Multi-Shot Medium Format

[Mike Sellers]

Do all multi-shot cameras need to be connected to a computer?
Mike

[Dustbak]

When talking about MF multishot, there are basically 2 brands being Sinar & HB (Jenoptik, Imacon, etc.. basically ended up in either on of those). Yes, all of these need to be wired to a computer to perform a multishot take. Some, especially more modern ones do not need to be wired for a single shot take.

[BobDavid]

Multi-shot photo taken with an Olympus EM5 II. The camera was mounted on a tripod, not tethered. This image was taken as a jpg, unfortunately I forgot to specify RAW.

[Mike Sellers]

Am I right in that the Imacon 528 does not need to be tethered to a computer just the Imagebank? Is it easy to use out of the studio?
Mike

[Brent Daniels]

With the HB 528C the image bank allows you to shoot 1 shot only images without being tethered. It worked like a huge CF card. At that time CF cards were no where as large as they are now. If I remember correctly an image bank could hold something like 500 captures.
To shoot multishot with a 528C you need to be tethered to a computer and shooting though Hasselblad software.

Brent Daniels

[Doug Peterson]

Mike, regarding multi-shot vs single shot, make sure you can do your own modern comparison.

Most of the lore and comparisons you'll hear about multishot come from years ago when raw processing of single shot backs was not nearly as good as it is today. Multishot has, and will always have, an advantage over single shot in some situations. That advantage was quite large in the past. In my biased but epxerienced opinion that advantage is now quite small, at least if you're comparing it to a single shot digital back processed in Capture One 8.

Here for an example are two slides from a webinar we did yesterday on the topic of Process Control for Cultural Heritage Digitization (museums/libraries etc). They show the same raw file, with the same amount of sharpening and identical development settings, with the only difference being the use of Capture One 6 algorithms or Capture One 8 algorithms*. Capture One 8 simply does a better job of reconstructing the original scene from the bayer pattern raw data which strongly reduces the gap between a single shot image and multishot image of the same resolution.




*The slide says C1 v8 CH because we use the Cultural Heritage version of Capture One in these situations, but the underlying raw processing is the same as the general version.

[BobDavid]

Do all multi-shot cameras need to be connected to a computer?
Mike

What kind of subjects do you want to shoot with a multi-shot camera? If you want, I can shoot a photo of a dollar bill and blow it up 400%. I doubt you'll see much difference between a 5-digit $$ P1 and a 3-digit $$ Oly. I'm not knocking P1, it is a different type of tool. But if you are seeking high fidelity color, no moire, and portability, nothing comes close to the EM-5 II. The next iteration of the EM-1 will have astounding multi-shot capabilities: 8-shots within 1/60th of a second (of course shutter speeds will have to be at least as fast as 1/500th of a second). The implication here is that it will be possible to take 8-shot photos without a tripod.

[Theodoros]

With the HB 528C the image bank allows you to shoot 1 shot only images without being tethered. It worked like a huge CF card. At that time CF cards were no where as large as they are now. If I remember correctly an image bank could hold something like 500 captures.
To shoot multishot with a 528C you need to be tethered to a computer and shooting though Hasselblad software.

Brent Daniels

That is correct... but the computer is needed because one has to trigger the back, the multishot image is recorded in the image bank!

[Mike Sellers]

I do mainly nature photography. Would it be possible when you want to do multi- shot out on location to tether it to the smallest laptop you can find? I like the idea of a 500mb file of my nature shots. I have shot lots of scenes that were still. How long would a 16x shot take?
Mike

[BobDavid]

I do mainly nature photography. Would it be possible when you want to do multi- shot out on location to tether it to the smallest laptop you can find? I like the idea of a 500mb file of my nature shots. I have shot lots of scenes that were still. How long would a 16x shot take?
Mike

I once had an Imacon/Hasselblad 384C. It has a 36 X 36 sensor. The 528C is of the same vintage. It has a 36 X 48 sensor.  16-shot is extremely tricky. My studio sat on a two-foot slab of concrete on a quiet suburban street. Whenever the trash collection, FedEx, and UPS trucks came down the street, the 16-shot cycle would fail. My buddy had a similar 16-shot setup. His studio was in an old warehouse in an industrial zone. The wood floor in his studio picked up a lot of vibrations. He had a heck of a time shooting in 16-shot mode. I recall my 384C back would sometimes become unstable. It crashed my computer fairly often. I don't know whether Flexcolor or Phocus have sorted out the stability issues. I had that back tethered to a quad-core Windows XP machine with 8 gigs of RAM. I've read that the Hassleblad 384C/528C backs run better on Flexcolor than Phocus.

It will take well over a minute to get through the 16-shot cycle. You will be limited to ISO 100. If there is any discernible movement (including wind causing the tripod to vibrate)  the back will stop mid-cycle. The 528C produces beautiful files. Live view for focusing is coarse and the frame rate, very slow. Beyond single shot, this back has to be used in controlled settings--perfect for product photography, fine art reproduction, and archiving documents, etc. There is definitely a significant bump in resolution when shooting in 16-shot, however the micro-contrast is not as good as shooting in the 4-shot mode. Most photographers used those backs in 4-shot mode due to the amount of time it took to knock off 16 shots while allowing the strobes enough time to recycle. I used Elinchrom strobes because they offered stable output and color consistency. If you try photographing outside, beware of partly cloudy days. Variations in light will kill the 4-shot and 16-shot cycles.

I eventually upgraded to a Hasselblad CF-39 MS multi-shot back (39 mp native resolution). The sensor is 37 X 49. It shoots in single or in 4-shot mode. The 4-shot files from that back were superior to the previous generation 16-shot backs. The file sizes were much more manageable. I found the firewire cable connection to the computer to be finicky (the proprietary cable for the 384/528 series backs was more stable). The CF39 MS back worked well on the H2F Hasselblad as well as my pancake camera equipped with Schneider Digitars (in helical focusing mounts), with Schneider electronic shutters.

I am also familiar with the Sinar 54 H digital back. Just like the 528C, the chip size is approximately, if not exactly, the same size. It too has a native resolution of 22mp. The Sinar back is only compatible with earlier versions of Apple computers. That back was considered the gold standard for fine art reproduction back in its day.

I have nothing to gain or to lose with whatever decision you make. However, I strongly suggest giving the mighty little Olympus EM5-II a chance. The camera is extremely lightweight and the range of MFT optics is fantastic. This camera has incredible live view capabilities and it works in low light situations. I think the refresh rate of the EVF is 120 frames per second. It handles ISO 800 like a champ and it does not require tethering. I'd be happy to send you a RAW file to play around with. Just send me a PM.

[Theodoros]

I once had an Imacon/Hasselblad 384C. It has a 36 X 36 sensor. The 528C is of the same vintage. It has a 36 X 48 sensor.  16-shot is extremely tricky. My studio sat on a two-foot slab of concrete on a quiet suburban street. Whenever the trash collection, FedEx, and UPS trucks came down the street, the 16-shot cycle would fail. My buddy had a similar 16-shot setup. His studio was in an old warehouse in an industrial zone. The wood floor in his studio picked up a lot of vibrations. He had a heck of a time shooting in 16-shot mode. I recall my 384C back would sometimes become unstable. It crashed my computer fairly often. I don't know whether Flexcolor or Phocus have sorted out the stability issues. I had that back tethered to a quad-core Windows XP machine with 8 gigs of RAM. I've read that the Hassleblad 384C/528C backs run better on Flexcolor than Phocus.

It will take well over a minute to get through the 16-shot cycle. You will be limited to ISO 100. If there is any discernible movement (including wind causing the tripod to vibrate)  the back will stop mid-cycle. The 528C produces beautiful files. Live view for focusing is coarse and the frame rate, very slow. Beyond single shot, this back has to be used in controlled settings--perfect for product photography, fine art reproduction, and archiving documents, etc. There is definitely a significant bump in resolution when shooting in 16-shot, however the micro-contrast is not as good as shooting in the 4-shot mode. Most photographers used those backs in 4-shot mode due to the amount of time it took to knock off 16 shots while allowing the strobes enough time to recycle. I used Elinchrom strobes because they offered stable output and color consistency. If you try photographing outside, beware of partly cloudy days. Variations in light will kill the 4-shot and 16-shot cycles.

I eventually upgraded to a Hasselblad CF-39 MS multi-shot back (39 mp native resolution). The sensor is 37 X 49. It shoots in single or in 4-shot mode. The 4-shot files from that back were superior to the previous generation 16-shot backs. The file sizes were much more manageable. I found the firewire cable connection to the computer to be finicky (the proprietary cable for the 384/528 series backs was more stable). The CF39 MS back worked well on the H2F Hasselblad as well as my pancake camera equipped with Schneider Digitars (in helical focusing mounts), with Schneider electronic shutters.

I am also familiar with the Sinar 54 H digital back. Just like the 528C, the chip size is approximately, if not exactly, the same size. It too has a native resolution of 22mp. The Sinar back is only compatible with earlier versions of Apple computers. That back was considered the gold standard for fine art reproduction back in its day.

I have nothing to gain or to lose with whatever decision you make. However, I strongly suggest giving the mighty little Olympus EM5-II a chance. The camera is extremely lightweight and the range of MFT optics is fantastic. This camera has incredible live view capabilities and it works in low light situations. I think the refresh rate of the EVF is 120 frames per second. It handles ISO 800 like a champ and it does not require tethering. I'd be happy to send you a RAW file to play around with. Just send me a PM.

I used to own a 528c back for many years which I used on my Contax 645 and Fuji GX-680 platforms and in January 2015 I have replaced it with a Hasselblad CF-39MS and a Sinarback 54H FW which I use on the same platforms... The first six months of my 528c ownership, I had problems using its 16x mode getting often failures... Six months later and after spotting the issues that where causing the failures, I managed to have 100% success at all my takes with both my Contax and my Fuji...  The 16x mode takes about 40-50 secs to be performed (depending on the shutter speed used and the delay time set) and then there is another 20secs for the software to (automatically) process the 16x file. At the end of the day, taking a 16x shot was no different to me than performing a (longish) exposure with the stereo and air conditioning turned on both in the studio or on museums or even when shooting wall paintings in ancient Byzantine monasteries with the noisy power generator running just outside the door...
In my experience, there is no micro contrast difference between 16X & 4x modes and so I ended up using the 16X mode only. The Sinar 54H FW I now have, is identical sensor and IQ with the 528c, it works with all Macs (new or old) with the latest Sinar 6.1.2 Captureshop software. The Sinarback is even more accurate than 528c for color calibration because Sinar has a great color calibration method, but it is more stable too because one can adjust the time between shots so that he gives more time for the system to settle, it also runs cooler than the 528c and thus there is less chance to have the back refusing the capture after continuous 16x captures. The 54H also completely lucks the "purple issue" that sometimes is a case with the 528c

The CF-39MS only differs for resolution than 528c, with the files being indermediate to the 528c's  22 or 88mp resolution, that said, I haven't use my CF-39MS yet on my Fuji GX-680 because I miss the appropriate cable to do so... (spotted one with Eric Hiss though and should have it soon).
One more thing... In theory Imacon 528c & Hasselblad CF-22 & CF-39MS versions, should be identical to their respective single shot only backs (132c, CF-22 & CF-39) when they are used in single shot modes... but it seems that this is not the case, it seems that Hasselblad was choosing the better sensors for the MS backs and as a result, they perform noticeably better than their respective single shot counterparts...

As for using MS mode for things like landscapes, my opinion is to avoid it... It's not what its designed for... the MS capture requires for the subject to be rock solid still... no dust movement, no cloud movement, no sun movement, no water movement, absolutely nothing... There are some backs (the 54H is one) that will allow the capture to be performed, but if one takes a single shot capture alongside, he will notice that the single shot image is sharper...

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the 54H LV mode is much better than the 528c...

[soren]

Did find this link about HD5 200c Multishot in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xucbY5wgnU0

[Theodoros]

Did find this link about HD5 200c Multishot in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xucbY5wgnU0

Just the case where multishot is absolutely needles and with worst detail than shooting the scene with the back in single shot mode... I wish he would have made a comparison... In 6 seconds that it took to do the multishot, there is absolutely no chance that those leafs against him have stayed absolutely still so there is going to be blare  if compared to a single shot... Multishot is for where faithful color and maximum detail is needed (things like shooting paintings, or repro work, or jewlery, or statues, or tectures of cloth, or any other demanding work for color accuracy and detail)... Not to shoot landscapes that one would process the print's color to his likes anyway and 50mp is more than enough...

By the way... Hasselblad's 6x mode is not the same as shooting in 16x mode.... The first 4 shots create a true color (tricolor) 50mp file, but the other 2, only increase resolution, the color is interpolated from the 50mp "true color" result of the first four shots... It's clever and can be very helpful sometimes... but I doubt if it is better than what 528c or Sinar 54H can achieve and certainly it's not up to Sinar's 196mp "pure true color" result that the Sinarback eXact can shoot...

[Ken R]

Check THIS Absolutely stunning files.

[Theodoros]

Check THIS Absolutely stunning files.

That's not salable buddy... it's not files!
EDIT: If you are after of showing something worthwhile, show me a comparison of the Olympus to a Sinarback in MS mode... that would tell me something...

[mi-fu]

I used to own a 528c back for many years which I used on my Contax 645 and Fuji GX-680 platforms and in January 2015 I have replaced it with a Hasselblad CF-39MS and a Sinarback 54H FW which I use on the same platforms... The first six months of my 528c ownership, I had problems using its 16x mode getting often failures... Six months later and after spotting the issues that where causing the failures, I managed to have 100% success at all my takes with both my Contax and my Fuji...  The 16x mode takes about 40-50 secs to be performed (depending on the shutter speed used and the delay time set) and then there is another 20secs for the software to (automatically) process the 16x file. At the end of the day, taking a 16x shot was no different to me than performing a (longish) exposure with the stereo and air conditioning turned on both in the studio or on museums or even when shooting wall paintings in ancient Byzantine monasteries with the noisy power generator running just outside the door...
In my experience, there is no micro contrast difference between 16X & 4x modes and so I ended up using the 16X mode only. The Sinar 54H FW I now have, is identical sensor and IQ with the 528c, it works with all Macs (new or old) with the latest Sinar 6.1.2 Captureshop software. The Sinarback is even more accurate than 528c for color calibration because Sinar has a great color calibration method, but it is more stable too because one can adjust the time between shots so that he gives more time for the system to settle, it also runs cooler than the 528c and thus there is less chance to have the back refusing the capture after continuous 16x captures. The 54H also completely lucks the "purple issue" that sometimes is a case with the 528c

The CF-39MS only differs for resolution than 528c, with the files being indermediate to the 528c's  22 or 88mp resolution, that said, I haven't use my CF-39MS yet on my Fuji GX-680 because I miss the appropriate cable to do so... (spotted one with Eric Hiss though and should have it soon).
One more thing... In theory Imacon 528c & Hasselblad CF-22 & CF-39MS versions, should be identical to their respective single shot only backs (132c, CF-22 & CF-39) when they are used in single shot modes... but it seems that this is not the case, it seems that Hasselblad was choosing the better sensors for the MS backs and as a result, they perform noticeably better than their respective single shot counterparts...

As for using MS mode for things like landscapes, my opinion is to avoid it... It's not what its designed for... the MS capture requires for the subject to be rock solid still... no dust movement, no cloud movement, no sun movement, no water movement, absolutely nothing... There are some backs (the 54H is one) that will allow the capture to be performed, but if one takes a single shot capture alongside, he will notice that the single shot image is sharper...

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the 54H LV mode is much better than the 528c...

You mentioned that you had encountered some failures with the 16x mode of 528C at first. Would you tell us more what the issues were? And how did you remedy them?

[gfsymon]

If you are after of showing something worthwhile, show me a comparison of the Olympus to a Sinarback in MS mode... that would tell me something...

A few months ago I spent several days testing an OMD-EM-5 Mk11 against a D800e and in the studio, an M22 (Jenoptik 22mpx 16-shot back, superior in my view to the 54H, due to its Dalsa chip vs Kodak.  I believe Jenoptik also made the 54H for Sinar).  The M22 was using Rodenstock HR lenses via Rollei shutters.

The OMD shone in multi-shot, but not astonishingly until I put the Olympus 45mm lens on it, when it practically sparkled.  I was really impressed.

What people may not be aware of, is that when using RAW mode, the OMD produces a 64 megapixel image.  It sharpens extremely well using deconvolution (can take more sharpening than I've ever used before).  It has a softening of highlights as they go towards white, which is typical of dslr type cameras, but is annoying when the exposure is being carefully controlled.

How did the files compare to the M22 at 88 megapixels?  Amazingly well.  Not *as* good ... but for such a tiny camera/chip, I never expected them to be this good (when accompanied with very sharp lenses ... for example, the Olympus 60mm macro was nowhere near as sharp as the 45mm).  There were some artefacts in the captures, visible at 100% which I have seen previously in multi-shot and I'm fairly hopeful that these will be addressed with firmware upgrades.  There are some limitations which I'm sure will also be addressed ... sync speed for flash being a stumbling block for many situations  (this may already have been improved?).  I have some Schneider Digitars in Rollei shutters, from the days when MF chips were 35mm sized and I would love to have tested it with these, but I didn't have the time to try and hack something together (not having adapter plates and bellows etc.)

(I've been shooting multi-shot since 1999 ... so I have some experience with it).

Aside from the multi-shot aspects, the camera has huge promise and like Bob David, I'm intrigued with what the 'Pro' version will bring.  Working with it is a delight, when one is used to a tethered view camera (Arca-Swiss in my case).  The articulated screen is a wonder of engineering and the EVF is the best exposure meter I've ever used.  I would like to have larger single-shot files.  16mpx is just a bit too small. 24mpx would be fine for me, especially as this would take the multi-shot files up to 96mpx (when using raw) and perhaps if Olympus adopt the back side illuminated chips, they'll be able to bump the pixel count whilst maintaining quality.  On the other hand, I love the 'tiny-ness' of it, especially of the subsequent 'tiny-ness' of the lenses.  Glass doesn't need to be gigantic to be great, as Olympus proved almost 40 years ago and continue to prove today.

The big downside of the camera is the same as all of these digital cameras ... the menus and general UI is a total mess.  Zillions of options which are mostly pointless, impossible to understand and well ... a total waste of time.  I'd like them to apply some of their German engineering skills and logic to these and make them far more simple to use.

[BobDavid]

A few months ago I spent several days testing an OMD-EM-5 Mk11 against a D800e and in the studio, an M22 (Jenoptik 22mpx 16-shot back, superior in my view to the 54H, due to its Dalsa chip vs Kodak.  I believe Jenoptik also made the 54H for Sinar).  The M22 was using Rodenstock HR lenses via Rollei shutters.

The OMD shone in multi-shot, but not astonishingly until I put the Olympus 45mm lens on it, when it practically sparkled.  I was really impressed.

What people may not be aware of, is that when using RAW mode, the OMD produces a 64 megapixel image.  It sharpens extremely well using deconvolution (can take more sharpening than I've ever used before).  It has a softening of highlights as they go towards white, which is typical of dslr type cameras, but is annoying when the exposure is being carefully controlled.

How did the files compare to the M22 at 88 megapixels?  Amazingly well.  Not *as* good ... but for such a tiny camera/chip, I never expected them to be this good (when accompanied with very sharp lenses ... for example, the Olympus 60mm macro was nowhere near as sharp as the 45mm).  There were some artefacts in the captures, visible at 100% which I have seen previously in multi-shot and I'm fairly hopeful that these will be addressed with firmware upgrades.  There are some limitations which I'm sure will also be addressed ... sync speed for flash being a stumbling block for many situations  (this may already have been improved?).  I have some Schneider Digitars in Rollei shutters, from the days when MF chips were 35mm sized and I would love to have tested it with these, but I didn't have the time to try and hack something together (not having adapter plates and bellows etc.)

(I've been shooting multi-shot since 1999 ... so I have some experience with it).

Aside from the multi-shot aspects, the camera has huge promise and like Bob David, I'm intrigued with what the 'Pro' version will bring.  Working with it is a delight, when one is used to a tethered view camera (Arca-Swiss in my case).  The articulated screen is a wonder of engineering and the EVF is the best exposure meter I've ever used.  I would like to have larger single-shot files.  16mpx is just a bit too small. 24mpx would be fine for me, especially as this would take the multi-shot files up to 96mpx (when using raw) and perhaps if Olympus adopt the back side illuminated chips, they'll be able to bump the pixel count whilst maintaining quality.  On the other hand, I love the 'tiny-ness' of it, especially of the subsequent 'tiny-ness' of the lenses.  Glass doesn't need to be gigantic to be great, as Olympus proved almost 40 years ago and continue to prove today.

The big downside of the camera is the same as all of these digital cameras ... the menus and general UI is a total mess.  Zillions of options which are mostly pointless, impossible to understand and well ... a total waste of time.  I'd like them to apply some of their German engineering skills and logic to these and make them far more svimple to use.

Your summary is spot-on. I admit, the first time I sat down with the EM-5 II menu, I about lost my mind. Yes, grown men do cry. After working with the EM-5  II for six months, I still run into menu situations that are frustrating (5% of the time I use the camera). The Oly 75mm F/1.8 lens is astoundingly sharp--even better than the 45mm. I have had terrific results with the 12-40mm f/2.8 pro lens too. I sometimes mount the Oly onto a Cambo Actus mini-view camera and use EL Rodenstock Rodagon Apo N lenses. Again, the results are stunning. However, I rigged a homemade compendium for the Actus/Rody setup, as enlarging lenses are prone to flare.

I recently picked up the Oly 7-14 Pro lens. It is super sharp in single shot mode. I'm planning on using it for multi-shot work.

I am very interested in Olympus's next iteration of MS technology. I understand it will be able to capture 8 shots within 1/60 of a second. A lot of people dismiss MFT for lack of higher MPs. At ISO 100 and 200 and premium lenses, single shot files hold up very well. I routinely print 18 X 24s. On occasion, I've made larger prints that look great. It's possible to get very nice results at ISO 400, however I rarely print those files larger than 15 X 20.
 
The 16mp pixel count is low by today's standards. Despite relatively low resolution, pixel integrity is high.

[BobDavid]

Mike, regarding multi-shot vs single shot, make sure you can do your own modern comparison.

Most of the lore and comparisons you'll hear about multishot come from years ago when raw processing of single shot backs was not nearly as good as it is today. Multishot has, and will always have, an advantage over single shot in some situations. That advantage was quite large in the past. In my biased but epxerienced opinion that advantage is now quite small, at least if you're comparing it to a single shot digital back processed in Capture One 8.

Here for an example are two slides from a webinar we did yesterday on the topic of Process Control for Cultural Heritage Digitization (museums/libraries etc). They show the same raw file, with the same amount of sharpening and identical development settings, with the only difference being the use of Capture One 6 algorithms or Capture One 8 algorithms*. Capture One 8 simply does a better job of reconstructing the original scene from the bayer pattern raw data which strongly reduces the gap between a single shot image and multishot image of the same resolution.




*The slide says C1 v8 CH because we use the Cultural Heritage version of Capture One in these situations, but the underlying raw processing is the same as the general version.

Which back did you use for this capture? The difference between the old and new algorithm does not appear to be dramatic. At 100%, I doubt one is able to see the difference. I agree with your statement re current P1 backs and ten-year old multi-shot backs. I am reluctant to comment about moire issues, as I have not seen how P1 backs deal with that. Now that I am hampered by a virulent type of arthritis, I require lightweight gear. I cannot hold a Nikon D810/24-70mm lens combo without feeling discomfort. My days of digital medium format and 35mm DSLR photography are history. I like being able to tote an Oly body, a few lenses, and a lightweight tripod. My body is able to handle the load without much discomfort.

[Theodoros]

You mentioned that you had encountered some failures with the 16x mode of 528C at first. Would you tell us more what the issues were? And how did you remedy them?

It would require for me to write a full report to answer this  I'll underline the most important aspects...
1. I converted the damping rubber on both the cameras (extra work on the Fuji) so that the mirror would cause the minimum possible vibrance when moving to the "UP" position... The mirror returned vibrance, doesn't cause trouble since the time between the shots of the sequence is enough for it to completely settle, but working with longer delay times helps further.
2. I added a specially made spacer between the tripod head and the camera using a drilled piece of "sorbothane" of 1cm thickness.
3. (most important) I realized that "a good tripod for single shot" and "a good tripod for multishot" is two different things! In single shot the tripod must absorb and store the energy, with multishot the tripod must "suck" and "earth" the energy generated on the camera as soon as possible so that the system will be as energy free as possible for the next shot of the sequence... So I tried to borrow and test as many tripods as possible until I settled for su-pe-rb 40 years old Italian FATIF I now use... For wooden floors, I 've cut a marble base for the tripod and use three cones (like spikes) of the kind that some use on expensive stereo equipment underneath it (like some speakers have) and use the appropriate plates underneath the cones to protect the floor...