Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Sareesh Sudhakaran on July 15, 2012, 11:48:14 pm
-
Wow, this looks like a really good back...
48MP Dalsa Sensor (12MP up to 192 multi-shot) - 48.0 x 36.0mm
16-bit DNG
ISO 50-800
1/10,000 to 32 second shutter
and it can interface with any camera... http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/digital-backs/144-sinarback-exact
-
Wow - 16 shot! but only 13 exposures a minute?
Why do all their multishot backs omit the screen?
-
They don't have the screen because they need to be mounted on a very very solid camera stand in order to be effective.
This is because the sensor is moved by a very very small amount.
A conventional tripod like one used for location shooting would not be solid enough to keep the micron sensor movements accurate enough.
So this pretty much means you need to be on a studio heavy duty column stand. Those 200 lb giants and on a cement floor.
So being a studio tool the LCD screen would be rather pointless.
-
Fred,
I don't know that's really true. I mean I have a 16 shot hasselblad back on my Rollei 6008AF and I can sit the camera down on my table at home, no tripod, not locked down, nothing special and it shoots beautiful microstep shots without fuss. Yes its true that sometimes microshot and multishot can be finicky but nothing like what people make it out to be. Of course if you have a duff camera like the phase mamiya DF then you'll have problems no matter what. My CF 528 does have a screen btw.
Eric
-
AFAIK, Sinar has the belief that the multishot back should generate the highest quality. Adding a screen adds another heat source which potentially could lead to more noise/less IQ from the back. Also considering you will buy this back to use primarily for its multishot capabilities which can only be done with a computer there is a lesser need for a LCD.
-
I would guess omitting the LCD and making it tethered only(?) the development cost and time is lowered greatly, so if 90% would use it in a studio camera and shoot tethered even if it had LCD it seems wise to omit it.
I'd love to have a non-tethered back with a 48 megapixel 36x48mm dalsa sensor, very nice size/pixel count tradeoff I think for a technical camera.
-
Maybe on the Hy6 this would be ok since it can display the histogram on the grip.
-
<<Wow - 16 shot! but only 13 exposures a minute?>>
13 exposures a minute, of course, but in 1 shot mode (48 Mpix)
PdF
-
I rather not want to afford that new back right now, but may rethink my desire to sell my Sinar M that now can work with the eXact back. I'm in a doubt. ::)
-
Fred,
I don't know that's really true. I mean I have a 16 shot hasselblad back on my Rollei 6008AF and I can sit the camera down on my table at home, no tripod, not locked down, nothing special and it shoots beautiful microstep shots without fuss. Yes its true that sometimes microshot and multishot can be finicky but nothing like what people make it out to be. Of course if you have a duff camera like the phase mamiya DF then you'll have problems no matter what. My CF 528 does have a screen btw.
Eric
Well it will take the shots, but if you think the camera is not going to move a couple of microns... well "may the force be with you". You need very very little for a coffee table to move a couple of microns in a minute or so. Put a runout gauge up against your coffee table and watch the dial move.
-
They don't have the screen because they need to be mounted on a very very solid camera stand in order to be effective.
This is because the sensor is moved by a very very small amount.
A conventional tripod like one used for location shooting would not be solid enough to keep the micron sensor movements accurate enough.
So this pretty much means you need to be on a studio heavy duty column stand. Those 200 lb giants and on a cement floor.
So being a studio tool the LCD screen would be rather pointless.
If I have told you once, I have told you a billion times, I do not exaggerate. ;)
I use 16-shot cameras on far less than that with far greater magnification than a studio setup would use. The sensor movement is neither here nor there. A stationary camera does not move and cameras do not weigh that much you need to weld them to the floor.
-
Operating Systems Mac OS X 10.5.8 and higher
Windows operating System
Finally!
Kumar
-
Well it will take the shots, but if you think the camera is not going to move a couple of microns... well "may the force be with you". You need very very little for a coffee table to move a couple of microns in a minute or so. Put a runout gauge up against your coffee table and watch the dial move.
Fred,
Sounds like you may not have very much experience actually working with multishot and microstep backs otherwise you wouldn't be writing that stuff. How much have you shot with them personally? I don't have problems with movement and I've shot them in galleries with wooden floors near the street on tiny tripods, in my studio which is actually between two train tracks. btw - I know several people who use multishot backs on the Fuji gx680iii as well and love them.
Multishot backs have at least one or two more stops DR and noise free shadows too.
E
-
I am interested in the new CaptureFlow software that is listed under the characteristics of the back. CaptureShop 6.1 is good but far from great.
-
Using MLU has only the leaf shutter doing any work - very little stress on the mounting.
-
Geoff,
That's with cameras like the Hy6 / AFi that use leaf shutter lenses. Almost no movement. M/S backs work very well with cameras like the Hy6 and 6008AF. Focal plane shutter cameras can still work too. It's also an integration thing - some cameras don't talk to the back and software well enough to allow continuous shooting with the mirror up during all the frames and that can lead to movement. However that said, once I had my 6008AF configured incorrectly and the mirror cycled between each of the 19 frames needed for microstep and I was still able to successfully shoot microstep using a modest tripod.
Eric
-
Nothing like real experiences!
-
Geoff,
That's with cameras like the Hy6 / AFi that use leaf shutter lenses. Almost no movement. M/S backs work very well with cameras like the Hy6 and 6008AF. Focal plane shutter cameras can still work too. It's also an integration thing - some cameras don't talk to the back and software well enough to allow continuous shooting with the mirror up during all the frames and that can lead to movement. However that said, once I had my 6008AF configured incorrectly and the mirror cycled between each of the 19 frames needed for microstep and I was still able to successfully shoot microstep using a modest tripod.
Eric
You can get nice images, but you will not get the type of resolution you would get with a tripod that is stable to the micron.
IF one keeps in mind that we are talking about movements of 1/4 of a pixel. That is somewhere between 1 to 2 microns on the subject.
With even a normal lens this means that a movement of 1/10th of a micron of movement left, right, up or down. That is a very very small movement.
You mentioned the Fuji GX 680 that I know very well. It has a very large mirror and it needs to be on a very solid tripod to get the best results even with film.
I particular the GX680 III has more mirror slap than the GX 680. However the GX680 III does not require the photographer to move the mirror up and down manually, but it does slap down and immediately up
after each shutter release.
While I do not use multi shot myself I had long chat with a materials engineer while he was shooting with a Hasselblad Multishot in an industrial setting... I was there to do portraits of one of the execs....
The materials engineer was using the camera to photograph progressive fracturing of high tech composites.
One impact on the composite and then he did several takes and they were inconsistent until he moved over
to using a cut down to size Fatif column stand lowered off the wheels and onto the cement floor. We shot together
for over an hour. I was actually very interested in the materials as I make my own carbon fiber and composite fins for my hollow carbon fiber surfboads that I use for kitesurfing.
Keep in mind he was doing plenty of 100% observation of the files as well as looking at the whole images.
The shots were at about 8 to 10 feet.
He had done comparison tests with regular tripods and the heavy Fatif column to show the difference to his bosses so as to justify buying the
expensive column stand and having it cut down to size to fit in the lab.
The guy was not messing around. Testing materials for chopper blades and jet nose cones.
A similar discussion about how small camera movements (microns) effect false color and Moire came up regarding the d800E.
A wedding photographer said he was getting almost now false color or moire. This was largely due to the fact that he shot hand held.
Even very slight movement was softening his images enough to reduce moire and false colors. With really high pixel densities micro movements that would not have affected us in the past today do.
I also remember years ago at the studio of a very good but slighly nutty still life photographer. Clients like IBM, Olivetti, HP etc.
He loved to blast Deep Purple as loud as hell... he was quite def... but when it came to releasing the shutter the music would be turned off.
Bass in the music was shaking his 8x10 around.
-
Fred,
I use multishot not daily but at least once a week. I have a 10ft Foba salon stand in my studio and no I don't see much difference between a M/S done on it or a lightweight tripod. In fact if there is movement you don't get an image at all - the software cancels the shot - so i'd wager that the ones that worked with the camera sitting on my table are just as sharp as if they were on the Foba. I shoot Rollei 6008AF and Hy6 not the Fuji, though I am interested in picking one of those up for the movements. You might recall us e-mailing about them a few months back?
Anyhow, trust me the M/S backs are quite useful and the file quality from even the older backs is simply astounding. I also own an 80mp Leaf back for my AFi and though Yair will jump in soon to point out the usability is better with the single shot, the MS backs win on tonality and depth and for lack of a better word, texture. The MS backs pick up subtle things. If you shoot a shot of a dollar bill, the high pixel count backs will pick up every line or dot of ink, ever red and blue fiber, but the M/S backs will get those plus the fingerprints on the bill that you didn't see before. Looking at fine detail/high frequency, the single shot backs will capture the high contrast stuff but the MS backs will get all the low contrast stuff. Shoot a peach with a MS back. It's not just orange, its got tiny yellow spots and little hairs and goes from orange yellow brown. You see more depth to the image. You can talk to all kinds of tech's and sales guys but until you work with the files yourself you just won't see it.
Anyhow, that's why i am excited to see a new back with both 4 and 16 shot modes. I think this is great! *but I still wish they had a screen. Why not give the user an option to turn it off for higher quality if it makes that much difference?
Eric
-
Anyhow, that's why i am excited to see a new back with both 4 and 16 shot modes. I think this is great! *but I still wish they had a screen. Why not give the user an option to turn it off for higher quality if it makes that much difference?
Eric
If they would just give us one with a nice screen. If there was the additonal option of a single shot and the option to turn if off for higher quality, that would be a big difference to me.
-
Wow! This is my biggest supprice this year! I was sure Sinar had made their last back.
I have been wishing for a new 16-shot back for years. This is great news!!!
Have anyone seen a price?
Henrik
-
While I do not use multi shot myself I had long chat with a materials engineer while he was shooting with a Hasselblad Multishot in an industrial setting... I was there to do portraits of one of the execs....
The materials engineer was using the camera to photograph progressive fracturing of high tech composites.
One impact on the composite and then he did several takes and they were inconsistent until he moved over
to using a cut down to size Fatif column stand lowered off the wheels and onto the cement floor.
I have an 88Mpx multi-shot (Sinar 54H, £2k!) as well as a 60 Mpx H4D-60.
My neighbour works for a Formula 1 racing team, and has given me broken test pieces of carbon fibre and sintered titanium to photograph for my portfolio.
I was thinking of using the Sinar rail as an optical bench... so the subject, lens and camera were all attached to the rail, and tripod movement would make no difference?
I have about 2m of Sinar rail, and I can use P2 bellows to extend the P3 (using 2 P2 to P3 conversion bellows)... but I would need a special cable to use P2 bellows on the Sinar multi-shot, which is designed for the EL (wired) bellows.
-
@ Dick
Yup your going the right way about it form a scientific point of view.
For custom digital back cable check out Kapture group. WWW.KaptureGroup.com
They can pretty much make you whatever you need.
-
You can get nice images, but you will not get the type of resolution you would get with a tripod that is stable to the micron.
IF one keeps in mind that we are talking about movements of 1/4 of a pixel. That is somewhere between 1 to 2 microns on the subject.
With even a normal lens this means that a movement of 1/10th of a micron of movement left, right, up or down. That is a very very small movement.
Are you sure you know how a multi-shot back works? There is only a 1/2 pixel shift. How do you get 1 to 2 microns on the subject? A 5 micron pixel would translate to about 29 microns on a subject taken with a 55mm lens at an object distance of 50cm.
I use 16-shot backs on microscopes. You are completely overblowing the problem of getting sharp images.
-
I work for years with Sinar multishot backs. Two points are essential. First, a perfectly uniform lighting during the all process. The flashes must be first class. Then, a very strong fixation of the camera (a big Sinar P2, with its large SinarCam 2 shutter). When it is possible, I remove a large Foba column stand to make shots over several days (in the industrial field, or in reproduction of works of art), I do not deny. If I have to work out of my studio with a (heavy) tripod (it is more usual), I always assure my P2 with a Magic Arm and weights to optimise the stability.
Any tiny movement, or the slightest difference in illumination is paid cash: the image is embossed ("gaufrée", in French). Each image must be checked in details on the screen of the Mac before giving an OK.
The work is long and difficult, but the result is SO MUCH better than I do not deny. The 16 shots mode, when it is OK, gives real satisfaction. The files are bigger, more rich, and without any moiré. Colours are much accurate, particularly in the neutral zones.
Of course, working in the studio is more easy, fast and sure. Everything is OK. I hate to move my material outside...
PdF
-
It appears that this is the identical 48MP Dalsa sensor that is utilized in the Sinar 86H, which captures full size single and 4 shot files. But for the eXact, it seems 2 compressed modes have been added, as well as the return of the 16 shot capture that originated in the SinarBack 23HR and was maintained through the Sinarback 54H. This is likely in response to the vertical market demands that SinarBacks are - for the most part - utilized in and still produce a demand. And also brings them into the game with Hasselblad as well with their 50MP 6 shot captures.
Yes, it would be nice if they offered an LCD version, but it is not as simple as - just putting an LCD screen into a digital back with an on/off switch. There is a considerable amount of developmental resources that come into play getting the operation and results of the LCD to perform at an optimal level. And given that the majority of Sinar's sales are likely cultural archive and reproduction, and product photography, the return for those efforts probably doesn't add up.
True - that 16 shot captures can be accomplished without too much trouble and with proper care. But no reason to not emphasize that there are some careful considerations to keep in mind for best results. And yes, I've captured multi-shot with many different digital backs on many different cameras, including Fuji 680 series cameras.
And Eric, how amazing, you found yet another way to slam the Mamiya/Phase camera in a thread that has nothing to do with it. Congrats!
Steve Hendrix
-
I rather not want to afford that new back right now, but may rethink my desire to sell my Sinar M that now can work with the eXact back. I'm in a doubt. ::)
I don't know if I share that doubt. I believe most of the Sinar Adapters for the 75H work with the 86H, and in that case, there is an M Mount Adapter for the 75H, so since I believe the eXact to be a very close relative to the 86H, just with some added ingredients.....then maybe.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
And Eric, how amazing, you found yet another way to slam the Mamiya/Phase camera in a thread that has nothing to do with it. Congrats!
Yes, well Steve its not hard to do! ::) And since you read the forums you'll see that I'm not the only one... there are a fair number of other posters who also rightly kick this POS to the curb. That camera is terrible. Why phase has invested so much time and money into that platform has never made any sense to me particularly when there are many better ones out there. Phase has always had the best software IMHO and some great backs too but the DF is kind of like the ugly duckling of the family. I do praise Phase for coming out with the art reproduction cameras and hopefully their rumored new camera body will come to fruition and be worthwhile and not just another modest update. Man Steve, you'll sell a lot of camera bodies if Phase comes out with something even half way decent, and I sincerely hope they do!
Can you tell us why Phase never had a multishot back (at least there are none that I know of)? Why did Phase drop the scanning backs?
-
And Eric, how amazing, you found yet another way to slam the Mamiya/Phase camera in a thread that has nothing to do with it. Congrats!
Steve Hendrix
Yes, well Steve its not hard to do! ::) And since you read the forums you'll see that I'm not the only one... there are a fair number of other posters who also rightly kick this POS to the curb. That camera is terrible. Why phase has invested so much time and money into that platform has never made any sense to me particularly when there are many better ones out there. Phase has always had the best software IMHO and some great backs too but the DF is kind of like the ugly duckling of the family. I do praise Phase for coming out with the art reproduction cameras and hopefully their rumored new camera body will come to fruition and be worthwhile and not just another modest update. Man Steve, you'll sell a lot of camera bodies if Phase comes out with something even half way decent, and I sincerely hope they do!
Can you tell us why Phase never had a multishot back (at least there are none that I know of)? Why did Phase drop the scanning backs?
Would it not be nice if Sinar and Hasselblad had the Sales / PR capability of Phase... or if Phase had the quality of Hasselblad or Sinar?
Sinar make the best (studio) backs but they seem to be in danger of extinction?
Now, if Hasselblad extricated their digits and made their electronic shutter available in standard LF (copal compatible) mounts, and marketed the clip-on battery they promised for the 60Mpx back, and they teamed up with Sinar... but it would never happen, because it would reduce Sinar's sales of their eShutters.
-
The official message of Sinar.
http://http://sinarphotographyag.cmail4.com/t/ViewEmail/r/641B500A814C5B21/0AD9B447DA2D44AA4BD7C9066BE4161D (http://sinarphotographyag.cmail4.com/t/ViewEmail/r/641B500A814C5B21/0AD9B447DA2D44AA4BD7C9066BE4161D)
Good news: different formats are available: 12, 21, 48 and 192 Mpix.
PdF
-
Yes, well Steve its not hard to do! ::) And since you read the forums you'll see that I'm not the only one... there are a fair number of other posters who also rightly kick this POS to the curb. That camera is terrible. Why phase has invested so much time and money into that platform has never made any sense to me particularly when there are many better ones out there. Phase has always had the best software IMHO and some great backs too but the DF is kind of like the ugly duckling of the family. I do praise Phase for coming out with the art reproduction cameras and hopefully their rumored new camera body will come to fruition and be worthwhile and not just another modest update. Man Steve, you'll sell a lot of camera bodies if Phase comes out with something even half way decent, and I sincerely hope they do!
Can you tell us why Phase never had a multishot back (at least there are none that I know of)? Why did Phase drop the scanning backs?
Well, you can deal in absolutes like - "that camera is terrible", etc. But you only have to satisfy your ow uses! On the other hand, I have hundreds and hundreds of clients who have a wide variety of applications, needs, desires, requirements, etc. One size does not fit all. Does that camera have shortcomings? Certainly. Does it also have some positives? Absolutely. You don't have to embrace them, but many others do.
I think the shortcomings of the camera are pretty well established, but at the point Hasselblad pulled their camera platform off the open market, there was one viable platform remaining, which was the Mamiya platform. (yes, I know, the Hy6, but perhaps Phase did not feel like sticking their neck out quite as far as Leaf and Sinar did - perhaps to their credit).
Why no multi-shot for Phase? I wasn't there at the beginning, so this is only conjecture on my part, but I believe their intention was to create the most photographic-like experience for their customers (rather than scanner on a camera) with the best quality single shot capture on the market and the simplest method of use. And at that time, I believe they were out in front. It seemed to work for them. Over time, the difference between single shot and multi-shot quality has diminished significantly.
Scanning backs? ::)
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
...at the point Hasselblad pulled their camera platform off the open market, there was one viable platform remaining, which was the Mamiya platform.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
It is a pity that both Hasselblad and Sinar "shot themselves in the foot" by not being the standard connection anymore... by trying to secure a slice of the MF market they put people off getting into MF, and reduce the market for MFD.
-
<<Over time, the difference between single shot and multi-shot quality has diminished significantly>>
Multishoot backs are always better, because a true separation of colours is a reality.
-
<<Over time, the difference between single shot and multi-shot quality has diminished significantly>>
Multishoot backs are always better, because a true separation of colours is a reality.
I am not debating that. But as someone who has sold multi-shot solutions from the 6 megapixel days and forward, I am saying that there is no question the difference in quality between single and multi shot has diminished. The difference between a single shot 11 or 16 megapixel image and the equivalent multi-shot was huge. The difference still exists today with 48/50 megapixels, but is nowhere near as substantial.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
The official message of Sinar.
http://http://sinarphotographyag.cmail4.com/t/ViewEmail/r/641B500A814C5B21/0AD9B447DA2D44AA4BD7C9066BE4161D (http://sinarphotographyag.cmail4.com/t/ViewEmail/r/641B500A814C5B21/0AD9B447DA2D44AA4BD7C9066BE4161D)
Good news: different formats are available: 12, 21, 48 and 192 Mpix.
PdF
So what does the different formats mean? Is this back going to do some sort of pixel binning?
Lance
-
The original file is 48 Mpix big (1 shot or 4 shots). The 16 shots mode gives 192 Mpix.
Are the littles files (12 or 21 Mpix) a division of ordinary 48 Mpix files ? Does the multishots (4 x) work in little files ?
-
The original file is 48 Mpix big (1 shot or 4 shots). The 16 shots mode gives 192 Mpix.
Are the littles files (12 or 21 Mpix) a division of ordinary 48 Mpix files ? Does the multishots (4 x) work in little files ?
Could be binning or perhaps a compression mode. Not clear how it affects ISO performance, but probably increase capture rate.
By the way, as I suspected, the eXact does indeed utilize the same adapters that the 75-H and 86-H use. So, potentially, any cameras those digital backs are compatible with would follow suit with the eXact.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Where's Thierry when you need him? ;)
Just kidding but it would be nice to have a sinar presence on the forums to answer these questions that have come up:
1) Are the smaller file size the result of software binning or hardware binning or a selection of the raw data?
2) Why no screen
3) New software
4) General stability of the company
5) Is this just a reuse of the same sensor and old 54h parts?
-
I work for years with Sinar multishot backs. Two points are essential. First, a perfectly uniform lighting during the all process. The flashes must be first class...
PdF
A good six light Broncolour flash system might be great - at £20k... so I have been thinking about LED lighting? ... anyone use it?
The Schott system looks good at about £2k, so I am thinking about medical LED lights, or cheap LED flood lights, preferably with a specified Kelvin Colour temperature?
What about the Welch Allyn GS Exam Light IV?
-
A good six light Broncolour flash system might be great - at £20k... so I have been thinking about LED lighting? ... anyone use it?
The Schott system looks good at about £2k, so I am thinking about medical LED lights, or cheap LED flood lights, preferably with a specified Kelvin Colour temperature?
What about the Welch Allyn GS Exam Light IV?
Flickerfree fluorecent lights work great. And they are cheap!
Henrik
-
Lighting. Forget $20k worth of strobes. I've used metz 60 ct-4's, daylight (just watch the clouds), fluorescent, laboratory halogen lights with fiber optic cables, profoto studio lights. The only lights that gave me trouble were some home built fluorescent lights and those could still do multishot just not stable enough for microstep. Lighting is simply not that big a deal. I think the lighting can vary by as much as 10% in intensity from frame to frame with the hasselblad backs and it will still work.
Really its not that hard to do. The bigger issue that has been pointed out in other threads is do you want to wait for 19 frames and the software to crunch the data or do you want to do a single frame. Remember that in a work environment time is money. Plus do you want to cycle your strobes and shutters 4x, 6x or 19x as much? Microstep may still offer better image quality in a controlled setting - but it depends on the subject and the need. One thing however, the workflow sure isn't. This is where the new Aptus 12 and IQ 180 are better.
-
Where's Thierry when you need him? ;)
Just kidding but it would be nice to have a sinar presence on the forums to answer these questions that have come up:
1) Are the smaller file size the result of software binning or hardware binning or a selection of the raw data?
2) Why no screen
3) New software
4) General stability of the company
5) Is this just a reuse of the same sensor and old 54h parts?
Unfortunately, Thierry Hagenauer (who no longer works for Sinar a long time ago) don't participate more in conversations of Luminous Landscape, because the company he works for (and which also makes some great cameras) has imposed silence on the internet .. .
Let's go to the questions:
1) Good question. No answer today.
2) It is the principle of Sinar's multishot backs: the work is made by the Mac, which simplifies the back's architecture. It heats up less, and features fewer electronics. The back is always connected by the FireWire, which also provides the energy. The back don't wear memory card or battery. Some will regret the lack of mobility of such a system. Others consider that it is the best condition for maximum quality.
3) The software is CaptureShop 6.1. No major problems. It has long operated with all the Sinar back. The eXposure program, arrived when Sinar was related to Eyelike, has unfortunately been abandoned. However, it only worked with some backs and not with multishots.
4) After some arduous years (the mistakes of the son Koch, the switchover to digital, the acquisition and abandonment by Jenoptic, the industrial failure of Hy6, etc ...) Sinar has refocused on top specific market. He abandoned any part of his equipment (Hy6, m, some "non professional" back, etc ...). Let's hope that these choices, very conservative, are the best!
5) The sensor of 86H is excellent. Its development with multishot technique, well developed, makes very good news. It is'nt an adventure into the unknown.
PdF
-
There will be a new software for the exact. Its "Sinar CaptureFlow 1.x and higher." From: http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/digital-backs/144-sinarback-exact
-
Lighting. Forget $20k worth of strobes. I've used metz 60 ct-4's, daylight (just watch the clouds), fluorescent, laboratory halogen lights with fiber optic cables, profoto studio lights. The only lights that gave me trouble were some home built fluorescent lights and those could still do multishot just not stable enough for microstep. Lighting is simply not that big a deal. I think the lighting can vary by as much as 10% in intensity from frame to frame with the hasselblad backs and it will still work.
Really its not that hard to do. The bigger issue that has been pointed out in other threads is do you want to wait for 19 frames and the software to crunch the data or do you want to do a single frame. Remember that in a work environment time is money. Plus do you want to cycle your strobes and shutters 4x, 6x or 19x as much? Microstep may still offer better image quality in a controlled setting - but it depends on the subject and the need. One thing however, the workflow sure isn't. This is where the new Aptus 12 and IQ 180 are better.
The beauty of digital is that we can profile/auto white balance almost any light source that has some red, green and blue in it - you do not have to have standard lighting of specified "tungsten" or "daylight" colour temperature for the available films, but I have colour std luminaries in my office.
Fluorescent is, I think useless for me as I want a small light source for modelling in macro... and a single LED is ideal for this - but it could be a£5 penlight?
I have a 60Mpx back, so I can get res without MS, but want continuous light for DOF stitching too.
Maybe Hasselblad backs are more landscape orientated, so colour and brightness do not have to be so consistent?
What about using pinhole mode... does that eliminate shutter wear and tear? eShutters are nice, and they are supposed to last a long time, but £2,500 is expensive?
¿Do you think that £1 per click would cover the wear-and-tear costs of MFD?
-
The beauty of digital is that we can profile/auto white balance almost any light source that has some red, green and blue in it - you do not have to have standard lighting of specified "tungsten" or "daylight" colour temperature for the available films, but I have colour std luminaries in my office.
You actually lose significant color depth and tonal quality when you white balance far from the native white balance of your sensor.
Look at it this way. If you are shooting tungsten your blues are going to be under exposed and need to be lifted to achieve good balance.
In a sense it's like shooting under exposed and digitally pushing.
A fine sensor preforms far better with ideal light.
-
You actually lose significant color depth and tonal quality when you white balance far from the native white balance of your sensor.
Look at it this way. If you are shooting tungsten your blues are going to be under exposed and need to be lifted to achieve good balance.
In a sense it's like shooting under exposed and digitally pushing.
A fine sensor preforms far better with ideal light.
Yes, and this might me a major problem with fluorescent, which tends to have very little green?
...and what is the native colour temperature of our sensors? daylight/flash/5,500Kelvin?
-
From the site:
"Digitalisation 48 BIT (16 Bits per Chanal)"
Apparently MFD manufacturers can never be cured of propagating the 16-bit myth. Oh. I see. It's a 16-bit DIGITALISATION. Well that solves it. Otherwise, you see, I might think that this camera delivers 16 bits of actual image data. Glad I didn't think that!
-
A problem that worries me about this new back, as with all other backs (Phase, Hasselblad, Leaf, ...), by the way: in a short time, there will be perhaps no more computers able to using them!
The new MacBook Retina has abandoned the Fire Wire. Imagine that happening soon also with other MacBook Pro (when screen Retina becomes the norm). The 17-inch (my favorite) is already out!
On the Mac Pro, there is no more FireWire 400. Too bad for the older devices. Apple is trying to impose the Thunderbird, but almost no one follows. And what PC platform can accomodate the FireWire 800 ?
No Thunderbird-FireWire conversion is available.
PdF
-
A problem that worries me about this new back, as with all other backs (Phase, Hasselblad, Leaf, ...), by the way: in a short time, there will be perhaps no more computers able to using them!
The new MacBook Retina has abandoned the Fire Wire. Imagine that happening soon also with other MacBook Pro (when screen Retina becomes the norm). The 17-inch (my favorite) is already out!
On the Mac Pro, there is no more FireWire 400. Too bad for the older devices. Apple is trying to impose the Thunderbird, but almost no one follows. And what PC platform can accomodate the FireWire 800 ?
No Thunderbird-FireWire conversion is available.
PdF
Thunderbolt to FireWire cable has already been announced by Apple. Latest rumors are that it will be available in September.
-
A problem that worries me about this new back, as with all other backs (Phase, Hasselblad, Leaf, ...), by the way: in a short time, there will be perhaps no more computers able to using them!
The new MacBook Retina has abandoned the Fire Wire. Imagine that happening soon also with other MacBook Pro (when screen Retina becomes the norm). The 17-inch (my favorite) is already out!
On the Mac Pro, there is no more FireWire 400. Too bad for the older devices. Apple is trying to impose the Thunderbird, but almost no one follows. And what PC platform can accomodate the FireWire 800 ?
No Thunderbird-FireWire conversion is available.
PdF
http://www.granitedigital.com/newfirewire1394bhostadapter.aspx
http://unibrain.com/
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/computercards/index.html
-
http://www.granitedigital.com/newfirewire1394bhostadapter.aspx
http://unibrain.com/
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/computercards/index.html
Of course, a good big MacPro can be costumized (like mine). But what about laptops (and the next iMac's) ?
The MacPro is not very pleasant to move.
I hope the rumor will be confirmed as soon as possible.
PdF