Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?  (Read 16630 times)

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2442
    • Pepperanddust
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #20 on: April 13, 2011, 04:09:40 pm »

No.
Logged

williamrohr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2011, 04:23:17 pm »

If you use a 203FE or 205FCC that's been modified by the factory ... no cable is necessary.  Bill
Logged

henrikfoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 899
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2011, 04:31:23 pm »

If you use a 203FE or 205FCC that's been modified by the factory ... no cable is necessary.  Bill


Even if the back is not Hasselblad?

Henrik
Logged

henrikfoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 899
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2011, 05:15:02 pm »

I have never tried to use another focusing screen than the one they use as standard.
But for digital use it might be vise to find the best possible focusing screen?

What IS the best screen possible?

Logged

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2011, 03:32:44 am »

I have never tried to use another focusing screen than the one they use as standard.
But for digital use it might be vise to find the best possible focusing screen?

What IS the best screen possible?

If you have one of the Acute Matte Hasselblad screens (and all the most recent 503s came with them) then you already have the best screen, IMO. There lots of variants on these screens, too, some with central split prisms etc, or plain. Manual focus with a MF camera on a high-res back is always going to be a challenge, that's why the H-Series cameras have very sophisticated AF systems incorporated into the design. You can do it on a 500 or 200 series 'Blad, there is no doubt, but to really nail focus takes a great deal of care. It is so easy to get fooled by apparent sharpness in the viewfinder, and with film we would get away with it (most times). With digital you can clearly see the tiny differences between focus at infinity and focused just a fraction closer in the file at 100%, which you simply can't see in the finder whatever screen you use.

Sometimes it is no problem at all. Shooting hand-held with the 250mm and a prism, wide-open at 1/500 sec, I can nail focus and sharpness pretty much every time. But with the 80mm close in at f8 or wider, I am often a foot or so out (usually back-focused), which is quite enough to ruin a lot of shots. The wider the lens, the worse it gets. You would think that DOF would be on your side as you go wider, and cover up your sins, but a 40 MP back has other ideas. I think the 80 MP back would simply multiply the problem x2.

Most of the time, if I am shooting hand-held, my 39 MP sensor is out-resolving the limits of my technique. Just now and then, I get a hand-held result which fully exploits all of those megapixels (see post below). If I use a heavy tripod, really locked-down, mirror-up and cable release, then I start to see what the back is capable of. But there may well be a case for saying that, for general use on a 500 series camera, there is no real point in going beyond 40-50 MP. Interestingly, both Leica and Pentax seem to feel the same with their MF offerings, both of which are ergonomically designed to encourage hand-held work.

Just suppose that you could buy a 200 MP MF back for say $5,000 dollars (maybe you will be able to in 10 years time). If you just wanted to take what I would call normal photos on an old 'Blad it would be a nightmare, and quite honestly you would be better off with 40 MP.

John
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 05:13:10 am by John R Smith »
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2011, 05:02:20 am »

Just to explain my viewpoint on this a little further –

This picture is a selective crop from the full-frame image, and is just a quarter of the full picture, so it is only 10 MP in size. It was shot hand-held with the 80 mm Planar with the WLF at a distance of about 20 feet, and I got lucky – for once I focused spot-on, there was no camera shake, and in the original file you can read all the writing on the harness and see every individual hair and whisker. This one actually does exploit the potential of the CFV sensor. I can print the crop to 16x12 ins and it looks terrific, so I could print the full-frame to 32x24 ins with the same quality. For my purposes I can’t imagine ever needing anything larger, so 39 MP is good enough for me. The problem, as we have debated,  is getting it this well-focused and clean every time.

John
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 06:01:57 am by John R Smith »
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

henrikfoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 899
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2011, 09:25:47 am »

Hi John!

Nice picture.

I was suprised to hear that the wide lenses are more difficult to focus than the longer ones. :-\
I also wonder if the 80mp will be much harder to focus than the 39? Isn't the most important factor
for dof the size of the sensor?

36.8x49.1 is the size of the 39mp
40.4x53.7 is the size of the 80 mp

So the differense in size is not that great. And if you use it like an old Hasselblad you will have 60 mp
squere sensor which will be about 40x40 mm. Thats smaller than the 39mp sensor. Then it should be
more easy to focus???

Henrik
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2011, 09:26:44 am »

John, a very good summation and charming image.

Unfortunately after a lifetime of peering through cameras and working on detailed artwork my eyes aren't anything like as good as they once were and this for me was a significant factor when deciding between the H and V series cameras.


Hi Keith

I find that an odd result: I'd have thought that working close-up would strengthen the muscles of the eyes, not the other way around. I'm not disputing your point at all - I find the same only worse - but it seems wrong, contrary to what I'd have expected. Like yourself, I'd been a devoted user of the 500 series machines over many years, and I still can't resolve the academic question of would I rather I had not traded them... no, that's not quite true: I know that I should have kept them, if only as reminders of what was a lovely past.

Why do we so often learn too late?

Rob C

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2011, 10:33:11 am »

I also wonder if the 80mp will be much harder to focus than the 39? Isn't the most important factor
for dof the size of the sensor?

36.8x49.1 is the size of the 39mp
40.4x53.7 is the size of the 80 mp

So the differense in size is not that great. And if you use it like an old Hasselblad you will have 60 mp
squere sensor which will be about 40x40 mm. Thats smaller than the 39mp sensor. Then it should be
more easy to focus???

Henrik

Henrik

I am afraid this is all a complete misconception. The problem of evaluating focus, camera shake and DOF is nothing to do with sensor size alone. It is affected by the size (which is really Format) combined with the resolution of the sensor, and the number of megapixels on it. It is perceived as being an MF problem because, up until now, only MF sensors have had that sort of resolution – that is likely to change in future, as 35mm DSLRs increase in resolution too.

The problem lies not so much with taking the photograph, but in evaluating and editing it afterwards, and this is an issue we rarely see discussed. It hinges on the way that we are dependant for every operation on our computer monitor display, a display that can only accurately represent the image at 100%. Have you ever noticed the way that your photo looks different when you make it “fit screen” in LR, or PS Elements, or Windows Picture and Fax Viewer? That is because each piece of software uses a different algorithm to down-rez the image onto your screen (literally dumping pixels to make it fit). The bigger the input file, the more pixels have to be thrown away. You simply cannot judge critical sharpness and DOF on a down-rezzed image. So the only way to assess the IQ of any file is at 100%, or pixel for pixel on your display. Not 50%, or 80%, or anything below the full monty.

With very high-res DBs, we therefore end up looking at a highly magnified and very tiny part of our photograph. With 40 MP it is bad enough. With 60, and now 80 MP it is getting pretty silly. The image is magnified so far that what would be perfectly crisp in a 10x8 print looks soft, but we have no way of judging that without doing a test print. The tiniest errors in focus or camera shake become glaringly obvious, but it is increasingly difficult to tell whether they will be significant in the final print.

Lightroom, in particular, presents us with a real problem when using 60 or 80 MP files. You have to do your sharpening and NR at 100% in LR. This means that you end up working with sharpening and NR on tiny fragments of your image, with no idea of how the adjustments are affecting the other parts of the picture. It is all too easy to completely miss a part of the frame which has a noise problem, thinking you have dealt with it all somewhere else.

In the future, larger monitors with much higher pixel densities may solve this editing issue. But for now, technology has some way to go to catch up. And that is why most sensible folks with MF offer up a prayer of thanks for auto-focus.

John
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 10:44:20 am by John R Smith »
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2011, 10:40:24 am »



Lightroom, in particular, presents us with a real problem when using 60 or 80 MP files. You have to do your sharpening and NR at 100% in LR. This means that you end up working with sharpening and NR on tiny fragments of your image, with no idea of how the adjustments are affecting the other parts of the picture. It is all too easy to completely miss a part of the frame which has a noise problem, thinking you have dealt with it all somewhere else.



John

That is indeed one of the reason why I never do the sharpening in a Raw dev and rarely sharpen uniformily but using a brush where I want the things to be sharpened.
Logged

cng

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2011, 11:22:48 pm »

Anyone have any opinions on camera/DB sync cables?  i.e. PhaseOne, Kapture Group etc.  For use with a P1 DB and 503CW.
Logged

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
    • http://yayapro.com
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2011, 11:38:27 pm »

That is indeed one of the reason why I never do the sharpening in a Raw dev and rarely sharpen uniformily but using a brush where I want the things to be sharpened.

You can do that in Capture One on the RAW file...
Logged
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One - Cultural Heritage
e: ysh@phaseone.com |

DeeJay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2011, 02:07:48 am »

Henrik

I am afraid this is all a complete misconception. The problem of evaluating focus, camera shake and DOF is nothing to do with sensor size alone. It is affected by the size (which is really Format) combined with the resolution of the sensor, and the number of megapixels on it. It is perceived as being an MF problem because, up until now, only MF sensors have had that sort of resolution – that is likely to change in future, as 35mm DSLRs increase in resolution too.

The problem lies not so much with taking the photograph, but in evaluating and editing it afterwards, and this is an issue we rarely see discussed. It hinges on the way that we are dependant for every operation on our computer monitor display, a display that can only accurately represent the image at 100%. Have you ever noticed the way that your photo looks different when you make it “fit screen” in LR, or PS Elements, or Windows Picture and Fax Viewer? That is because each piece of software uses a different algorithm to down-rez the image onto your screen (literally dumping pixels to make it fit). The bigger the input file, the more pixels have to be thrown away. You simply cannot judge critical sharpness and DOF on a down-rezzed image. So the only way to assess the IQ of any file is at 100%, or pixel for pixel on your display. Not 50%, or 80%, or anything below the full monty.

With very high-res DBs, we therefore end up looking at a highly magnified and very tiny part of our photograph. With 40 MP it is bad enough. With 60, and now 80 MP it is getting pretty silly. The image is magnified so far that what would be perfectly crisp in a 10x8 print looks soft, but we have no way of judging that without doing a test print. The tiniest errors in focus or camera shake become glaringly obvious, but it is increasingly difficult to tell whether they will be significant in the final print.

Lightroom, in particular, presents us with a real problem when using 60 or 80 MP files. You have to do your sharpening and NR at 100% in LR. This means that you end up working with sharpening and NR on tiny fragments of your image, with no idea of how the adjustments are affecting the other parts of the picture. It is all too easy to completely miss a part of the frame which has a noise problem, thinking you have dealt with it all somewhere else.

In the future, larger monitors with much higher pixel densities may solve this editing issue. But for now, technology has some way to go to catch up. And that is why most sensible folks with MF offer up a prayer of thanks for auto-focus.

John


GREAT post. I've been wanting a larger higher res monitor or this reason for some time. Shame that monitors haven't advanced in this regard for many years.
Logged

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2011, 03:11:40 am »

*** TOLERANCES ***

Hi,

It is interesting to read that some focus well with a Hasselblad V and others do not, and the discussion of the preciseness requried for digital and high resolution backs... yet... what about adjustment of the critical tolerance that you CAN adjust in that system?

If I missed it in above, please forgive me. But it seems one outmost critical aspect is left out: calibration of the focus screen. While I do not use Hassy V I have with interest considered doing so. The Hassy V has four screws for focus screen adjustment in the corners of the focus screen. Thus... you can calibrate the camera to the lenses that appear most consistent (or ask Hasselblad to do so, and to the tolerance that they should be to) and likewise could service lenses for them to be adjsuted within tolerance I believe. Assuming tolerances at mirror are suffice small, this should assure of precise focus with a reasonable eye sight, in particular if using split image focus screen.

Someone said it is easier with AF in one of earlier posts? Is it? It depends on IF your AF is equally calibrated within acceptable tolerances for digital. Read up on all focus problems with DSLRs, or I can tell you of my Mamiya lens back from Japan for adjustment and it is now 2 1/4 inch front focusing using AF and MF!

Lens Align is a good product to test focus accuracy. Tolerance per Phase One for 80mm lens at 800mm distance and f/2.8 is what I read max +/-3.5mm in the focus plane (not along ruler). Thus... why should it be more accurate with AF if both adhere to same tolerances, provided that your eye sight, e.g. using split image viewer on groundglass will assit?

I hope above helps.

Regards
Anders
Logged

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #34 on: April 15, 2011, 03:22:35 am »

GREAT post. I've been wanting a larger higher res monitor or this reason for some time. Shame that monitors haven't advanced in this regard for many years.

Yes. Well what I'd like would be a 23 in panel with the ppi of an Iphone. But I shan't hold my breath.

If I missed it in above, please forgive me. But it seems one outmost critical aspect is left out: calibration of the focus screen. While I do not use Hassy V I have with interest considered doing so. The Hassy V has four screws for focus screen adjustment in the corners of the focus screen. Thus... you can calibrate the camera to the lenses that appear most consistent (or ask Hasselblad to do so, and to the tolerance that they should be to) and likewise could service lenses for them to be adjsuted within tolerance I believe. Assuming tolerances at mirror are suffice small, this should assure of precise focus with a reasonable eye sight, in particular if using split image focus screen.


Anders

I believe it is only the 500C (earliest 500 series cameras) which have a non-interchangeable focus screen with the four adjusting screws. The 500 C/M, and all later models, have interchangeable screens which sit on four metal posts. The position of the screen is therefore not adjustable. Personally (and I have two 500 C/M bodies and seven lenses to play around with) I don't believe that camera and lens tolerances are a big problem, otherwise I would see more consistent variation in results. In other words, a certain lens and body combination would always be crap, and this just doesn't happen. My problems are, I am certain, caused by user error  ;)

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2011, 03:25:04 am »

If you have one of the Acute Matte Hasselblad screens (and all the most recent 503s came with them) then you already have the best screen, IMO. There lots of variants on these screens, too, some with central split prisms etc, or plain. Manual focus with a MF camera on a high-res back is always going to be a challenge, that's why the H-Series cameras have very sophisticated AF systems incorporated into the design. You can do it on a 500 or 200 series 'Blad, there is no doubt, but to really nail focus takes a great deal of care. It is so easy to get fooled by apparent sharpness in the viewfinder, and with film we would get away with it (most times). With digital you can clearly see the tiny differences between focus at infinity and focused just a fraction closer in the file at 100%, which you simply can't see in the finder whatever screen you use.

Sometimes it is no problem at all. Shooting hand-held with the 250mm and a prism, wide-open at 1/500 sec, I can nail focus and sharpness pretty much every time. But with the 80mm close in at f8 or wider, I am often a foot or so out (usually back-focused), which is quite enough to ruin a lot of shots. The wider the lens, the worse it gets. You would think that DOF would be on your side as you go wider, and cover up your sins, but a 40 MP back has other ideas. I think the 80 MP back would simply multiply the problem x2.

Most of the time, if I am shooting hand-held, my 39 MP sensor is out-resolving the limits of my technique. Just now and then, I get a hand-held result which fully exploits all of those megapixels (see post below). If I use a heavy tripod, really locked-down, mirror-up and cable release, then I start to see what the back is capable of. But there may well be a case for saying that, for general use on a 500 series camera, there is no real point in going beyond 40-50 MP. Interestingly, both Leica and Pentax seem to feel the same with their MF offerings, both of which are ergonomically designed to encourage hand-held work.

Just suppose that you could buy a 200 MP MF back for say $5,000 dollars (maybe you will be able to in 10 years time). If you just wanted to take what I would call normal photos on an old 'Blad it would be a nightmare, and quite honestly you would be better off with 40 MP.

John

Depth of "Focus" gets less with a wider lens, that is probably the problem.

Kevin.
Logged
Kevin.

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2011, 04:19:56 am »

You can do that in Capture One on the RAW file...
Yair, I don't know about the latest version, haven't upgraded yet but the 5 (my version) is not exactly what I like.(and not an issue for me)
Basically I find the focus mask indication usefull although the default threshold is located in preferences not on the working area.
It does not give full control over any area but simply acts with the threshold level wich is a global intervention.
I can't paint the focussing with changeable values on the brush and that includes the brush itself style (for ex harsh or smooth).
It is not a luxury to work on layers when the basic Raw corrections are accepted.
Actually I don't ask C1 to be able to do it. This is PS power, not a Raw devellopper task IMO.

Also, there is (that I know) no posibility to use one tool and switch to full sreen image so all the working windows disappear wich gives a bigger area. (we desperatly need that)
With high-end resolution this is indeed a prob, or anoying. We would need bigger screen size and screen resolution.

I've been told that C1 #6 is a good upgrade and so far haven't checked the enhancement although I have all the newsletters in my mail. Maybe they did something on that aspect.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 04:31:07 am by fredjeang »
Logged

henrikfoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 899
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2011, 05:04:05 am »

Hi John!

Are you using the original release on your Hassy or the Winder?
I have tried both and find it much easier to get the images sharp with the winder
which requiers a lot lighter touch.

Henrik
Logged

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #38 on: April 15, 2011, 05:11:52 am »

Are you using the original release on your Hassy or the Winder?
I have tried both and find it much easier to get the images sharp with the winder
which requiers a lot lighter touch.


Henrik

A very interesting point. Using the winder release might indeed be beneficial for hand-held work. I can't use a winder on my 500 C/Ms, it only fits the later 500s, so I can't experiment with this option.

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

Terence h

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
    • Terence Hogben Photography
Re: Who uses a high resolution back with a Hasselblad V?
« Reply #39 on: April 15, 2011, 06:27:55 am »

I have been using an Aptus 75 with a V series Blad , and i would never do it again.
I just stopped using it for moving images totally and i only use when i get the occasional
food shoot tethered.
It is just too stressful never being sure if you have the shot or not.

Regards
Terence
Logged
Terence Hogben. Durban. South Africa. ht
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up