setting.

[Alon]

While the Jpg files from the D800 and the D800E do show a difference. I am not sure such difference is so acute in RAW files.

My experience with the D800 and the D800E files working on C1 is that both need extra steps and specifically in the Clarity and Sharpening areas.

To say that you have to dial back on the D800E and push up on the D800 files is not the case I experience on different files.

However, C1 Standard opening of D800 files does seem better than D800E files....but I did not test the same image shot with a D800 and a D800E. This needs to be ascertained as it is only a subjective judgement so far.

[Jan Brittenson]

Originally Posted by glenerrolrd

Sony sensors are used all over the market and have very different characteristics when used by different makers . I know Leica determines the color pallet for the output of their raw files ...I spoke to the guys that do it at lunch in Solms .

Sony or Kodak, Dalsa, or anyone else will put whatever spectral response RGB filters you want on it. It's just a matter of price and preference.

Beyond the filter, a photon is a photon is a photon. If it's let through it makes no difference whatsoever whether it's captured by a CMOS or CCD sensor.

The sensor produces an analog voltage which is then quantized. CMOS devices have internal quantization; CCDs typically employ external ADCs. The quality of the ADCs matters, they're not all equal and differ in aspects like linearity and phase. (In imaging, phase response matters as much if not more than frequency response, unlike audio where phase is relatively unimportant.)

[Jan Brittenson]

Originally Posted by Jack

That's the incorrect assumption creating the confusion. The sensor itself creates the raw file and the camera's processor has nothing to do with it.

Many raw formats are resampled or stored in Lxy format... Canon's reduced size raws for instance. Of course, one can debate whether they're really raw at all, and whether some cameras can produce truly raw files at all. Some raw files are a lot more raw than others.

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay playing around here with sharpness in C1.

I pretty much settled in on -15 Clarity for the E and for the D800 its a plus 15. From all that I am seeing here these are really good clarity levels without kicking mid level contrast into over drive.

Now I thought my settings for sharpness on the D800 was a great 240 setting without getting into much trouble. On the E version its pretty high and i thought 120 was pretty good but as you can see here given the subject matter you could float between 120 and 240 although 240 is just flat out sharp as you can see. I'm kinda leaning as my default to be maybe180 or so and adjust as needed. That will require more testing of different subjects to see what works best and again sharpness is subjective but as you can see its a pretty big difference between the setting. Obviously people you want to keep this low but landscape type shooting you could really punch it if you want. I did leave the clarity at -15 for these and that Im pretty dead set on as a setting but it may go lower for people. Just a sample of 120 vs 240 here at 100 percent crops

Full Image

[Guy Mancuso]

Oh shot with the 35 1.4 G lens at F8. Love this lens.

What I like here is the elbow room between these two settings. You can really jump on a image if you wanted. This may help in larger prints

[Pingang]

I think the question can be simplified to individual work flow. There are some people shoot primary JPEG, for their professional reason, and there are those who only shoot RAW - like myself.
I order directly the D800E not because there is no difference in moire handling between the two but because I am aware that it could be an issue with D800E but since I only shoot RAW so I can have the powerful computer to deal with it in process.
I have use digital backs for 10 years now, moire is always there in certain degree but still the overall crispness outweight the possible and occassional moire, while they are slowly improve by the increase capability of software, also because of increase of pixels.
But I would not consider the D800E if I primary shoot JPEG, I don't, but I have some friends shooting weddings with JPEG only and in that case, I think D800 is a better choice.

BR,
Pingang

[Guy Mancuso]

Myself if I only shot weddings than I would have stayed with the D800 . Although I have hit very little moire with non AA filters for years on Leicas and MF backs. There is a very small percentage of jobs I shot jpegs only and recently shot about 5 k in images and nothing popped up. Bottom line I am not afraid of moire at all.

[weinschela]

Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso

Myself if I only shot weddings than I would have stayed with the D800 . Although I have hit very little moire with non AA filters for years on Leicas and MF backs. There is a very small percentage of jobs I shot jpegs only and recently shot about 5 k in images and nothing popped up. Bottom line I am not afraid of moire at all.

I posted a shot of a screen that would have been a moire disaster if you listen to the critics. It wasn't. I am used to M9 without AA so this was not a surprise.
I think Guy's original point here was to customize your defaults in your raw developer. The D800E may need dialing back for some, and the D800 may need cranking up, but in the end this is a personal decision about what you want your files to look like (and that may depend on your subject matters too). For me the D800E is fine with zero sharpening -- but I do not have a D800 to compare. The point for me is not whether the D800E can be made to look like D800 but whether I like the files it produces, both at "default" and after suitable tweaking per image. So far, the answer is yes.

[Guy Mancuso]

Exactly Alan for me first having the non E it's a natural to try and match up with the E than make default adjustments after that to taste. Basically get it at something I was familiar with at first make that comparisions than forget that and make what makes sense to each person. Being a reviewer and tester for me I like to post this info for everyone. I believe these kinds of threads with some detail on the numbers help give folks some starting points to try and make adjustments to taste. Also when I'm faced with portraits than of course I will dial back even more like clarity may drop to the -35 number and sharpening much less too.

One other major thing too as time marches forward raw converters will most likely change to better profile the E much better. This is clearly today the D800 profile in C1.

[Guy Mancuso]

Rumored C1 version 7 may actually have the E profile built in. That we don't know yet but here's hoping it does.

[Wayne Fox]

Originally Posted by Jack

That's the incorrect assumption creating the confusion. The sensor itself creates the raw file and the camera's processor has nothing to do with it.

... but it does not directly alter the raw data streaming off the sensor.

Any source on this? I've heard otherwise, that there is indeed some work done on the "raw" data stream in the conversion to making the actual raw file. It certainly wouldn't be difficult to do ... however, I personally have no quotable source, just speculation and rumors I've stumbled onto a few times even though I've looked for some definitive sources in the past with no success either confirming or refuting.

I can remember reading speculation in the past that one camera maker actually applied some noise reduction to the shadow regions before rendering out a raw file

[Jack]

CCD has a user-added processing engine behind the sensor that generates the raw file. In this you can alter the gain curve to generate differing values than the linear values would be straight off the chip. But the data off the sensor is identical. By contrast, CMOS sensors are essentially self-contained. The only place you can alter the readout data is in your debayering algorithm and then with whatever gain curve you pack in your raw format designation.

Hence, Phase and Hasselblad that use the same CCD in respective cameras will have identical data off the sensor, but by their onboard processor can render distinctly different results, further altered by choice of debayering methods, rendering curves and profiles in the respective proprietary raw processors. But nonetheless, data off the sensor itself is identical between these cameras and only altered by the manufacturer-added processing engine.

Sony and Nikon cameras using the same CMOS sensor will get IDENTICAL data off the chip's included onboard processing engine. However, each of their proprietary raw processors will have different debayering algorithms, rendering curves and profiles for it. It's why a D800 (or any other cameras) raw file converted with the proprietary converter, C1 and LR all look different. And in fact many times it's difficult to get one of those to look exactly like the other primarily because the debayering algorithms and/or profiles are so different.