M8 and XP1 side-by-side (it's totally subjective, dude)

jsrockit said:
so, the X-Pro1 will be used in a similar fashion with the M9 as my sunnyday camera.
Click to expand...

Awesome!!!

Sounds like a dream-team type set-up. I'll be interested to see how it works for you. In particular, I'm anticipating seamless change between the two bodies.
 
BobYIL said:
Somehow the M8 samples look like having less DR than the XP1. I have a rather practical way of comparing DR, under the same lighting conditions the one with lower DR usually looks like being shot "at later hours" of the day or under a more cloudy sky, exhibiting less vividness, less seperation of hues of colors. Actually such details could be better answered by the poster as he only knows what happened during PP.
Click to expand...

Well, I confess I have the habit of slightly underexposing on digital, probably because it works better on the M8 that way and the M8 was my only digital until the XP1. Curiously, both cameras were exposed at the same f-stop and shutter speed (as far as possible), but for the M8 that results in underexposure. I'm not really sure why that happened.
 
In order to try to approximate the same processing for each image, I cracked out the Silkypix RAW converter that comes with the XP1 and pursued a convoluted series of steps to reproduce a process similar to that with which the M8 files were processed. (RAW processed through Silkypix into TIFF format, then exported into DNG format through LR3 and finally processed through Raw Photo Processor (to parallel the final processing for the M8) into TIFF and exported into JPEG through LR3. Phew!)

First, the M8 photo:


Brokedown Palace - M8 by areality4all, on Flickr

Now, several versions of the XP1 photo processed from RAW.

First, the one I like the best: it is processed with P160NC (portra) film curve in RPP, no saturation at all.


XP1 RPP P160NC no saturation by areality4all, on Flickr

Next comes the same but with saturation slider set to 20

XP1 RPP P160NC+saturation by areality4all, on Flickr

And finally, processed with the same K64 (Kodachrome 64) film curve as the M8 file:

XP1 RPP P160NC+saturation by areality4all, on Flickr

Just for convenience sake, here again is the OOC jpeg in "Velvia" mode from the X-P1

Brokedown Palace - XP1 by areality4all, on Flickr

I vastly prefer the RAW processed image to the OOC one.

Both the M8 and the XP1 were taken at 1/125 at f/1.4.

Now I have to look at these myself...
 
The X-Pro1 file processed in RPP according to the film curve of Kodak Portra 160 NC with no saturation is to my mind the best image.

When viewing the M8 image, the thinner DOF is much more obvious.

The M8 file was processed, remember, with a fairly high amount of color saturation.

The colors from the M8 are "true" but lack "depth", but the X-Pro1 files processed as such appear to have greater "clarity" and "depth" to my eyes.

Interesting.

I will process one more image in this way, then call it quits (gotta do some work, after all).
 
Nice!

It's a fun comparison. I agree it's hard to say this is an objective comparison but the spirit in which you conduct it is subjective.
Both cameras/lenses do a very nice job.

Would it be too much to ask you to re-process the very last landscape through the RAW Processor?
 
Andy, I hope I understood correctly to which landscape you were referring (pls tell me if it is not this frame).

First, the XP1 processed through RPP as Portra 160NC

XP1 RPP Portra 160 NC by areality4all, on Flickr

Here is the M8 file processed through RPP with K64 and +30 saturation.

Saône - M8 by areality4all, on Flickr

Finally, the OOC XP1 jpeg in "Velvia" mode

Saône - XP1 by areality4all, on Flickr

Both were shot at 1/1000 at f/2.8
 
Tim Gray said:
Can I ask how you are processing the XP1 images in RPP? I didn't think it supported that camera yet...
Click to expand...

Hey, Tim, it's a pretty tortuous process that involves conversion from Silkypix into TIFF format, then export from LR3 into DNG format, at which point the files become readable for RPP. My layman's understanding is that both TIFF and DNG being lossless formats, there shouldn't be any loss--other than in terms of time for the user-operator :p
 
Makes sense. Just so you know, which I assume you do, the raw conversion has already taken place in that scenario. But it's an interesting way to get at the RPP tone curves. Thanks again for the comparisons.
 
It looks to me like there is some over-accentuation of the red channel happening on the XP1 TIFF files when they are imported out of LR3 into RPP.

It looks much better (color-wise) when processed directly out of LR3.

I will post in a sec...
 
Tim Gray said:
Makes sense. Just so you know, which I assume you do, the raw conversion has already taken place in that scenario. But it's an interesting way to get at the RPP tone curves. Thanks again for the comparisons.
Click to expand...

Yup, I realize that, Tim. The only reason I was going to all that trouble was for precisely the reason you cite--and to achieve some kind of parallel process vis-a-vis the M8 files.
 
Comparing this image the M8 looks sharper by a tiny bit.
The Fuji image has a lot more life. Sort of glows. Mostly probably from the PP but still the impression is that it is very lively :D
I'm excited to see more from this camera!
 
Sorry if I'm being an idiot here, but all your M8 files look very flat, I just opened the shot you ran through RPP K64 +30 saturation, and I gave it the simplest tweak in levels and it looks much closer to the fuji now.
 
Steve M. said:
They look like night and day to me. The film is so much better looking AND sharper (wonder why it looks sharper?). The motorcycle in the foreground of the film shot looks so 3D and sharp it seems to come out of the frame. I don't understand how anyone can see them as similar in any way, yet people seem to. Guess we all see differently.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to pick on you Steve, but this is sort of priceless. Perhaps the differences between film and digital aren't as pronounced as some would like us to believe they are.:) But as you say, we all see things differently.
I'd add that sometimes we just see what we want to see.
 
bobbyrab said:
Sorry, I can't remember how to add the image without using flickr. Hope you don't mind
Click to expand...

Hi, I was just going to suggest that you post it, thanks!

Nice!

BTW, I could supply the RAW files if anybody wants to play.

My thinking originally was to do for this comp as little PP as possible, but in the end, I think this shows above all that you just can't get away from PP.

I'm definitely gonna spend some time doing these over without RPP ;)
 
Actually my effort's blacks are a little heavy, but that can be tweaked.
I think all these new sensors have more pop built in, I'm finding the same with my 5d mark III over the mark II, the files have better DR which results in a better contrast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom