X2D colours (vs X1D)

[fh29]

I'd like to hear what former X1D users think of their X2D colours. Maybe some of you have performed side-by-side comparisons when they switched ?
I'm considering upgrading at some point too, if I can overcome my concerns with the Sony 3.76 μm px sensor. So far most cameras based on this sensor generation (A7RiV, GFX100 or IQ4150) have exhibited a reddish cast which is difficult to get rid of, even with proper calibration.

The review below was kinda re-assuring, as it seems HNCS managed to address this issue. Would love to hear from your first hand experience though.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/features/the-hasselblad-x2d-has-the-best-color-science-in-the-business

I do high-end repro work in cultural heritage institutions for a living, so bear with me if I'm slightly obsessed with colour neutrality... Guess I'd just be really disappointed if upgrading meant losing those well balanced X1D colours !

Thanks

[MGrayson]

Colors (IMHO) are determined by the profiles, not the camera. I *like* the colors from the X2D with certain profiles, but I have no idea if they're anywhere near neutral. I just stay away from the Adobe profiles and use the Camera Standard or Cobalt. I have an old X1D, and am not struck by a major color difference. Profile choice, again, makes much more of a difference.

Anyway, I'll try to shoot the same scene with both cameras and see what comes out.

Matt

[mkerouac]

Take a look at Matt Grangers comparison of the X2D and the GFX100s.  You will clearly see the differences of the X2D vs. GFX output on the same sensor.  I don't think the X2D has the magenta cast that's present in the GFX100s.   I do have the GFX100s and the magenta cast drives me crazy sometimes.  I just received my X2D yesterday.  So I have not tested it yet.  But I expect great results.   

[tenmangu81]

Colors (IMHO) are determined by the profiles, not the camera. I *like* the colors from the X2D with certain profiles, but I have no idea if they're anywhere near neutral. I just stay away from the Adobe profiles and use the Camera Standard or Cobalt. I have an old X1D, and am not struck by a major color difference. Profile choice, again, makes much more of a difference.

Anyway, I'll try to shoot the same scene with both cameras and see what comes out.

Matt

Hi Matt,

Do you "see" a real difference in colors between Adobe Camera Standard and Cobalt ? Sometimes I get a slight magenta drift in skies when using Adobe Camera Standard and I wonder if I could get "better" skies with Cobalt, this is why I ask you this question.
Thanks

[MGrayson]

Colors (IMHO) are determined by the profiles, not the camera. I *like* the colors from the X2D with certain profiles, but I have no idea if they're anywhere near neutral. I just stay away from the Adobe profiles and use the Camera Standard or Cobalt. I have an old X1D, and am not struck by a major color difference. Profile choice, again, makes much more of a difference.

Anyway, I'll try to shoot the same scene with both cameras and see what comes out.

Matt

Hi Matt,

Do you "see" a real difference in colors between Adobe Camera Standard and Cobalt ? Sometimes I get a slight magenta drift in skies when using Adobe Camera Standard and I wonder if I could get "better" skies with Cobalt, this is why I ask you this question.
Thanks

Sorry for ISO 800. I didn't set up a tripod, but here are the results. Yes, it's green dominated, but that's what I had available 😇. There is a red sign visible, at least. I reduced the yellow a bit on the X2D, as it had an obvious bump over the X1D image.

They are
X1D - Camera Standard Profile
X2D - Camera Standard Profile
X2D - Adobe Standard Profile
X2D - Cobalt Standard Profile

There are, of course, multiple types of each profile, but this gives some idea.

[tenmangu81]

Thanks Matt !

So, the differences between the Adobe Camera Standard and the Cobalt Standard are not very strong, but both are better than the Adobe Standard.

[Dicky]

Hi fh29
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity!
Did you ever consider experimenting with changing your "light-shaping-signature" to have a go reducing the magneta/red cast, just a thought!

Theres one hell of a difference - even with "top-end" parabolic-light-shapers, light-signature emissions ...
and especially, mid-tone tonal ranges and mid-contrast ranges, always present so very differently, (even by comparison, when used in the same light-shaper) the shorter-tube design, which emits a much-harsher and more limited mid-tonal contrast range due to it being a much a smaller-light source.
The elongated-exposed u shaped flash-tube design emiited light-signatures, exceptionally smooth transition of non-harsh and full-tonal range including mid-tones, and images lit with this, most often dont require any post-production adjustments, thats our findings !! ...

Most parabolic light-shapers alter/shift colour temperature with focusing and thats a fact! ...
There are however, a few "dual-fabric-construction" parabolic-light-shapers that dont ... and are focusable over 5 f- stops without shifting color temperature!

Best wishes

[fh29]

Colors (IMHO) are determined by the profiles, not the camera. I *like* the colors from the X2D with certain profiles, but I have no idea if they're anywhere near neutral. I just stay away from the Adobe profiles and use the Camera Standard or Cobalt. I have an old X1D, and am not struck by a major color difference. Profile choice, again, makes much more of a difference.

Anyway, I'll try to shoot the same scene with both cameras and see what comes out.

Matt

Yes, user profiles have a drastic effect on colours. But before this last stage the sensor design, signal processing, CFA,... all come into play and affect the spectral response. From here the profile may, or may not be able to deliver neutral colours.

Anyway, much thanks for your pics in the other post! These look pretty clean and free of the dreaded magenta cast. Even the Adobe standard profile is not that bad here.
I quite like the Cobalt profile with my X1d too, sometimes it's looking better than Camera standard.

[fh29]

Take a look at Matt Grangers comparison of the X2D and the GFX100s.  You will clearly see the differences of the X2D vs. GFX output on the same sensor.  I don't think the X2D has the magenta cast that's present in the GFX100s.   I do have the GFX100s and the magenta cast drives me crazy sometimes.  I just received my X2D yesterday.  So I have not tested it yet.  But I expect great results.

Indeed, the gfx100 is really in a league of its own, not really surprised the X2d is cleaner here
Enjoy your X2d, and let us know what you think of it.

[fh29]

Hi fh29
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity!
Did you ever consider experimenting with changing your "light-shaping-signature" to have a go reducing the magneta/red cast, just a thought!

Theres one hell of a difference - even with "top-end" parabolic-light-shapers, light-signature emissions ...
and especially, mid-tone tonal ranges and mid-contrast ranges, always present so very differently, (even by comparison, when used in the same light-shaper) the shorter-tube design, which emits a much-harsher and more limited mid-tonal contrast range due to it being a much a smaller-light source.
The elongated-exposed u shaped flash-tube design emiited light-signatures, exceptionally smooth transition of non-harsh and full-tonal range including mid-tones, and images lit with this, most often dont require any post-production adjustments, thats our findings !! ...

Most parabolic light-shapers alter/shift colour temperature with focusing and thats a fact! ...
There are however, a few "dual-fabric-construction" parabolic-light-shapers that dont ... and are focusable over 5 f- stops without shifting color temperature!

Best wishes

Good point Dicky, light modifiers do alter colours indeed.
That's the reason we systematically create custom profiles for each reproduction. Sometimes we have to resort to cross polarization which messes everything up for instance.
But with the latest sensor gen it's often a real struggle to achieve a neutral result. If we force the profile to correct too much it usually leads to problems elsewhere (brutal hue shifts, lack of separation, etc).

[tenmangu81]

@Matt

After having had a look at the horseshoe color diagram displayed on the Cobalt site, I understand why there are not so many differences in your images : with the Cobalt profiles, the gamut extends farther to the reds when compared with generic ones, but not that much to the cyan/green/blue.
They give examples where the reds are far better when using the Cobalt standard rather than the Adobe.

[MGrayson]

@Matt

After having had a look at the horseshoe color diagram displayed on the Cobalt site, I understand why there are not so many differences in your images : with the Cobalt profiles, the gamut extends farther to the reds when compared with generic ones, but not that much to the cyan/green/blue.
They give examples where the reds are far better when using the Cobalt standard rather than the Adobe.

Yeah. It wasn't a great test. Comparing the X2D with the Leica S3 also shows differences mainly in the deep reds.

[JCM-Photos]

Hi fh29
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity!
Did you ever consider experimenting with changing your "light-shaping-signature" to have a go reducing the magneta/red cast, just a thought!

Theres one hell of a difference - even with "top-end" parabolic-light-shapers, light-signature emissions ...
and especially, mid-tone tonal ranges and mid-contrast ranges, always present so very differently, (even by comparison, when used in the same light-shaper) the shorter-tube design, which emits a much-harsher and more limited mid-tonal contrast range due to it being a much a smaller-light source.
The elongated-exposed u shaped flash-tube design emiited light-signatures, exceptionally smooth transition of non-harsh and full-tonal range including mid-tones, and images lit with this, most often dont require any post-production adjustments, thats our findings !! ...

Most parabolic light-shapers alter/shift colour temperature with focusing and thats a fact! ...
There are however, a few "dual-fabric-construction" parabolic-light-shapers that dont ... and are focusable over 5 f- stops without shifting color temperature!

Best wishes

Good point Dicky, light modifiers do alter colours indeed.
That's the reason we systematically create custom profiles for each reproduction. Sometimes we have to resort to cross polarization which messes everything up for instance.
But with the latest sensor gen it's often a real struggle to achieve a neutral result. If we force the profile to correct too much it usually leads to problems elsewhere (brutal hue shifts, lack of separation, etc).

Yes, that's why Hasselblad Phocus software has an integrated "subject profiling" tool.
I've noticed that faulty colors in this case come from bad chart illumination angle when some patches glare.
The ultimate technique is using a calibrated chart and loading the calibration data file in Hasselblad Phocus as you do it with high end film scanners.
Hasselblad has the best colors because the Imacon legacy still works in their Copenhagen development office that's spezialized in software.

[Dicky]

Hi fh29
Wonder what the studio repro-work results yielded, would possibly look like? when shot on a 9-micron 'fat-pixel' CCD multi-shot Imacon/Hasselblad v528C 22mp back (at effectively approx 88mp with multi-shot) by comparison to the lastest generation of 100mp cmos sensors!? Curious!

Using "old-school grey-card and spotmetering" to always get it all groovy, before starting in our humble-studio JCM
Always, with the shorter exposed u-shaped design of flash-tubes, such as those in monolights, usually end up, by adding diffusion layers to the selected light-shaper (even very fine-silks) in order to cutdown on the contrast a touch, in the mid tones.

Still absolutely, adore the "Kodachrome" look yielded by our vintage 9-micron 'fat-pixel' 16mp Hasselblad/Imacon V96c back at ISO 50 - those colours are truly, something else!
Best wishes

[tenmangu81]

@Matt

After having had a look at the horseshoe color diagram displayed on the Cobalt site, I understand why there are not so many differences in your images : with the Cobalt profiles, the gamut extends farther to the reds when compared with generic ones, but not that much to the cyan/green/blue.
They give examples where the reds are far better when using the Cobalt standard rather than the Adobe.

Yeah. It wasn't a great test. Comparing the X2D with the Leica S3 also shows differences mainly in the deep reds.

Yes, I am not surprised. Leica is not the best as far as colors are concerned. I had two digital Leica M and they were not that good when compared with HB. I don't know anything about the S3, though.