Phase 4150 double exposure vs. Fuji 100s single exposure shadow recovery

[vjbelle]

A comparison of the shadow recovery between these two cameras. I find the results more than interesting. C1 is able to pull the shadows and blacks from a 100s single exposure file as if it were s double exposure from a 4150.

4150 double exposure original file:

 

[vjbelle]

This is the 4150 processed file. 55 push shadows, 50 push blacks, 50 iso.

 

[vjbelle]

This is the original 100s file: 1.7 stops underexposed:

 

[vjbelle]

This is the processed file from C1. 55 push shadow, 40 push blacks. ISO 400. I increased the ISO as a breeze had picked up and I wanted to stop any motion. There is no noise to be seen in this image.


Try it for your self...... I think the results are amazing. I get the same results with my Sony 7RM4 as it also is in the same sensor family.

Victor B.

 

[algrove]

So are you saying who needs a Phase IQ4150 or Sony A7R4? Go with one system if you can bear it?

 

[vjbelle]

That could be said. The results are a combination of software and hardware. ACR will not give you the same results. C1 is the only software I know of that will produce these results.

Victor B.

 

[edmundphoto888]

So what is the advantage of Phaseone?

 

[SrMphoto]

So what is the advantage of Phaseone?

Larger sensor, frame averaging built-in (focusing on advantages only).

 

[jng]

I would be interested to see a single exposure from the IQ4 150. In my limited experience with the IQ4 150, I find that the benefits of Dual Exposure+ aren’t readily apparent until one pushes the files much harder, on the order of shadows @ 100 and exposure +3 or more. I agree that the combination of hardware and software really is amazing.

The gap between these different formats is becoming narrower in terms of image quality, noise, etc. However with its larger sensor the IQ4 150 offers greater capabilities and flexibility when using a tech cam. YMMV, of course.

John

 

[Paul2660]

Capture One, from my experience gives an overall better shadow recovery than LR/ACR, less blocky blacks, and if you pick the shadow recovery curve in C1 it's even better. LR/ACR however still seems to pull more finer details out at times, (trees on a distant horizon), and C1's Dehaze tool still can't approach LR/ACR.

Dual Exposure on the 4150 file to me has a better more natural look, and may be due to that C1 still seems to work best on Phase files as far as color, (at least to me).

Glad to see the shadow push with the 100s is that good however, as I never found it to be quite that good on the 100, even at base ISO and still tend to bracket most scenes.

True advantage of dual exposure to me is that it seems to give a more balanced image tonally and as you push into the higher ISO Range, you do not lose as much in the finer details. Side by Side Dual exposure and normal exposure testing I have done, I always see better details in the Dual exposure shot.

Paul

 

[med]

I would be interested to see a single exposure from the IQ4 150. In my limited experience with the IQ4 150, I find that the benefits of Dual Exposure+ aren’t readily apparent until one pushes the files much harder, on the order of shadows @ 100 and exposure +3 or more. I agree that the combination of hardware and software really is amazing.

The gap between these different formats is becoming narrower in terms of image quality, noise, etc. However with its larger sensor the IQ4 150 offers greater capabilities and flexibility when using a tech cam. YMMV, of course.

John

Was going to say the same thing. The results from a single IQ4-150 exposure “should” be equally good. As impressive as Dualexposure mode is, it is largely unnecessary most of the time due to how good shadow recovery already is in C1 with sensors from that family.

 

[vjbelle]

I find that I can easily replicate frame averaging with stoppers. Sure, it isn't as convenient as having this built into the camera but for sure it can be replicated. I was mostly concerned about replicating the dual exposure feature and other than really picking apart an image I believe I have.

Victor B.

 

[SrMphoto]

I find that I can easily replicate frame averaging with stoppers. Sure, it isn't as convenient as having this built into the camera but for sure it can be replicated. I was mostly concerned about replicating the dual exposure feature and other than really picking apart an image I believe I have.

Victor B.

IMO, the main feature of frame-averaging is increasing the DR and reducing the noise, not the ND filter simulation. I can shoot a heavily underexposed image with my m43 camera (in-camera frame averaging) and have the same noise in the shadows as GFX100.

Also, when doing long-exposure with frame averaging instead of with ND filter, there will be less noise in the image, and no LENR is "needed."

 

[Christopher]

For me Frame averaging is one of the bist tools phase one released in the last few years. Sure it can be done with any camera in post, however, that is super boring and isn’t fun while shooting or editing It’S so useful for so many thing, from just removing people from the shot to getting such an amazing clean file for massive editing.

 

[vieri]

Second that, for someone shooting in the "various seconds and up" region of shutter speeds 95% of the time like myself, frame averaging is an amazing tool to have.

Besides increased DR and less noise (= overall much better file to work with), there is one more benefit that most people never mention but is very useful for me. With frame averaging, you can control the duration of your exposure to a much finer degree than you could do with ND filters, while keeping your image perfectly exposed and your file perfectly clean - for "artistic" purposes, being able to have that fine control is often fundamental.

As we know, filters do work in density / stops: even if you had every single filter in the range, thus covering all the stops (which we normally don't - I for one have 3, 6, 10, 13 and 18 stop ND filters "only", so to speak ), that still means doubling or halving exposure time with each stop, i.e. if you get 3 minutes with a 3-stop ND, you'll get 6 minutes with a 4-stop ND, and 24 minutes with a 6-stop ND. That creates two problems, one technical and one artistic: technical, since when light changes, your perfect exposure often is "in between" the filters you have available; artistic, since what if cloud movement or water movement wants for a 10 minutes exposure, when you can only do either 3 or 24 with the filters you have? Yes, you could take care of both issues playing with aperture and ISO, but the former isn't always possible for DOF control, and the latter is not always advisable for file quality (especially when doing seriously long exposures, which would already put some strain on file quality).

So, for me frame averaging opened a lot of expressive possibilities, and is definitely one of the features that convinced me to move back to Phase One

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Paul2660]

Frame Averaging, is great as long as you have no subject movement, for landscape work, it's basically a non starter, as the movement of leaves, grasses, limbs etc create a total mess. Images are clean as previous mentioned, and until Dual Exposure came out I often bracketing a Frame averaging shot with normal work, knowing the noise would be much less. Dual exposure IMO creates the same clean, possibly cleaner file and so far in my work has not created the same aliasing movement issues that are created with Frame Averaging.

Frame Averaging can play interesting effects on moving water, sometimes good, others not so good as it's very easy to get the same movement aliasing issues at times.

Great tool however and as previously mentioned same effect can be done manually in CC but takes more time and it's nice to have the file already worked up ready to use.

Paul

 

[vieri]

Frame Averaging, is great as long as you have no subject movement, for landscape work, it's basically a non starter, as the movement of leaves, grasses, limbs etc create a total mess. Images are clean as previous mentioned, and until Dual Exposure came out I often bracketing a Frame averaging shot with normal work, knowing the noise would be much less. Dual exposure IMO creates the same clean, possibly cleaner file and so far in my work has not created the same aliasing movement issues that are created with Frame Averaging.

Frame Averaging can play interesting effects on moving water, sometimes good, others not so good as it's very easy to get the same movement aliasing issues at times.

Great tool however and as previously mentioned same effect can be done manually in CC but takes more time and it's nice to have the file already worked up ready to use.

Paul

Hello Paul,

about using frame averaging for landscape, perhaps your issues with moving things might depend on your chosen base exposure and number of frames you utilise? Just wondering, since I don't seem to have seen any "total mess" in my experimenting with it. Could you share your usual settings, so we can know more?

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Paul2660]

Hello Vieri:

I tired it pretty much through out the range of exposures. If there are any trees moving, or limbs of trees, etc. you get a totally blurred image as there is not way the tool can align this type of motion. Even a slight wind can effect the shot. I quickly tried FA, outdoors, and realized it would have limited use in most of my scenes unless I was lucky enough to be in the Grand Canyon or similar all rock setup. It's been a while since I fired off FA, but usually I believe I was averaging around 25 frames or less. The only issue I had was the wind motion and excessive blur, but you can see the same effect with cars, people (depends on shutter speeds here) etc. You can frame average at 1/250 even 1/500 but if there is wind you still get the issues. At least I do.

With Dual Exposure, I have used it with mild to moderate wind and still rarely see any issues, sometime slight movement in pine needles but overall it accommodates motion very well.

Frame Averaging can at times have aliasing with water, it's very scene dependent. There are times I love the effect it gives to a slow moving body of water, but a fast moving stream where I want to.create classic slow exposure blur, can create artifacts.

For interiors or architecture without trees (again due to movements) FA is a great asset as you get IMO overall sharper images and definitely considerably less noise.

But for my work Dual Exposure is the real game changer.

Paul

 

[SrMphoto]

Hello Vieri:

I tired it pretty much through out the range of exposures. If there are any trees moving, or limbs of trees, etc. you get a totally blurred image as there is not way the tool can align this type of motion. Even a slight wind can effect the shot. I quickly tried FA, outdoors, and realized it would have limited use in most of my scenes unless I was lucky enough to be in the Grand Canyon or similar all rock setup. It's been a while since I fired off FA, but usually I believe I was averaging around 25 frames or less. The only issue I had was the wind motion and excessive blur, but you can see the same effect with cars, people (depends on shutter speeds here) etc. You can frame average at 1/250 even 1/500 but if there is wind you still get the issues. At least I do.

With Dual Exposure, I have used it with mild to moderate wind and still rarely see any issues, sometime slight movement in pine needles but overall it accommodates motion very well.

Frame Averaging can at times have aliasing with water, it's very scene dependent. There are times I love the effect it gives to a slow moving body of water, but a fast moving stream where I want to.create classic slow exposure blur, can create artifacts.

For interiors or architecture without trees (again due to movements) FA is a great asset as you get IMO overall sharper images and definitely considerably less noise.

But for my work Dual Exposure is the real game changer.

Paul

The point of frame averaging is to act like an ND-filter, i.e., the movement gets blurred. The blurred parts should look the same as if applying a long exposure. Is that not the case with Phase One?
The only problem that I can imagine is that the time between exposures is too long compared to one shot's exposure time. In that case, the blur may not look nice. That is probably why Olympus allows 1/30 sec as the fastest shutter speed to be used in frame averaging.

 

[vjbelle]

I'm in agreement with Paul regarding the limitations of FA. But then stoppers also have limitations which would be very similar to FA. I am very much aware of the ability of FA to decrease noise but for my shooting requirements this feature/benefit is of little use.

I'll be shooting the Oregon Coast with both my 4150 and 100s and will have the time to compare FA vs. Stoppers to see if there is any pronounced visual difference. As far as shooting a single exposure vs. two shot for shadow recovery that will simply depend on which camera I am using. If I am shooting with my 4150 then it's simple to shoot with the dual shot feature but so far I am convinced that any differences are subtle. I'll try to shoot examples of both while on the Coast.

Victor B.