Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Stefan.Steib on November 12, 2011, 01:39:22 pm
-
OK - what are your dreams of a High resolution (MF?) camera in lets say 2-3 Years from now ?
Does it need to have an electronic viewfinder, Live View and deriving from that full video recording ?
Should it be integrated (like an Leica S2) or modular (like a Blad) or even a tech cam ?
Should there be wlan, remote control, internet access, GPS, more of these technical features or
would you center on water and dust protection, enhanced battery life, better usability overall ?
What would be a price range that is realistically possible for those features ?
And could a RED with more still resolution than the Scarlett X fulfill these needs ?
Please don´t hold it back, may it sound phantastic or crazy, I think ideas need brainstorming and input, speak it out.
If the industry reads this, they may also have some more motivation to realize it. Speaking about it does make things happen,
think about the Startrek communicator and Motorola who brought this to life with the first mobile phones.
And don´t we all want to have a future for this market segment so we can use these highend cameras
in the future ? What should be done to ensure this market will thrive ?
Interested to hear your opinions
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Did you get inspired by the earlier thread about digital Mamiya 7II? That might fit the bill....
Really, I'd like a lighter, smaller camera, with good live view and multi point auto focus, another couple stops in ISO.
-
Eric
no actually this is a question that was already of interest for me for a while. And the Mamiya 7 could only be a first start for a format, none of the existing lenses do have autofocus and especially the wideangle is too short (flange focal range).
Here a link with some food for further thoughts - by Leica:
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/leica-says-optical-finders-will-get-less-and-less-important/
greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
My perfect MF camera would be:
Imager
- The sensor would be no larger than 48x36mm with a resolution of no more than 60MP and a strong focus on DR,
- Able to deal with 4 min exposure without unreasonable noise build up,
- Feature a weak AA filter for optimally controlled aliasing,
- Sensor based VR/IS,
Focus
- Have live view capability for focus accuracy with sensor based AF accross the full frame (a la Nikon 1 series technology),
- Have access through SDK to the absolute focus distance of its lens (Get and Put),
Exposure/ISO
- Its exposure system would have to be accurate and optimized for ETTR with raw histogram and zero artificial highlight headroom,
Form factor
- Be mirror less for size and noise,
- The body would not weight more than 1kg with APS DSLR like bulk,
- Be fully waterproof (body and lenses),
- Have 2 tripod mounts for horizontal and vertical usage (see Pentax 645D),
Openess
- Be natively wifi and 4G enabled + Thunderbolt/10 GBe network port for thethering,
- Have an open OS (Android?) enabling the installation of applications that would be scriptable and workflowable,
- Relay on DNG raw format
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Personally I'd just like to see an advanced AF with multi-points on the bodies
-
OK - what are your dreams of a High resolution (MF?) camera in lets say 2-3 Years from now ?
Does it need to have an electronic viewfinder, Live View and deriving from that full video recording ?
I'm more from a filmmaking background, so:
A 40MP camera (RAW DNG) with 2K (or 3K max) resolution video at 4:2:2 uncompressed via HDMI or HD-SDI (A cross between a 645D and an Arri Alexa). Frame rates from 0-120fps. Live view as on Canon DSLRs is good enough. Is an optical viewfinder possible? DR of 12 stops (or more if possible). In-built high-quality variable ND filter. Strong Mount for telephoto lenses - Nikon/Canon/PL - interchangeable.
Should it be integrated (like an Leica S2) or modular (like a Blad) or even a tech cam ?
I love the RB67 camera philosophy. Why not have a revolving back for verticals? Everything else as solid as a 1DX. Can a semi-modular camera be sealed and weather proof?
Should there be wlan, remote control, internet access, GPS, more of these technical features or
would you center on water and dust protection, enhanced battery life, better usability overall ?
If one can pile it on, why not? But as along as it takes great pictures and outputs uncompressed video, it would be a dream camera. A battery should run for 4 hours in video mode.
What would be a price range that is realistically possible for those features ?
And could a RED with more still resolution than the Scarlett X fulfill these needs ?
The Red Scarlet is nowhere near. The Epic is, to a certain extent. The Red is not really a simple machine, and its post workflow is not for the fainthearted. What would really blow my mind is a camera that outputs image sequences in DPX/TIFF/EXR/DNGRAW instead of relying on crappy wrappers and codecs.
I'm not a big fan of adding XLR inputs, but if we can, then why not? Price for such a beast? $20K or less.
-
Here some more links for inspiration:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/future_of_the_camera.php
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663674/wvil-a-glimpse-at-the-future-of-photography-after-cameras-die-video
http://gizmodo.com/5580300/canons-camera-of-the-future
http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/canon-to-use-intels-thunderbolt-in-future-cameras-11-03-2011/
http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/lytro-light-field-camera-refocuses-the-future-of-photography-20110622/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9585903.stm
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/06/02/iphone-infrared-camera/
There´s plenty more, the designers of smaller camera systems are exploding with creativity.
So what do you think will make sense for you personally ?
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
a slightly smaller sensor size so none of your lenses are quite wide enough.
at least 150 megapixels 200 if possible
good at 50iso and with speeds up to 3200 but nothing usable above 200
live view but with a really annoying delay (and on a small lo-res screen)
a Bentley edition with green Connolly leather and milled aluminium accents
*i'm working on the theory that MF don't listen to their customers and do the opposite of what they want.
-
+1, I would love to shoot square again....
-
Rather than features, can one look at the form?
Why do all the electronics have to be on the back of the sensor - can they be located elsewhere? If so, then the form factor of the back could be modified and get back to a narrower camera body, opening up the door to a Mamiya 6 kind of simpler size. Something simpler, smaller, more usable.
The Leica S2 is wonderful for its usability, but unfortunately with the 3:2 profile (and very pricey) - a 6x6 sensor would be ideal.
Either fixed lens (50mm) or open mounts for either Hassy, Rollei, or some other large group of lenses.
-
Really, I'd like a lighter, smaller camera, with good live view and multi point auto focus, another couple stops in ISO.
A couple of f/stops increase in ISO would be difficult to obtain, since current CCD sensors have a quantum efficiency of 25 to 50% (see Kodak spec for KAF 40000 and KAF 50100). CMOS generally has lower QE because the electronics take up part of the pixel area, although improved micro-lenses can make up for some of this. Sensor ISO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed) is determined by the exposure (measured in lux seconds) required to saturate the sensor. A higher ISO is obtained by a higher quantum efficiency so that, for a given luminous flux, less integration time will be needed to collect the required number of photons. Current front illuminated sensors (http://www.stargazing.net/david/qsi/Quantum.pdf) can achieve a QE of 85%. Doubling of the QE would produce 1 f/stop higher ISO.
Interestingly, if the full well capacity of the sensor could be increased and photon SNR thus increased without altering the pixel size, the ISO would actually decrease, since more time would be needed to fill the deeper well. However, charge density places an upper limit on full well for a given pixel area.
Regards,
Bill
-
Bill
it seems that in scientific imaging devices sCMOS chips have already surpassed CCD´s in about every aspect see
http://www.andor.com/scientific_cameras/neo_scmos_camera/
they use several technics to improve signal to noise, readout speed and even give the user a choice of rolling or global readout.
I think this can also be done on larger resolutions, maybe not necessarily with 1 electrons RMS performance but for normal imaging
with significant cost reduction against such Hightech solutions.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Hi,
Here is what I'd like to see:
- Modular solution, essentially an MFDB with a high resolution display
- CMOS based design with live view, magnification actual pixels or more
- Focus peaking
- Zebra markings/blinking highlights based on raw data
- Ethernet and WiFi built in
- Electronic connection between back, body and lens, so no cabling is needed and exposure data is recorded
- About 4 micron sensor pitch so aliasing is minimized
Camera body can be any of:
- MF SLR (like Hasselblad, Mamiya, Phase One)
- Technical camera body like Sinar Arctech, Alpa or Hartblei
Many areas of photography are well covered with DSLRs. I don't necessarily feel that an MF DSLR is really needed. The SLR concept may create more problems than it solves. The reason SLR viewing was created was to achieve "what you see is what you get" viewing, the very same can be achieved with live view, without moving parts.
Best regards
Erik
OK - what are your dreams of a High resolution (MF?) camera in lets say 2-3 Years from now ?
Does it need to have an electronic viewfinder, Live View and deriving from that full video recording ?
Should it be integrated (like an Leica S2) or modular (like a Blad) or even a tech cam ?
Should there be wlan, remote control, internet access, GPS, more of these technical features or
would you center on water and dust protection, enhanced battery life, better usability overall ?
What would be a price range that is realistically possible for those features ?
And could a RED with more still resolution than the Scarlett X fulfill these needs ?
Please don´t hold it back, may it sound phantastic or crazy, I think ideas need brainstorming and input, speak it out.
If the industry reads this, they may also have some more motivation to realize it. Speaking about it does make things happen,
think about the Startrek communicator and Motorola who brought this to life with the first mobile phones.
And don´t we all want to have a future for this market segment so we can use these highend cameras
in the future ? What should be done to ensure this market will thrive ?
Interested to hear your opinions
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
My interest would be to see image quality available in entry-level systems. I think that ease-of-use issues are more important only for high-end buyers. Back when I shot 6x7 film I was willing to put up with the lack of a motor drive or autofocus. For some, it seems, bringing DSLR features to MF are important -- so maybe a hybrid category may emerge (although Mamiya ZD didn't seem to take off...)
Aaron
-
Hi Eric
good point for the Zebra stripes. I also think there are a lot of features of the video cameras that should be taken to the future "stills/video" devices.
Whereas there is probably more coming from the video side as these devices should be real 4k video devices also to be of dual use.
I also think that the idea of Canon´s 300C with the downsampled 4k->2k color scheme is absolutely ingenious. Phase already does pixel binning
why not channel binning on choice for smaller resolutions or BW with much faster readout ? This combined with a CMOS seems to be the way to go.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Hasselblad 503 digital FF 56x56mm with live view and 60 mp AF and new AF lenses , 25 to 800 ISO , exposure up to 6 minutes, a TS module
15000 euro TTC for the body + 80 mm
-
A couple of f/stops increase in ISO would be difficult to obtain, since current CCD sensors have a quantum efficiency of 25 to 50% (see Kodak spec for KAF 40000 and KAF 50100). CMOS generally has lower QE because the electronics take up part of the pixel area, although improved micro-lenses can make up for some of this. Sensor ISO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed) is determined by the exposure (measured in lux seconds) required to saturate the sensor. A higher ISO is obtained by a higher quantum efficiency so that, for a given luminous flux, less integration time will be needed to collect the required number of photons. Current front illuminated sensors (http://www.stargazing.net/david/qsi/Quantum.pdf) can achieve a QE of 85%. Doubling of the QE would produce 1 f/stop higher ISO.
Interestingly, if the full well capacity of the sensor could be increased and photon SNR thus increased without altering the pixel size, the ISO would actually decrease, since more time would be needed to fill the deeper well. However, charge density places an upper limit on full well for a given pixel area.
Regards,
Bill
Bill, this is all correct, but you're only looking at the signal side of the S/N equation...and ISO performance these days is primarily determined by the noise side of the equation. When people ask for "A couple of f/stops increase in ISO" they don't mean base ISO; they mean they want to get better higher-than-base ISOs; they want the S/N of current ISO 400 but at ISO 1600, the S/N of current ISO 800 but at ISO 3200, etc.
The reason why CMOS sensors in current DSLRs reach such giddy heights of ISO range is that they have got the readout noise down to around 2 electrons. MF CCDs are still 6 times or more higher than this. So although both types of sensors take in about the same signal flux per pixel, the CCDs can't compete on S/N per pixel in the shadows.
Ray
-
Above all, I would like to see a state of the art CMOS sensor, which would help with:
- Live View, with a modular system allowing the LCD or EVF to be moved relative to the lens/sensor unit. Shutter release and other controls on the "mobile" VF unit, maybe?
- Fast, accurate sensor-based focus confirmation, with VF feedback indicating what parts of the image are currently in focus, since at the high modern DMF resolution levels, checking critical focus visually otherwise requires zooming, and is impossible with an optical reflex VF.
- A rotating back, which becomes easier with a mirrorless, live view system: no need for a huge mirror as big in each direction as the long dimension of the frame.
The RB approach of Mamiya was the beginning of the end for square format, and this could finish the job (except for that tiny faction that likes square images.) Own an expensive DMF system and yet can't even make the most rudimentary compositional choice between vertical or horizontal composition, or have an equally indecisive or unpredictable AD? Then take two shots, one each way up: storage is cheap.
-
Hi,
The electronics are just a couple of micrometers thick, much thinner than a piece of paper. With CMOS they must be co located with the pixels, that is causing some disadvantage for CMOS, because some silicon area is used for the electronics. The physical thickness of the sensor is not affected by electronics.
Best regards
Erik
Rather than features, can one look at the form?
Why do all the electronics have to be on the back of the sensor - can they be located elsewhere? If so, then the form factor of the back could be modified and get back to a narrower camera body, opening up the door to a Mamiya 6 kind of simpler size. Something simpler, smaller, more usable.
The Leica S2 is wonderful for its usability, but unfortunately with the 3:2 profile (and very pricey) - a 6x6 sensor would be ideal.
Either fixed lens (50mm) or open mounts for either Hassy, Rollei, or some other large group of lenses.
-
Hi Stefan,
I see a single problem with CMOS, and that is that there is no CMOS sensor available for MF. On the other hand I'd presume that there is no great obstacle to making larger sensors, except cost.
Regarding the value of pixel binning I'm a bit sceptical. It is quite true that DR can be increased by pixel binning. If we bin four pixels physically the well capacity will quadruple, but read noise will be constant. But if we disregard read noise, and only look at shot noise binning does not really change anything. When we resize the image for final use we do binning in software.
This is very neatly demostrated by DxO-mark. The first screen dump compares Nikon D3X and Phase One P65+ regarding DR. The definition of DR that DxO uses essentially means that it is limited by read noise. The binning shows up as a significant increase of DR at high ISO.
The second screen dump is similar but shows "tonal range", tonal range in DxO definition is similar to DR but uses a requirement of a good signal quality like SNR = 8 (I'm not sure what value they use). With this definition the advantage of binning disappears, as shown in the second screen dump.
Binning may make more sense on present day CCDs which have relatively high readout noise, but may be less needed with modern CMOS which has much lower readout noise.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Eric
good point for the Zebra stripes. I also think there are a lot of features of the video cameras that should be taken to the future "stills/video" devices.
Whereas there is probably more coming from the video side as these devices should be real 4k video devices also to be of dual use.
I also think that the idea of Canon´s 300C with the downsampled 4k->2k color scheme is absolutely ingenious. Phase already does pixel binning
why not channel binning on choice for smaller resolutions or BW with much faster readout ? This combined with a CMOS seems to be the way to go.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Eric
I think this is purely political and as I think the task that Leica, Phase/Leaf, Pentax and Hasselblad have to solve, is to cooperate !
(BTW this idea is spoken out by Henrik Hakansson / Phase One in an Interview he gave for German Profifoto 4/2010)
Because technically it is not a problem at all see here:
http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/news/2011/05/360.asp which is even topped by this
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/31/canon-develops-worlds-largest-cmos-sensor-shoots-60fps-video-i/
I think a MF CMOS with sizes up to 6/7 cm could be cheaper than a CCD of 4,5/6 size but of course it depends on the numbers produced.
What I don´t understand why Dalsa, Phillips and Kodak do not switch production or at least broaden their spectrum of offers for this kind of chips.
Of course the makers of smaller formats with even tinier pixel pitches than 5 Micron will tell everything works wonderful, but for a sufficient number of electrons
to be collected something in the 6 Micron range would be the best compromise as of todays technology (see Canon 1DX and I believe they know what they are doing)
so a 6/7 chip with around 60-80Mpix would be the perfect solution.
Any larger Resolutions can be done by superexposures, stitching or multishot.
A 6/7 chip would also allow resolutions of 4k video with Canons downsample method. Perfect !
And removing the shutter completely and replace with EVF and live view ,plus rolling or global readout of the CMOS chip (see andor!) would solve any problems which may arise optically, advanced retrofocus lenses could be used.And last but not least: Using a simple piezo Peltier cooling for longer exposures could give nearly noisefree 1 Hour shots (see astronomy - and Leaf had this already 17 years ago in the DCB´s !)
So there is the big question: why aren´t they doing it ????????
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
So there is the big question: why don´t they do it ????????
At the risk of looking like an old broken record, is there any possible reason besides "they don't see the economic value of doing it considering where they are technologically today, the cost of R&D they would need to do and the very small series resulting from the high end pricing of most backs"?
The only case where small series can win in electronics is when the absolute level reached by mass products makes it un-appealing for consumer electronic companies to push the envelope farther. This is why high-end audio survives... because main stream audio is already so incredibly good that 99.9% of the population finds it to be enough. It leaves a small niche wide open for those artisans able to get a few more % of performance out of silicon and tubes.
Unfortunately for Dalsa the big names Nikon, Sony and Canon are still not happy about the current level of DRs/resolution of their cameras because they see that customers still want more and think they see the difference, or at least they can make money with high spec sensors. Nobody cares about 0.0001% of THD vs 0.01%, but people still care about 13 stops of DR vs 12.
The yellow cameras we are starting to see, the success of more compact cameras like 4/3 or Nikon 1 series,... are some sign of slow down of the race ahead, but there are still a few more years of high speed progress in the high end of DSLR segment. The more than happens, the smaller the application niches that can only be handled by MF and the lesser the revenue potential for highly priced devices, therefore the lesser appealing the investement needed to do more significant technological progress for MF sensors manufacturers.
Just look at what happened with high end graphic cards 10 years ago... nvidia and AMD are the only players left, their hardware was driven forward by mass market expectation so fast that Silicon graphics just got left behind. It is not going to be that clear for high end photography, but doesn't sound too good with the current pricing model. IMHO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard
I fear you are right, and to be honest my question was kind of rethorical.
But there are some things that still seem not logical to me:
1.: if this is the status of the MF industry today, are they waiting to disappear without defense ?
2.: If even a University (probably with some 3rd party funding) can afford to have their own custom CMOS be made, why can´t a consortium of
all involved back-/cameramakers as listed in my former mail ? (using it like the Cosworth machine in Formula one that was standard for all competitors for decades !)
and 3.: This concept could as well bring them back to a broader customer base, using modular chips of differing sizes and resolutions and allowing
more aggressive pricing which could also solve this hen and egg dilemma. As you said Canon, Nikon or Sony won´t bother, in some years it´s over,
leaving the actual model in a status like 8/10" Film today. And this is not only the back makers - there are the techcamera makers and a lot of the peripherals
used in this industry will also go down the drain, or maybe leaving a tiny niche for specialists.
And yes of course this also will affect my business, that´s the reason why I speak it out here !
Regards
Stefan
-
OK, nice question by Stefan.
My wishlist (overlaps a lot with previous replies, but has a few new ideas too):
* Mirrorless, thin body. As in, Sony NEX-thin. This thinness permits adapters to just about every lens on the planet; even some of those with insufficient image circle are interesting. It also permits shift-tilt adapters for all our MF lenses.
* Modular backs - digital and (lower priority) film
* 645-sized CMOS sensor in the digital back, with Canon levels of readnoise and dark noise, but not their Bayer CFA filters: rather Kodak's CFA filters (better colour discrimination)
* User-changeable filters over the sensor (choice of: AA + IR-blocking, plain IR-blocking, extended-red (680nm cutoff) IR-blocking, and IR-passing)...in the style of the old Kodak MFDBs and Mamiya ZD
* Live View, of course
* Fully pivoting LCD screen, with detachable WLF-style folding magnifying hood
* Built-in intervalometer (I mean, the Chinese make them as $20 handsets...how hard is it to integrate that into the body?!), and no upper limit to individual exposure times.
* Video? Nah, not a priority for me. [In nearly a year of using a 5DII, I've taken 3 movies, and 2 of those were accidental!]. There could be a second, more expensive version with video features. I think some people here on LuLa seem to forget that most of us, even now, still really only want to shoot very high quality still photos.
* Canon-style RAW format where "raw MEANS raw". No dark frame subtraction (unless specifically chosen by the user), no bias subtraction, and no long exposure median filtering or any such f*cking around by the firmware. DNG sounds fine as a vehicle for this format.
* Runs off high-capacity Li-Ion or 12V (run a cable from a large camping/astro battery, or your car's cigarette lighter port in a pinch).
Ray
-
hope this doesn't kidnap the thread... but a practical Q:
is there a set of drawings or specs publicly available for the various lens mounts?
--- just noodling in CAD program now ----
-
For architectural photography:
EOS 5D with double size sensor (2 sensors side by side), 48x36mm, 42 mp or more
no (fast) autofocus needed
no video needed
size, weight do not matter
programs: av,tv,m, c
built-in-spirit level
adapted TS-E lenses 24, 40, 70, 100 with tripod connection
-
Hi,
I agree mostly. I don't really agree on the utility of a "waist level viewfinder loupe" as LCDs have selectable magnification and actual pixels are needed for live view.
Another point is that I'd suggest that Video is essentially free, it does not add complexity or cost. That said I see little use for MF video.
Best regards
Erik
OK, nice question by Stefan.
My wishlist (overlaps a lot with previous replies, but has a few new ideas too):
* Mirrorless, thin body. As in, Sony NEX-thin. This thinness permits adapters to just about every lens on the planet; even some of those with insufficient image circle are interesting. It also permits shift-tilt adapters for all our MF lenses.
* Modular backs - digital and (lower priority) film
* 645-sized CMOS sensor in the digital back, with Canon levels of readnoise and dark noise, but not their Bayer CFA filters: rather Kodak's CFA filters (better colour discrimination)
* User-changeable filters over the sensor (choice of: AA + IR-blocking, plain IR-blocking, extended-red (680nm cutoff) IR-blocking, and IR-passing)...in the style of the old Kodak MFDBs and Mamiya ZD
* Live View, of course
* Fully pivoting LCD screen, with detachable WLF-style folding magnifying hood
* Built-in intervalometer (I mean, the Chinese make them as $20 handsets...how hard is it to integrate that into the body?!), and no upper limit to individual exposure times.
* Video? Nah, not a priority for me. [In nearly a year of using a 5DII, I've taken 3 movies, and 2 of those were accidental!]. There could be a second, more expensive version with video features. I think some people here on LuLa seem to forget that most of us, even now, still really only want to shoot very high quality still photos.
* Canon-style RAW format where "raw MEANS raw". No dark frame subtraction (unless specifically chosen by the user), no bias subtraction, and no long exposure median filtering or any such f*cking around by the firmware. DNG sounds fine as a vehicle for this format.
* Runs off high-capacity Li-Ion or 12V (run a cable from a large camping/astro battery, or your car's cigarette lighter port in a pinch).
Ray
-
I've always wanted an evf or external monitor to shoot stills with. I've experimented with an external monitor for a while- through a 1ds mk3- this worked well- and fast. but the 5d is slow from monitoring to click, i also tried the 1dx and this is still a little slow.
but i still want an optical finder. the number one complaint i hear about the alexa (which doesn't get many complaints) is that the lcd evf is a little delayed, so when you quickly move the camera, its very annoying and hard to follow things well. i guess this is why alexa is going to offer a optical finder version the camera- theres nothing quite like seeing through the lens properly. having both options would be perfect.
also, i still want to focus by eye, and I'm not sure lcds are sharp enough yet to do this. i want to be able to control the amount, or position of the focal plane, not have a "focus point" do it for me.
but when i want focus points- i want them to be selectable over the whole frame- i often have subjects outside the area of focus points with my canon, and still have to move the camera sideways to use the closest point. the iPhone way of touching a screen- exactly where you want to focus is a perfect solution for me.
paul
-
Erik
Imagine a soon to be had 4k display attached to that MF Video out for work and image composition - especially when used in production environments.
Paul
I believe this can be solved, it may be something like a one frame delay, for fast movements this may be annoying, but I guess if you want to do sports or
fashion shows or playing children it´s better to use a 35mm maybe a D1x. The usage target group of an MF system will probably not have this problem.
And the optical (mirror reflex) viewfinder will lock off all other options for a modern camera. So the choice is - Life view/EVF and wideangles, focusing when it´s dark or at 100 % or more zoom in and absolute focus accuracy, even with movements......... or a mirror.
greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Hi!
Regarding video I would say that an APS-C sensor is perfectly OK for 4K video, I think RED is already doing that. But I really don't see MF being used for video, it's hard to see the major advantage and DoF will be very limited.
Regarding MF for photography I'd say that the digital back is excellent invention. You can put it a different cameras as needed. But really, I'd suggest that DSLRs are good enough for any kind of shooting you can do without mirror lockup. You shoot without MLU, 75% of the pixels are essentially gone, or if you stop down to f/22 75% of the pixels are also gone! I presume that the main driver for MF is sharpness, and to utilize it takes exacting work.
Best regards
Erik
Erik
Imagine a soon to be had 4k display attached to that MF Video out for work and image composition - especially when used in production environments.
Paul
I believe this can be solved, it may be something like a one frame delay, for fast movements this may be annoying, but I guess if you want to do sports or
fashion shows or playing children it´s better to use a 35mm maybe a D1x. The usage target group of an MF system will probably not have this problem.
And the optical (mirror reflex) viewfinder will lock off all other options for a modern camera. So the choice is - Life view/EVF and wideangles, focusing when it´s dark or at 100 % or more zoom in and absolute focus accuracy, even with movements......... or a mirror.
greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Because technically it is not a problem at all see here:
http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/news/2011/05/360.asp which is even topped by this
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/31/canon-develops-worlds-largest-cmos-sensor-shoots-60fps-video-i/
I think a MF CMOS with sizes up to 6/7 cm could be cheaper than a CCD of 4,5/6 size but of course it depends on the numbers produced.
What I don´t understand why Dalsa, Phillips and Kodak do not switch production or at least broaden their spectrum of offers for this kind of chips.
I agree with Bernard that when multiple competing companies (sensor makers Teledyne-Dalsa, Kodak, Sony, Panasonic, Canon etc.) do not produce an often-asked for product, it is probably not a conspiracy, or stupidity, but instead is due to inadequate potential for return on the investment [ROI].
The sensors you mention above do not come close to proving that it is possible to produce a larger-than-35mm-format CMOS sensor suitable for MF usage at a competitive price. Firstly, they are of extremely low resolution, with 50nm to 100nm pixel pitch and so only abut 6MP on that huge Lincoln full wafer sensor. The far smaller feature sizes needed for a viable MF sensor require fabrication with steppers of smaller field size (a maximum of 26mm by 33mm has been the industry-wide standard for many years now), and so stitching together of more fields, with greater precision need in the stitching, reducing yields and thus increasing costs. Secondly the applications for those sensors can tolerate visible defects like join lines that would be unacceptable in a DMF camera. Dalsa in fact also offers huge CMOS sensors for X-rays and such, but they are made by butting together multiple sensor chips, leaving thin but visible join lines. Thirdly, we have no idea of the prices of those sensors: their customers might be willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a sensor, since they go into X-ray machines and telescopes that probably cost a million or more.
There is a big gap between technologically feasible and economically viable (except perhaps when the customers are primarily military/government funded, or more generally are spending lots of other peoples' money, not their own.)
P.S. the former Phillips sensor business was acquired by Dalsa (but still kept a lot of its facilities in the Netherlands), and Dalsa was in turn acquired by Teledyne. Also, Kodak had a CMOS sensor division, but shut it down.
-
I've asked the same questions over and over again. Why don't they do agressive pricing? They should proceed a hostile takeover on Dalsa! :D
1. Why are DMF backs so expensive? Because the market is too small!
2. Why is the market so small? Because the DMF backs are too expensive!
Yes, the proverbial hen and egg which was first.
But really, do you believe number one? I don't. For many reasons. It is true that the MF market shrunk considerably with digital but also the world's population almost doubled since 1975 during the medium format film golden era. The world then was 4 billion. Today we are 7 billion. In 1975 there was Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Ilford, Konica, etc., true powerhouses of film manufacturing and some other lesser ones. We also had Hasselblad, Mamiya, Bronica, Fuji, Rollei, Contax and some others I can't recall right now. They all were doing just fine competing for the same markets in a world of 4 billion.
Today, we have only 2 commercial sensor manufacturers. Dalsa and ISS ex-Kodak. MF cameras makers is mainly about Mamiya/P1 and Hasselblad. (Leica, Hy6 and Pentax market shares are still too small, they're newbies) So, how in this world (of 7 billion) 2 contenders in sensor making and 2 contenders in camera making can't find their ways to have substantial profits by selling enough gear to lower prices to human levels? I beats me, really.
I know there must be some other explanations to this riddle but in the meantime I have a (dreadful) theory. DMF manufacturers know their days are counted. (they know better than us, don't they?) They know that the smaller formats will eventually win the commercial photography race entirely. They know that in order to compete tomorrow they have to invest today impossible amounts of money and nothing guarantees success. So, they're just enjoying life to the max until lady in black knocks at the front door. This could also answer question number one.
Crazy? certainly, but let's remember that the main contenders are just survivors (remnants) from the film era and that mf sensor manufacturers main income is not from commercial photography but from science and the military.
But I dearly love medium format photography. So, I'd like to think and believe that the survival of MF resides somewhere in answering question number 2. If this is true, the only thing lacking is will and balls.
To all DMF manufacturers:
Please, form a consortium and fight for better and cheaper sensors (Stefan's idea). Get to be more creative, more intuitive, bolder. Do a real effort. Slash prices by half tomorrow and see how sales increase 10 fold the day after tomorrow. Hasselblad: Stop neglecting the V cameras. Just imagine how many CFV39 backs with a built-in rotating sensor would you sell at half the price. Phase One: Push in newer products the technology inside the P45+ back. It is the only back in the world that can do long exposures.
Please, please, make me a failed prophet.
Sincerely
Eduardo
-
You shoot without MLU, 75% of the pixels are essentially gone
Erik - can you give me some links that conclusively prove MLU actually helps in sharpening? I tried some amateurish tests on my DSLR earlier and the results showed MLU hardly made any difference. I have tried googling it but can't find any solid tests for it. Thanks for your time.
-
I've asked the same questions over and over again. Why don't they do agressive pricing? They should proceed a hostile takeover on Dalsa! :D
1. Why are DMF backs so expensive? Because the market is too small!
2. Why is the market so small? Because the DMF backs are too expensive!
Yes, the proverbial hen and egg which was first.
But really, do you believe number one? I don't.
The fact that Pentax is able to sell an extremely advanced and well built 645D for 9000 US$ is the obvious proof that there is zero reason why an IQ180 back should cost more than 12.500 US$ if its price were set in a way as to grasp a large market share. Granted, Pentax is able to re-use some of the technology they develop for the mass market, but the 645D sells for what it sells with a significant margin built-in...
Perhaps, that's the difference between the ambitious businessman running Red and the small players leading Phaseone and Hassy? :-)
The problem though, is that the 2 best MF platforms have been captured by these small players which render a huge disservice to the photographic community by essentially killing MF...
How about creating a movement "give MF back to the people"? ;D That's what I would do if I were the Phasone CEO:
- make the development of their next platform an open source effort - publish all the drawings starting with the mount with its full specification,
- get rid of all the back except the IQ80 (cut its price in 3 or 4) and another one below with a smaller sensor and sell it for 6.000 US$ new (that is going to be their mass market product),
- open up the software also with an Android layer enabling the development of custom applications in back.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Both are based on my own observations. Admittedly it may differ from camera to camera, tripod to tripod. The test I have done was a couple of years ago.
I made a series of exposures with a 200 mm lens from 1/15s to 1/125s
A) Camera on tripod MLU and cable release no IS
B) Camera on tripod no MLU, cable release no IS
C) Camera on tripod no MLU, cable release IS
D) Free hand, no MLU, hand release, IS
All images looked sharp at actual pixels!
After that I analyzed all 16 images with Imatest. The A series had best resolution that camera could achieve, essentially with no variation.
The B, C and D series lost about half the resolution, the free hand shots were pretty similar to the others. But I used to be a decent free hand shooter.
After doing the Imatest analysis I rechecked the images visually and could see that the B, C, D series were slightly softer, so we had half the resolution without being visually very obvious.
Cutting resolution in half wastes 75% of the pixels. I never wrote about the test, because I had problems keeping all the data and images apart. Let's say that I'm quite religious about MLU since than.
Lloyd Chambers has written much on the issue, like here: http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/SHARP/publish/TheSharpestImage-ShootingMode.html , unfortunately Lloyd's articles are mostly subscriber only.
The effect of stopping down is demonstrated here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1
Best regards
Erik
Erik - can you give me some links that conclusively prove MLU actually helps in sharpening? I tried some amateurish tests on my DSLR earlier and the results showed MLU hardly made any difference. I have tried googling it but can't find any solid tests for it. Thanks for your time.
-
Hi,
I would believe that Phase One is essentially a digital back company and that they went into the camera business after Hasselblad locked down their system. I also assume that Phase One sets their prices so they maximize return on investment while keeping risk down. They are not in the charity business...
I don't know that much about sensor prices but I would assume that a "full frame" 645 sensor is significantly more expensive than a cropped frame sensor, but you are probably right that if Pentax can sell a 40 MP digital back with and advanced MF SLR built in for 9000 US$ the sensor chip itself must cost far less than that.
I'm not that happy about cropped MF chips, however. Having a crop factor essentially eliminates the wide angle end. There are some new wide angles for cropped formate but they are very expensive. Taking your example, I guess I would rather pay 12500 US$ for your hypothetical high end back than buy your hypothetical low end back for 8000 US$ and a wide angle for another 4500 US$.
The other factor is that bigger is better. A bigger sensor collect more photons and will have better MTF. I guess the industry has settled on 645 size sensors and there are many fine lenses from Alpa, Phase One, Rodenstock and Schneider for that format. Add to that lenses from Mamiya and Hasselblad. I'd say that affordable full frame MFDBs would be very interesting!
On the other hand, 135 DSLRs are perfectly good enough for most jobs and have also some developments going on. Good enough at a fraction of the price is tough competition!
My main interest is the flexibility of the digital backs. You can put them on technical cameras, optical bench type cameras, MF SLRs. That's a great flexibility. Could they just keep prices down while adding live view, and CMOS sensor with on chip converters!
Best regards
Erik
The fact that Pentax is able to sell an extremely advanced and well built 645D for 9000 US$ is the obvious proof that there is zero reason why an IQ180 back should cost more than 12.500 US$ if its price were set in a way as to grasp a large market share. Granted, Pentax is able to re-use some of the technology they develop for the mass market, but the 645D sells for what it sells with a significant margin built-in...
Perhaps, that's the difference between the ambitious businessman running Red and the small players leading Phaseone and Hassy? :-)
The problem though, is that the 2 best MF platforms have been captured by these small players which render a huge disservice to the photographic community by essentially killing MF...
How about creating a movement "give MF back to the people"? ;D That's what I would do if I were the Phasone CEO:
- make the development of their next platform an open source effort - publish all the drawings starting with the mount with its full specification,
- get rid of all the back except the IQ80 (cut its price in 3 or 4) and another one below with a smaller sensor and sell it for 6.000 US$ new (that is going to be their mass market product),
- open up the software also with an Android layer enabling the development of custom applications in back.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
@BJL
now this is very interesting and logical information- THANKS !
Just one core question arises to me from that - if the pixel pitch of 5,2 Micron can be achieved on a 53.7 x 40.4mm chip size for a CCD, why can´t this be produced as a CMOS ?
I also remember that the registers of the actual 80mpix chips seem to be parted in 4 (there were several threads where people found this when extremely underexposing their 80mpix and pull up the channels the four parts of the chip became visible) so again: if this is done on a CCD why not for a CMOS ? Are there visible lines on the CCD´s ?
And after reading this:
http://www.siliconimaging.com/ARTICLES/CMOS%20PRIMER.htm
http://www.siliconimaging.com/ARTICLES/Sensor%20Mag%20Article.htm
http://www.siliconimaging.com/ARTICLES/cmos_advantages_over_ccd.htm
see excerpt:
"...Integration - Because CMOS Imagers are created in the same process as processors, memories and other major components, CMOS Imagers can integrated with these same components onto a single piece of silicon. In contrast, CCDs are made in a specialized process and require multiple clocks and inputs. This feature limits CCDs to discrete systems, which in the long run will put CMOS Imagers at a cost advantage, as well as limit what kinds of portable devices CCDs can be integrated into....." and
".....Reduced Power Consumption - because of all the external clocks needed to "bucket brigade" each pixel, CCDs are inherently power hungry. Every clock is essentially charging and discharging large capacitors in the CCD array. In contrast CMOS imagers require only a single voltage input and clock, meaning they consume much less power than CCDs, a feature that is critical for portable, battery operated devices.
Pixel Addressibility - CCDs use of the bucket brigade to transfer pixel values means that individual pixels in a CCD cannot be read individually. CMOS imagers on the other hand have the pixels in an x-y grid allowing pixels to be read individually. This means that CMOS imagers will be able to do functions such as "windowing", where only a small sample of the imager is read, image stabilization to remove jitters from camcorders, motion tracking and other advanced imaging techniques internally that CCDs cannot do.
Manufacturing Cost - Since CMOS imagers are manufactured in the same process as memories, processors and other high-volume devices, CMOS imagers can take advantage of process improvements and cost reductions these devices drive throughout the industry....."
...I have even more questions: Sorry if insisting but to me this seems more to be a decision thing and caused by company policies and shareholder interests than by technology !
What happened to Kodak- they have enthusiastically published these articles above in 2001 so why (besides cutting down anything they ever started) did they shut down CMOS fabrication ? Are there any technical reasons ?
TIA and greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
I also remember that the registers of the actual 80mpix chips seem to be parted in 4 (there were several threads where people found this when extremely underexposing their 80mpix and pull up the channels the four parts of the chip became visible) so again:
I was one that posted an image from the Aptus 12 earlier on LL. So just to clarify: The 80mp chips have 4 sets of gain electronics so people can sometimes see quarter lines in the resulting images, but the actual chips look to have 8 pieces or sections when you look at them.
-
The clock is ticking - we have a 70 Mpix CMOS available with 3 frames per second, it was shown in October - the only problem is: It´s 3.1 micron and only 31x21mm in Size.
http://www.cmosis.com/news/press_releases/2011/cmosis_chr70m_ultra-high-resolution_cmos_industrial_image_sensor
I´m sure this is only the first of a new breed of chips to come.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Hi,
Both are based on my own observations. Admittedly it may differ from camera to camera, tripod to tripod. The test I have done was a couple of years ago.
I made a series of exposures with a 200 mm lens from 1/15s to 1/125s
A) Camera on tripod MLU and cable release no IS
B) Camera on tripod no MLU, cable release no IS
C) Camera on tripod no MLU, cable release IS
D) Free hand, no MLU, hand release, IS
All images looked sharp at actual pixels!
After that I analyzed all 16 images with Imatest. The A series had best resolution that camera could achieve, essentially with no variation.
The B, C and D series lost about half the resolution, the free hand shots were pretty similar to the others. But I used to be a decent free hand shooter.
After doing the Imatest analysis I rechecked the images visually and could see that the B, C, D series were slightly softer, so we had half the resolution without being visually very obvious.
Cutting resolution in half wastes 75% of the pixels. I never wrote about the test, because I had problems keeping all the data and images apart. Let's say that I'm quite religious about MLU since than.
Lloyd Chambers has written much on the issue, like here: http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/SHARP/publish/TheSharpestImage-ShootingMode.html , unfortunately Lloyd's articles are mostly subscriber only.
The effect of stopping down is demonstrated here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1
Best regards
Erik
Thank you for the info Erik. Appreciate it.
-
The clock is ticking - we have a 70 Mpix CMOS available with 3 frames per second, it was shown in October - the only problem is: It´s 3.1 micron and only 31x21mm in Size.
That size fits with one of the harsh realities that large sensor makers have to deal with: the largest field size of any fabrication equipment (apart from one old Canon stepper capable of only very low resolution, like for pixel size of about 20microns and up) is 33x26mm, and all the stepper makers seems to have standardized on this size for almost all of the dozens of new models over the last eight years or so. With about 99.99% of all semiconductor chips being smaller than that, and mostly getting smaller (like the ARM microprocessors displacing bigger Intel chips in mobile devices) there is simply no economic case for new steppers with larger field size.
This size barrier at 33x26mm is probably related to the persistent price jump between mainstream DSLR formats (all comfortably smaller than 33x26mm) and the old 35mm film legacy format of 36x24mm. For that 35mm format, it has been a long time since the original Canon 5D dropped below $3000 not long after it was introduced, with not much drop in prices since then. (For a while there was the $2000 Sony A850, but that was discontinued, leaving only the more expensive A900: clearly it was not a profitable venture.)
-
Hi,
Do you have any idea how the existing full frame sensors are made? Do they use a full frame stepper? Are they using normal steppers with multiple exposures on the same chip? Are they stitching several physical chips?
I would say that Nikon D700 also fits in the around 3 kUSD group?
I don't necessarily think that large CMOS chips can be made at low price, but are they different from CCDs in manufacturing cost?
Presumably, cost ist not very much dependent on sensel size, so a 5 micron sensor is not more expensive to produce than a 8 micron sensor of the same physical size, assuming that design rules and manufacturing equipment can handle both?
Does someone have an idea on the complexity of making the filter grid? How is that made? is complex chemistry involved?
Best regards
Erik
That size fits with one of the harsh realities that large sensor makers have to deal with: the largest field size of any fabrication equipment (apart from one old Canon stepper capable of only very low resolution, like for pixel size of about 20microns and up) is 33x26mm, and all the stepper makers seems to have standardized on this size for almost all of the dozens of new models over the last eight years or so. With about 99.99% of all semiconductor chips being smaller than that, and mostly getting smaller (like the ARM microprocessors displacing bigger Intel chips in mobile devices) there is simply no economic case for new steppers with larger field size.
This size barrier at 33x26mm is probably related to the persistent price jump between mainstream DSLR formats (all comfortably smaller than 33x26mm) and the old 35mm film legacy format of 36x24mm. For that 35mm format, it has been a long time since the original Canon 5D dropped below $3000 not long after it was introduced, with not much drop in prices since then. (For a while there was the $2000 Sony A850, but that was discontinued, leaving only the more expensive A900: clearly it was not a profitable venture.)
-
I made a series of exposures with a 200 mm lens from 1/15s to 1/125s
A) Camera on tripod MLU and cable release no IS
B) Camera on tripod no MLU, cable release no IS
C) Camera on tripod no MLU, cable release IS
D) Free hand, no MLU, hand release, IS
I am guessing that practically, liveview == MLU (A) in this regard?
It would be very interesting to see numbers on how well IS really works. In terms of "how large is the effective convolution kernel compared to sensel size for this well-defined camera motion". My guess would be that they are focusing on reducing large, hard-to-predict motionblur in the multiple sensel range (over e.g. 1/60 to 1 second timeframes), rather than small and/or simple movements in the sensel to subsensel range. If those two are opposing requirements. In other words: make "blurry" situations "quite unblurry", not necessarily making "quite unblurry" "totally unblurry". If that makes any sense.
All images looked sharp at actual pixels!
Not sure that I know what you are saying here. If the image looks sharp, then why hunt for more (measurable only) sharpness?
Cutting resolution in half wastes 75% of the pixels.
If motion blur cause the effective mtf50 to be cut in half, that may or may not give the same perceptual effect as reducing the pixel density until mtf50 is cut in half. I
-h
-
Hi,
I see your point.
The way it worked, at first the images all looked essentially sharp, and I was looking at actual pixels. After checking with imatest I found that half of the resolution was lost. I have rechecked the images and made pair to pair comparison and could see the difference.
The issue is that if we loose half of the resolution due to sloppy work than we don't utilize the equiment fully.
Eyeseight and brain may play a big role. But, would I invest in a high res digital back than I would certainly try to optimize my technique.
Best regards
Erik
Not sure that I know what you are saying here. If the image looks sharp, then why hunt for more (measurable only) sharpness?
If motion blur cause the effective mtf50 to be cut in half, that may or may not give the same perceptual effect as reducing the pixel density until mtf50 is cut in half. I
-h
-
Eric
About motion Blur:
Adobe did have this impressing demo on features of the deblurring filter in the new Photoshop CS 6.
http://www.finestdaily.com/news/adobe-develops-photoshop-anti-blur-feature.html
I think the future capacity of Highresolution imaging systems of all kinds will heavily rely on such software.
Same applies to exposure bracketing for HDR, Superresolution and noise removal.
It is possible that this will be the real killer of large format - breaking it down into many tiny portions and
process these ultrafast to any needed size.
Which BTW is exactly what our eye and brain are doing to give us the impression of our visual sight.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Eric
I think this is purely political and as I think the task that Leica, Phase/Leaf, Pentax and Hasselblad have to solve, is to cooperate !.......
So there is the big question: why aren´t they doing it ????????
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
perhaps they don't have someone driven enough to propose, and implement "patent pools."
-
Do you have any idea how the existing full frame sensors are made? Do they use a full frame stepper? Are they using normal steppers with multiple exposures on the same chip? Are they stitching several physical chips?
Canon has made some comments on this in various white papers on its 1Ds and 1D models, and it is almost certain that all DSLR and MF camera sensors 36x24mm and up are made using steppers of maximum field size 33x26mm (or smaller?), using stitching, meaning moving the stepper horizontally during the process to "draw" second or third portion of the sensor. No stepper exists covering 36x24mm and with adequate resolution for making DSLR or MF sensors. The only one of a larger field size is an old Canon model [Edit: the FPA-5500iX from 2001] covering 50x50mm, but it has only 500nm resolution, good only for pixel sizes well over 10micron. That is likely use to make some 50x50mm Kodak X-ray seniors with 24 micron pixel pitch: the KAF-4301 and KAF-4320.
UPDATE: I just checked Canon's website, and it seems to have updated its stepper/scanner models. The old model FPA-5510iX with field size about 50x50mm might be gone, and there is a new model with large field size 52x32mm, but even lower resolution, described as "<1.5 microns":
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5510iv_stepper
As before, all other models have maximum field size 33x26mm or smaller.
Physically butting together ("stitching") chips is hopeless for DSLR or MF sensors due to the join lines, but is used for some X-ray sensors and such.
-
After some searching I found this - a discussion here on the forum - that may be interesting to look back - so Pentax is also in that "wait state" mode:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54362.20
Interesting though that there has not been any progress in the last 6 months.
And the Japanese seem to be paralyzed by Fukushima and now the Thailand flooding.
So lets see who moves first.........?
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Hi!
Interesting discussion! Thanks a lot! Danke sehr viel!
BR
Erik
After some searching I found this - a discussion here on the forum - that may be interesting to look back - so Pentax is also in that "wait state" mode:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54362.20
Interesting though that there has not been any progress in the last 6 months.
And the Japanese seem to be paralyzed by Fukushima and now the Thailand flooding.
So lets see who moves first.........?
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Hi,
I have seen the demo and the samples. I'm a firm believer in deconvolution, but I'm also a firm believer in keeping everything optimal at every stage.
But nobody is perfect, at least I am not!
Best regards
Erik
Eric
About motion Blur:
Adobe did have this impressing demo on features of the deblurring filter in the new Photoshop CS 6.
http://www.finestdaily.com/news/adobe-develops-photoshop-anti-blur-feature.html
I think the future capacity of Highresolution imaging systems of all kinds will heavily rely on such software.
Same applies to exposure bracketing for HDR, Superresolution and noise removal.
It is possible that this will be the real killer of large format - breaking it down into many tiny portions and
process these ultrafast to any needed size.
Which BTW is exactly what our eye and brain are doing to give us the impression of our visual sight.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Hi Eric
so do I, but once I had read through completely Lloyds "Making sharp images" I knew that there is a lot to go wrong (some of it was even new to me after 35 years of Photography).
Especially I liked the part on the wave of vibration coming back to the camera from the different Gitzos - showing the big one was actually worse than the middlesize because it was reflecting the vibrations.............weeeeiiiiiiiird, but logical. I think he does a tremendous job on his website.
So my favourite MF Camera improvement to come is: ......Usertuning....... :), get better knowledge to use your existing gear better. At least this is approached very nicely by all contestants, may it be Phase, Leaf or Blad with their Workshops.
And further I want the: "Have fun" button, to be pressed whenever you need it, with an extra large ,self charging battery, maybe solar to be totally PC and BIO ....... ;D
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
i havent read Lloyds text on sharp images but i do remember a Carl Zeiss workshop in the 90'ies were they showed the difference between images made with Manfrotto, Gitzo and Sachtler tripods. The oil dampned sachtler fiber tripod was the only tripod that gave full resolution of the Zeiss lenses and they gave the same vibration reflection explanation. The special oil filled Video head got rid of all vibrations with spactacular pictures as a result. :-)
In studio i now only use the Hartbleicam for still live. There is no mirror inside so there is no vibration. I can also mount almost all possible lens on it, giving it the maximum of freedom in lens choice. Maybe a fixed translucent mirror with an electronic viewfinder to compensate the lack of thicness of the body would be even more disirable ::) ::) ::)
-
Hi Peter
Yes, the shutter of our HCam-B1 is even mounted in a rubber block, so the shutter to the rubber and the rubber to the 6-8 mm thick Aluminium plates takes all the vibrations.
And we are thinking to have an electronic Viewfinder + a touchscreen in the B3 version, the plan is already there. Hopefully next year we can do the B2 which shall get a wireless html user interface and a built in electronic level (for all the people who don´t have IQ´s)
What back are you using on your HCam ?
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Hi,
Yes, sometimes we miss, or just cannot do the impossible. Like we need to stop down to much, deconvolution can make a real nice job on diffraction. I use Topaz "In Focus" from time to time.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Eric
so do I, but once I had read through completely Lloyds "Making sharp images" I knew that there is a lot to go wrong (some of it was even new to me after 35 years of Photography).
Especially I liked the part on the wave of vibration coming back to the camera from the different Gitzos - showing the big one was actually worse than the middlesize because it was reflecting the vibrations.............weeeeiiiiiiiird, but logical. I think he does a tremendous job on his website.
So my favourite MF Camera improvement to come is: ......Usertuning....... :), get better knowledge to use your existing gear better. At least this is approached very nicely by all contestants, may it be Phase, Leaf or Blad with their Workshops.
And further I want the: "Have fun" button, to be pressed whenever you need it, with an extra large ,self charging battery, maybe solar to be totally PC and BIO ....... ;D
Greetings from Munich
Stefan