Author Topic: Fuji GFX studio scene test on dpreview.com  (Read 7293 times)

Jack Dahlgren

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Fuji GFX studio scene test on dpreview.com
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2017, 15:12:51 »
Akira,

I completely agree with your math for "medium format" vs 35mm and likewise for the relative difference in image quality. Doubling the film/sensor size is quite noticeable. An increment of 28% is not likely to be something that makes you shout.

In the days of film I started with 35mm but soon went to 6x6, 6x9 and 4x5 because they offered such a different look and tonality.

Each has a different purpose and way of making photographs.

David H. Hartman

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
  • I Doctor Photographs... :)
Re: Fuji GFX studio scene test on dpreview.com
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2017, 20:11:06 »
By the way, I'm also interested in the comb-like pattern on the large and wide peaks in the histograms of the blue and the red channels.  I wonder if they would suggest the posterization or lack of gradation due to the fewer pixels for these colors?

The comb patterns could be the light used to take the sample. It could be the subject particularly if it contains printed materials rather than a natural subject. It could be post processing if harsh but in this case I don't think so. RAW images get some processing in camera. Ii could be low bit depth, e.g. 8 bit JPG files. It could be a strong "S" curve added somewhere as the mid tones would get stretched. I'm probably missing some possibilities. It's probably a combination of some of the above. Some don't apply to a RAW image and some do.

The last place I'd look for a cause of the comb pattern with these cameras is the availability of pixels. There are too many available.

Dave Hartman
Beatniks are out to make it rich
Oh no, must be the season of the witch!

simsurace

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 835
Re: Fuji GFX studio scene test on dpreview.com
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2017, 20:32:10 »
Isn't there any possibility to tweak the contrast or the tone curve of the individual color channels in addition to balancing the levels?
We have to distinguish between RAW data and data that has been mapped to a target color space (e.g. Adobe RGB or sRGB).
When you mix channels or apply curves to them in the RAW data, you get the degrees of freedom that are typically used for color profiling.
This is significantly more than just white balancing. White balancing tries to equalize the channels in a single target.
In color profiling you have a bunch of target, e.g. a color checker chart and you then solve an optimization problem where you try to minimize the deviations of each patch from the target value. Then there are different ways of doing it depending on the software, e.g. DNG profiles in ACR. They are actually computing something that does not interfere with white balance. So you can apply the profile but have to set the white balance regardless.
When we talk about the data of the exported RAW conversion that is in sRGB or similar, even applying a white balance involves nonlinear transformations.
For example, when you use the grey eyedropper in the curves adjustment in Photoshop, you will observe that a different curve is applied to each channel.
This is one reason why it is much better to white balance the RAW file instead of the exported RAW conversion; for RAW files, the white balance is a mathematically simpler operation that does not stretch or squeeze anything.

By the way, I'm also interested in the comb-like pattern on the large and wide peaks in the histograms of the blue and the red channels.  I wonder if they would suggest the posterization or lack of gradation due to the fewer pixels for these colors?

Do you mean this stuff?


This is simply an artifact of the histogram building process. Let's zoom into it a little bit and show only RAW levels 64 to 1024 (i.e. -8 stops to -4 stops relative to saturation)


The histogram is built on a log scale. Since the levels are integers (1 through 2^14), the bins in the log domain (1/96 EV in this case), don't map to even levels. For instance, let's consider the first bin from the left that is standing out (just right of -7EV). That bin runs from 148.957 to 150.036. So the pixel counts at level 149 and 150 are counted as belonging to that bin. The bin just left of that runs from 147.885 to 148.957; so it counts only pixels that had a level of 148. So even if there are the same number of pixels each for levels 148, 149, and 150, the right one of the two bins would have double the number of counts. You can check for yourself that the count is exactly double of what it should be.

If you display the same range on a linear scale, the problem is not present:


Here, the bin size is 1, so all the little jaggies in the histogram are 'real'.

The comb-like patterns are purely a matter of histogram display, and have nothing to do with either the scene or the camera sensor.
Simone Carlo Surace
suracephoto.com

Frank Fremerey

  • engineering art
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12334
  • Bonn, Germany
Re: Fuji GFX studio scene test on dpreview.com
« Reply #33 on: March 17, 2017, 00:26:49 »
Please remember that all the Hasselblad H-series-leaf-shutter-optics do work on the GFX and the GFX can use the leaf shutter.

Only trouble is they are all turned in to manual focus due to Fuji not wanting to pay a license fee for their adaptor it seems.
You are out there. You and your camera. You can shoot or not shoot as you please. Discover the world, Your world. Show it to us. Or we might never see it.

Me: https://youpic.com/photographer/frankfremerey/

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12468
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: Fuji GFX studio scene test on dpreview.com
« Reply #34 on: March 17, 2017, 01:09:56 »
Simone, thank you very much for the thorough explanations.  Yes, that was exactly what I meant with "comb-like pattern"!
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira