Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: fraherim on April 02, 2008, 03:28:27 pm
-
Hi,
I am looking for opinions on anyone shooting MFD at 800 ISO? Which one would be considered the best at high iso's? The quality of the Phase backs at lower iso's is familiar to me but I am not sure of the quality at the higher settings.
Is the H3DII 31 in the same league as the P30+?
How does the P25+ and P45+ hold up at 800?
Thanks,
Bob
-
Hi,
I am looking for opinions on anyone shooting MFD at 800 ISO? Which one would be considered the best at high iso's? The quality of the Phase backs at lower iso's is familiar to me but I am not sure of the quality at the higher settings.
Is the H3DII 31 in the same league as the P30+?
How does the P25+ and P45+ hold up at 800?
Thanks,
Bob
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=186503\")
H3DII-31 @ ISO 800
Best I've seen from MFDB....*warning, clearly biased....
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=4696]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pe=post&id=4696[/url]
Steve Hendrix
-
I find the 400 iso with the 45+ to be not bad at all. But the 800 to be more for emergencies. I think it may depend on the subject, how well the exposure is and how much "post tweaking" you do.
I understand though that the p30+ has about a stop better quality across the board because of the micro lenses on the chip, so I would think I would look at one of those for better 800 iso quality.
I have not worked with the Hasselblad backs so I don't know how they are.
I think they use the same sensors though.
-
I find the 400 iso with the 45+ to be not bad at all. But the 800 to be more for emergencies. I think it may depend on the subject, how well the exposure is and how much "post tweaking" you do.
I understand though that the p30+ has about a stop better quality across the board because of the micro lenses on the chip, so I would think I would look at one of those for better 800 iso quality.
I have not worked with the Hasselblad backs so I don't know how they are.
I think they use the same sensors though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The equivalent sensors per model would be:
H3DII-39 = P45+
H3DII-31 = P31+
H3DII-22 = P25+
H3DII-39 uses the same 39MP sensor as the P45+. I don't know what the naming convention of the P backs refers to. The Hasselblad refers to the Megapixel count. The 31MP chips are definitely cleaner at least at 200 ISO and higher compared to the 22MP/39MP chips, in addition to the additional higher ISO rating.
Steve Hendrix
-
The equivalent sensors per model would be:
H3DII-39 = P45+
H3DII-31 = P31+
H3DII-22 = P25+
H3DII-39 uses the same 39MP sensor as the P45+. I don't know what the naming convention of the P backs refers to. The Hasselblad refers to the Megapixel count. The 31MP chips are definitely cleaner at least at 200 ISO and higher compared to the 22MP/39MP chips, in addition to the additional higher ISO rating.
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Steve,
I hear the H3DII 39 will max out at 800 after Phocus is released. Is this true? How will the capture software change the back? Is it a firmware upgrade? If so will the 31 them max out at 1600 ISO like the P30+?
Bob
-
I find the 400 iso with the 45+ to be not bad at all. But the 800 to be more for emergencies. I think it may depend on the subject, how well the exposure is and how much "post tweaking" you do.
I understand though that the p30+ has about a stop better quality across the board because of the micro lenses on the chip, so I would think I would look at one of those for better 800 iso quality.
I have not worked with the Hasselblad backs so I don't know how they are.
I think they use the same sensors though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
David,
Thanks for the info.
Will the P45+ give you a full res file at 800? I hear that some Phase backs reduce the file size to get the extra ISO but I am not sure which models do this.
Bob
-
I get totally usable files from my P25 at ISO800, it kinda looks like it's shot on film. Works just fine for available light editorial work.
-
Steve,
I hear the H3DII 39 will max out at 800 after Phocus is released. Is this true? How will the capture software change the back? Is it a firmware upgrade? If so will the 31 them max out at 1600 ISO like the P30+?
Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bob:
That is correct, although I don't think Phocus V1.0 will have that upgrade, possibly V1.1 or 1.2, etc. But yes, the H3DII-22/39 will go to ISO 800, the H3DII-31 will go to ISO 1600. This is my guesstimate. Hasselblad has stated they will enhance the ISO range with Phocus, but not with V1.0, so I am ballparking the prediction of when that will be implemented.
Eliminating noise always takes into account multiple considerations comprised of software/hardware, etc. Hasselblad has enabled (what I think is) a very significant improvement in high ISO performance in the past 12-18 months to the point where at one time, they were at the bottom in terms of that criteria, I now feel they are at the top. They did this through improvement in their software algorithm.
The H3DII series also swapped the internal fan for a heat sink, which reduced the internal operating temperature by 7 - 8 degrees. This also assists in their noise reduction. But Phocus will apparently take advantage of an even more improved algorithm, because it claims there will be improved noise reduction for legacy products with H1/H2 cameras, like the iXpress series and H1D, H2D, H3D series, which don't employ a heat sink. The H camera itself may be playing a role even with the fan-based systems in terms of cooling. Regardless of how they do it, the additional ISO stop (and additional stop of long exposure to 64 seconds) will be free via Phocus software update.
Steve Hendrix
-
My first P45+ sample couldn't do decent ISO 400, the second is much better, but there are unpredictable image artefacts, eg bad columns (vertical white lines) in the images, and horizontal unevenness and streaking.
When I got my bacl I was hoping for good hi-ISO, and it would seem to be technically possible, but I now consider it's a matter of luck. I think we'll be there with the next upgrade. The P30+ is probably good at ISO 400 because thanks to the microlenses it's a 200 ISO native. On the other hand, if you're going to use a p30+ you might also consider a Canon - the distance in resolution is about one generation and color and skin tone are quite decent.
Edmund
-
The P30+ is probably good at ISO 400 because thanks to the microlenses it's a 200 ISO native. On the other hand, if you're going to use a p30+ you might also consider a Canon - the distance in resolution is about one generation and color and skin tone are quite decent.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What's this about the P30+? You think the 1ds3 is pretty close?
T
-
What's this about the P30+? You think the 1ds3 is pretty close?
T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd say there's one dSLR generation between the P30+ and the 1Ds3, just about.
The "look" advantage is less than for the larger P45, the sharpness advantage too because of the microlenses, however the digital back still has more pixels and better, but at high-ISO the Canon is going to catch up.
The dSLR has super-fast lenses, fast focus and superb finder. It's not such a simple equation and the Canon deserves to be looked at.
The back wins in high-ISO shots because of the superbly retained highlights especially in bars and streets where you get nice colored lamps. On the other hand, the back has noisier pixels. And the MF body is so bad that you have trouble focusing, and the lenses are slow, slow, slow ...
I haven't shot a single Canon frame on my own cameras (tested 1Ds3 were loaners) since I got my back, but there hasn't been a day when I haven't regretted my Canon 85/1.2 or haven't been angry at my back sample not being perfect.
Edmund
-
Steve - the ISO 800 image from the H3DII-31 is very impressive. A friend received his ~Dec. and he is equally enthusiastic about the ISO 400-800 range.
-
ERonald,
I have a P30+ and I would have to disagree.
My opinion is entirely subjective, but I will say that you get better color from an F5 and 35mm Portra 160nc than from the 1ds3. I would rather (and do) shoot editorial on film (645 afd, 6x7 RZ) than shoot with the ds3. The P30+, again, in my opinion, has qualities that are unique to medium format (lenses, 4:3) and the dof effects from a larger sensor are real, so there is, how you say, the MF "look". So unless the 1ds4 has a larger than 35mm frame, is 4:3, and takes mamiya and Hass V glass, I don't think Canon will ever catch up to the P30, A17 or P21.
As to iso, the P30+ is very similar to my 1ds2 at 1600. More color noise, cleans up well in C1 or in noise ninja. The pixel density masks much of the noise. At 400 there is virtually no noise to speak of, its like an A22 at 100.
As to fast lenses, its all relative. Fast for thin dof? MF, even the P30, beats 35mm with 2.8, 1,9, and F2. Fast for low light street shooting? Well, mfdb are really not the best choice. All that being said, if I shot sports or street or something like that I'd shoot a 5d or 1ds3 or D3. But I don't. This is not to take away from the 1ds3, its a great cam but it will never be a MFDB system beater for my work.
-
ERonald,
I have a P30+ and I would have to disagree.
My opinion is entirely subjective, but I will say that you get better color from an F5 and 35mm Portra 160nc than from the 1ds3. I would rather (and do) shoot editorial on film (645 afd, 6x7 RZ) than shoot with the ds3. The P30+, again, in my opinion, has qualities that are unique to medium format (lenses, 4:3) and the dof effects from a larger sensor are real, so there is, how you say, the MF "look". So unless the 1ds4 has a larger than 35mm frame, is 4:3, and takes mamiya and Hass V glass, I don't think Canon will ever catch up to the P30, A17 or P21.
As to iso, the P30+ is very similar to my 1ds2 at 1600. More color noise, cleans up well in C1 or in noise ninja. The pixel density masks much of the noise. At 400 there is virtually no noise to speak of, its like an A22 at 100.
As to fast lenses, its all relative. Fast for thin dof? MF, even the P30, beats 35mm with 2.8, 1,9, and F2. Fast for low light street shooting? Well, mfdb are really not the best choice. All that being said, if I shot sports or street or something like that I'd shoot a 5d or 1ds3 or D3. But I don't. This is not to take away from the 1ds3, its a great cam but it will never be a MFDB system beater for my work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I find all of these cameras, dslrs, medium format to be very scene and lighting specific.
Testing with lots of front and side light just about anything looks good, even at high iso, but then again it's doubtful anyone would intentionally shoot 800, or 1600 iso with studio strobe and a lot of fill.
Where I see at difference is in the times you really need high iso, dimly lit NY streets with soft fill, backlight on location with hmi and natural fill, wider apetures, slower shutter speeds, then the noise comes in.
In those instances even my 1ds2 shows a lot of noise in the shadows and not very pretty noise at that. The D3, well at 1000 iso is pretty clean, though the color is sensitive and under tungsten I find all the medium format backs superior to the Canons, (though I haven't tried a 1ds3).
Even my past Aptus 22 was really nice at 400 iso, as long as I wanted the noise to be visable, though unlike the Canon it was pretty noise, almost random and not clumps.
For commercial work, especially commercial fashion where there is a lot of backlight and wider apertures, the P30+ is good at 400, slightly challenged at 800 and I know nothing about 1600 as i've never tried it.
Keep in mind I said commercial work, where I know someone is going to be looking hard at the detail of a dress, or jeans.
Also, all of these cameras show different results depending on the raw processor.
Right now I like the look of C1 v4, for the p30+ and my p21+.
Once again, all of this is subjective, but preparing for a shoot this week, I tested the P21+ (I hate writing that plus thing) vs. the p30+ at 800 iso and though 800 is supposedly the top iso for the p21, at 800 iso and underexposed slightly more than 1/2 a stop it cleaned up well as long as the image compression was set to large rather than small.
On small compression V4 handled the noise very abrutly, either too smooth and paintrly, or way too noisy. One large compression v4 worked the p21 file like it was an entirely different camera.
Pusing it +.64 in v4 which I assume gives an effective 800 iso something closer to 1000, it was really nice, not smooth plastic clean, but more random film clean and actually something I would do even for commercial work.
I gotta stress, the difference at high iso between large vs. small compression is very noticeable.
Still, this is subjective, but I like the p21 look at high iso because it's almost film like grain to me and not just deep chroma noise.
Then again I've always shot the phase backs slightly under and like the results better than the expose to the right scenario we read about.
This is not an offical company line, but a year ago one of the Phase people asked me how I exposed the file and I said slightly under and then opened it up in the processor and he replied yes, that is the way to do it.
That is not an offical statement and there could have been something lost in translation, but it works for me.
JR
-
hi james
i have a P21 and Contax and process in C1Pro 3.7.8, what does this quote mean? is it only possible in V4? I will use V4 eventually, just waiting for pro to come out. I shoot fashion/lifestyle, lots of backlit at wide aperture.
"I gotta stress, the difference at high iso between large vs. small compression is very noticeable"
I find all of these cameras, dslrs, medium format to be very scene and lighting specific.
Testing with lots of front and side light just about anything looks good, even at high iso, but then again it's doubtful anyone would intentionally shoot 800, or 1600 iso with studio strobe and a lot of fill.
Where I see at difference is in the times you really need high iso, dimly lit NY streets with soft fill, backlight on location with hmi and natural fill, wider apetures, slower shutter speeds, then the noise comes in.
In those instances even my 1ds2 shows a lot of noise in the shadows and not very pretty noise at that. The D3, well at 1000 iso is pretty clean, though the color is sensitive and under tungsten I find all the medium format backs superior to the Canons, (though I haven't tried a 1ds3).
Even my past Aptus 22 was really nice at 400 iso, as long as I wanted the noise to be visable, though unlike the Canon it was pretty noise, almost random and not clumps.
For commercial work, especially commercial fashion where there is a lot of backlight and wider apertures, the P30+ is good at 400, slightly challenged at 800 and I know nothing about 1600 as i've never tried it.
Keep in mind I said commercial work, where I know someone is going to be looking hard at the detail of a dress, or jeans.
Also, all of these cameras show different results depending on the raw processor.
Right now I like the look of C1 v4, for the p30+ and my p21+.
Once again, all of this is subjective, but preparing for a shoot this week, I tested the P21+ (I hate writing that plus thing) vs. the p30+ at 800 iso and though 800 is supposedly the top iso for the p21, at 800 iso and underexposed slightly more than 1/2 a stop it cleaned up well as long as the image compression was set to large rather than small.
On small compression V4 handled the noise very abrutly, either too smooth and paintrly, or way too noisy. One large compression v4 worked the p21 file like it was an entirely different camera.
Pusing it +.64 in v4 which I assume gives an effective 800 iso something closer to 1000, it was really nice, not smooth plastic clean, but more random film clean and actually something I would do even for commercial work.
I gotta stress, the difference at high iso between large vs. small compression is very noticeable.
Still, this is subjective, but I like the p21 look at high iso because it's almost film like grain to me and not just deep chroma noise.
Then again I've always shot the phase backs slightly under and like the results better than the expose to the right scenario we read about.
This is not an offical company line, but a year ago one of the Phase people asked me how I exposed the file and I said slightly under and then opened it up in the processor and he replied yes, that is the way to do it.
That is not an offical statement and there could have been something lost in translation, but it works for me.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186645\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I want to ditto what some of the others have said. I have been quite amazed at the Hasselblad H3DII-31 iso 800 images. Mark
-
hi james
i have a P21 and Contax and process in C1Pro 3.7.8, what does this quote mean? is it only possible in V4? I will use V4 eventually, just waiting for pro to come out. I shoot fashion/lifestyle, lots of backlit at wide aperture.
"I gotta stress, the difference at high iso between large vs. small compression is very noticeable"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In other words there is a difference in visiable noise or noise reduction when the compression on the back is set to large IQ vs. Small IQ.
I can understand using 3.78 for tethering because it's the only choice and it's stable, but processing is easy in V4 and if you have 3.7 pro, v4 is free and It takes like about 2 minutes to learn, so it's really not a big leap and I find the colors especially skin tones way superior to lightroom and 3.78 for the Phase backs.
It also processes fast on intel machines.
V4 could use a few more features, but then again I don't really know right now if I need them.
maybe something like 3.78's color editor to clean up backgrounds but that is it.
JR
-
H3DII-31 @ ISO 800
Best I've seen from MFDB....*warning, clearly biased....
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pe=post&id=4696 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=4696)
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186508\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Steve,
very nice "cat" picture
I got very good results from a sinar emotion75 at 400 iso, then processed to DNG with Brumbear and in ACR pushed to +1, equivalent to 800 iso
No noise at all and highlight recovery worked very well.
I like it.
Maybe one day we get DSLR "ease" from our MFDB's ;-)
-
As i do a lot of industrial photography in factories and bad lit laboratories my standard iso speed on my H3dII31Mp is 800 Iso and often I push speed up to 1600 or 3200 iso. The results are still much better than those from my Canon 5d. From the release of the flexcolor 4.xxx and upwards, High Iso is no problem anymore....
-
As i do a lot of industrial photography in factories and bad lit laboratories my standard iso speed on my H3dII31Mp is 800 Iso and often I push speed up to 1600 or 3200 iso. The results are still much better than those from my Canon 5d. From the release of the flexcolor 4.xxx and upwards, High Iso is no problem anymore....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The high ISO "noise" look of both backs I've had is really very good, giving interesting street and bar imagery at night. The problem with the P45+ samples I've seen (3) is they start to lose homogeneity at 400 ISO; The problems may be due to an insufficient calibration, or bad software
Whether you have an almost ok one or a bad one seems a lottery.
I guess the P30+ should be really good to at least 400, and if lucky do decent 800 as it is offset a stop due to microlenses. I tested some P30+ demo units prior to buying my P45+, and saw one good one and one bad one.
The sample variation of cameras under bad light is huge.
Edmund
-
I just received my eMotion 54LV today and ran it through a quick test at different ISOs. Sorry about the subject matter, it was just what was lying around my place.
Scene:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/scene_copy1.jpg)
Here is a crop of the highest sensitivity setting which is called ISO 400 on the back but it exposed perfectly when I set the Rollei to ISO 800 so who knows. You need to compare noise and backs at the same scene with the same exposure settings to get an accurate comparison. This is with the noise reduction switched on in CaptureShop:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/iso800_with_nr_crop.jpg)
Definitely usable with NR on. Not so pretty with NR deselected.
-
Graham,
What I can see here is that you have done a lot of shopping!
Glad that you got your upgrade.
Best regards,
Thierry
I just received my eMotion 54LV today and ran it through a quick test at different ISOs. Sorry about the subject matter, it was just what was lying around my place.
Definitely usable with NR on. Not so pretty with NR deselected.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Graham,
Would you show a file with real shadows, not so flatty lit, please?
Billy
-
Graham,
Would you show a file with real shadows, not so flatty lit, please?
Billy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All of you have certainly showed me that MFD is up to the task of much higher ISO's than my current H20 (which I still think makes a sweet file at 50 ISO).
Now to be untethered with quality!!
Bob
-
Warning about ACR
I guess ACR is not the preferred raw processor for most MFDB photographers, but those, who use it should be aware of the fact, that ACR applies a +1 EV adjustment to P30 and P45 raw images @ ISO 400 and +2 EV @ ISO 800 without giving any indication of the adjustment.
Taking the histogram and the clipping indication seriously, one will be led to underexpose the shots, causing noisiness.
-
Steve Cole had posted this several months ago. He was shooting with a P30+ at higher ISOs.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=17844&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17844&hl=)
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
chris@captureintegration.com
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year (http://www.captureintegration.com)
877-217-9870 | National
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101868815210&p=oi) | Read Our Latest Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
I was wondering, in DSLRs, there's a somewhat clear correlation between the pixel size + microlenses with ISO performance, of course given the same or close technology. Does it work with these DBs? For example, P30+ has microlenses, and it's ISO goes to 1600 and it performs well at low light. But its pixels are only 6.8 microns. P21+, on the other hand, also has microlenses, and its pixels are 9 microns, but its top ISO is only 800. I would, if anything, think it should perform better than p30+ in low light. No? Also, if people know, how does P25+ fits in into this line?
Thank you,
Igor.
-
I was wondering, in DSLRs, there's a somewhat clear correlation between the pixel size + microlenses with ISO performance, of course given the same or close technology. Does it work with these DBs? For example, P30+ has microlenses, and it's ISO goes to 1600 and it performs well at low light. But its pixels are only 6.8 microns. P21+, on the other hand, also has microlenses, and its pixels are 9 microns, but its top ISO is only 800. I would, if anything, think it should perform better than p30+ in low light. No? Also, if people know, how does P25+ fits in into this line?
Thank you,
Igor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The p21+ and P30+ have a different look, almost like different films.
At 800 iso and pushed + .64 which gives in thoery 1312 iso. and by my subjective standards it looks good to me as it has noise that more resembles grain, and it seems more evenly distributed between midtones to shadows, without too much smoothing or chroma noise.
(the p21 was processed in V4 and must be set on high IQ for 800 iso.)
Now whether this is really 1312 iso, or if any camera is really correct at it's iso is another matter, but it does make me think that Phase could have a 1200 iso settng on the p21 and it would work.
We can all talk this iso thing to death, but the real and the only way to know if a back or camera works for what you do is to test it in the exact conditions in which you shoot.
Some work well under tungesten, some don't, some are fine at high iso and backlight, some are awful, some underexpose, then open up without chroma noise and some look like a billion christmas trees were put in the shadows, once again, use it in how you work, not how it looks in a dealers showroom, or just the controlled conditions of studio with 12 million watts of strobe.
Even in the days of film I've compared, Contax, Bronicas and Rz's all set at the same shutter and f stop and all at the same subject and their was a difference of nearly a stop between them and also a way different look coming from the contrast of the lenses used.
I believe in the worst case scenario thing, where you go into a shoot with a billion pounds of equipment but the the quality of the light coming from the windows is much nicer than anything you would construct. Can you just pull the pocket wizard, bump the iso and shoot it where it's sharp and useable?
At that point it really doesn't matter if the camera says, 400, 800 iso or 1200 iso, it just matters if it works.
JR
-
I believe in the worst case scenario thing, where you go into a shoot with a billion pounds of equipment but the the quality of the light coming from the windows is much nicer than anything you would construct. Can you just pull the pocket wizard, bump the iso and shoot it where it's sharp and useable?
At that point it really doesn't matter if the camera says, 400, 800 iso or 1200 iso, it just matters if it works.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
:-)
Thank you James.
Best,
Igor.
-
Deleted
-
As good as the results are out of the H3DII-31 and P30+, are photographers still clamoring for a 37x49 version of the same micro-lensed sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Would be nice, I think. But maybe less sharp than today's 37x49 sensors.
Edmund
-
Deleted
-
Would be nice, I think. But maybe less sharp than today's 37x49 sensors.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund, how do microlenses reduce sharpness? Each of them covers only one pixel. To reduce sharpness, the information that comes from the lens to each pixel needs to be washed over several of them. No?
Thank you,
Igor.
-
Edmund, how do microlenses reduce sharpness? Each of them covers only one pixel. To reduce sharpness, the information that comes from the lens to each pixel needs to be washed over several of them. No?
Thank you,
Igor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmmm, we'd have to simulate or write some equations to confirm my intuition.
On the other hand, before buying my back I looked at some images, and they seemed to bear out my conjecture. .
Edmund
-
Hmmm, we'd have to simulate or write some equations to confirm my intuition.
On the other hand, before buying my back I looked at some images, and they seemed to bear out my conjecture. .
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let me know if you think of something, I'm truly curious. I always thought that microlenses may not be necessary, but never a bad thing.
Thank you,
Igor.