Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Quentin on September 01, 2014, 11:06:43 am
-
Dear All
I am considering what the best options might be for using my Hassy H5D 200MS back on a technical camera in the field (i.e. not the studio). I will need tilt, shift and some stitching capability.
I have tried and failed to grapple with the HTS 1.5. Therefore, disregard this a an option, because I will not use it.
Hasselblad have published their own paper on tech cam / digital lens compatibility, and I link their note (in PDF format) to this message.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/TechCameraConectivity-12.pdf (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/TechCameraConectivity-12.pdf)
My requirements are
1. Minimum weight. This is for backpacking.
2. To use multishot, I appreciate i will have to shoot in to Phocus - which means carrying a lightweight laptop around with me. That is not an issue per se.
Any thoughts, or better still, actual user experience with a similar setup? What is the best solution? I am liaising with Hassy UK, where I am based.
I am familiar with all the obvious stuff; my concerns are to choose the right path - minimum weight, high quality, relevant movements, easy of use. Within reason, price is not an issue. I note Rodenstock and Schneider use different systems for their lenses to synchronise the digital back and lens. I am not familar with their latest generation digital LF lenses, so this is an area where input would be appreciated. Wide angle only.
Quentin
-
“in the field” ? i have used a multishot back on a camera stand (not a tripod) and have had jaggies on edges and a failed capture when somebody has walked across the studio, lorry has gone past or the light output has changed slightly due to heads/packs set on low power.
i’m wondering how you are going to capture anything “in the field” without errors/movement?
-
This back should very well with tech lenses, as I believe it has no micro lenses.
Your wide selection, 35XL Schneider 43XL Schneider or 40 HR-W Rodenstock, 32 HR-W Rodenstock.
Schneider 35XL is much lighter, needs a physical CF, and may have limited shift issues. On a 60MP back Dalsa the 35XL is pretty limited to 8mm or so of Shift. You can easily get 15mm of shift with either of the Rodenstocks (40mm or 32mm), however it comes at a price, as the 40mm is around 6K mounted in Arca or Cambo and the 32mm approaches 9.5K mounted. All 3 have 90mm image circles. The 43XL can get to about 12mm of shift at F11 and I feel it also benefits from a physical CF.
The wider 23 HR and 28 HR Rodenstocks are excellent optics, but have only 70mm image circles so shifting is very limited to around 5mm or so. May be a bit more rise/fall.
Medium range, the Schneider 60XL is an excellent all round lens, very sharp and can shift to 25mm or so, maybe more on the 200MS. Larger IC at 110mm and again not very heavy. The Rodenstock 70mm in the series with the 40mm is also very good.
Longer Range
90mm Rodenstock HR-SW (has a yellow band around lens) their best in class, hard to find and again in the 8K range mounted, but tack sharp. I have briefly shot with one and it is impressive. This version requires a back extension which the 90 HR-W and 90HR don't need. I have the 90mm HR and for my needs it's very good. It has a very persistent flare problem that can ruin a great series of shots and you really have to look for it during your shooting. This flare can easily happen with the sun at your back which is surprising to me. Supposedly the newer HR-W is better on this issue and the HR-SW even more.
100mm Schenider, supposedly did ship, but huge order seemed to go to China so supply is tight. And have not seen much about this lens in reviews and if it's still shipping. What I did read about it was small like the 120mm and large image circle. I still am considering it to replace my 90mm HR both for weight and the flare issues.
120mm Schenider, Apo Digitar F5.6 not the older version. This lens is excellent and can be used for some macro work (it's not the dedicated macro lens). It's very small in weight, but does need the back extension.
There are also 150mm lenses out there, but to me the issues with them on a tech setup outweight the cost, as focus can be tedious.
Congratulations on the 200MS
Paul
-
Are you planning to use an electronic shutter?
-
It is very possible to use multi-shot in the field. Beyond the base consideration that there must be absolutely no camera movement there are a few basic shooting and post techniques that are required to ensure there are no effects of movement in the final image. It takes some extra time but the difference in the detail is well with the effort.
Using an electronic shutter system I think would be a must to remove any chance of camera movement and to speed up the multi-shot process.
-
Dear All
I am considering what the best options might be for using my Hassy H5D 200MS back on a technical camera in the field (i.e. not the studio). I will need tilt, shift and some stitching capability.
I have tried and failed to grapple with the HTS 1.5. Therefore, disregard this a an option, because I will not use it.
Hasselblad have published their own paper on tech cam / digital lens compatibility, and I link their note (in PDF format) to this message.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/TechCameraConectivity-12.pdf (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/TechCameraConectivity-12.pdf)
My requirements are
1. Minimum weight. This is for backpacking.
2. To use multishot, I appreciate i will have to shoot in to Phocus - which means carrying a lightweight laptop around with me. That is not an issue per se.
Any thoughts, or better still, actual user experience with a similar setup? What is the best solution? I am liaising with Hassy UK, where I am based.
I am familiar with all the obvious stuff; my concerns are to choose the right path - minimum weight, high quality, relevant movements, easy of use. Within reason, price is not an issue. I note Rodenstock and Schneider use different systems for their lenses to synchronise the digital back and lens. I am not familar with their latest generation digital LF lenses, so this is an area where input would be appreciated. Wide angle only.
Quentin
Use MS in the field? :D ....forget it! :'( MS is for completely steady conditions... not leaf movements, nor grass movements neither for curtain movements. :-*
-
It is very possible to use multi-shot in the field. Beyond the base consideration that there must be absolutely no camera movement there are a few basic shooting and post techniques that are required to ensure there are no effects of movement in the final image. It takes some extra time but the difference in the detail is well with the effort.
Using an electronic shutter system I think would be a must to remove any chance of camera movement and to speed up the multi-shot process.
Sure! ;D ...have you done it Brent? ..or is there another you know that has? :P If you have may we see the results? ;D
-
In the field to me the biggest issue is just simple subject movement, unless it's rock. Leaves or grass or any plant will almost always have a bit of movement. I guess you could use the back in a single shot mode. Still have 50MP.
It would be interesting to see water movement and how that works.
With your tech lenses, most will default to a copol 0 shutter, which could cause some movement, just in the process of re-cocking the shutter. However there seem to be electronic shutters from Schneider and others out there. Major limitation is shutter speeds they can offer and the fact they require a PC currently to fire them. I keep reading rumors of a newer line of shutters that will use a USB dongle or similar to fire and have a lot more range in available shutter speeds.
Hopefully Cambo and Acra can come up with a solution similar to the FPS from Alpa.
The FPS (if you can handle the cost) is impressive as you can use 35mm lenses or tech lenses. Lots of good info out there on the web on usage of the Canon TS-E 17mm and 24mm with the FPS and the IQ250, starting at the Alpa website.
Paul
-
It is very possible to use multi-shot in the field. Beyond the base consideration that there must be absolutely no camera movement there are a few basic shooting and post techniques that are required to ensure there are no effects of movement in the final image. It takes some extra time but the difference in the detail is well with the effort.
Using an electronic shutter system I think would be a must to remove any chance of camera movement and to speed up the multi-shot process.
But nothing must move. So a cloudless sky on an absolutely still windless day, while I appreciate these conditions can and do exist they are quite rare.
-
Thanks for the replies so far. Please take it as read that I am fully aware of the issues and limitations in using a multishot camera in the field. I have used scan backs outside a studio environment and I have already used the 200MS for interiors in the same situation. As Brent says, is is possible to use Muti shot in the field, albeit in limited circumstances.
Where multi-shot is not possible, then I will, of course, use single shot. The point is I have the option of using multi shot when it is possible to do so, but in order to do so, I will need connection to a laptop with Phocus software running.
I will also be using a digital lens.
What I am really looking for are users of H series backs on techical cameras with a digital lens. The Hassy paper I linked to sets out some options - any thoughts on which is best?
-
Yes I have utilized multi-shot in the field. Many times. With a 528C , H3Dll 39ms, and H3Dll 50ms , but only in 4 shot mode. Both with the H body and an Arca M-Line 6x9 with Rollei shutters. There is a well known landscape photographer (cannot recall his name) based in Australia that shoots a H4Dll 200ms using multi-shot. So it is being done successfully. It is actually simpler than doing the shift and stitching techniques that many on LuLu use.
That 1 shot & 4 shot Hasselblad captures will basically match exactly if processed the same is what makes this work. It was easier with a 528C as the 2 types of files matched up exactly pixel position wise in post. From the H3Dll series the single and multi do not match up exactly pixel position wise. They have to be manually lined up, but 3 clicks on the keyboard in post at 200% is no big deal.
The wind movement effects on grass, leaves, and such is very easy to deal with. Quickly changing light sadly is something that cannot be dealt with, as it is with stitching. The detail in hard non moving things such as stone, brick, pavement, tree trunks and such is simply worth the extra bit of effort & time. In some cases I think that this multi-shot technique could give a better end result than a larger file obtained by shifting/stitching as the fine detail from a multi-shot capture is greater than a single shot.
It is simple. When shooting you shoot 1 and 4 shot matching pairs. One right after the other with matching f-stop and shutter speed. Process the images at the same process settings. In PS layer the 1 shot on top of the 4 shot and match up the images. 528C image layers will line up pixel to pixel. H3Dll or newer require a few clicks at 200% to line up. Apply a black mask to the 1 shot layer. Check the multi shot layer at 200% for movement effect patterns. Brush the 1 shot layer over the movement effected areas of the multi shot. Depending on the images and amount of area effected by movement you can bush the wanted multi-shot detail into a 1 shot image.
-
If you plan on using electronic shutters you should check which tech cameras focusing systems will work with electronic shutters. That may shorten the list of possibilities.
-
If you don't use it already difference mode on the 4shot layer at 100% will instantly show you the areas that have moved and need the single shot brushed through and is a quicker/easier way of aligning layers.
-
Yes I have utilized multi-shot in the field. Many times. With a 528C , H3Dll 39ms, and H3Dll 50ms , but only in 4 shot mode. Both with the H body and an Arca M-Line 6x9 with Rollei shutters. There is a well known landscape photographer (cannot recall his name) based in Australia that shoots a H4Dll 200ms using multi-shot. So it is being done successfully. It is actually simpler than doing the shift and stitching techniques that many on LuLu use.
That 1 shot & 4 shot Hasselblad captures will basically match exactly if processed the same is what makes this work. It was easier with a 528C as the 2 types of files matched up exactly pixel position wise in post. From the H3Dll series the single and multi do not match up exactly pixel position wise. They have to be manually lined up, but 3 clicks on the keyboard in post at 200% is no big deal.
The wind movement effects on grass, leaves, and such is very easy to deal with. Quickly changing light sadly is something that cannot be dealt with, as it is with stitching. The detail in hard non moving things such as stone, brick, pavement, tree trunks and such is simply worth the extra bit of effort & time. In some cases I think that this multi-shot technique could give a better end result than a larger file obtained by shifting/stitching as the fine detail from a multi-shot capture is greater than a single shot.
It is simple. When shooting you shoot 1 and 4 shot matching pairs. One right after the other with matching f-stop and shutter speed. Process the images at the same process settings. In PS layer the 1 shot on top of the 4 shot and match up the images. 528C image layers will line up pixel to pixel. H3Dll or newer require a few clicks at 200% to line up. Apply a black mask to the 1 shot layer. Check the multi shot layer at 200% for movement effect patterns. Brush the 1 shot layer over the movement effected areas of the multi shot. Depending on the images and amount of area effected by movement you can bush the wanted multi-shot detail into a 1 shot image.
Can we see some of the results Brent ? ;D ...I use the 528c on a daily basis... Thomas and Theodoros both start with TH... ;)
-
I call Gurski! ... "man you are fool not to use MS in the field!" ...you are soon about to be beaten! ;D
-
Yes the difference layer mode is great in lining up the two layers. The difference layer mode also helps find movement pixel areas quickly but I like to go back to normal mode to better see the effects when brushing/blending the two layers together. It is a quick process.
It is important to make sure the 1 & 4 shot images to be mixed were shot at the same f-stop.
I worked out the exact layer shift amount using test shots of a lens chart set and have it noted down. I think the multi file is a couple pixels wider and a pixel higher. We talked to Hasselblad about doing something in the processing, or providing an exact script but it was not worth their time. No idea why they could not make it match the 1 shot in the processing, besides the loss of a few pixels out of 200mpx.
I shot some auto parts still life images with a 5Dll a little while ago. I am so used to the non anti aliasing of multi-shot that all the multi coloured pixel/speckle like anti aliasing of the details freaked me out. Then it dawned on me that was just what 35mm digital looked like.
Theordoros. I would have to search hard drives for a good sample. PM and I will arrange to let you look at something. Putting a LR jpeg up on here shows nothing.
-
Clearly my mistake was to mention multi shot, as that subject has somewhat taken over this thread... ;D
If anyone can read the Hassy PDF I linked to in my first message and comment on that and their experiences if any on the use of an H back with at tech cam light enough to use for location photography, that would be very helpful.
Mutishot is fascinating, but its not the primary point of this thread.
-
I call Gurski! ... "man you are fool not to use MS in the field!" ...you are soon about to be beaten! ;D
A camera is just tool. Pick the best tool for the specific job. Big hammer .....little hammer ......... makes no difference if you cannot hit the nail!
-
A camera is just tool. Pick the best tool for the specific job. Big hammer .....little hammer ......... makes no difference if you cannot hit the nail!
Yeah... but here its "calling" not "picking"! :D ...now where is Gursky? (so that we can talk about "picking"? ::)
-
What focal lengths are you looking to use, and how much tilt/swing/shift are you looking to accomplish?
Did you dig into what Silvestri offers, has their Flexicam may be what you're looking for... http://www.silvestricamera.com/eng/prodotti_eng/Flexicam/Flexicam_eng.htm
-
Yes the difference layer mode is great in lining up the two layers. The difference layer mode also helps find movement pixel areas quickly but I like to go back to normal mode to better see the effects when brushing/blending the two layers together. It is a quick process.
It is important to make sure the 1 & 4 shot images to be mixed were shot at the same f-stop.
I worked out the exact layer shift amount using test shots of a lens chart set and have it noted down. I think the multi file is a couple pixels wider and a pixel higher. We talked to Hasselblad about doing something in the processing, or providing an exact script but it was not worth their time. No idea why they could not make it match the 1 shot in the processing, besides the loss of a few pixels out of 200mpx.
I shot some auto parts still life images with a 5Dll a little while ago. I am so used to the non anti aliasing of multi-shot that all the multi coloured pixel/speckle like anti aliasing of the details freaked me out. Then it dawned on me that was just what 35mm digital looked like.
Theordoros. I would have to search hard drives for a good sample. PM and I will arrange to let you look at something. Putting a LR jpeg up on here shows nothing.
What is the "difference layer mode"? ...what are the two layers? ...layers of what? ...you don't have layers (and you don't have two) in MS... you have true colour capturing in each and every one of the pixels because all RGB colour emission of a space in the scene is captured at the same place! :'(
If can't show us examples for MS done in the field you can't claim it can be done! ...pigs don't fly! ;D
-
What focal lengths are you looking to use, and how much tilt/swing/shift are you looking to accomplish?
Did you dig into what Silvestri offers, has their Flexicam may be what you're looking for... http://www.silvestricamera.com/eng/prodotti_eng/Flexicam/Flexicam_eng.htm
Hi Joe
No I had not, thanks for the link, looks interesting.
Wide angle, but not extreme. Reasonable degree of tilt/shift.
-
Clearly my mistake was to mention multi shot, as that subject has somewhat taken over this thread... ;D
If anyone can read the Hassy PDF I linked to in my first message and comment on that and their experiences if any on the use of an H back with at tech cam light enough to use for location photography, that would be very helpful.
Mutishot is fascinating, but its not the primary point of this thread.
Yes Quentin the discussion has gone off track.
To have the option to do multishot with a tech camera you seriously have to consider electronic shutters. Trying to hand cock a mechanical shutter again & again is crazy. The type of shutter you require may become a consideration in your choice of tech camera. I have yet to see a pic of a tech camera utilizing electronic shutters. Possible or not? You will most likely have to talk directly to the camera manufactures. I know that Martin (head guy) at Arca will talk directly to you.
With electronic shutters there are presently 2 choices. Rollei or Schneider. There are big differences between the two that could be important to you. The Schneider shutters only go to 1/125th. The Rollei goes to 1/500th, and the upcoming version to 1/100th. The Rollei shutter circumference is larger than the Schneider. Both controllers are about the same size. A big consideration was that the Rollei worked seamlessly through Phocus when tethered. I think both now do but best to check.
I hope that info is more useful to you.
-
Hi Brent
Thanks. The Hasselblad guide PDF is quite useful. I have been working on the assumption that I will use Rollei digital lenses. There is no way an old style mechanical shutter would make any sense. Great in the days of film, but there are issues achieving acceptable synchronisation with Hasselblad backs, I am told.
I guess what I was hoping for when I started this thread was someone to come forward who was already using a system successfully and could set out the pros and cons from his or her direct experience. Nothing beats hands on experience, particularly given the high value of the kit under discussion!
The flexcam option also looks interesting.
Will have a chat with a few dealers and with Hasselblad.
Cheers.
-
Sorry Quentin but I feel I should make a last reply to Theodoros to clear a few things up.
Theodoros. We were talking about blending final processed 1 and 4 shot files together in Photoshop (PS) to eliminate any movement pixel artifacts in the multishot file. The layers referred to are PS layers of a image in post production. Difference is a layer blending mode in PS.
I offered to have you private message me so I could arrange for you to see a PS file of how this works. Complete with separate 1 & 4 shot images set in layers. That is the only way for you to see it how it works. I am not going to publicly post my work in progress layered files here. I have nothing to prove here. If such an offer is not good enough for you so be it.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
-
Hi Brent
Thanks. The Hasselblad guide PDF is quite useful. I have been working on the assumption that I will use Rollei digital lenses. There is no way an old style mechanical shutter would make any sense. Great in the days of film, but there are issues achieving acceptable synchronisation with Hasselblad backs, I am told.
I guess what I was hoping for when I started this thread was someone to come forward who was already using a system successfully and could set out the pros and cons from his or her direct experience. Nothing beats hands on experience, particularly given the high value of the kit under discussion!
The flexcam option also looks interesting.
Will have a chat with a few dealers and with Hasselblad.
Cheers.
I had hoped for the same thing when I when I was deciding the Arca M-line / Rollei kit.
Looking at the tech cameras on that PDF there are a few I have doubts that an electronic shutter would fit. The donut / puck of an electronic shutter is much bigger than a copal 0 shutter and it may not fit with some focusing systems. It would work on that Linhof tech and maybe the Arca.
Check with Rollei or Eric on here as to the donut size of the new Rollei shutter. It may be smaller. Max speed of 1/1000th and controlled from an app sounds nice, but an app and a phone are another thing to go wrong.
Cheers
Brent
-
Sorry Quentin but I feel I should make a last reply to Theodoros to clear a few things up.
Theodoros. We were talking about blending final processed 1 and 4 shot files together in Photoshop (PS) to eliminate any movement pixel artifacts in the multishot file. The layers referred to are PS layers of a image in post production. Difference is a layer blending mode in PS.
I offered to have you private message me so I could arrange for you to see a PS file of how this works. Complete with separate 1 & 4 shot images set in layers. That is the only way for you to see it how it works. I am not going to publicly post my work in progress layered files here. I have nothing to prove here. If such an offer is not good enough for you so be it.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
Do you mean to use single shot images in "stitching" processing as to "replace" the MS image that was (IYO) creating blur? ???
-
Sorry Quentin but I feel I should make a last reply to Theodoros to clear a few things up.
Theodoros. We were talking about blending final processed 1 and 4 shot files together in Photoshop (PS) to eliminate any movement pixel artifacts in the multishot file. The layers referred to are PS layers of a image in post production. Difference is a layer blending mode in PS.
I offered to have you private message me so I could arrange for you to see a PS file of how this works. Complete with separate 1 & 4 shot images set in layers. That is the only way for you to see it how it works. I am not going to publicly post my work in progress layered files here. I have nothing to prove here. If such an offer is not good enough for you so be it.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
+1
::) :P :-[ ??? 8) :o :( >:( ;D ;) 8) :o :( >:( ;D :D ;) :)
-
+1
::) :P :-[ ??? 8) :o :( >:( ;D ;) 8) :o :( >:( ;D :D ;) :)
+1 ... :-* very well supported! ;D
-
+1 ... :-* very well supported! ;D
Not really.
-
Theodoros. I think you are missing Enda's point. So to be clear. If you feel you have to insult people that are offering to provide you with some information I think it is best if you seek your answers from some other flying pig.
-
Theodoros. I think you are missing Enda's point. So to be clear. If you feel you have to insult people that are offering to provide you with some information I think it is best if you seek your answers from some other flying pig.
I don't know why you feel insulted, it was never my intention nor is my character to insult people. It's just that MS in the field for landscape, city scape, industrial and most of architecture can't be done. The problem is not your technique, it's physical problem that originates from the technology itself. After all it is not needed either, its purpose is different (here is where the expression "pigs can't fly" fits). OTOH, MO when a camera with moments is used is to use backs with larger pixels than 7μm, what one may do if higher resolution is needed is to use a longer lens with generous image circle and stitch multiple shots by moving his lens horizontally either side or both sides (or by moving the rear standard of his camera accordingly. Regards, Theodoros.
-
can't be done.
Well, Brent has described a technique that works. It's up to others to decide if it's too cumbersome or not. Some people have even used scanning backs for landscape, which is even more cumbersome and limiting concerning required shooting conditions. Personally I even find stitching too cumbersome to be enjoyable but yet it's a popular technique among many.
In any case it's up to the reader to decide, you can't just present your own opinion as some sort of fact, which of course becomes insulting to people that is using this technique successfully.
-
Quentin
Personally I would go with an Arca Swiss system. I have used a Cambo system before and it was great but the Arca is in another league. I personally use the RL3D but if weight is an issue than you can select from one of the other R series cameras. I prefer the RL3D because I use a lot of shift. I get up to 40mm rise for example which I have used. Another poster mentioned that the 200MS doesn't have micro lenses so therefore you have a much wider elections of lenses to choose from. I use the Schneider 28mm, 35mm, and 47mm and the Rodenstock 90mm HR Digaron-SW on a Hasselblad H3D back/ Cambo RL3D system.
The 28mm should work fine on the 200 MS (BUT DOUBLE CHECK WITH DEALERS). It has a huge image circle allowing a lot of movement, is tack sharp and minimal distortion. It is expensive but still much cheaper than the Rodie 32mm. The Rodie 40mm is another great lens I would go for. Again tack sharp and large image circle. The Schneider 60mm is supposed to be great and the Rodie 90mm is a fantastic lens. One of the sharpest out there. I do love my Schneider 35mm. It SHOULD work fine on the 200MS. It's the equivalent of a 24mm in 35mm format and is just a nice focal length for landscape and architecture
The cambo focusing ring (EDIT: Oops. Typo. I meant the Arca Swiss Focus Ring. :-[) is the most accurate on the market. Combined with the module you get ridiculous accuracy and is very quick and easy to use once it's calibrated. I love how I can remove the back to quickly change it to portrait or visa versa, without having to touch the tripod. I love how the lens is always fixed when shifting for easier stitching. I love how I have tilt built into the camera and not the lens (IE all lenses therefore will have tilt. No extra premium to pay) I love how I can remove the front plate of the camera to get swing instead of tilt and I love the viewfinder with zoom. Really great at determining quickly what lens to use.
BTW I would invest in the Arca Swiss Cube (or similar) Head. It will make your compositioning and leveling a doddle.
I do think you will be using single shot mode for the vast majority of the time if you are based in the UK but than again I do shoot multiple exposures most of the time on a regular back with foliage and the blending does look natural as long as it's relatively still. You and Bret know I'm sure how the it looks on an MS back and if you can get it right the quality would look astounding I'm sure. Good luck with your new system.
-
Well, Brent has described a technique that works. It's up to others to decide if it's too cumbersome or not. Some people have even used scanning backs for landscape, which is even more cumbersome and limiting concerning required shooting conditions. Personally I even find stitching too cumbersome to be enjoyable but yet it's a popular technique among many.
In any case it's up to the reader to decide, you can't just present your own opinion as some sort of fact, which of course becomes insulting to people that is using this technique successfully.
1. It doesn't work! ...It can't work right. If the process result is worst than "just shooting" with a traditional method, it doesn't mean that there are ways around what causes the worst result, it simply means that "pigs can't fly"! :D
For one to decide if it's cumbershot or not he first has to see if he is interested or not to invest in trying it... Those kind of info are the ones that one expects to read in forums... As a result, if one trusts a forum and reads that "pigs may fly", he may as well ride his pig and try to to see the world above the clouds riding it... That's not the purpose which those that share their passion for photography should be after! ;) Otherwise one shouldn't be taught things under lecturer supervision in universities, he should be left to "decide for himself" and just be given the degree! ::) After all, we are all told here without one presenting a result of the method.... (which I believe it doesn't exist) ;D
Scanning backs are different to multishot! Scanning backs don't fail if there is movement in the scene or the set up... They present it as distortion which in small volumes may be used as an effect... but again, that's a totally different subject than the topic here! ???
-
Okay let us end this "It Does Not Work" blah blah from Theodoros. Below is a link to a blog page where Les Walkling explains it better than I could. Complete with pics. Shooting 200 ms multishot images on location in the great outdoors. Les and I discussed this process and the miss matching file sizes after being put in touch by the then Australia Blad rep Colin Johnston.
I started doing this process in 2007 with a 528C when on a road trip. Just one of those try a "what would happen if" pie in the sky idea. Amazing stuff gets discovered that way. Take a chance beyond the excepted norm sometime. You might discover something brave, new and exciting. Like the world being round.
Hey Les. I hope you not mind me linking to your blog post in the interest of education.
http://www.leswalkling.com/tethering-the-h4d-200ms-in-the-field/
Theodoros. Please note that I post under my full real name. You can easily check if I am just a forum info spouter. I hope you enjoy Wes's blog post.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
-
Thanks, Enda, for your detailed and helpful reply. I had checked out MR's Arca Swiss Rm3D review on LuLa and it is a candidate. Lots more research and thinking to do!
cheers
Quentin
Personally I would go with an Arca Swiss system. I have used a Cambo system before and it was great but the Arca is in another league. I personally use the RL3D but if weight is an issue than you can select from one of the other R series cameras. I prefer the RL3D because I use a lot of shift. I get up to 40mm rise for example which I have used. Another poster mentioned that the 200MS doesn't have micro lenses so therefore you have a much wider elections of lenses to choose from. I use the Schneider 28mm, 35mm, and 47mm and the Rodenstock 90mm HR Digaron-SW on a Hasselblad H3D back/ Cambo RL3D system.
The 28mm should work fine on the 200 MS (BUT DOUBLE CHECK WITH DEALERS). It has a huge image circle allowing a lot of movement, is tack sharp and minimal distortion. It is expensive but still much cheaper than the Rodie 32mm. The Rodie 40mm is another great lens I would go for. Again tack sharp and large image circle. The Schneider 60mm is supposed to be great and the Rodie 90mm is a fantastic lens. One of the sharpest out there. I do love my Schneider 35mm. It SHOULD work fine on the 200MS. It's the equivalent of a 24mm in 35mm format and is just a nice focal length for landscape and architecture
The cambo focusing ring (EDIT: Oops. Typo. I meant the Arca Swiss Focus Ring. :-[) is the most accurate on the market. Combined with the module you get ridiculous accuracy and is very quick and easy to use once it's calibrated. I love how I can remove the back to quickly change it to portrait or visa versa, without having to touch the tripod. I love how the lens is always fixed when shifting for easier stitching. I love how I have tilt built into the camera and not the lens (IE all lenses therefore will have tilt. No extra premium to pay) I love how I can remove the front plate of the camera to get swing instead of tilt and I love the viewfinder with zoom. Really great at determining quickly what lens to use.
BTW I would invest in the Arca Swiss Cube (or similar) Head. It will make your compositioning and leveling a doddle.
I do think you will be using single shot mode for the vast majority of the time if you are based in the UK but than again I do shoot multiple exposures most of the time on a regular back with foliage and the blending does look natural as long as it's relatively still. You and Bret know I'm sure how the it looks on an MS back and if you can get it right the quality would look astounding I'm sure. Good luck with your new system.
-
Okay let us end this "It Does Not Work" blah blah from Theodoros. Below is a link to a blog page where Les Walkling explains it better than I could. Complete with pics. Shooting 200 ms multishot images on location in the great outdoors. Les and I discussed this process and the miss matching file sizes after being put in touch by the then Australia Blad rep Colin Johnston.
I started doing this process in 2007 with a 528C when on a road trip. Just one of those try a "what would happen if" pie in the sky idea. Amazing stuff gets discovered that way. Take a chance beyond the excepted norm sometime. You might discover something brave, new and exciting. Like the world being round.
Hey Les. I hope you not mind me linking to your blog post in the interest of education.
http://www.leswalkling.com/tethering-the-h4d-200ms-in-the-field/
Theodoros. Please note that I post under my full real name. You can easily check if I am just a forum info spouter. I hope you enjoy Wes's blog post.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
Brent, as a previous 528c owner (which is what I also use on a daily basis) you should know that 528c files are better than 200MS for the following reasons: A. 4X in 200MS is real colour but it is done with considerably smaller (about 45% area) pixels than with 528c. B. 528C is real colour/real resolution in 16x mode without any interpolation involved, while 200ms is real colour only if used as a 50ms (4x) and the rest up to 200ms is interpolating the 50ms result. Now given the fact that one stitches images, it would only require one or two more to be stitched for 528c to match the printing resolution with 528c, while the resolving power would be (a little) better with 528c due to no interpolation involved and much larger pixels. Anyway, the problem here is not whether one may have an image but rather if the image will be better if single shot +stiching would have been used instead.
I've done thousands of shots in 16x mode and I've come to the following conclusions: A. If there is a "motion detected" message from software the image may be still usable but analysis maybe worst that the same print done in the same size with single shot. B. There is a good margin of tolerance in the software where there is no message for "motion detection" but this doesn't mean that the process was done to its optimum.
The conclusion from the above is simply that when there is motion present, there may be cases that one may still end up with an image (either with or without "motion detection" message from software), but this doesn't mean that the image will be better than stitching single shot where one can be certain that he freezes things while with MS he can be certain for the opposite! Now if one adds to the equation the fact that there is no contribution to the image quality if colours are far more faithful with MS or not since post processing is done for the likes of the photographer, he may easily came in the conclusion "that neither pigs fly, nor they should be forced to try and fly!".
After all, if one is to experiment with such a process, why not use a scanning back as it was mentioned earlier? ...what the advantage of using an MS back would be? ...there isn't any! ...is there?
-
1. It doesn't work! ...It can't work right. If the process result is worst than "just shooting" with a traditional method, it doesn't mean that there are ways around what causes the worst result, it simply means that "pigs can't fly"! :D
Pig did fly (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95217).
Edmund
-
Pig did fly (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95217).
Edmund
Well, I was under the impression that planes used as a media don't count! ;D
-
Well, I was under the impression that planes used as a media don't count! ;D
I'm sowry, I feel gilty that I drifted off, hijacked, and hogged your flying pig thread, you must be bristling, I was impossibly boared, but I'll stop hamming it up now.
Edmund
-
I am sorry I had to make so many posts on the impossibility of using MS in the field. I have tried it my self when I first got my 528c and did the same as Brent suggests, shoot a single shot image along it and try to replace the parts that were obvious that have movement. The thing is, that you end up with an image that has no detail difference than if shot in single-shot, nor you get any colour benefit. It simply isn't the same as sooting an interior scene of a building where you have some windows with curtains and you only replace the window part... It's a total mesh what you get, there is practically blur spread all over the scene.
Back to the original question though, I would much agree with Edna's suggestion that a Monolith-2 or an Ultima would be the best choice with the lenses he suggested. However, my opinion still remains that both those cameras are better used with lower resolution backs with larger pixels, even if the lenses are capable to work with a 6μm pixel size back, there will still be better performance when movements are involved and more movement tolerance in addition.
OTOH, with the cost involved (especially of the monolith) and if MS is out of the question, why one should not consider adding the new Cambo Actus along with a Sony A7 to his system? He may then use Mamiya 645 Pro lenses (or some other MF of 6x6 image size) which are dirt cheap and because the lens mounts at larger distance from the image area there shouldn't be any problem with the small pixels of the 36mp sensor. Additionally, I suspect that the Samyang 24mm f3.5 P/C lens has enough image circle to solve the wider angle that one may need. Same should apply for the old Nikkors 35mm P/C & 28mm P/C which are very sharp lenses. Such a solution would add the valuable contribution of LV to the equation and would save much space and time, still giving superb results.
-
Okay let us end this "It Does Not Work" blah blah from Theodoros. Below is a link to a blog page where Les Walkling explains it better than I could. Complete with pics. Shooting 200 ms multishot images on location in the great outdoors. Les and I discussed this process and the miss matching file sizes after being put in touch by the then Australia Blad rep Colin Johnston.
I started doing this process in 2007 with a 528C when on a road trip. Just one of those try a "what would happen if" pie in the sky idea. Amazing stuff gets discovered that way. Take a chance beyond the excepted norm sometime. You might discover something brave, new and exciting. Like the world being round.
Hey Les. I hope you not mind me linking to your blog post in the interest of education.
http://www.leswalkling.com/tethering-the-h4d-200ms-in-the-field/
Theodoros. Please note that I post under my full real name. You can easily check if I am just a forum info spouter. I hope you enjoy Wes's blog post.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
Just to add another voice. I have been using a 384, 528, Jenoptik M22, CF39MS and with most of these I have one more than one occassion used the technique of making a single shot of a scene followed by a multishot and blending in the single shot on the parts that are not perfect in the multishot (indeed the cf39ms gave some issues with lining up).
I know more people that do the same thing. I am flabbergasted about someone dismissing it outright.
BTW, I bought my first V Ixpress adapter from you Brent. It served me well over the years :)
-
After all, if one is to experiment with such a process, why not use a scanning back as it was mentioned earlier? ...what the advantage of using an MS back would be? ...there isn't any! ...is there?
I have been using a Betterlight Super6K on (in?) a Linhof Master Technika in the field for several years. Although I'm not using it as recommended by the manufacturer (http://www.kasson.com/galleries/timescapes.php), I've subjected myself to the difficulties of field operation of a scanning back for some time. I also have a Hasselblad H2D-39 that I've used in the field for comparison, although it's not a multishot back.
The advantages that I see for the MS approach are:
Lower weight. The computer is a wash, but the Betterlight needs a 4x5 camera, while a Hassy back can use a smaller one. The lenses are smaller, too, for the same angle of view. The Betterlight back may not itself weigh much more than a Hassy back, but it needs the controller and a separate battery pack.
Fewer things to mess with in the field. No separate battery pack, no controller. No cables from the battery to the controller, or from the controller to the back.
You can make single shot images with the same gear. That's huge, IMHO.
I would think that the motion artifacts of the scanning back would be easier to deal with than the ones of the MS back, since the scan lines are usually separated by 1/300 second or so. Rapid motion can produce ugly false color artifacts with a scanning back. I don't know about that with an MS back.
Jim
-
I have been using a Betterlight Super6K on (in?) a Linhof Master Technika in the field for several years. Although I'm not using it as recommended by the manufacturer (http://www.kasson.com/galleries/timescapes.php), I've subjected myself to the difficulties of field operation of a scanning back for some time. I also have a Hasselblad H2D-39 that I've used in the field for comparison, although it's not a multishot back.
The advantages that I see for the MS approach are:
Lower weight. The computer is a wash, but the Betterlight needs a 4x5 camera, while a Hassy back can use a smaller one. The lenses are smaller, too, for the same angle of view. The Betterlight back may not itself weigh much more than a Hassy back, but it needs the controller and a separate battery pack.
Fewer things to mess with in the field. No separate battery pack, no controller. No cables from the battery to the controller, or from the controller to the back.
You can make single shot images with the same gear. That's huge, IMHO.
I would think that the motion artifacts of the scanning back would be easier to deal with than the ones of the MS back, since the scan lines are usually separated by 1/300 second or so. Rapid motion can produce ugly false color artifacts with a scanning back. I don't know about that with an MS back.
Jim
I am not suggesting a scanning back instead of an MS back Jim, all I am saying is that because of the 1/300 (or so) scanning speed the result will be superior than using MS... With MS you can't even spot the areas that are problematic unless you compare them very carefully with the single shot image. Then, if one uses it for similar to landscape work, he realises that he better keep the whole single shot image instead. MS backs (especially 528c/22ms Sinar54h and now E-xact that can do real 16x) are superb tools if used for the purpose they have been designed to serve, it simply is against their nature if they are forced to work in an environment that involves movements. The "replacement" technique can be very valuable in some Architectural or interior photography, but that's about it.
-
Not all pixels are created equal. Theodoros, you yourself have stated many times that the pixels from an uninterpolated multishot file is far superior to an even larger amount of single shot interpolated pixels.
Some may not like this method but to state it does not work is incorrect. It does work very effectively for the ones that utilize it correctly.
In some shots I have had only a 10% of a 4 shot file that has need to be replaced by 1 shot. At other times 75% has been 1 shot with 4 shot detail brushed into specific detailed parts. To me the difference between the detail quality of the 4 shot multi with stone, gravel, tree trunks, moire areas, and other hard no movement items is so worth the extra effort when your view the combined files.
On all my images (in post) I use at least 2 forms of sharpening, never over an entire image, always brushed in specifically. Adding some uninterpolated 4 shot image bits where I can is basically the same thing. Simple fast and much more effective than any form of camera or post sharpening.
On location I use the straight Blad and multi is a very quick and fast option that I can capture at the time so it is an extremely effective tool. Plus way way bloody easier and faster than shifting & stitching.
All those one shot people are stuck doing the shift & stitch. With my Blad multishot (39ms) I have more options. The camera is only 1 cm longer in the back. So I do what I do .............and it works for me.
-
Plus 1 to Enda's response
Stanley
-
Hi Brent
Thanks. The Hasselblad guide PDF is quite useful. I have been working on the assumption that I will use Rollei digital lenses. There is no way an old style mechanical shutter would make any sense. Great in the days of film, but there are issues achieving acceptable synchronisation with Hasselblad backs, I am told.
I guess what I was hoping for when I started this thread was someone to come forward who was already using a system successfully and could set out the pros and cons from his or her direct experience.
Hi Quentin,
I have used the CF-ii 39MS and my CF 528 digital backs from Hasselblad on my Rolleiflex 6008 and also my tech cameras - which is a Rollei X-Act2 with electronic shutters and lens control, and also with 4x5 LF view cameras using the same shutters. With those backs and the rollei lens control S you just need to have the proper cables and tell either phocus or Flexcolor you are connected to a rollei lens control. It's not all that difficult to use, but all the cables to the laptop, lens control and shutters and the devices themselves - can be cumbersome. If you can find a way to pack it all mostly connected, it will make your field set up times much faster. What I like to do is take one of the manfrotto super clamps and fix that low on one of the tripod legs to hold the lens control where it won't cause too much movement when you operate it. You might want something separate for your laptop but I always just rest mine on the ground near the tripod because I'm lazy or in a hurry.
As already mentioned you can fit the actual back to anything that accepts the H mount - various sliding backs and adapter plates are available for lots of the tech cameras.
One great thing about tech cameras and electronic shutter's for multishot is there is no mirror. Yeah! Nothing to think about moving during the sequence. I'm struggling to think about tips, or issues… but maybe its been too long since I've done it, because right now all I think about is all the different cables and junk to set up. Takes forever if you don't do it often. Maybe put labels on the cable ends?
Here's a blog post I made for the older HB backs with Rollei electronic shutters and lens control that has the cable part numbers and wiring diagrams, not sure if it is the same for the newer 200MS ones or not. http://rolleiflex.us/blogs/news-tech-tips-updates/10929025-what-cables-do-you-need-to-connect-a-hasselblad-digital-back-to-the-len-control-s
-
Not all pixels are created equal. Theodoros, you yourself have stated many times that the pixels from an uninterpolated multishot file is far superior to an even larger amount of single shot interpolated pixels.
Some may not like this method but to state it does not work is incorrect. It does work very effectively for the ones that utilize it correctly.
In some shots I have had only a 10% of a 4 shot file that has need to be replaced by 1 shot. At other times 75% has been 1 shot with 4 shot detail brushed into specific detailed parts. To me the difference between the detail quality of the 4 shot multi with stone, gravel, tree trunks, moire areas, and other hard no movement items is so worth the extra effort when your view the combined files.
On all my images (in post) I use at least 2 forms of sharpening, never over an entire image, always brushed in specifically. Adding some uninterpolated 4 shot image bits where I can is basically the same thing. Simple fast and much more effective than any form of camera or post sharpening.
On location I use the straight Blad and multi is a very quick and fast option that I can capture at the time so it is an extremely effective tool. Plus way way bloody easier and faster than shifting & stitching.
All those one shot people are stuck doing the shift & stitch. With my Blad multishot (39ms) I have more options. The camera is only 1 cm longer in the back. So I do what I do .............and it works for me.
But Brent, none questions the superiority of MS when compared with single-shots. But for this superiority to exist, the conditions should be the ones that support MS use, if one has grass moving, dust moving, clouds moving, leaves moving, birds flying, ...flies flying etc, there isn't any relevance with a still shot, is there? Lets suppose that one shoots a sunset right? Now everybody knows how fast the sun moves near sunset and how fast lighting changes. What can he do? Shoot the scene in single shot and then use multishot in different lighting, different angle of lighting and with the sun in different position all the time? If you look close to the pictures that you say "only 10% needs replacement, you might also consider that most of the 90% left is worst than single shot. Of course what one considers as "pass" is personal, but the question here is things improve or not.
-
Soft low contrast details won't suffer demosaicing aliasing or detail loss and thus won't gain from multishot, while tiny detailed things will. And as it happens things that move in a landscape tend to be soft low contrast sometimes smeared (clouds, motion blur leaves etc), meaning that blending in those details from the single shot won't mean that you lose any actual detail. The static subjects (tree trunks, finely structured rocks etc) will still enjoy lack of aliasing and improved detail.
If you have a combination of fast-moving light and long exposure times you will get issues of course, as you will have with stitching. The technique won't be practical in all conditions, but obviously in quite many. The nice thing is that you'll always have the single shot to fall back to. A failed stitch is a failed stitch, while a failed multi-shot with this technique is a perfectly good single shot.
-
A question to you multishot back users -- I know tethered is an absolute must, but I'm not sure if electronic shutters are. Can you do multi-shot with multiple manual cocking and releasing a regular Copal shutter? Even if possible I guess it's impractical anyway as the risk of disturbing the tripod is too great when you manually touch the camera between shots.
-
A question to you multishot back users -- I know tethered is an absolute must, but I'm not sure if electronic shutters are. Can you do multi-shot with multiple manual cocking and releasing a regular Copal shutter? Even if possible I guess it's impractical anyway as the risk of disturbing the tripod is too great when you manually touch the camera between shots.
I guess it can be done, if the shutter is automatically re-cocked and there is some electronic device that can order the shutter to release synchronising it with the sequence. I believe that this is what happens with Hasselblad 503CW where one uses the winder/grip to re-cock the shutter and its own release (via the remote release input on it) to replace the mechanical shutter release that is on the body. You need an electronic control of the sequence for the shutter though, since the back has an electronic output to order the shutter release.
-
If I remember correctly there is some way to do a multishot sequence with mechanical shutters. I think you have to use the "pinhole camera" setting on the back under camera setting and a long enough delay setting in Phocus to allow time to cock the shutter. However I am sure it would be a short & fast way to loose all your hair through frustration.
Cables & laptop power and such bits are a big part of shooting digital now. I guess they have replaced all the film & polaroid we had to carry around. One word of advice. Always have more than one of each cable on hand at all times. Especially the Hasselblad cable that goes from the back to the shutter controllers. It is a short 6" connector cable that is about $20.00. I have 4 on hand for a good reason. When first testing the H3Dll 39ms & 50ms cameras we could not get them to work. We tried all sorts of stuff and changed things over & over. Nothing could get it to work. The only thing we could not switch out was the stupid $20.00 cable as Hasselblad in Australia (CR Kennedy) in great wisdom had only 1. A week later we had 4 in hand and tried it again. Bingo. Thousand of dollars of gear all crashed by a $20.00 cable!
For shooting any medium format on location where there is no power it is very worthwhile to search out an older MacBook Pro. The last pre Retina version. They have the nice matt screen, firewire, USB, and TB ports. Plus they put out more power than the Retina. The Retina really needs a powered firewire 800 hub. I have one as a back up to my Retina version, which only connects via the TB / firewire 800 adaptor, which I keep 3 of. After one failure you learn your lesson.
The 200ms has an extra battery system for when off the camera so the Retina low output power may not be a big deal when tethered. Or can you use that battery when tethered? Another thing to ask Hasselblad.
-
I cannot help thinking that spherical stitching is a much better solution... ;)
Either with a traditional sensor or with a Foveon one for those who would doubt the pixel quality of modern bayer sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I cannot help thinking that spherical stitching is a much better solution... ;)
Either with a traditional sensor or with a Foveon one for those who would doubt the pixel quality of modern bayer sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't think that spherical stitching was ever to the O/P's mind... neither panos are discussed here or have been put as a subject... What is "better" in a subject that hasn't been set? ???
-
I don't think that spherical stitching was ever to the O/P's mind... neither panos are discussed here or have been put as a subject... What is "better" in a subject that hasn't been set? ???
Aren't we discussing the way to reach very high levels of image quality?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Aren't we discussing the way to reach very high levels of image quality?
Cheers,
Bernard
Not in spherical or other panos... ??? We are discussing optimum solutions for 200MS used with a tech or view camera and the possibility of using MS in the field... I guess you should read the previous posts before you post. :P Thanks for the will as to teach us on how to achieve best quality (in spherical or other panos) though... ;)
-
Not in spherical or other panos... ??? We are discussing optimum solutions for 200MS used with a tech or view camera and the possibility of using MS in the field... I guess you should read the previous posts before you post. :P Thanks for the will as to teach us on how to achieve best quality (in spherical or other panos) though... ;)
I guess that I was mislead by comments about scanning backs that you had kindly tolerated. ;) I do understand the fun of applying solutions designed for the studio in the field, I intend to do that with my BL scanning back too and have been preparing for this. Movements on the 4x5 could make that somehow valuable but image quality isn't clearly ahead because of the much higher level of noise in all but perfect light conditions, unfortunately.
Anyway, back on multishot, merging a single exposure with multishot ones is obviously the right thing to do. This is the same technique often used when doing DoF stacking.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am Late on this thread but just wanted to say that the way Brent describes shooting multi-shot on location is EXACTLY the method I used to use. I shot location interiors and exteriors for years using multi-shot and the results were outstanding. For someone to suggest it can't be done is just trolling IMO.
Nick-T
-
..........exteriors for years using multi-shot and the results were outstanding.
Nick-T
Can you please post some of the outstanding results over the years?
-
Don't feed the trolls. No I have no interest in posting for you.
You appear to be implying that both Brent and I are making things up so I have no further use for you.
-
Don't feed the trolls. No I have no interest in posting for you.
You appear to be implying that both Brent and I are making things up so I have no further use for you.
Would still love to see you supporting your post. ;)
-
Thanks for the support Nick. This thread has just gotten so ridiculous. Theodorass keeps asking for proof for everything someone says that he does not agree with but has not provided any credentials of who he is or samples of any actual work he has produced. Just blah blah . You try to provide some information from experience with what is sometimes rare and expensive gear to someone looking for answers and you end up chasing a flying pig in circles. Last bit of feeding for the flying pig troll from me. Trolls are ......................
Cheers mate.
-
Its quite simple, there are those that have seen multishot and there are those that haven't. It's a smack you in face kind of thing. Once you get it, you understand why stitching doesn't make it better. Stitching is like going to an all you can eat buffet. Multishot is different.
-
Its quite simple, there are those that have seen multishot and there are those that haven't. It's a smack you in face kind of thing. Once you get it, you understand why stitching doesn't make it better. Stitching is like going to an all you can eat buffet. Multishot is different.
Eric,
Multishot is pretty similar to Foveon, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Eric,
Multishot is pretty similar to Foveon, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
Without the Sigma software, hopefully :)
Edmund
-
So multishot manages to increase resolving power rather than just pixels? Trying to understand why it is so much better. Not much of a question but I'm really just trying out a post having finally re entered the MF world.
-
So multishot manages to increase resolving power rather than just pixels? Trying to understand why it is so much better. Not much of a question but I'm really just trying out a post having finally re entered the MF world.
Basic multishot is 4-shot, meaning that you move around the bayer array so you sample all pixels with R G B. The actual luminance resolution increase of this is tiny, you still have same megapixel count in the image, but color correctness around small details and structures becomes much better, you don't get "false colors".
More advanced multi-shot you shoot many more frames (up to 16 I think of the older backs, while the newer do with 6) where you step the sensor fractions of a pixel, and then use a special algorithm to interpolate a high resolution image, 200 megapixels in the case of H5D-200MS. Then you get both higher resolution and less aliasing.
Here's an example comparison from Petapixel:
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/08/multishot1.jpg)
original article here, it's about the new H5D-200MS, the CMOS version:
http://petapixel.com/2014/08/20/hasselblads-new-h5d-200c-multi-shot-spits-massive-200-megapixel-files/
-
Thanks Torger
-
Eric,
Multishot is pretty similar to Foveon, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
There is similarity to the fact that both are "true colour" photography, but MS uses much larger pixels and that has a lot of influence in IQ as far as stills are concerned... Surely Foveon will be a much better way of shooting a landscape than the pigs that the trolls are trying to present as "able to fly".
-
So multishot manages to increase resolving power rather than just pixels? Trying to understand why it is so much better. Not much of a question but I'm really just trying out a post having finally re entered the MF world.
With "true colour" you get much more analysis for the same sensor resolution because you don't get the mistakes that interpolation does (especially with "neighbouring" pixels). Don't forget that what the human eye understands as resolution is the difference between pixels.
-
Eric,
Multishot is pretty similar to Foveon, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
In a lot of ways yes, since foveon is not doing a matrix interpolation and so is more similar to multishot than most other cameras/sensors, but I believe the color information is significantly better with multishot. The CFA can be selected on different criteria, e.g. they don't have to worry about how much light passes through the first layer to get to the next. Less overlap on the filters can provide more accurate color information. Multishot gets individual data for R, G, B at each site with a single filter. Multishot can also capture two sets of data for G and so more total information is available. The sensor size for most MS backs is also much larger than a foveon and this also contributes.
Note: mostly when I post about multi-shot, I am referring to the 1,4, and 16 shot backs that I have personal experience with. I have not used the newer Hasselblad 200mp backs that employ a 6 shot routine.
-
By way of an update, I have been indirectly told by a UK dealer, after discussions with Arca Swiss, that one cannot use a wide angle lens - say, 28mm or 35mm - on the Arca Swiss Rmdi with an electronic shutter. I was also told to await developments at Photokina...