Hasselblad vs RED Epic for stills.

[Tehben Dean]

I'm pretty damn impressed with the stills I've been shooting on Epic. Not as sharp as my 5D but (at least with the old arriflex zeiss I've been shooting) so creamy and organic with very nice colors. The tiffs don't have as much latitude for manipulation as canon raw either but I have fallen in love with the results i'm getting

 

[Zeb B]

Nope.

So the Epic has a couple more stops of DR than the 2008 generation 65+? Did not know that. Wonder how it would stack up against my current issue Phase iQ180? Interesting how each camera rendered the reds in your shots.

Love your work as always!

 

[Mark Pugh]

Zoom in. Christopher's Epic grab seems to have been through a lot of sharpening, and is a world away in terms of noise/ artifacts, though the sharpening might be exaggerating it.

 

[Christopher Barrett]

Josh, last year I taught a PODAS seminar for Phase One and spent a week with the IQ 160 & 180. The 180 has issues working with Tech Cameras and wide lenses but has slightly more dynamic range than my P65+. The IQ 160 is the exact same chip as the P65+.

Mark, there is def more shadow noise on the Epic. I did apply sharpening to keep the Epic Tiff in line with the Phase One Tiff, which has sharpening applied in the raw software. I suppose I could turn sharpening off for both, but that's not my real world work flow. As for shadow noise... well we're comparing an ISO 800 capture to an ISO 50 one. Even at 400, I wouldn't expect near the cleanliness I get from ISO 50.

 

[Zeb B]

Josh, last year I taught a PODAS seminar for Phase One and spent a week with the IQ 160 & 180. The 180 has issues working with Tech Cameras and wide lenses but has slightly more dynamic range than my P65+. The IQ 160 is the exact same chip as the P65+.

Mark Dubovoy had an interesting review last year on the iQ back, ALPA SWA technical camera and wide angle lenses:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras/phaseone_iq_180_field_review.shtml

He used the Rodenstock Digaron 23mm toward the end of the article. That is a real cool lens in the right hands! That and the 180mm would be welcome in my landscape bag!

 

[Bill Anderson]

Christopher, the Phase one exposure does not match the Epic's (and I'm not talking about numbers). It is lighter overall: shadows and highlights. There are a few ways you could skin this cat. Bring your Phase One exposure down so that the values -walls and mantelpiece - match each other. Then revisit the highlights.

 

[paul ross jones]

HDRx on the Epic shot?

\

im not sure showing a straight image like this shows the real information of the file. i haven't compared the epic files, but i do compare canon and p65+ files often, and the p65 with images straight out have a heap of information in the highlights. I've had shots that have looked overblown with the sun behind a person (at 50 iso)- completely white in the captured shot- and pulled the highlight back so far that you can see the shape of the sun without loosing the gradients.
thats the backs strong points. the canon looses the top end very quick. but the phase back is useless at pulling detail out of the blacks and low end, it turns into a bad peppery grain (that ccd look), where the canon can lighten up really well.
its almost like the picture shown and captured by the camera is at different levels of the files ability.

anyway, what i am trying to get to- if you where trying to lighten the back of the fire place in that p65 shot- you would have a hard time, but that blown window would easily be pulled back. even if the sun was popping through the phase would be sweet.
i really don't think you can test with what comes straight out of camera. its about the files ability to be modified- what you are seeing in the above files is the software companies opinion of what they think the file should look like. i think phase has too much contrast and saturation, but the file has a heap more options than that.

paul

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Christopher.

Thanks for your comparison.
As usually I am most impressed with your capacity as a photographer!

The comparison is real cool, to get an idea of what an EPic may be used to, too - even when you don't have a Hassy, like I don't...

Would've been fun to dig into the raw frames of both of those exposures, but frankly I think that's a bit besides the point and mostly geeky - not very practical fun.

Thanks again!

 

[Christopher Barrett]

Bill, yeah, the P1 is about a third stop brighter, but it would take 2-3 stops of darker exposure to retain the hilight detail.

Paul, I really don't think so. I tried the Linear profile in C1 Pro, used the HDR sliders and even tried Adobe Camera Raw, the info is just not there. I've had this back for three years, have over 30,000 exposures on it and have a pretty damn good idea how to get the most out of it. You simply can not pull in the hilight detail. Also, I disagree about being able to expose darker and bringing up the shadows. The Phase One backs expose better to the right of the histogram. This was confirmed by Jeff Schewe who was attending a seminar I was teaching for Phase one.

Gunleik, thanks, Man. Just doin my thing.

I'll set this test up again tomorrow and give you guys access to the raw files.

Cheers,
CB

 

[Les Dittert]

When you say the information is just not there, do you mean that it is clipped ( all the same value in those hi-lite areas ? thereby resulting in a detail-less result )
Or do you mean that if you color correct to increase the contrast in just those super bright areas, that the noise is too ugly to be usable at all ?

It has to be one or the other.
If the first case, image is overexposed.

Bill, yeah, the P1 is about a third stop brighter, but it would take 2-3 stops of darker exposure to retain the hilight detail.

Paul, I really don't think so. I tried the Linear profile in C1 Pro, used the HDR sliders and even tried Adobe Camera Raw, the info is just not there. I've had this back for three years, have over 30,000 exposures on it and have a pretty damn good idea how to get the most out of it. You simply can not pull in the hilight detail. Also, I disagree about being able to expose darker and bringing up the shadows. The Phase One backs expose better to the right of the histogram. This was confirmed by Jeff Schewe who was attending a seminar I was teaching for Phase one.

Gunleik, thanks, Man. Just doin my thing.

I'll set this test up again tomorrow and give you guys access to the raw files.

Cheers,
CB

 

[Christopher Barrett]

I mean that the hilight information is clipped. This doesn't mean that the image is overexposed. It simply means that the contrast range within the composition exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor. You could expose to avoid hilight clipping, but then the image would actually be UNDERexposed and less acceptable esthetically as a whole.

For my stills workflow, I typically expose for the most pleasing overall image, having lit to maintain shadow detail and bracket for the hilights, which I layer in later. The end results.... well, check them out for yourself if you like.

 

[Les Dittert]

Ok, if you avoid clipping with exposure, then why can't you brighten the rest of the image to suit your needs?
If you post a non clipped raw, I can show you the result to match the epic.
Curves tool is a great start to color it.

 

[Christopher Barrett]

I'd love to see that, Les.

Here is a recent image out of my still camera that's been through my typical post workflow...

and here is an image from my bracket that just begins to hold on to the hilights...

Really think you can get there with a curve?

 

[Les Dittert]

I sure do, if the raw is low ISO clean and has 14 bits color depth.

Now, if your workflow is founded on HDR tone mapping, then the blacks will get dirty.
But the original conversation is about non bracketed HDR epic vs other.

 

[Adrian T.]

Hasselblad just lowered their prices:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/price-reduction.aspx

Are they getting cold feet?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Hasselblad just lowered their prices:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/price-reduction.aspx

Are they getting cold feet?

Its called facing stiff competitions, including LEICA S2, which has so much less MP count yet has taken a nice chunk of sales form every MF manufacturer do to the insane capacity to render Skin tones and the Outwardly Fantastic S series Glass, simply the best Still glass ever created by any manufacturer to date, Leica it self included.

Of course Phase One aggressive market, and even more aggressive one of Mamiya/Leaf and their new 80MP CREDO MF Sensor is leaving Hassy behind...

But the truth is that Hasselblad, even so their sale and acquisition by a new financier, have been going down ever since their decision to go solo with their new HD systems catting off any other MF DB from been used in their Bodies.

Their new lenses also suffered greatly form the departure from ZEISS.


Fact remains that even so the huge discount MF bodies still are a good chunk of MONEY, at the same price I still prefer Have an EPUIC, thanks...

 

[Zeb B]

I'd love to see that, Les.

Here is a recent image out of my still camera that's been through my typical post workflow...

and here is an image from my bracket that just begins to hold on to the hilights...

Really think you can get there with a curve?

Absolutely with Lightroom 4. Adobe has reinvented many still cameras with their recent LR update. On my Phase I expose for the highlights then dig out shadow detail in post. I have amazing results since the 80MP crushes what little noise is down there. Would love for RCX to have the same RAW tool set as LR.

 

[Justin Poulsen]

I'd love to see that, Les.

Here is a recent image out of my still camera that's been through my typical post workflow...

and here is an image from my bracket that just begins to hold on to the hilights...

Really think you can get there with a curve?

I'm going to have to side with Chris on this one. Curves won't save poor lighting. Curves won't save the proper mapping of your exposure. With my experience with Phase One (albeit the smaller P25+) you can push a lot of data out of the left side of the histogram, but there is often a slight colour shift or noise depending on how long the back has been on/how long the exposures are. and good luck trying to handle most situations in one shot with a single curve. The best way to remedy this is to shoot a proper exposure and then compensate for shadows/highlights with lighting/additional exposures.

 

[Les Dittert]

Still waiting for the raw image to start from....

Goal: show how correct exposure and color correction can get you there, given enough bits and noise controlled low iso starting point.( epic vs other , one exposure )

 

[Zeb B]

Chris's work speaks for itself. He is at the top of his field and has the respect of anyone who knows how difficult it is to accomplish the simple beauty of his vast portfolio.

Chris, have you tried LR4 for raw conversion yet? I just got back for a week long fine art printing seminar in Yosemite where I had the pleasure sitting next to Eric Chan who, with Thomas Knoll, is the brains behind the Camera RAW component at Adobe. LR4 is freaking amazing!! I have been able to go back to some of my maximum DR shots and find detail in the deepest of shadows. I believe your underexposed shot above would be a cinch for LR4. Try it . . . you'll like it!