Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Morgan_Moore on October 09, 2007, 03:49:42 pm
-
Some seem to think that the phisical engineering of the blad 28 not to phisically correct abberattions that can be corrected in software is in some way an impure approach
Others would argue that the marriage of hardware and software leads to advantages in price/size/performance - I would be one
Further this issue is clouded by hasselblad not making this lens and the distortion algorimths apertaining to that 'open source'
I would argue that this is for marketing rather than technical reasons
The debate of that is a secondary subject to the primary issue of the 'purity' of digital correction
Debate....
SMM
-
Well put. That just about sums it up. As I indicated in one of my posts, I think my opinion is changing on the matter, but still don't like the 'proprietary' and secret algorithm.
Is that algorithm also built into the camera body firmware, so that you see the 'corrected' version on the LCD screen, and in fact, does it extend to tethered shooting?
(The alternative would be amusing, with the AD etc looking over your shoulder at an uncorrected photo, and the photographer explaining, that's how it's not really going to look... I mean that's what tethered shooting is all about?)
-
Any interpolation will reduce image quality, so a lens which doesn't require correction will outperform one which does, all else being equal.
-
Well put. That just about sums it up. As I indicated in one of my posts, I think my opinion is changing on the matter, but still don't like the 'proprietary' and secret algorithm.
Is that algorithm also built into the camera body firmware, so that you see the 'corrected' version on the LCD screen, and in fact, does it extend to tethered shooting?
(The alternative would be amusing, with the AD etc looking over your shoulder at an uncorrected photo, and the photographer explaining, that's how it's not really going to look... I mean that's what tethered shooting is all about?)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144888\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I imagine it is secrect for lots of reasons. I guess the main one is cost - R&D cost. Would you just give that away? Not saying yes or no, just asking the question.
If it were licenced would companies be willing to buy the correction details. Also, would other systems be able to use that data effectively? Could a Phase Back read lens data without being modified?
The corrections are not shown on the LCD, but I think it would be pretty hard to see the difference anyway as it is not a huge correction... and the LCD is tiny anyway!
Correction is instantly applied with tethered shooting and it really is instant. No processing time at all.
Jo S.x
-
I imagine it is secrect for lots of reasons. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think it only sectret for one reason - its a marketing lock out
Actualy producing a 'performance matrix' (my expresssion)
Would seem pretty simple if that sort of thing is your job
Photograph a chequerboard lit by RG and B light
Write a 'transform' that alligns all three and makes them chequerboard shaped
repeat the process for a few focus distances and apertures
use some maths to make a full matrix
A bit like PS>filter>liquify meshs in three colours
When shooting record aperture and focus distance and apply
Even if a third party back did not get the ap/distance info then a softwre sliders could be used for 'manual correction'
I would love to see a chipped 28 stuck onto DXO software
Its just a lock out IMO
SMM
-
Any interpolation will reduce image quality, so a lens which doesn't require correction will outperform one which does, all else being equal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ulitmately yes, true, but it is is what is acceptable on a price/performance/size curve
And actually do we know about even doing this physdically - software might be better !
Now I dont understand chips but I think they record seperate RGB
so a lens splits the RGB like the Pink Floyd album cover and then coatings try to stuff them back together
Maybe just muddling up how the pixel data is mapped could be equally 'pure'
S
-
have a look at this thread:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....18169&hl=conrus (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18169&hl=conrus)
Khun_K
Jul 15 2007, 10:59 AM
Post #13
members
Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 7-May 06
From: Bangkok, Thailand
Member No.: 17,356
I have the H3D39 system and the 28mm lens. I did mount the lens on a friend's H2 system (but he uses P45+) and the H2's shutter just won't work when the 28mm lens is mounted on. So is my H3D39 back won't work with the H2 (obviously without the power supply) but even tethered the camera just won't work. The 28mm lens is OK for such wide angle lens, but it is not superior than the 35mm or 50mm, except it is wider. Even without the DAC the lens is OK with little distortion and visible chromatic issues. But the lens is just OK, it does not have a strong character, just a superwide, reasonable sharp and good corrected lens. The 28mm is visibly behind the Schneider Digitar 24mm I have for my Alpa, and I will asume it is behind the HR 28mm from Rodenstock.
-
Any interpolation will reduce image quality, so a lens which doesn't require correction will outperform one which does, all else being equal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you compare the image before / after correction there is no noticeable difference.
-
the H2's shutter just won't work when the 28mm lens is mounted on. So is my H3D39 back won't work with the H2 [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is just software/firmware lockout is it not - pure market share holding
Thats where chipping the lens would be fun
not that I have the budget or skill
rip apart a 35 and a 28 stuff the electronics from the 35 into the 28 and ...
S
(There is a bloke who cracked contax to make them go on canon (or the other way round)
-
Hi,
I think it may be reasonable to correct distorsion and perhaps chromatic aberration in software. More effort could than be spent on field curvature, spherical aberration, astigmatism and coma.
Best regards
Erik
Some seem to think that the phisical engineering of the blad 28 not to phisically correct abberattions that can be corrected in software is in some way an impure approach
Others would argue that the marriage of hardware and software leads to advantages in price/size/performance - I would be one
Further this issue is clouded by hasselblad not making this lens and the distortion algorimths apertaining to that 'open source'
I would argue that this is for marketing rather than technical reasons
The debate of that is a secondary subject to the primary issue of the 'purity' of digital correction
Debate....
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I for one applaud the whole concept of correcting known errors and phenomena in software.
We already work with 'gain adjustment', 'custom white' etc. to correct all sorts of other optical defects/weak points.
To use software to leviate part of the work burden from the lens is IMO a good approach.
I think the corrections are really lens specific so I don't see that much benefit of keeping the correction algorythms secret. What can be a downside, other back manufacturers integrating the correction of Hasselblad lenses may mean less back sales but will be offset by more lens sales. I wonder whether Hasselblad has made calculations of both approaches and their results. Would be very interesting.
I see a lot of benefit of sharing it, support via more software suppliers, better solutions. Also the ability to use software corrected lenses with other backs and the H1 & H2 when the software correction is modulized and taken out of the back.
It would hurt more when others could take this data and use it on their own lens designs. I somehow believe that is either not possible or difficult?
-
If you compare the image before / after correction there is no noticeable difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
noticable to your standards
(and most likely mine )
but that is not the approach of an engineer
S
-
i am not an engeneer, i only take pictures....but there are several analogies that this reminds me of: printing a file from a P45 on a 5 year old 99$ printer, listening to a am mono station through 100000$ speakers and the guy who always says on set : "we can fix that in post production"
you want the best possible start to get the best possible result...if you have crap to start with, all the software magic in teh world won't give you a good result and do a little extra NOW so you don't have to fix it later when it might be too hard to fix...
i think that all in all software lens correction is great, because no lens is 100% flaw free....never will be...but even with correction it won't be....so the ideal situation is a 95% lens that is brought up to 98% through software....
knowing companies and seeing how hard it must be to actually build 95% lenses it makes much mre sense financially to put a lot of money into software slutions that can be applied to all lenses and simply build lenses at a much cheaper 80% level.....i am not saying that hasselblad is doing that (yet) but i can see that it would make sense for them in the future....
i would really hate to see the next generation of chips going up to 3200 and finding out that this is done purely by applying software....
the moment you push pixels around one way or another you loose information and i would rather keep that to a minimum.....
-
Will the savings be passed on to the consumer? I doubt it. The Hass 28mm is nearly $4K.
-
Will the savings be passed on to the consumer? I doubt it. The Hass 28mm is nearly $4K.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144981\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, but the Mamiya 28mm is well over $5000, and considering the average price of Hassy lenses are twice as much as the Mamiya lenses, I guess they did pass the savings along!
-
if you have crap to start with, all the software magic in the world won't give you a good result [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I dont see it quite that way
Capturing wide angle image is kind of a strange thing to do rendering them across a flat plane anyway
The best way of displaying a WA image would be to print it on the inside of a ball, stick your head in the ball and have a look around
So there are always distortions printing wide on a flat image - or capturing it on a flat sensor*
Thats why a man photographed from ontop has big head and small feet - a huge distortion but a visually accepted way of projecting a 3d view onto a flat plane
So I bet that fisheye is a purer form of capture and fisheyelenses can have better LPI and less abberation than a 'correcting' lens given the same quality of engineering
Therefore captureing a fisheye image the captured information may not be 'crap'
just good information presented in a non traditional manner
Using software to then defish the image may therefore render higher res and less abberations
SMM
*the same is true for long lenses but once you are looking a a small enough section of a large enough 'ball' the effect is less dramatic
-
Hasselblad knows itself all too well, they know they'd have to charge at least $12k USD if the Mamiya version is $5500 USD....hell lets make it $15k - call it ultra-megha phocus lead free version - we all know someone will buy it, probably a lot of people!
-
i would really hate to see the next generation of chips going up to 3200 and finding out that this is done purely by applying software....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hasselblat already doing that w/ their new Flexcolour or Phocus, older backs are gaining a stop or something...
-
So I bet that fisheye is a purer form of capture and fisheyelenses can have better LPI and less abberation than a 'correcting' lens given the same quality of engineering
Therefore captureing a fisheye image the captured information may not be 'crap'
just good information presented in a non traditional manner
Using software to then defish the image may therefore render higher res and less abberations
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
on my quest to find out, if it´s worth it to get the 28mm mamiya, yesterday I bought an old ukrainian 30mm arsat for 80 euros. first tests left me quite suprised how sharp it is. after the image is corrected for CA and defished I get a very undistorted picture. its actualy easier to deal with, than a normal wideangle with a unsymetrical distortion (wave, moustache..). the problem is, after its defished it looses some angle of view - from about 120 down to 100. still slightly more than a 35mm wide angle. perhaps about the same aov as a 28mm lens?
would i pass the savings - if I would use the arsat instead of the 5000$ mamiya - onto my clients - just like hasselblad - yes course ;-)
stefan
-
Hasselblad knows itself all too well, they know they'd have to charge at least $12k USD if the Mamiya version is $5500 USD....hell lets make it $15k - call it ultra-megha phocus lead free version - we all know someone will buy it, probably a lot of people!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This emotional vendetta must have some sort of root cause. Care to share? Maybe we can help.
-
i would really hate to see the next generation of chips going up to 3200 and finding out that this is done purely by applying software....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hasselblat already doing that w/ their new Flexcolour or Phocus, older backs are gaining a stop or something...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a firmware upgrade, not a software upgrade. If you would like an explanation of the difference, Jim–all you have to do is ask. There are plenty of people here to help you. Really.
-
Further this issue is clouded by hasselblad not making this lens and the distortion algorimths apertaining to that 'open source'
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let's see... Here's a project designed to optimize a system that starts with thousands of measurements being made and assembled into a data base, then software and firmware have to be written for the body and back requiring many hours of coding, followed by additional time and effort and expense to create a software module in the RAW conversion program to complete the process.
The 28mm is an extension of this project that incorporates 21st century abilities to correct certain types of lens aberrations extremely well by means of automatic digital corrections to the RAW data and incorporates that into the initial lens design in order to enhance lens performance in areas that cannot be corrected or improved by digital means. (More on this later.) To do this, in a seamless and automatic fashion, requires that the lens, body, back and software be integrated in a seamless way.
All in an effort to have a competive edge in the market by offering added value. This is seen by some as terrible thing by not sharing it with competitors.
Any photographers that would like to shoot thousands of images, do the post production work, add in retouching and build a searchable data base–then give them to their competitors to sell. I'm sure you'll find takers on that offer.
Of course there is licensing. Anyone here licensing their creative efforts to other photographers to enhance their competitors position in the market?
Why shouldn't Hasselblad keep their own work proprietary? Because someone purchased another companies product and mounted it to some of Hasselblad's products?
-
If you compare the image before / after correction there is no noticeable difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not what Khun_K said!
-
Yeah, but the Mamiya 28mm is well over $5000, and considering the average price of Hassy lenses are twice as much as the Mamiya lenses, I guess they did pass the savings along!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wonder has anybody got access to both 28mm's (and bodies) to do a comparison. I've seen Mamiya 28mm pics posted here, but not the Hasselblad. Having said that, is there any point?... nobody's going to change system, just for one lens being a little better, are they!
-
on my quest to find out, if it´s worth it to get the 28mm mamiya, yesterday I bought an old ukrainian 30mm arsat for 80 euros. first tests left me quite suprised how sharp it is. after the image is corrected for CA and defished I get a very undistorted picture. its actualy easier to deal with, than a normal wideangle with a unsymetrical distortion (wave, moustache..). the problem is, after its defished it looses some angle of view - from about 120 down to 100. still slightly more than a 35mm wide angle. perhaps about the same aov as a 28mm lens?
would i pass the savings - if I would use the arsat instead of the 5000$ mamiya - onto my clients - just like hasselblad - yes course ;-)
stefan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145036\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Stefan, Good to hear that. I have that Arsat lens as well, and a Mamiya 24mm (although no back; courier company have lost a P45 coming to me, otherwise I'd be testing too) Can I ask which software you used to correct CA and defish. This is something that had crossed my mind, but I hadn't started exploring the details of how.
Thanks
Jon
-
That's not what Khun_K said!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am looking at my screen now and there is no difference.
But don't take my word for it - look yourself before forming an opinion!
Jo S.x
-
Let's see... Here's a project designed to optimize a system that starts with thousands of measurements being made and assembled into a data base, then software and firmware have to be written for the body and back requiring many hours of coding, followed by additional time and effort and expense to create a software module in the RAW conversion program to complete the process.
The 28mm is an extension of this project that incorporates 21st century abilities to correct certain types of lens aberrations extremely well by means of automatic digital corrections to the RAW data and incorporates that into the initial lens design in order to enhance lens performance in areas that cannot be corrected or improved by digital means. (More on this later.) To do this, in a seamless and automatic fashion, requires that the lens, body, back and software be integrated in a seamless way.
All in an effort to have a competive edge in the market by offering added value. This is seen by some as terrible thing by not sharing it with competitors.
Any photographers that would like to shoot thousands of images, do the post production work, add in retouching and build a searchable data base–then give them to their competitors to sell. I'm sure you'll find takers on that offer.
Of course there is licensing. Anyone here licensing their creative efforts to other photographers to enhance their competitors position in the market?
Why shouldn't Hasselblad keep their own work proprietary? Because someone purchased another companies product and mounted it to some of Hasselblad's products?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I said the issue was clouded - I didnt say Hassy was wrong
The issue is whether the technology of using digital and analoge correction, not just analoge is pure or not
Hassies descision right or wrong seems to have biased various posters angainst the whole technology
-----
In terms of that lens - I own an H camera and didnt opt to buy an hassy back at the time because they only offered a tethered solution - the imacon
I am still a hassy customer
I am in the market for a 50 or a zoom right now
And I feel that thier system has been closed from me - one of thier own customers - it was a most unusual if not unique move
I would like to be a able to buy that lens and try it on my current back sinar54 uncorrected
I would then be pleased for a hassy rep to visit me show the the amazing impovemets offered by DAC
And then I might persuaded to upgrade my back given a suitably attractive trade path
Maybe one of your hassy buddies wants to call me on this
DBs in case no one has noticed are quite expensive, and anitiques like my piddly 22mp sinar are also great for taking images - changing backs is not in my business plan
So I am a customer with lens money to burn 28, 50, TS and ultra wide but no place to spend the cash (apart from on a D3 which I have ordered)
SMM
-
Let's see... Here's a project designed to optimize a system that starts with thousands of measurements being made and assembled into a data base, then software and firmware have to be written for the body and back requiring many hours of coding, followed by additional time and effort and expense to create a software module in the RAW conversion program to complete the process.
The 28mm is an extension of this project that incorporates 21st century abilities to correct certain types of lens aberrations extremely well by means of automatic digital corrections to the RAW data and incorporates that into the initial lens design in order to enhance lens performance in areas that cannot be corrected or improved by digital means. (More on this later.) To do this, in a seamless and automatic fashion, requires that the lens, body, back and software be integrated in a seamless way.
All in an effort to have a competive edge in the market by offering added value. This is seen by some as terrible thing by not sharing it with competitors.
Any photographers that would like to shoot thousands of images, do the post production work, add in retouching and build a searchable data base–then give them to their competitors to sell. I'm sure you'll find takers on that offer.
Of course there is licensing. Anyone here licensing their creative efforts to other photographers to enhance their competitors position in the market?
Why shouldn't Hasselblad keep their own work proprietary? Because someone purchased another companies product and mounted it to some of Hasselblad's products?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How about having bought Hasselblads products and not being able to use it? That is also a result of the current strategy. People with the flagship back (CF39MS) are not able to use the 28.
Adobe can hardly be called a competitor for Hasselblad and they cannot support 3FR with DAC either. Unless you consider Adobe a competitor for Flexcolor? Same applies for other RAW converter programs.
You are talking about this massive intellectual property that Hasselblad is supposed to share but what exactly would be the use for competitors? Can they use all of this? No, not really. It cannot be used on other things than Hasselblad lenses and bodies. Competition could be using DAC and the 28mm algorythms but they still can only use it on Hasselblad equipment.
As I said before. It might eat away some back sales but would generate more in bodies and lenses.
Hasselblad probably made these calculations as well but did they take into the equation the effect of people shying away from the system because of this? Or the bad publicity they get from it?
-
Can I ask which software you used to correct CA and defish. This is something that had crossed my mind, but I hadn't started exploring the details of how.
Thanks
Jon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
jon, i use the little free software defish for mac.
or - when i only want to partly defish the image I do it by hand (photoshop-wrap). very easy and even quicker. when you have no straight lines -lets say- in the bottom half or corners of your picture, you dont need to defish this part. which means that even a round object in the corner stays absolutely 100% round. something you dont get with a normal very-wide lens, where a round objekt always gets badly distorted.
I correct CA in ps or acr.
stefan
-
You are talking about this massive intellectual property that Hasselblad is supposed to share but what exactly would be the use for competitors
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145061\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I dont think they even need to share the IP - just unloking the lense would be nice - you still need a H body to use it and are likely to buy more of thier lenses which is all money for them.
If the lense was unlocked the corrections you be done by a third party
Either DXO, C1 or me
Photograph a wall - correct in PS - save as an action
If the DAC is so much better than that then a demo from a hassy dealer will persuade me that thier back is a 'must have'
S
-
I am looking at my screen now and there is no difference.
But don't take my word for it - look yourself before forming an opinion!
Jo S.x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So, would you be good enough to post the 'before and after' shots and let me see for myself?
-
jon, i use the little free software defish for mac.
or - when i only want to partly defish the image I do it by hand (photoshop-wrap). very easy and even quicker. when you have no straight lines -lets say- in the bottom half or corners of your picture, you dont need to defish this part. which means that even a round object in the corner stays absolutely 100% round. something you dont get with a normal very-wide lens, where a round objekt always gets badly distorted.
I correct CA in ps or acr.
stefan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Stefan, got that. Must go and try it out.
-
So, would you be good enough to post the 'before and after' shots and let me see for myself?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep!
-
Yep!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Jo, just let me know where when you get a chance
Jon
-
Thanks Jo, just let me know where when you get a chance
Jon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just need mother nature to stop the rain for a bit!
-
Just need mother nature to stop the rain for a bit!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's lovely and sunny here in Northern Ireland....no, wait, there's the rain coming!
(As they say, just wait 15 minutes for a change in the weather here!)
-
You are talking about this massive intellectual property that Hasselblad is supposed to share but what exactly would be the use for competitors?
Exactly. It could use help Hasselblad customers. Btw the IP involved here is pretty minimal.
-
no vendetta TechTalk. I love Hass V system, I just find the H, personally, overated for the cost.
I like Imacon backs too, all the way back to the 96/132 - the ability to use adapter plates for almost any camera is genius. but the H, the viewfinder distortion, the expense, blah.
-
I also find the H system too expensive, but not overated. I think the functions make it the most advanced camera, of course it depends on how you work. My favorite camera was the Contax but the AF was too slow. Also the fact that it was discontinued made me switch as investing in a DB for it was not an option. Contax is not so popular in Sweden. I simply had to let it go....
I don't know how much the H2 cost in USA or other countries but I paid 1/3 of the price for buying a DB with it. Some people complain about the mirror slap, I personally don't see it a problem but even that is fixed with the last firmware. Of course, this is not version 1.0. Is the last version of the H2 so bugs and problems are gone, a least in my system. Is 100% stable.
no vendetta TechTalk. I love Hass V system, I just find the H, personally, overated for the cost.
I like Imacon backs too, all the way back to the 96/132 - the ability to use adapter plates for almost any camera is genius. but the H, the viewfinder distortion, the expense, blah.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
My disdain for the H has nothing to do w/ issue w/ the functioning of the camera itself. the H series that often rent is an H2 w/ a 22MP Hass back, never had any issues w/ it....
-
Hi!
I don't think that Hasselblad does anything DXO does not. There is no magic in image processing and the algorithms are well known. One of the best packages is PTLens, which costs about 15 USD (with no "k" in front). PTLens corrects distorsion and chromatic aberration. The foundation for PTLens is "pano tools" which I think is essentially free. There are many algorythms for deblurring, one of the better known is Richardson-Lucy. RL-deconvultion is actually part of the Mac OS X libraries.
What I want to say that there is absolutely no "rocket science" in this. Hasselblad does something smart, that's OK.
I guess that the decisions Hasselblad made are absolutely bad for customers who have invested in or plan to invest in other vendors digital backs. There are good reasons to use different backs.
Also, market economy needs competition which has been the driving force behind development. Having a single vendor of MF equipment would be very bad.
I presume that Mamiya is staying open as it would give them the advantage of free choice over Hasselblad. Time will show what consumers prefer, freedom or serfdom?
Best regards
Erik
Let's see... Here's a project designed to optimize a system that starts with thousands of measurements being made and assembled into a data base, then software and firmware have to be written for the body and back requiring many hours of coding, followed by additional time and effort and expense to create a software module in the RAW conversion program to complete the process.
The 28mm is an extension of this project that incorporates 21st century abilities to correct certain types of lens aberrations extremely well by means of automatic digital corrections to the RAW data and incorporates that into the initial lens design in order to enhance lens performance in areas that cannot be corrected or improved by digital means. (More on this later.) To do this, in a seamless and automatic fashion, requires that the lens, body, back and software be integrated in a seamless way.
All in an effort to have a competive edge in the market by offering added value. This is seen by some as terrible thing by not sharing it with competitors.
Any photographers that would like to shoot thousands of images, do the post production work, add in retouching and build a searchable data base–then give them to their competitors to sell. I'm sure you'll find takers on that offer.
Of course there is licensing. Anyone here licensing their creative efforts to other photographers to enhance their competitors position in the market?
Why shouldn't Hasselblad keep their own work proprietary? Because someone purchased another companies product and mounted it to some of Hasselblad's products?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]