My ideal still life studio camera would have...

[E_Edwards]

I know still life is not very sexy, but we all have our needs:)


The other post about the Red announcement has made me think about what my ideal camera would be like. I'm a still life photographer, so my needs are different to those who shoot people or moving objects.

First of all, do I want video? Yes, why not, it will surely be handy. But usable video.

I would like a small, rugged but very portable camera with interchangeable lens mounts with their corresponding electronic connections. I want it to look good, a beautiful sleek design. I don't really want it to look like a bulky meccano set.

I would prefer technology that does away with the up and down mirror and the movement and noise that this introduces. Maybe a fixed mirror that becomes transparent with an electric pulse in sync with the shutter. I've seen this technology applied to glass.

I still want a superb 100% optical viewfinder, without paralax, large, bright and clear. I do not really want a digital viewfinder, no matter how good it is.

I want a square sensor, a sensor that I can crop with digital blinds to any shape and crop, either vertical or horizontal. I don't want to rotate the sensor, but I want a sensor that is big enough to allow all sorts of crops.

I don't want mega big files, something producing 80 to 100Mb files will do.

I want a technology that takes three or four instantaneous pictures that cover each primary color at once, producing superb color and detail with no hint of interpolation.

I don't care much about auto focus, but it there is one, I want it to have focus points that I can set at any point in the viewfinder.

I want to be able to shoot at high ISO with little noise.

I want very fast cableless remote tethering and operation. In fact, I don't want to see a cable for anything!

I want to be able to fine tune my focus on the monitor and LCD at various magnifications in mega high Live Video resolution at full 30 inch monitor size and very fast refreshing rates.

I want a tilting and shifting sensor, coupled with shift/tilt lenses of various focal lengths with optical distortions corrected electronically. I want to control this tilting sensor and lens electronically on the monitor with virtual tilting axes showing on the monitor.

Additionally, I want automatic focus bracketing and automatic joining of the resulting bracketed images. For instance, I want to focus on the forefront - click, then focus on the far end - click, and the camera will take as many pictures as necessary to cover this area of focus, automatically producing a single file on the fly.

I'd like to be able to shift the focus and the depth of field after the event.

Price, hmmm, I don't mind it if it is expensive, so long as it works well.

All the above technologies exist to some extent, or could be developed, it's a case of putting them together.

[AndyF]

...
I'd like to be able to shift the focus and the depth of field after the event.
...
All the above technologies exist to some extent, or could be developed, it's a case of putting them together.

Depth of field creation could be done after the exposure - with a stereoscopic camera.  

The final print would be based mainly on the file from one sensor.  The image parallax (stereoscopic) information derived from the two sensors would allow the relative distance of all the objects and surfaces in the scene to be calculated.  Once that 3-D information is generated, and if the original image had a large enough depth of field to begin with, you could move the plane of focus anywhere within that "sharp" range, and then adjust the shape of the depth of field falloff you wanted.

You could even have a different rate of falloff in front and behind the plane of focus.

It's more likely this will be done with files from a full stereoscopic camera (like the Red!), but it might also be possible with a camera that had a large primary sensor, and one or two lower res sensors that are just good enough to synthesize the depth information.

Andy Fraser

[samuel_js]

I know still life is not very sexy, but we all have our needs:)


The other post about the Red announcement has made me think about what my ideal camera would be like. I'm a still life photographer, so my needs are different to those who shoot people or moving objects.

First of all, do I want video? Yes, why not, it will surely be handy. But usable video.


I want to be able to shoot at high ISO with little noise.

Can I ask you what's the interest in shooting video of still life? And at high ISO?

[Henry Goh]

Can I ask you what's the interest in shooting video of still life? And at high ISO?

My guess would be:- useful if you were shooting a still set-up with fast moving water element or wine pouring and you wanted to make sure you have the best position with the pour or how fast you should pour etc.

[paulmoorestudio]

Can I ask you what's the interest in shooting video of still life? And at high ISO?

have you never seen a slice of pizza being pulled away from a pizza pie?
or as it is known to the foodies.. a pizza pull shot... not as easy as it would appear
and having the high isa would allow more lighting solutions...and maintain the dof you
need to do it.
very rarely do you see static product shots in a commercials and now that the web
is moving there too..

[E_Edwards]

One of the things I do quite frequently is splashes or waves of water. Sometimes I've had to do 100 splashes just to get the perfect one, or a combination of splashes to comp together.

Ditto with things like beer heads, you get the pour and you have to catch it just at the right moment.

With diamonds, you have a rotating bank of lights that create sparkles, so you choose the best looking ones or comp from a selection.

Melting ice, you need to catch it at the right instance.

Pouring objects into liquid, again something tricky that would be made easy with a video series of frames.

Any many, many more situations, although is not the panacea that it seems, as a lot of these movement images are frozen by using fast duration flash, and not continuous lighting, but in any case it will be really interesting to see what can be done and experiment. The creativity enhancement could be spectacular. I already use Dedo lights for a few of my sets, often as a  combination of flash/tungsten, so we will see what the future holds...

I can't wait to get hold of the new 5D MKII as I am sure I will be able to incorporate some footage in my still lifes.


But to me, the focus bracket as described in my post at the top, would be something worth paying good money for.

Edward

[yaya]

But to me, the focus bracket as described in my post at the top, would be something worth paying good money for.

Edward

Might not follow your exact description, but here's a quote from the AFi manual:

Focus bracketing
Focus bracketing enables you to take a series of shots in which the plane of focus automatically shifts over a distance in each shot.
After you select the central focus point in your base shot, the camera calculates the depth of field based on the selected aperture and the lens.
For each shot in the series, the autofocus lens shifts the focus to a different plane:
● For the first shot, the lens is shifted so that the rear edge of the depth of field is at the point of the center of the depth of field of the base shot.
● For the last shot, the lens is shifted so that the front edge of the depth of field is at the point of the center of the depth of field of the base shot.
● For the intermediate shots, the lens is shifted in equal distances between the first shot and the last shot.

The middle shot in the series is the base shot that you set.

Setting focus bracketing
Use focus bracketing to take a series of shots with the autofocus lens shifting the focus plane for each shot.
You can only take shots with focus bracketing when you are using an AF or AFD lens.
To obtain more consistent results, use a tripod.

1. Set up a base shot. The base shot that you set up here will be the middle shot in the bracket series.
Note: There is no need to take a shot at this point.
2. Set the power dial to the red dot.
3. Hold down the shoot options button, and set the rear dial to BRACKETING F.
4. Using the front dial, select the number of exposures in the series.



The single autofocus icon appears in the handgrip display.

5. Release the shoot options button.
6. Push the shutter release button, and hold it down.
The camera takes a series of exposures, with the lens shifting focus for each exposure.

Use focus stacking software such as Helicon Focus or Photoshop CS4 to combine a series of bracketed images to make one image with a very deep depth of field.

Yair

[E_Edwards]

Yair, thank you.

I have to say, this bracketing facility that you mention interests me greatly, and I was already aware of it, though I don't know how it would work in practice.

I have used Helicon Focus in the past, but I found that with a view camera and using tilt movements, you get minute perspective displacement as you focus your bracket images that sometimes resulted in inaccurate results.

But without tilts, it may work very well, and it's certainly something that I would consider (together with the revolving sensor) Still, I need a suitable lens in the range 120 to 180

You know were I am, I'm very busy in the next too weeks, but let's link thereafter.

Edward

[samuel_js]

My guess would be:- useful if you were shooting a still set-up with fast moving water element or wine pouring and you wanted to make sure you have the best position with the pour or how fast you should pour etc.

have you never seen a slice of pizza being pulled away from a pizza pie?
or as it is known to the foodies.. a pizza pull shot... not as easy as it would appear
and having the high isa would allow more lighting solutions...and maintain the dof you
need to do it.
very rarely do you see static product shots in a commercials and now that the web
is moving there too..

One of the things I do quite frequently is splashes or waves of water. Sometimes I've had to do 100 splashes just to get the perfect one, or a combination of splashes to comp together.


Edward

Yes, of course.
I was thinking more like food and product photography. I have a friend who needed like 250 shots to get one good shot of a strawberry falling into a glass of milk...  

Do you think movie cameras like the RED ONE will be able to match the quality and pricision of cameras with movements with DBs attached?

[yaya]

Yair, thank you.

I have to say, this bracketing facility that you mention interests me greatly, and I was already aware of it, though I don't know how it would work in practice.

I have used Helicon Focus in the past, but I found that with a view camera and using tilt movements, you get minute perspective displacement as you focus your bracket images that sometimes resulted in inaccurate results.

But without tilts, it may work very well, and it's certainly something that I would consider (together with the revolving sensor) Still, I need a suitable lens in the range 120 to 180

You know were I am, I'm very busy in the next too weeks, but let's link thereafter.

Edward

...and for "action" shots we have "Focus trap" which means you lock the focus to a certain distance and anything that comes into the centre of the frame at that distance will trigger the camera within 4 milliseconds...

[E_Edwards]

Do you think movie cameras like the RED ONE will be able to match the quality and pricision of cameras with movements with DBs attached?

I terms of quality, most probably, and sooner than we think.

In terms of movements, I don't see it going this way. It's quite niche.

If someone could incorporate a tilting and shifting sensor in their design, it would be great. Unfortunately I don't think the market is there, so don't throw away your technical camera!

Edward

[E_Edwards]

...and for "action" shots we have "Focus trap" which means you lock the focus to a certain distance and anything that comes into the centre of the frame at that distance will trigger the camera within 4 milliseconds...

You see, that also sounds good and interesting!

I devised a trigger attached to a precision timer that let go of the subject (attached by a powerful electromagnet). I calculated the time it took from the moment of release, to the subject being in front of the camera, baring in mind that you may want to delay things a few milliseconds after the impact. There are probably other ways to do this, but my system worked pretty accurately.

So your "Focus trap" thinggy is worth exploring.

With video, unless you have high speed video, I'm not experienced to know what results you would get. They certainly wouldn't be as pin sharp as a shot "frozen" by short duration strobe.

[Zachary Goulko]

I know still life is not very sexy, but we all have our needs:)

However said that still life isn't sexy?

I took a look at your jewelry/watch portfolio, and you have some great lighting skills and images.

I am having some issues with glare on a watch I am shooting, with extreme crystal curvature, and am wondering if you ever have the client remove the crystal. I guess that would be kind of risky if I'm shooting a 120k watch?

Polarization doesnt seem to help either due to the extreme curvature, and I've tried careful positioning of small pieces of plexi.

Are you shooting with softboxes?

[klane]

However said that still life isn't sexy?

I took a look at your jewelry/watch portfolio, and you have some great lighting skills and images.

I am having some issues with glare on a watch I am shooting, with extreme crystal curvature, and am wondering if you ever have the client remove the crystal. I guess that would be kind of risky if I'm shooting a 120k watch?

Polarization doesnt seem to help either due to the extreme curvature, and I've tried careful positioning of small pieces of plexi.

Are you shooting with softboxes?

Sometimes you have to shoot for different parts of a watch and composite later for best results.

[E_Edwards]

I am having some issues with glare on a watch I am shooting, with extreme crystal curvature, and am wondering if you ever have the client remove the crystal. I guess that would be kind of risky if I'm shooting a 120k watch?

Polarization doesnt seem to help either due to the extreme curvature, and I've tried careful positioning of small pieces of plexi.

Nowadays very few watches come without the glass, which is just as well as I prefer them with the glass on.

As you say, careful positioning of lights, diffusers and reflectors, and choosing the angles, plus a bit of retouching if necessary.

Edward