Do You Prefer Rendering Of "Vintage" Nikon Cameras To "Modern" Nikon Cameras?

[BruceSD]

Bruce, I'm no expert of PP, but would like to give it a try.  Please set your Flicky page to allow the download of the image files (just for a while).

Here's a link to a thread on how one photographer successfully in post makes his CMOS images look like CCD images.   https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/61-post-processing-articles/350673-get-ccd-look-k-3-k-3ii-lightroom.html

While it seems like a lengthy process, he has saved it as a preset and now is able to do it with just one click.

[Akira]

Done...

Thank you!  I have downloaded the largest JPEG files from both cameras.

[Akira]

The first attempt using ACR.  The first one is the original D1X image and the second one, the edited Z6 one.  Both images are resized.

The adjusted parameters: exposure, contrast and shadow in the "Light" tab, temperature, vibrance and saturation in the "Color" tab, hue, saturation and luminance sliders of red, blue and yellow in the "Color Mixer" tab.

The mid-tone area (the lawn on the right-hand side and the foliage in the background) looks a bit too bright...

[John Geerts]

Great, I wish you luck and look forward to seeing your results.

The D1X batteries and chargers are somewhat rare and expensive.   The only place they can be purchased here is USA is on Ebay.  Even Amazon does not carry them.   Also, they are expensive.   Used D1X cameras are selling on Ebay for $100 USD (with no battery or charger).   Batteries are selling for around $100 USD, and the charger for over $100 USD.

I currently have 2 D1X batteries and am charging them both up.  I plan to make some photos using some of my better lenses this weekend.   Also, I just was able to activate RAW capture on my D1X.  I've got various different image editing software programs that I can use to process the D1X RAW files. I'll first try Luminar Neo (my current favorite).  So far, I have not found any type of RAW file that Neo was unable to open.

Looking forward to your results with the Nikon D1x  ( I have to search my attic, must have a D1x too somewhere)

[John Geerts]

The first attempt using ACR.  The first one is the original D1X image and the second one, the edited Z6 one.  Both images are resized.

The adjusted parameters: exposure, contrast and shadow in the "Light" tab, temperature, vibrance and saturation in the "Color" tab, hue, saturation and luminance sliders of red, blue and yellow in the "Color Mixer" tab.

The mid-tone area (the lawn on the right-hand side and the foliage in the background) looks a bit too bright...

Thanks for the processing and posting, Akira.  At first glance:  The Z6 has a kind of 'extreme' sharpness, where the results with the D1x are 'rounder'

[Birna Rørslett]

Thanks for the processing and posting, Akira.  At first glance:  The Z6 has a kind of 'extreme' sharpness, where the results with the D1x are 'rounder'

As would be expected, since most processing software simply downsampled and smoothed to get 6MPix (nominal) instead of the 10MPix the D1X sensor could deliver. The reason is of course the problem of how to handle the rectangular pixel matrix of the D1X which had approx. dimensions 4028 x 1324 pix. Most programs rearranged this to be approx. 3008 x 1960 pix, which lead to a strong smoothing of detail. Many users compared this to a 'film-like' character of the files. A few programs, including Nikon's  own software, could do the development to approx 4000 x 2600 pix. This lead to much better acuity but depending on the details of the subject might also introduce an issue of jagged lines.

[John Geerts]

As would be expected, since most processing software simply downsampled and smoothed to get 6MPix (nominal) instead of the 10MPix the D1X sensor could deliver.

Adobe Camera raw will now process the 10Mp file (Best Quality) (4011x2614) if you select this option in the ACR workflow.

I presume that this is the best development possible?

[Birna Rørslett]

Well, yes, if the subjects don't have strong line structures in the 'wrong' direction. No, if you wish to play safe and use the 6MPix version instead. Do note the camera always record the rectangular pixel matrix thus the user can freely choose the best processing later.

I retrieved a well-worn D1X body from my cupboards and also found a battery and the bespoke GPS cable, but no charger. Later, found a car charger for the battery, however my Peugeot only delivers juice to the charger if I'm driving. Ouch. Ruth's birthday is today so I cannot start on any long drive to charge the battery. If it isn't dead already?

[Birna Rørslett]

I'll forego D1X testing for now until I can locate its charger and more batteries, or the wall socket to car charger adapter I just ordered arrives from the 'far East'.

Meanwhile, I'll pull some old D1X NEFs from my digital archives and try running these through a modern program. Or failing that, fire up a virtual old Windows installation on one of the Linux boxes and run the files through Bibble there.

[Akira]

Thanks for the processing and posting, Akira.  At first glance:  The Z6 has a kind of 'extreme' sharpness, where the results with the D1x are 'rounder'

Thank you for the initial assessment.  The Z6 file was processed from the JPEG file and then resized.  The sharpness should be quite a bit affected by the processing and resizing, admitting that D1X has much less megapixels in the first place.

Compared to the  unprocessed (only resized) D1X image, the Z6 image still looks a bit warmer, and the yellow color on the facade of McDonald shop is less pale.

That said, I would think some film simulation plug-in is more convenient than using an old camera with the CCD sensor, if you go for the film-look.

[Ian Watson]

When raw files are converted into a useable form, how much of the process is specific to a particular sensor? (I mean the initial conversion, before any tinkering or choices by the photographer.) In other words, how much of the differences that Bruce reports can be ascribed to the sensor versus the combination of sensor plus initial conversion?

[BruceSD]

The first attempt using ACR.  The first one is the original D1X image and the second one, the edited Z6 one.  Both images are resized.

The adjusted parameters: exposure, contrast and shadow in the "Light" tab, temperature, vibrance and saturation in the "Color" tab, hue, saturation and luminance sliders of red, blue and yellow in the "Color Mixer" tab.

The mid-tone area (the lawn on the right-hand side and the foliage in the background) looks a bit too bright...

Akira, thank you for sharing your efforts to make the two images look similar.   Your post processed Z6 image does look much closer to the original 1DX image.  But even after your adjustments, the yellows/greens/reds of the D1x CCD image still look (to my eyes) different than those colors in the processed Z6 image.  Now, which version an individual prefers is up to the individual.  For me, I the yellows/greens/reds of the 1DX still look a bit "richer" to my eyes.

[Ian Watson]

I just had a quick try, Bruce. Like Akira, I can get much closer but am struggling to match the colours. Is it me or do the yellows from the D1X have a bit more green in them?

[BruceSD]

I took some more photos with my ancient Nikon D1X today.   I'll be posting a few.

Today I used a Nikkor 105mm DC on the D1X.   Shot it wide open with the DC set to 0.   Here's a photo I took of a red fire hydrant across the street.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/f2guru/53577249249/in/dateposted-public/

For a camera that's 22 years old, I'm impressed with its' color and sharpness (notice the individual grass shoots and the brush marks on the curb).

The original file was a TIFF file.   I set the D1X to RAW uncompressed, and TIFFs were what I got.  Oh well, I guess that I can work with TIFFs although I'd prefer a RAW file.

[BruceSD]

I just had a quick try, Bruce. Like Akira, I can get much closer but am struggling to match the colours. Is it me or do the yellows from the D1X have a bit more green in them?

Good observation.  Maybe that explains the difference in colors.