Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: henrikfoto on March 08, 2014, 07:57:02 am
-
Can anyone tell me how the quality of results are from this back compared to the 54H etc?
I also wonder if the new Sinar captureflow is better than the older Captureshop ?
-
Can anyone tell me how the quality of results are from this back compared to the 54H etc?
I also wonder if the new Sinar captureflow is better than the older Captureshop ?
I'm curious as well… does it do 16x the way that the old 22mp backs did? …Hasselblad 200ms doesn't, it has a "new" 6x mode that creates wonder on its performance, that one looks promising but does it do the same way as my Imacon 528c does? Up to now, I've never seen anything matching my back for still performance, but I haven't tried this one, nor I know anyone that has…
-
I'm curious as well… does it do 16x the way that the old 22mp backs did? …Hasselblad 200ms doesn't, it has a "new" 6x mode that creates wonder on its performance, that one looks promising but does it do the same way as my Imacon 528c does? Up to now, I've never seen anything matching my back for still performance, but I haven't tried this one, nor I know anyone that has…
Yes the Xact does 4 and 16 shots like the old 22 mp backs.
But it is 48 mp. I am wondering if it is even harder than with the 22 mp to do
100% steady 16-shots? (Bacause the movements must be less than half between
each shot)
-
Yes the Xact does 4 and 16 shots like the old 22 mp backs.
But it is 48 mp. I am wondering if it is even harder than with the 22 mp to do
100% steady 16-shots? (Bacause the movements must be less than half between
each shot)
It seems that 16x wasn't available to backs with lower than 9μm size, because lower than 4.5μm movement was difficult to control accurately via a piezzo electric crystal, all backs using higher resolution sensors where able of 4x only… If they've achieve accuracy within 3μm …that surely is quite an achievement! I have 100% success with all my 16x shots using my 528c after mastering all aspects that influence MS, I surely want to try the E-xact beast!
My up to now experience is that if 16x is done correctly using an old 22mp back, it beats both a Cruse scanner and a scanning back for large painting reproduction, if accuracy of the E-xact is the same, the result will be extraterrestrial! …a phenomenon of an image!
-
I'm also interested in these and would to see some sample files and hear from anyone using them.
16 shot with 48mp back has to be amazing!
-
I'm also interested in these and would to see some sample files and hear from anyone using them.
16 shot with 48mp back has to be amazing!
If a lens able to cope with 6μm pixel will be used, like your 90micro or my 120m Apo, Nyquist limit should be increased significantly! If one has total control of vibration, (and I mean total) the linear resolution increase should be of 20 maybe 30%! A real experience… it will make eyes like... :o
-
It seems that there are no users of the back… :'( Maybe Steven Hendrix can give us more info on the product? …lets hope that Steven will share his experience or knowledge with it. :-[
-
Hm? No one? That is strange.
eXact is not a full-frame-medium-format back?
I believe that the New York City studio Davies and Starr use the Sinar back for their product photography.
-
The Sinar eXact is built around the 6um 48x36mm 48 megapixel Dalsa sensor. I'd love if there were a Leaf Aptus or other non-tethered back with that sensor, but there's not...
I think Sinar is a bit stronger in Europe and in reproduction / product, and those people probable don't use the internet, so we don't see much about the Sinar products in the forums :-)
-
"6um"? :)
Apple photographer Peter Belanger uses a Sinar too, but with a Phase One back:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/8/4311868/the-illusion-of-simplicity-photographer-peter-belanger-on-shooting
-
We have several Sinar eXact installations. You would find them primarily in the museum or an institutional archiving environment.
You are correct that the results are more challenging than with lower resolution 16 shot capture solutions (6mp/11mp/16mp/22mp). But it can be done, it simply needs the sum of all elements to be at their optimum in terms of stability and vibration - shutter/camera/digital back/camera support/flooring/environment, etc.
If anyone would like some sample comparisons between 54H and eXact, we can supply those (as well as between other MFD products).
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
We have several Sinar eXact installations. You would find them primarily in the museum or an institutional archiving environment.
You are correct that the results are more challenging than with lower resolution 16 shot capture solutions (6mp/11mp/16mp/22mp). But it can be done, it simply needs the sum of all elements to be at their optimum in terms of stability and vibration - shutter/camera/digital back/camera support/flooring/environment, etc.
If anyone would like some sample comparisons between 54H and eXact, we can supply those (as well as between other MFD products).
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Why I have a feeling that it must be seriously better than 200MS? ….In my opinion (judging from what I've seen from 4x shot comparisons), Sinar should provide a 16x capable version of the 75H… I believe that the 7.2μm pixel is ideal in size to provide both wide lens compatibility and enough size to make 16x shots as easy as with 9μm pixel size sensors… 132mp combined with 16X quality should be enough for any project of any size or accuracy needed. ….a "dream back" IMO, especially if they would make it "self contained" for single shots (like my 528c is), combined with the superb Dalsa 33mp image quality, it would be the most "complete" back around. But again, why not increase the size of the sensor to 53.8x40.6mm and provide 41.5mp for single shot and 166mp for 16x, also being self contained…. That would be the back for my Contax 645! 8)
-
"6um"? :)
Apple photographer Peter Belanger uses a Sinar too, but with a Phase One back:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/8/4311868/the-illusion-of-simplicity-photographer-peter-belanger-on-shooting
P1 doesn't do MS backs… He obviously doesn't shoot still subjects.
-
The Sinar eXact is built around the 6um 48x36mm 48 megapixel Dalsa sensor. I'd love if there were a Leaf Aptus or other non-tethered back with that sensor, but there's not...
I think Sinar is a bit stronger in Europe and in reproduction / product, and those people probable don't use the internet, so we don't see much about the Sinar products in the forums :-)
Actually the sensor is the same as the P65+/IQ160/260, only cropped down to 36x48mm and 48mp.
-
We have several Sinar eXact installations. You would find them primarily in the museum or an institutional archiving environment.
You are correct that the results are more challenging than with lower resolution 16 shot capture solutions (6mp/11mp/16mp/22mp). But it can be done, it simply needs the sum of all elements to be at their optimum in terms of stability and vibration - shutter/camera/digital back/camera support/flooring/environment, etc.
If anyone would like some sample comparisons between 54H and eXact, we can supply those (as well as between other MFD products).
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Hi Steve!
I would very much like to see some comparisons between 54H, Xact and an 80 mp back.
Is it possible?
Henrik
-
Hi Steve!
I would very much like to see some comparisons between 54H, Xact and an 80 mp back.
Is it possible?
Henrik
What? :o ….54H shot 16X vs. 80mp back? ….forget about it, the 80mp back doesn't stand a chance… not even comparable! :D 54H vs. Exact will be very close depending on subject size… for painting reproduction, I would say that Exact will start showing some slight evidence of advantage for painting sizes more than one square meter, which would start growing there after… I expect the E-xact to beat a Cruse scanner for large paintings… Heck, (this maybe hard to believe but its true) if 16X is done correctly and a top quality MF lens is used, even a 22mp back shot in 16x (just) beats the Cruse! 8) …but, there are two key words on that statement...
1."done correctly"... some people think that they are doing 16x correctly because they get a successful result which impresses them… they only realise that their outcome is poor (for 16x) only after they see their first really correctly done 16x shot… ???
2."top quality MF lens"... no great LF lens is better than a great MF lens… ;)
-
Which mf lenses do you use for 16 shots?
-
Steve,
Maybe you know - do these Sinar Xact backs come in either the Rollei 6008 or Hy6 mounts?
I've compared quite carefully my Leaf AFi-ii 12 (80mp) vs the CF 528 (22mp) in 16 shot mode on some art reproduction work of priceless paintings (which I can't share) using the same exact lens the Rollei Schneider 90mm APO Macro and the results are quite close - so close the processing makes the difference - but you have to use detail recovery software on the Leaf to have it match the CF 528. Interestingly, when you apply the same recovery software on the 528 files you can't pull up the same gains, probably because it was so much better to start with. The 528 has more DR than the Leaf in multishot mode and probably better color detail, but its possible that more accurate larger color could be coming from the Leaf. The multishot just picks up subtle details the single shots can not. Even with the 22mp m/s back, the only contest the 80mp comes out clearly ahead is in workflow and ease of use.
I regularly use my CF 528 as a 'scanner' for negatives and for this work, the 4 shot or 16 shot modes are ideal. Compared to scanning the 16 shot mode isn't all that bad and I prefer the results to my 80mp back in this application as well. Occasionally the film grain messes up the multishot math in a few spots, so this is way more tedious than a single shot, but I do it because well I think this is an area where you see the difference.
I would expect the 48mp multishot back to produce some stunning files when used in the right application.
-
From what I am told the Sinarback 86, which is the same sensor as xact but just 4 shot,
produces very comparable results to the 54H in 16 shots.
So the Xact in 16 shots should be the xtreme?
-
Which mf lenses do you use for 16 shots?
90% (unless the distance to subject is limited by factors that one cannot overcome, I use the Zeiss 120macro APO at f11 or f8 on Contax 645…
-
From what I am told the Sinarback 86, which is the same sensor as xact but just 4 shot,
produces very comparable results to the 54H in 16 shots.
So the Xact in 16 shots should be the xtreme?
From what I hear, there are people that although they have a successful process when they do 16X with their 22mp backs, the result is softer than what they get when they do 4x with the same backs… Clearly they are doing something wrong and although there is no vibration detection from software, they do have vibration "within the error limits" of the software… 16X result should be unbelievable… With a 6micron back, I expect the 16x process (as Steven confirms) to be even more demanding…
PS: If 86H produces very comparable results for some when compared with 54H shot at 16x… I believe they are doing something wrong with their 54H… with 54h shot at 16x, you have much larger pixels and much more resolution, it easy to conclude that the result (if the process is done correctly) should be clearly better.
-
"6um"? :)
6 micrometer technology. Dalsa made 9um, 7.2um and then 6um. They exist in various sizes but if sensor share the same pixel size they have the same properties, but digital back surrounding electronics has meaning too in the performance of course.
The P40+, P65+, IQ160, IQ140, Credo 60, Credo 40, Aptus-II 8, Aptus-II 10 and these Sinar backs etc all share the Dalsa 6um technology.
-
6 micrometer technology. Dalsa made 9um, 7.2um and then 6um. They exist in various sizes but if sensor share the same pixel size they have the same properties, but digital back surrounding electronics has meaning too in the performance of course.
The P40+, P65+, IQ160, IQ140, Credo 60, Credo 40, Aptus-II 8, Aptus-II 10 and these Sinar backs etc all share the Dalsa 6um technology.
Don't think on "single-shot" terms… there is no interpolated colour processing with MS, so "colour processing" is not depended on software or processor advance as it does with single-shot.
-
Actually the sensor is the same as the P65+/IQ160/260, only cropped down to 36x48mm and 48mp.
IQ260 is slightly different as far as I understand, but yes otherwise the same. It's the 48x36mm crop size I'm missing in a normal non-tethered back. I think 48x36/48 megapixel is a very good tradeoff for field work with a tech cam, a full-frame 60 megapixel is more expensive and I think it's a less good tradeoff concerning movements. Only the CFV-50 with the Kodak 49x37 50 megapixel sensor has this desirable tradeoff in a standalone back.
-
Steve,
Maybe you know - do these Sinar Xact backs come in either the Rollei 6008 or Hy6 mounts?
I've compared quite carefully my Leaf AFi-ii 12 (80mp) vs the CF 528 (22mp) in 16 shot mode on some art reproduction work of priceless paintings (which I can't share) using the same exact lens the Rollei Schneider 90mm APO Macro and the results are quite close - so close the processing makes the difference - but you have to use detail recovery software on the Leaf to have it match the CF 528. Interestingly, when you apply the same recovery software on the 528 files you can't pull up the same gains, probably because it was so much better to start with. The 528 has more DR than the Leaf in multishot mode and probably better color detail, but its possible that more accurate larger color could be coming from the Leaf. The multishot just picks up subtle details the single shots can not. Even with the 22mp m/s back, the only contest the 80mp comes out clearly ahead is in workflow and ease of use.
I regularly use my CF 528 as a 'scanner' for negatives and for this work, the 4 shot or 16 shot modes are ideal. Compared to scanning the 16 shot mode isn't all that bad and I prefer the results to my 80mp back in this application as well. Occasionally the film grain messes up the multishot math in a few spots, so this is way more tedious than a single shot, but I do it because well I think this is an area where you see the difference.
I would expect the 48mp multishot back to produce some stunning files when used in the right application.
Eric, I know you are quite experienced with MS which is a "routine" process in your work, but I think that if you find resolution (just) comparable with am 80mp back, you may have something further to improve in the set up… It's not enough to have "no error detected" (i.e. a successful process with "flexcolor") to get the maximum out of 16x, there is some performance latitude too, which the software cannot detect.
-
90% (unless the distance to subject is limited by factors that one cannot overcome, I use the Zeiss 120macro APO at f11 or f8 on Contax 645…
Interesting. I have a Contax and the 120 apo, but have never tested it with the 54H.
Except for the right adapter for the back, what else do I need?
Just a sync-cable from the lens to the back?
-
Interesting. I have a Contax and the 120 apo, but have never tested it with the 54H.
Except for the right adapter for the back, what else do I need?
Just a sync-cable from the lens to the back?
I have never used 54H with the Contax either… the back that I use is the same as Eric - the Imacon 528c - which I assume it is equal to 54H, since they are using the same sensor, both do 4x and 16x captures and they address to the same use (other than that the 528c is also able for untethered single shots like other single shot backs at the time (P25, Aptus 22, …etc)). But… I do have the 54H adapter for use with the Contax (I am planning to add a back up for my Imacon) and having the Imacon, I can tell you how it works with the Contax… So…, you obviously need a FW cable to connect the back with a computer (obviously I can only advise on the FW version of the back) and you need an extra cable (it's included with the adapter plate) so that the back fires the camera's focal plane shutter (it is plagued in the remote release prong socket of the Contax) for multishot, since Contax doesn't have this communication provision included among the CPU contacts with the back… that's all you need (nothing but the FW connection if you find a complete adapter kit as it was produced from Sinar). It is also the same with my Fuji GX680, you need a dedicated cable which plagues in the Fuji's multi-pin remote release socket, so that the back can direct the (this time leaf) shutter to perform the 4x or the 16x sequence.
-
From what I hear, there are people that although they have a successful process when they do 16X with their 22mp backs, the result is softer than what they get when they do 4x with the same backs… C
I've never heard that and it isn't my experience. I more reliably get 4 shot captures than 16 shot, but when it's working the 16 shot has twice the linear pixels (4 times the resolution) so its no way going to be softer.
I've got the CF version of the 528 so it can store directly to the CF card. What I've never understood is why I couldn't do a multishot untethered and have it do the processing later. This would be on my wish list for MS backs.
-
From what I hear, there are people that although they have a successful process when they do 16X with their 22mp backs, the result is softer than what they get when they do 4x with the same backs… Clearly they are doing something wrong and although there is no vibration detection from software, they do have vibration "within the error limits" of the software… 16X result should be unbelievable… With a 6micron back, I expect the 16x process (as Steven confirms) to be even more demanding…
PS: If 86H produces very comparable results for some when compared with 54H shot at 16x… I believe they are doing something wrong with their 54H… with 54h shot at 16x, you have much larger pixels and much more resolution, it easy to conclude that the result (if the process is done correctly) should be clearly better.
I've never heard that and it isn't my experience. I more reliably get 4 shot captures than 16 shot, but when it's working the 16 shot has twice the linear pixels (4 times the resolution) so its no way going to be softer.
I've got the CF version of the 528 so it can store directly to the CF card. What I've never understood is why I couldn't do a multishot untethered and have it do the processing later. This would be on my wish list for MS backs.
I believe part of this perception comes from (at least my impression) that there is more algorithmic sharpening applied (whether it shows in the sharpening tool or not) on the Hasselblad 16 shot capture vs the Sinar 16 shot capture).
The multi-shot capture cannot be produced without tethering to the computer because the digital back lacks the processing capability - the infrastructure of the digital back would need a significant boost to perform this in camera.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
With painting reproduction, I only do 16x no matter the size of the painting… I have 100% success with all my shots, no matter if it is the Contax or the Fuji-GX680 the camera I use… for me, multishot is nothing more than what a long (longish) exposure would be, With the Fuji, I get pink cast at speeds lower than 1/2 a second, so that is the lower I use, with the Contax, I can use shutter as low as 8" (all the way) for all continuous shots… but it took a lot of head scratching to achieve all that… I have to say once more that many people think that they are doing successful 16X because they see an impressive result... but what they don't realise, is that there is some "error tolerance" which makes the outcome (although impressive) much softer than what it would be if it was perfect... Comparing 16X with an 80mp back (only for sharpness - there is no comparison for colour) is a good way to find out how successfully the process was performed… if the result is comparable, the process can be improved further… when a 16x shot is perfect, there should be a clear difference from any single shot back of 80mp count, a difference that would be as obvious as it can be… Perfect 16x with a 22mp back, can beat a Cruse scanner for a painting of more than a square meter size….
-
Can you give a few hints what you work with in your setup to keep it all steady?
Mirror up
Heavy tripod
Steady floor (is it possible on a wooden floor you think?)
And what else? Do you use a gyro or other things to keep it all steady?
-
Can you give a few hints what you work with in your setup to keep it all steady?
Mirror up
Heavy tripod
Steady floor (is it possible on a wooden floor you think?)
And what else? Do you use a gyro or other things to keep it all steady?
Mirror-up is not possible with either the Contax or the Fuji… with the Contax, one may use tape to lock it up after he has set things up… with the Fuji, I've applied some rubber damping behind the mirror frame for the mirror return position and on the corners of the mirror for the mirror up position, the most important part though is the tripod… (for accurate focusing one must learn to use the awful "live video" function).
One has to understand that sturdy tripod is not enough for correct multishot… you see, the problem is not the same as in long exposure with single shot… What one needs for "multi", is a tripod (not a stand) that has as fast mechanical earthing design as possible, in other words, a tripod that "sucks" mechanical energy from the camera and earths it at light speed and additionally, it prevents (blocks) energy from the environment to enter the system... I use a 45 years old tripod made for professional cinema capture… (the maker is Fatif of Italy). If you think about it, with cinema there is the same problem (even more demanding) since what you have there, is continuous shots at a fast frame rate of a constant scene… Both my Manfrottos (the top models and heaviest duty head) are great for long single shot, but completely useless for multishot, same thing with other modern great tripods that are great for long single shots.
-
Normally I have no trouble doing 16shots with my profoto strobes, however once I used some big flat daylight fluorescent light panels which messed it up and only four shot was possible. Vibration is usually not an issue, but once in a gallery the owner kept walking right up to the base of the tripod on the old wooden floor boards and that caused it to hiccup.
-
Normally I have no trouble doing 16shots with my profoto strobes, however once I used some big flat daylight fluorescent light panels which messed it up and only four shot was possible. Vibration is usually not an issue, but once in a gallery the owner kept walking right up to the base of the tripod on the old wooden floor boards and that caused it to hiccup.
What we were discussing Eric, is not how to have the capture done (that's not difficult to achieve), but rather how one can maximise the result… May I suggest a test? May you borrow a 4-5000 USD professional cinema (Holywood level) tripod and try it against a good quality 500 USD tripod? ….see if anything is improved with the cinema standard one? I bet you my hat, you'll be surprised! The difference can be a world apart… yet in both cases one will not get a "movement detected - image quality may be affected" signal from Flexcolor….
-
So the tripod you are using is something like Sachtler with a fluid video-head?
In carbone fiber?
-
Normally I have no trouble doing 16shots with my profoto strobes, however once I used some big flat daylight fluorescent light panels which messed it up and only four shot was possible. Vibration is usually not an issue, but once in a gallery the owner kept walking right up to the base of the tripod on the old wooden floor boards and that caused it to hiccup.
Hi Eric!
So the light panels did not work for 16 shots?
Maybe the flash is better because it freezes the object better? Or shouldn't
that be important in stills?
I ask because the last days I have been testing a setup with 16 shots, Sinar and a light panel.
I am not happy by the results, but I thought that might be my wooden floor.
So maybe it's just the wrong light...
-
Put a glass tumbler nearly filled with water on your floor and see if the surface of the water is calm or shows movement. This simple test can be an eye opener.
I am not sure 16-shot is possible on wooden floors. My 16-shot images have always been on cement floors using a big studio stand or a Gitzo Studex Giant with a sandbag around each leg.
-
So the tripod you are using is something like Sachtler with a fluid video-head?
In carbone fiber?
My point doesn't have to do with the tripod maker or the materials used, but rather to the fact that the additional equipment (the tripod for example) that is needed to maximise the result, has been designed having other uses in mind... With MS one has energy production repeatedly in the system, as long as the process lasts, while in a long exposure single shot capture, you only have energy produced once… So, since there is no dedicated tripod designed for MS, one has to test as many different solutions as possible and find out which maximises the result. In other words, it's the system as a whole that has to be perfect to maximise the result, which of course means that having the appropriate MFDB and a great lens, it isn't enough.
Now, going back on to the O/P requirement of e-Xact performance, I suspect (I haven't tried it) that if one manages to have a perfect process with it, the result should be jaw dropping, but if one is already using a 54H (for example) and hasn't maximised the performance of his system, by just replacing his 54H with the much more demanding e-Xact, he may multiply the errors that he already has and end up with inferior results than if he would stay with his 54H… just my two cents.
-
Would it be possible to see a pic of the tripod you use?
-
Would it be possible to see a pic of the tripod you use?
Sure… :D what are friends for? ;)
(http://)
-
Thanks a lot!
I also see you have a nice and steady floor😉
-
So, studio stands like Foba (http://www.foba.ch/eng/programm/programm.htm) should be the best solution for MS backs?
-
Thanks a lot!
I also see you have a nice and steady floor😉
Yeah… but 90% of the time I work on location under the worst circumstances… My specialty is to create files from huge wall paintings in ancient Byzantine monasteries where one works with a power generator and has to carry equipment and lighting for several hundred meters. :'( But I have to admit, painting reproduction is quite profitable… :)
-
So, studio stands like Foba (http://www.foba.ch/eng/programm/programm.htm) should be the best solution for MS backs?
It should be OK for studio use, but MO still is that a tripod that acts as an "one way energy accelerator" (from camera to whatever "earthing") and that blocks energy from entering the system, would give the best results… Of course, there should be experimenting with different tripods since there is no specification of such a characteristic… but be prepared for surprises on the matter and its importance.
-
I understand, great info, thanks! And I just read that you work a lot on location, so I guess Foba is not an option for you.
-
What about using large soft rubber blocks undr each leg of the tripod and weighten the tripod down
with a heavy weight (like 10 kilos)?
-
What about using large soft rubber blocks undr each leg of the tripod and weighten the tripod down
with a heavy weight (like 10 kilos)?
I wouldn't recommend rubber, perhaps sorbοthane? Rubber may create a change in systems height during the process and is not energy transparent (which you need to "earth" the system instead of "blocking" energy within the tripod's mass), give it a try! (but avoid rubber). Rubber is good to absorb a shock, so I use this on GX680 mirror, but is not transparent to energy when this is the requirement.
-
Hi Eric!
So the light panels did not work for 16 shots?
Maybe the flash is better because it freezes the object better? Or shouldn't
that be important in stills?
I ask because the last days I have been testing a setup with 16 shots, Sinar and a light panel.
I am not happy by the results, but I thought that might be my wooden floor.
So maybe it's just the wrong light...
Hi Henrik,
Yes in most cases I use strobes, but in one time I was working with another photographer who had some big light panels which were fluorescent and these didn't work for the 16 shot. My guess is because of the flicker and some inconsistency in output.
I have no problem with my profoto strobes ever and I've even used two metz 60 CT-4 (old handle flash) packs many times.
T. Dascalos
I can leave my Rollei 6008AF just sitting on the table and shoot success micro step shots so it's normally not a tripod issue since the Rolleiflex doesn't shake at all - leaf shutter lenses and mirror up the whole time.
But it doesn't matter if you have an amazing tripod if the floor will sag when someone heavy walks on it. This will cause one leg to go lower.
-
Hi Henrik,
Yes in most cases I use strobes, but in one time I was working with another photographer who had some big light panels which were fluorescent and these didn't work for the 16 shot. My guess is because of the flicker and some inconsistency in output.
I have no problem with my profoto strobes ever and I've even used two metz 60 CT-4 (old handle flash) packs many times.
T. Dascalos
I can leave my Rollei 6008AF just sitting on the table and shoot success micro step shots so it's normally not a tripod issue since the Rolleiflex doesn't shake at all - leaf shutter lenses and mirror up the whole time.
But it doesn't matter if you have an amazing tripod if the floor will sag when someone heavy walks on it. This will cause one leg to go lower.
I never said that one can't do micro step with the camera sat on a table Eric, what I suggested is next to the table's (or the tripod) successful shot, to try another using a tripod made for professional cinema… see if there is any difference… By the way, I also use fluorescent lighting… 12 x CRI 97 Dulux L valves (5500K) in two pairs of six to be exact...
-
I have a FOBA studio stand in my studio. I can't really recall seeing anything noticeable between that and my Gitzo. Do you see big differences? What camera?
-
I have a FOBA studio stand in my studio. I can't really recall seeing anything noticeable between that and my Gitzo. Do you see big differences? What camera?
You really don't read previous posts, do you Eric? :)
-
I've never heard that and it isn't my experience. I more reliably get 4 shot captures than 16 shot, but when it's working the 16 shot has twice the linear pixels (4 times the resolution) so its no way going to be softer.
I've got the CF version of the 528 so it can store directly to the CF card. What I've never understood is why I couldn't do a multishot untethered and have it do the processing later. This would be on my wish list for MS backs.
Eric, is the CF 528 with a CF card slot? I thought it was with external Image back exactly like Imacon 528c… I thought that only the later CF-22MS was CF card capable… Can you share a picture of it with the CF card slot evident? Thanks in advance.
-
Yes, the CF 528 has a CF card slot and doesn't need an image bank. Not sure how common they were but they certainly exist. They look a lot like the CF 22 and CF 39ms backs. I had a 528c before this one - its much nicer to not need the image bank. Actually I also had a CF-ii 39MS as well. Everytime I sell my multishot back, I regret it and buy another one.
-
Yes, the CF 528 has a CF card slot and doesn't need an image bank. Not sure how common they were but they certainly exist. They look a lot like the CF 22 and CF 39ms backs. I had a 528c before this one - its much nicer to not need the image bank. Actually I also had a CF-ii 39MS as well. Everytime I sell my multishot back, I regret it and buy another one.
This is only a nomenclature issue. Typically, the 528 is associated with the ImageBank, while the CF was (obviously) a CF Card-based solution. There may have been some early CF-based units that were still referred to as 528 (as in CF-528), etc. Early on, Imacon referred to digital backs by megabyte count (in 16 bit terms, of course!) and later in megapixel count.
If your multi-shot back has a CF Slot in it, then o course, it is from the CF Series, regardless of the name, if it has an ImageBank hanging off it, then it is the previous generation.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Yes, the CF 528 has a CF card slot and doesn't need an image bank. Not sure how common they were but they certainly exist. They look a lot like the CF 22 and CF 39ms backs. I had a 528c before this one - its much nicer to not need the image bank. Actually I also had a CF-ii 39MS as well. Everytime I sell my multishot back, I regret it and buy another one.
Hi Eric!
I just saw a CF 39 ms for sale. How is this back compared to the 22 ms?
I know it is not able to shoot 16 shots, but is it any better than the 22 in 4-shots?
Henrik
-
Hi Eric!
I just saw a CF 39 ms for sale. How is this back compared to the 22 ms?
I know it is not able to shoot 16 shots, but is it any better than the 22 in 4-shots?
Henrik
I think that Eric will verify, that both backs shot at 4x are very close with 39ms having a slight edge with subject magnitude and depending on the lens ability (the better the lens the more evident the difference but never a "big" difference)… Mind you that there is no moire chance when in 4x MS... Also, 22mp may be preferable in the rare case where a WA may be used. For paintings of up to 60x80cm size, I wouldn't care which one to prefer… 16X MS is much superior to both… and the best possible image one can get (eXact excluded - luck of experience with it) if done correctly.
-
Henrik,
That's a good question. The CF39MS and CF-ii 39MS have a nicer screen! ::) Just kidding but the CF39MS 4 shot file is quite good, but the improvements besides resolution really were with higher ISO single shot files. For much work the higher resolution 4 shot file is really great and a much faster workflow. I might like the color better on the 39 as well but it's close. For resolution the 528 in micro step is hard to beat.