Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: torger on February 17, 2012, 04:01:32 am
-
I've tried to find out "the latest" about scanning backs for large format, but I don't find much. It seems like Betterlight is the only provider, and their web hasn't been updated for years, are they still in business? I did find Seitz 6x17 but it is a medium format scanning back. Betterlight does not cover the full 4" width of 4x5 either (it is only 72mm / 2.8" wide), I was thinking there would exist a digital scan back "drop in" replacement for 4x5" sheet film. I also know about the PowerPhase FX by Phase One, but that was discontinued years ago.
Are there any other manufacturers?
-
Betterlight is still in business.
Mike is a very helpful person who is quick at answering mail questions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Scanning backs would seem to be an ideal platform to do multispectral capture?
-h
-
I'm curious about the scanning backs, from the aspect to work with 4x5" film (and 6x12 rollbacks) and have some sort of digital option to invest in later. Medium format digital backs have too small sensors and have too small pixels for the analog lenses. If one would invest in an analog system ready for medium format digital one would have to go for a 6x9 tech camera (like Linhof Techno) and use digital lenses, which is a bit more expensive than a 4x5" analog system, and leaves less attractive film options.
So far the scanning back option doesn't look too good though, no new products made and old products still very expensive. I would have expected them to be lower cost than medium format digital backs, and have scanning area close to 4x5" but that is not the case. Since a scanning back is very specialized type of equipment, mostly only used for repro photography I guess, it is however not too surprising that prices are high.
Here's a guy that has built his own scanning back out of a flatbed scanner :-) http://www.flickr.com/photos/projectese/sets/72157623187612134/
-
Last I heard was that BetterLight has stopped producing scanning backs and only supports what they have previously produced.
-
If you go to the Betterlight website, you will find that the scanning back is used for many applications including art reproduction. I use it extensively for architecture, interiors and landscape photography. It does have its limits, but performs wonderfully within them. Kodak has stopped production of the sensor used in the 6-K2 back, so it is no longer in production. The larger back is still being made.
Kumar
-
Found these http://www.kigamo.com/ €7500, seems very similar to Betterlight.
And here's someone that has come up with the idea of a "stitching back" http://www.kapturegroup.com/quad/quad.html a sliding back designed for stitching. Oh well, there's the Phase One FlexAdaptor too I see.
-
Here is a Phase One scanning back (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Phase-One-PhotoPhase-Plus-Digital-Back-4x5-Power-Supply-Cable-Software-/320849192113?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item4ab41a24b1) at the auction site.
-
Here is a Phase One scanning back (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Phase-One-PhotoPhase-Plus-Digital-Back-4x5-Power-Supply-Cable-Software-/320849192113?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item4ab41a24b1) at the auction site.
It would have been nice if it had been the more recent PowerPhase FX instead, which is only 12 years old :-)
That PhotoPhase was introduced 1996....
-
Anagramm makes very good scanback as well
David 2 goes up to 12xx megapixel...
-
I use a Betterlight Super 6k.
A very good back and easy to use.
I have also owned the Phase one Powerphase FX. It is a pain to use
and the quality you get out of it is not even close to Betterlight quality.
Also Mike at betterlight is a very nice and knowlegeable person,
and allways answers fast with all help needed.
Henrik
-
Betterlight does indeed seem to have one of the best offers. It is a bit sad though that the market for these things is not larger than it seems to be, because I don't it needs to be as expensive as it is. The tech should be rather similar to a flatbed scanner and substantially cheaper than a digital medium format back need to be. You could have designs with several linear sensors if a single long one is expensive, so wider than those 72mm (as the kodak trilinear sensor is) should be possible too without huge increase in cost.
I'm looking into moving to large format film because medium format digital is too expensive, and 35mm digital has not the view camera workflow I desire. It seems to be quite many amateurs doing large format, perhaps even more amateurs than pros these days, so I find it a bit surprising that there is no "affordable" (say €3K) scanback solution for 4x5", I think many would find it as a nice complement to the film. But maybe I underestimate the complexity of the technology.
I see that betterlight actually had a €4,5K back (sold out), which I probably could afford, but I don't hassle around wih large format to get 18 megapixel images which is the resolution of that back.
The cheapest betterlight that can be bought today is $15K (€10K) 48 rgb megapixels, the same price as a 44x33mm 40 megapixel digital back. If it is about that kind of money, and it is 48 rgb megapixels scanned vs 40 megapixels bayer-interpolated all in one shot, I'd go for the latter, even if digtal mf lenses will cost me a bit more than the analog large format.
[modified to fix decimal point in prices, sorry for the confusion]
-
What you forget when you compere scanners to one-shot backs is that
the scanners are 100% true colours with no interpollation.
So compared to a oneshot back with same "mp-size" the scanner is superior.
The most used Betterlight back, Super 6k is uninterpollated 48mp.
That is more resolution than the new Phase one iq180, which is just guessing 2/3 of the colours.
A few days ago a 8000x10600 pixel Betterlight was sold on Ebay for just 3.200$.
For that price you might get a 16 mp one-shot back ..
If you have the time, there is still nothing better than the scanbacks.
Henrik
-
Where did you get the pricing for the Betterlight backs? The Super6K-HS is $14,995 and the Super8K-HS is $17,995.
Kumar
-
What you forget when you compere scanners to one-shot backs is that
the scanners are 100% true colours with no interpollation.
So compared to a oneshot back with same "mp-size" the scanner is superior.
The most used Betterlight back, Super 6k is uninterpollated 48mp.
That is more resolution than the new Phase one iq180, which is just guessing 2/3 of the colours.
A few days ago a 8000x10600 pixel Betterlight was sold on Ebay for just 3.200$.
For that price you might get a 16 mp one-shot back ..
If you have the time, there is still nothing better than the scanbacks.
Uninterrupted color is better than interpolated color - no doubt. But for most kinds of photography the difference is pretty small. It was a much bigger difference back in the day but the math used by Capture One, LightRoom, Aperture et al is very good at interpolating the color from Bayer patterns.
But I would put forth that "if you have the time" is not the only qualifier for whether a scanback is the best option for someone's needs.
In their element scan backs produce utterly fantastic images. But subject motion creates weird artifacts/schmeering, changing light in the scene creates weird bands and effects, the camera has to be very stable for the duration of the scan (though not as stable as you might think since during a 20 minute exposure each line of the image is still only being exposed for a short period), the lens has to be sharp and well focused and shot at a middle-aperture where DOF can be challenging. In other words there are many many situations in which a scan back is simply not workable.
There is also the issue of service/reliability. I speak here only about Phase One as I have very little experience with or knowledge of Betterlight, their service, or their business. I can however tell you about the situation for Phase One Scan Backs. The support department at Phase One really hates ending support for products - it's a matter of principal. So the firewire based FX+ (from 2000) is still serviceable and service for older scan SCSI-based scan backs was only ended because SCSI has gone the way of the floppy disk. But the reality is scan backs are mechanical products and any issue with the mechanics can lead to streaks in the image (just google for, and most of the scan backs Phase One ever produced are now pushing, or over, a decade old. Likewise the software to use an FX+ has been kept "in service" - they patched it to work with Leopard, and Snow Leopard, but that's where it will end. Lion is not supported and Mountain Lion won't be either. That's not "game over" - it's not that hard to find decent deals on older Apple computers, but it does make it harder and harder for me to recommend them.
We've sold a handful of scanbacks (mostly Phase One FX+) over the years that I've been here, but I don't think we've sold even one in the last 12 months. We sell a refurbished Leaf Aptus 22 back for $5k with warranty, dealer support, and confidence of support well into the future. Put that back on a Cambo Wide RS with a Schneider 60mm XL and you can easily shoot three frames within the image circle (shifted left, centered, shifted right) and end up with a blazingly sharp 54 megapixel image in less time than it takes to do the "prescan" on a scan back. The same back can be slapped on a 645 Autofocus body to shoot fashion/portraits/lifestyle etc. And the weight and size of the kit is tiny compared to a 4x5.
Now all that said, I did have a hell of a fun time shooting the FX+ with an infrared-pass/visible-block. But as far as infrared-quality-vs-price goes I can't think of anything else that comes close to a scan back - with the huge caveats of how hard it can be to account to compose and focus (accounting for focus shift) when using a view camera. All and all I'd still much rather have the DM33-IR we've recently started selling (I was just playing with it in Death Valley last week).
Generally the market prices things pretty efficiently. I don't think the current price for used scanbacks is an aberration from that.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/) | RSS Feed (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
-
A Betterlight scanback is like always using a multi-shot back as far as time, stability, light and wind are concerned. A fast pre-scan with the Super6K-HS takes 4 seconds. There is no need to restrict usage to middle apertures - most large format lenses are specified to be best at f/16 or f/22. Combining those apertures with movements is more than sufficient for any DOF requirements. Betterlight's ViewFinder software is excellent and simple to use. The focus check feature provides live audio-visual control, and Super View shows 100% detail. The software and test images can be freely downloaded for evaluation.
There are considerable restrictions - no low light, long exposures, windy days or subject movement.
Kumar
-
A Betterlight scanback is like always using a multi-shot back as far as time, stability, light and wind are concerned. A fast pre-scan with the Super6K-HS takes 4 seconds. There is no need to restrict usage to middle apertures - most large format lenses are specified to be best at f/16 or f/22. Combining those apertures with movements is more than sufficient for any DOF requirements. Betterlight's ViewFinder software is excellent and simple to use. The focus check feature provides live audio-visual control, and Super View shows 100% detail. The software and test images can be freely downloaded for evaluation.
Out of curiosity does the software work in Lion? Release notes only mention Snow Leopard.
Have you ever compared the scan of something with fine detail at f/8 or f/11 vs. f/22? I've not used a Betterlight but physics are physics. The Super6k sensor has an 8 micron sensor, and in my extensive experience with 9 micron sensors f/22 loses a lot of fine detail due to diffraction. That's not to say you couldn't use f/22 and get great results. But if the point of the scan back is to get very high resolution on the cheap (in situations conducive to it's use) then I'd think avoiding severe diffraction would be an important part of that goal.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/) | RSS Feed (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
-
Out of curiosity does the software work in Lion? Release notes only mention Snow Leopard.
Have you ever compared the scan of something with fine detail at f/8 or f/11 vs. f/22? I've not used a Betterlight but physics are physics. The Super6k sensor has an 8 micron sensor, and in my extensive experience with 9 micron sensors f/22 loses a lot of fine detail due to diffraction. That's not to say you couldn't use f/22 and get great results. But if the point of the scan back is to get very high resolution on the cheap (in situations conducive to it's use) then I'd think avoiding severe diffraction would be an important part of that goal.
Doug Peterson
ViewFinder works perfectly in Lion - though I'm still on Snow Leopard (and XP!).
The Betterlight site has numerous examples showing fine detail over long distances:
http://betterlight.com/fullRes_zoomifyLIST.html The site also has a list of photographers using these backs in different fields, some of whom are probably local to you. You might want to check with them.
I usually shoot at f/16 or f/22, though I have used a Heliar and Fujinon SF lenses wide open. Naturally, with these lenses, resolution was not the important factor.
The Super8K has 9-micron pixels, while the Super6K has 12-micron pixels.
Kumar
-
Last time I count pixels after 1am! Thanks for the correction.
Lion support is great news. That alone would be a good reason to select a Betterlight over the FX+.
But I think I'll pass on any further research. Like I said, interest in scan backs from our clients was low to start with and fell off a cliff in the last year or so.
That said I'll check in with them at Photokina. You never know when you'll be caught off guard!
-
I do know the difference between interpolated colors and true rgb. The advantage of true rgb is often exaggerated. With bayer you keep almost all spatial resolution and lose color resolution, but the matches the eye pretty well too. I've pixel-peeped images from these systems and yes true RGB is better, but not hugely so.
The question I have asked myself is - what is the lowest cost way to get digital high resolution images out of a 4x5 camera. Preferably higher resolution than high end medium format, so one get something extra out of the larger format. The idea of the large formats is to trade precision for larger format, and still gain a little bit of resolution in the process. Getting say at least 100 megapixel of effective resolution would be my target.
Scanbacks seemed quite obvious. But with the prices they have, stitching from an entry level medium format back might be a better option. Say a $8K 22 megapixel 36x48mm sensor, perhaps $5K refurbished (large sensor area and large pixels is ideal, 22 megapixel 9 micron is ok, corresponds to 2800 ppi scan resolution), and use the geared shift/rise/fall to stitch 9x9, that way you'd get near the 4x5 area, say 96x128mm 156 megapixel.
From my panorama head work I'd estimate that it would take 4x9=36 seconds to get through. Lens color cast might be a challenge though. And getting enough precision concerning ground glass vs back and those fairly large shifts required, a quality camera is required, I'm thinking in the terms Arca Swiss F-Metric. Due to the smaller apertures typically used depth of focus should be around 0.5mm or so, not sure if it is realistic to keep within that with +/-40mm and +/-30mm rise/shift.
-
I don't think you'll see Betterlight at Photokina. As you say, interest in scanning backs is pretty low, unfortunately. Also, the Seitz D3 isn't a true RGB back, but interpolates 2/3rds of the pixels, like a Bayer array.
I bought my 6K-HS for $8,000 in 2005, and looking at current prices, it has held its value remarkably well.
Kumar
-
I've looked at the Seitz, and I was impressed that they could do moving water without artifacts, and I think that is thanks to the bayer array, you don't get the color separation problem. Since my target is landscape, and landscape often involves water, I'd probably prefer a bayer solution. Color separation artifacts is really bad to my eyes, but I guess they are somewhat fixable in post-processing in many cases.
However, I've also seen on the Seitz examples of the 6x17 camera that they are not at all as sharp as betterlight examples, or just pixel peeping a regular DSLR. I wonder if it is due to poor technique, outresolving lenses or some problem with the scanback. It scans pretty fast so I would guess that could induce movement in the system.
-
Torger!
I wonder were you find these fantasy-prices.......
Scanbacks seemed quite obvious. But with the prices they have, stitching from an entry level medium format back might be a better option. Say a $80K 22 megapixel 36x48mm sensor, perhaps $50K refurbished (large sensor area and large pixels is ideal, 22 megapixel 9 micron is ok, corresponds to 2800 ppi scan resolution), and use the geared shift/rise/fall to stitch 9x9, that way you'd get near the 4x5 area, say 96x128mm 156 megapixel.
Seitz cameras do a lot interpollation to get the fast scantime.
The results suffer, but they are fast and easy to use.
Henrik
-
A 22 mp back now is about 10.000 new (not 80K) or used 5.000. All in $.
Henrik
-
Betterlight does indeed seem to have one of the best offers. It is a bit sad though that the market for these things is not larger than it seems to be, because I don't it needs to be as expensive as it is. The tech should be rather similar to a flatbed scanner and substantially cheaper than a digital medium format back need to be.
In fact, it is the same technology as used in the Kodak/Creo iQSmart/EverSmart scanners, which have the exact same sensor. And in their time, those scanners cost much more than the Betterlight.
I'm looking into moving to large format film because medium format digital is too expensive, and 35mm digital has not the view camera workflow I desire.
That might actually be the right thing for you, if you have professional labs nearby, or if you do your own processing. Film can be easily bought over the internet.
I see that betterlight actually had a €45K back (sold out), which I probably could afford, but I don't hassle around wih large format to get 18 megapixel images which is the resolution of that back.
The cheapest betterlight that can be bought today is $150K (€100K) 48 rgb megapixels, the same price as a 44x33mm 40 megapixel digital back. If it is about that kind of money, and it is 48 rgb megapixels scanned vs 40 megapixels bayer-interpolated all in one shot, I'd go for the latter, even if digtal mf lenses will cost me a bit more than the analog large format.
I think you are getting your math wrong, and you've not seen the decimal point: $14,995.00 and $17,995.00 equivalent to 11,400 Euro and 13,700 Euro.
Kumar
-
Haha, now I understand my fantasy prices too... yes I moved the decimal point one step, sorry about that :). Thing is that my mind is wired for Swedish Krona which is 10x Euro... I was having the right prices in my mind all the time, but writing wrong... I just modified decimal point my old message to get it right. I'm a poor amateur so even $15K is quite a lot of money. $5K can get within budget though. It is a tough world loving high resolution landscape photography and being poor :-)
-
So do they look more affordable now? :D
Kumar
-
So do they look more affordable now? :D
I understood the prices correctly all along, but I made typos in my message since I hade already kind of converted to Swedish currency in my mind.
When economy is a factor one compares with alternate solutions which cost similarly.
To make high res landscape photo today there's these alternatives
- 35mm DSLR pano head stitching - cheapest
- 36 megapixel Nikon D800 DSLR - likely exceeding more expensive entry level MFDB
- Medium format digital, on SLR camera
- Medium format digital, on tech camera
- 6x9, 6x12 rollfilm
- 4x5", 5x7" or 8x10" on film plus drum scanning ($50 - $150 per shot including scan service), ~100 megapixel for 4x5, 300 for 8x10
- 4x5" scanback
- 4x5" stitching using large pixel MFDB
With a 4x5" camera I get the flexibility to work with both 4x5" sheet film and 6x9 and 6x12 rollfilm plus some digital solution in the same system. And I get to work with a view camera, which makes photography experience so much nicer, this is a hobby for me afterall (with some artistic goal making large prints and selling a few etc, but no way near financing the costs), so I want it to be pleasing to shoot. Result is important, but also the process. I've done a lot of pano head work, and it works and gives great results but it is not as pleasing from a photographic experience aspect since you don't really do all the compositional work at site, you just gather data so you have enough and stitch&crop back home.
-
D
I understood the prices correctly all along, but I made typos in my message since I hade already kind of converted to Swedish currency in my mind.
When economy is a factor one compares with alternate solutions which cost similarly.
To make high res landscape photo today there's these alternatives
- 35mm DSLR pano head stitching - cheapest
- 36 megapixel Nikon D800 DSLR - likely exceeding more expensive entry level MFDB
- Medium format digital, on SLR camera
- Medium format digital, on tech camera
- 6x9, 6x12 rollfilm
- 4x5", 5x7" or 8x10" on film plus drum scanning ($50 - $150 per shot including scan service), ~100 megapixel for 4x5, 300 for 8x10
- 4x5" scanback
- 4x5" stitching using large pixel MFDB
With a 4x5" camera I get the flexibility to work with both 4x5" sheet film and 6x9 and 6x12 rollfilm plus some digital solution in the same system. And I get to work with a view camera, which makes photography experience so much nicer, this is a hobby for me afterall (with some artistic goal making large prints and selling a few etc, but no way near financing the costs), so I want it to be pleasing to shoot. Result is important, but also the process. I've done a lot of pano head work, and it works and gives great results but it is not as pleasing from a photographic experience aspect since you don't really do all the compositional work at site, you just gather data so you have enough and stitch&crop back home.
I personally went with an Arca Swiss M Line 2 view camera and a used digital back. I still have my Ebony non-folding 4x5" camera (not accurate enough for use with a digital back), but with the scarcity of color film, problems with shipping chemicals (nothing available locally), the time involved with scanning (outsourcing scans was too expensive) and costly scanner software updates, I ended up becoming frustrated with the supply chain and saw the writing on the wall and sold off gear and bought into digital.
I use my 4x5" for black & white, but the digital in the long run makes me happier. Just my 2 cents.
Good luck with your decision.
-
I wouldn't say color film is "scarce," but to do LF sheet film successfully, it really depends where you are.
I continue to buy 4x5 and 8x10 boxes of Fujichrome, mainly Provia, along with Kodak E100G, and Kodak's new Portra 160 negative film is barely ever in stock, people are buying it so much (hard to believe, but this stuff goes out of stock very quickly).
My location allows me to buy film, shoot it, use a lab in New York to get E-6 development, and the good ones can get drum scanned from a place like westcoastimaging if need be.
If you can't buy/develop/scan then LF ain't gonna work.
-
I wouldn't say color film is "scarce," but to do LF sheet film successfully, it really depends where you are.
I continue to buy 4x5 and 8x10 boxes of Fujichrome, mainly Provia, along with Kodak E100G, and Kodak's new Portra 160 negative film is barely ever in stock, people are buying it so much (hard to believe, but this stuff goes out of stock very quickly).
My location allows me to buy film, shoot it, use a lab in New York to get E-6 development, and the good ones can get drum scanned from a place like westcoastimaging if need be.
If you can't buy/develop/scan then LF ain't gonna work.
I've looked around and it does seem like LF film is feasible, but it won't be local labs or suppliers so I will need to use the mail a lot. I can get film and get it competently developed in Sweden, but Swedish drum scanning services are a bit expensive, about €100 per sheet. I probably only drum scan those that have "fine art" quality, which is something like 2 - 4 images per year, so it is survivable though. My idea is to use 6x9 and/or 6x12 rollbacks on the same camera, which is much lower cost film & development so I can gain experience with the system that way. I'm grown up on digital so the film workflow will surely take a while to get used to :).
I have more research to do on the digital aspect though. I thank you all for the thorough feedback on the digital scanning backs. From what I have learnt I don't think a scanning back is the right thing for me. Tethering systems from the 90's or early 2000's is a nightmare, mechanical stuff failing etc. From my 35mm work I'm very used to stitching, so I'll investigate that option more. P25+ and similar backs can be quite affordable second hand these days.
-
A manufacturor of scanbacks in Europe is Anagramm: http://www.anagramm.com/. German quality!!
Bruno
-
why not just shoot film and have it drum scanned?
it'll extend your costs over a longer period, rather than a big expenditure all at once.
-Dan
-
why not just shoot film and have it drum scanned?
it'll extend your costs over a longer period, rather than a big expenditure all at once.
If I get a film system I surely do that, I wouldn't get 4x5" to only do digital. However, having a digital option as a complement would be nice, but it must be the right quality at the right price to be useful to me. Currently it seems like scan backs do not work for me, either they are fairly expensive, or they are ancient. Ancient products are risky due to two reasons, the mechanical parts may be in poor condition, and cabling and tethering software may require an ancient computer system, and on top of that the digital image quality of the 1990s is not really the same as today.
-
torger:
you are right the old technology is an issue with the scanbacks.
Especially the old phase one, like powerphase and photophase are hard to use.
And the have stripes in their images like mentioned before. Th often mentioned super colors did not impress me at all.
You often need an old computer system to get them running.
Betterlight seems to be easier to use, but I would recomend to borrow one and try the workflow. So different to "normal" photography.......
Unfortunatly not manny manufactures are interested in making them these day as there is not much interest.
They could be really cheap today, as the line sensors are verry, verry cheap now.
And with high speed electronics of today, they could be much faster than they were.
You can search the web for intersting DIY projects on this.
There is this guy in Japan, that converts an Epson scanner in an ultra high resolution scanback. Nice quality an verry cheap.
And for the b&w guys it is easy to modify a Canon lide scanner to a really big scanback, you can actually scan 20x30 with it. But only BW as the light flickers in color with these scanners.
Maybe some clever person in china will build one and sell it for cheap $$ some day.
-
Yes, I really think there is a market to make a low cost scanback product for large format enthusiasts. Today it is probably better business case to do that than trying to sell to professionals. Professionals don't like slow inflexible solutions -- slow workflows cost money, when there's a fast simple solution that's good enough than it will take over, and MFDBs is probably killing the pro scanback market as we speak -- they have reached "good enough". I think quite many large format enthusiasts would buy a scanback though if the price was right.
-
I use a Phase One Powerphase FX+ and a Photophase plus scanback for architecture and landscape.
The only difference between the backs is the resolution and the interface.
The Powerphase FX has a firewire interface and the Photophase plus is connected via SCSI(i connect it with a SCSI PC card to a dell notebook).
I can´t see any difference in image quality between the two backs.
If a resolution of 7200x5000 is enough, the Photophase plus would be a cheap deal.
When shooting landscape a full resolution capture at 1/125 linetime (the photophase has ISO 400 and ISO 800 settings!) wil take about 60 seconds.
I never had problems with lines in the image, I think that could be caused by dust on the ccd line sensor.
The Phase One image capture software has a very good tool for focusing!
I think a scanback would be a good deal if you want a high resolution system for 4x5 and you only shoot stills or landscape.
-
Is anyone aware of a Better Light scanning back that is for sale for 4X5?
-
Unfortunately, the Better Light line of scanning backs has been greatly reduced lately, including discontinuation of the highest resolution model. This is probably related to the discontinuation of many of the linear sensors that these backs use, and which came from Kodak. (The discontinuations happened before Kodak sold the whole sensor division.)
Also note that none scans an image more than about 72mm (3") high, not the full height of the 4”x5” frame.
All in all, the trend seems to be away from scanning backs, towards high resolution "645” backs used on view cameras adapted to that format size.
-
A bit late to the thread I know, but there is another option that you may not have considered -
You can get a motorised 6x17 back from Canham and attach it to a 5x7 large format camera.
Regards,
Gerald.
I understood the prices correctly all along, but I made typos in my message since I hade already kind of converted to Swedish currency in my mind.
When economy is a factor one compares with alternate solutions which cost similarly.
To make high res landscape photo today there's these alternatives
- 35mm DSLR pano head stitching - cheapest
- 36 megapixel Nikon D800 DSLR - likely exceeding more expensive entry level MFDB
- Medium format digital, on SLR camera
- Medium format digital, on tech camera
- 6x9, 6x12 rollfilm
- 4x5", 5x7" or 8x10" on film plus drum scanning ($50 - $150 per shot including scan service), ~100 megapixel for 4x5, 300 for 8x10
- 4x5" scanback
- 4x5" stitching using large pixel MFDB
With a 4x5" camera I get the flexibility to work with both 4x5" sheet film and 6x9 and 6x12 rollfilm plus some digital solution in the same system. And I get to work with a view camera, which makes photography experience so much nicer, this is a hobby for me afterall (with some artistic goal making large prints and selling a few etc, but no way near financing the costs), so I want it to be pleasing to shoot. Result is important, but also the process. I've done a lot of pano head work, and it works and gives great results but it is not as pleasing from a photographic experience aspect since you don't really do all the compositional work at site, you just gather data so you have enough and stitch&crop back home.
-
After considering all sorts of options I finally ended up with a Linhof Techno and an Aptus 75 back, all second hand. The tipping point was that second hand digital medium format was cheaper than I expected and the other options more expensive or cumbersome than I expected.
-
I once owned a Dicomed field Pro, a predecessor to the Betterlight and also made under Mike Collette's supervision. The quality, with the right subject, was fantastic, but something of a hassle to lug around in the field. Insane really, because only static subjects are suitable. However they are the only choice if you presently want to mirror the effect of LF film, as we have no single shot sensor for large format I am aware of. Fun to play with but impractical in daily use for most of us.
-
The scanbacks still have their life in some reproduction areas, but for 3D stuff they are a total PITA.
I have used a Dicomed and a Photo Phase back for several years and we even did motorcycles and other stuff with this.........BUT:
to lighten that we had to grill the whole studio with thousands and thousands of watts of Halogen or HMI and this was either Hot or expensive or both.
So I would even consider getting an FX for Repro usage and to have a reason to use my old viewcamera (kind of sentimental journey....)
But really: compared to an actual 80 Mpix back with a good lens there is not much reason left to regret the departure of the scantechnology.
The fact is also that Kodak has stopped the making of the largest scanlines and thus all the scanner makers have to stitch the lines for larger backs now.
Only exception are the Kruse Scanners - because they bought the complete stock of large Kodak scanlines even with exclusive rights on them.
regards
Stefan
-
The lightening is not a big problem anymore. You can buy many flicker-free lights that are
both cheap and don't produce much heat.
Henrik
-
There was a thread recently about tilt/shift lenses, fixing the lense to the stand and allowing the camera to move for stitching.
Are not the trade-offs involved in such a setup very similar to those of a scanning back? Moving a (small) rectangular sensor within a large image circle, vs moving a (thin) line sensor across a large image circle.
If good line sensors are hard to source, would it not make sense for those manufacturers to purchase a 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony, and make the mechanics to "scan" it across a MF, LF image circle?
-h
-
If good line sensors are hard to source, would it not make sense for those manufacturers to purchase a 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony, and make the mechanics to "scan" it across a MF, LF image circle?
-h
Why APS-C? Wouldn't full-frame 35mm make a lot more sense? It's 2.5x larger in area, plus coupled with fewer overlaps required to mop up the whole image circle area, you're probably talking 4x fewer exposures.
You are right to put "scan" in quotation marks, because this would not operate anything like a scanning camera. It would be an automated 2d area-stitching camera, to coin a phrase, and everything would be different about the hardware & firmware; it might be beyond the R&D resources of the scan-back manufacturers to successfully implement something so different. It is an appealing idea though.
Ray
-
Why APS-C? Wouldn't full-frame 35mm make a lot more sense? It's 2.5x larger in area, plus coupled with fewer overlaps required to mop up the whole image circle area, you're probably talking 4x fewer exposures.
Lower price, higher pixel density, state-of-the-art technology. You might be able to find FF sensors that are state-of-the-art and very high pixel density, but I think that you pay a lot to have those things AND large area at the same time. I am guessing that it would be more economical to just increase the total exposure time.
You are right to put "scan" in quotation marks, because this would not operate anything like a scanning camera. It would be an automated 2d area-stitching camera, to coin a phrase, and everything would be different about the hardware & firmware; it might be beyond the R&D resources of the scan-back manufacturers to successfully implement something so different. It is an appealing idea though.
Sure. But except the (difficult) mechanical problem, everything else should be simple: use a good MF/LF system as a basis, (re--)use off-the-shelf APS-C sensors with associated processing, do proper stitching offline in a PC/mac application.
Movement artifacts might not look the same (or as good as) line-type sensors, though. Either you would need complete still scenes, or good merging algorithms.
-h
-
This system existed already more than 10 years ago, with the Sinar Macroscan: the adapter was mototized and moved the sensor automatically by either 1 pixel 4 times (Macroscan) or by 1/2 a pixel (Micorscan) to increase the resolution by a factor of 4, including the software part to assemble/stich the multiples tiles together.
BR
Thierry
You are right to put "scan" in quotation marks, because this would not operate anything like a scanning camera. It would be an automated 2d area-stitching camera, to coin a phrase, and everything would be different about the hardware & firmware; it might be beyond the R&D resources of the scan-back manufacturers to successfully implement something so different. It is an appealing idea though.
Ray
Sure. But except the (difficult) mechanical problem, everything else should be simple: use a good MF/LF system as a basis, ...
-
Hi Thierry,
But could it move the sensor all around the image circle?
Ray
-
Yes Ray, it did make use of most of the image circle of the lens available, of course depending on the lens and the corresponding IC of this lens.
It was possible to set the device to make more or less tiles, dipending on this IC.
BR
Thierry
Hi Thierry,
But could it move the sensor all around the image circle?
Ray
-
Hi Thierry
this was not even the first one - does anyone remember the Kontron ProgRes 3012 scancamera ?
4608x3480 Pixel resolution, I think the first ones were sold around 1993 or maybe 1994. There was one sold recently on Ebay
http://www.ebay.de/itm/Kontron-Elektronik-ProgRes-3012-Mikroskopkamera-Top-/370390723224
These were about the first, professionally usable Digital cameras, even before Leaf, Dicomed, Megavision..........
Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan
-
hi Stefan,
Yes, right, I remember it. Was that not a scanner actually? Can't remember.
BR
Thierry
-
Didn't Rollei have some scan backs back then? I seem to recall a couple of models, one of them maybe Dicomed?
-
That was a Phase One as i remember.... after that they ad a 4Mp back and a 6Mp back from Imacon. I had both, still have the 4 Mp and it still is fuan to shoot with them.
-
About the only one besides the FX which I would like to use again today is the Leica S1
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Leica-S1.jsp
One of our customers was doing a lot of catalogue and stills with it. Using Leica R lenses. Probably the best camera back then (from my todays point of view).
Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan