Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Doug Peterson on February 19, 2009, 11:12:11 am
-
First let me frank and clear up front: I work for a dealer so sure read this with a grain of salt. However, those who know me I do a pretty good job of not drinking the kool-aid. Cynics might see this post as entirely self serving, but I promise you that I'm just using the only outlet I know of to discuss something that has been bubbling up in my mind for the last year.
I started off shooting point and shoot digitals. Then 35mm film. Then MF film. Then MF digital.
This forum has been exhausted with plenty of good arguments against the need for more resolution or DR
1) Most compelling images aren't compelling because of resolution but rather lighting, subject, emotion, composition etc etc etc etc. e.g. A Holga t-max shot becomes less beautiful if you add sharpness.
2) Most magazine use can be accomplished with far less than current max resolution. Depending on all the mitigating factors (lens quality, crop, lighting) and who you ask a 2-page spread might require 4, 12, or 22 megapixels for images that benefit from sharpenss, but certainly not 60 megapixels (the current ceiling on single-shot resolution).
3) For most other commercial applications the current high-end of resolution (32-60 megapixels) is also considered adequate.
But in my job I can pull any back/body/lens off the shelf to shoot (provided it's not being otherwise used. Recently I took a large case full of gear to Moab for GetDPI.com's landscape workshop. In the kit were technical bodies, MF bodies, the best lenses of each system, and P45+s and P65+s (39 and 60 megapixels respectively) and it solidified what I've begun to feel for the last few months: if you remove cost I will always use the maximum resolution possible. In fact 60 megapixels was not enough for me; every shot I liked I shot two or four image stitches on the tech camera (moving the back within the static image circle rather than rotating the camera/lens) to achieve 100 megapixels or more.
Large Prints:
To get a print which is twice as big visually (2x each dimension) you need a file which is four times as large. So resolution shows up in prints much earlier than most photographers think. There is a strong trend away from printing photographers (in favor of sharing albums online or on devices like iPhones) and I'm a solid part of this trend. The only prints I make anymore are at least 20x30 and, for images where sharpness is part of the intention, I want them to be wicked sharp.
Secondary Use:
It's impossible to know where/how your best few images each year will be used. You may have shot them for a magazine or for the web, but if the file is huge and clean you can use it later for anything.
Raised Expectations:
I'm young so I need to look at the next several decades. At some point in the future point-and-shoots will produce the same IQ as the P65+. At that point any file in my library which was shot on a mid-range dSLR will be limited from a re-use point of view (again, for images that benefit from resolution, DR etc).
I guess the bottom line of this rant is that I'm 100% against the arguments that say we've reached a plateau above which photographers will only want more IQ for very specialized applications. I think that is short sighted. Give me a 300 megapixel camera and, for subject matter which allows it, I will still ask if I can stitch on the back of a tech camera. Give me 20 stops of dynamic range. Heck give me 100 stops of dynamic range so that I can shoot any scene at any aperture and shutter speed. Give me a raw format aimed specifically for still image quality that breaks the 1/100th sec or 1 hour long exposure into a millions slices in time so I can select in post which fraction of a moment in time to create my 10 foot print from. While I'm dreaming, virtualize the entire world so that I can virtually tour the earth and and place my virtual camera anywhere at any place. Lower the barrier of entry to nadda and let the art battles begin!
Did I veer of course there at the end?
*going to get coffee*
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com) | Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
Ah hell your a pig like the rest of us. Big enough will never happen but in the meantime we can be happy with what we have or maybe better said there is always that little devil whispering in your ear , are you sure you have enough. LOL
Heck I am pretty happy but I will fully admit , I am a pig too. I would love to have more, but right now money seems to be my target. Great to dream though and if you stop doing that than you know there is 6 feet of dirt sitting on top of you.
-
[quote name='dougpetersonci' date='Feb 19 2009, 05:12 PM' post='261342'
*going to get coffee*
[/quote]
Doug: Doesn't sound to me as if you have a caffeine deficiency.
-
Doug,
I think you are right on the mark here... I feel exactly the same way.
After 4 years of contemplating the switch to medium format, and now approaching 2 years of having been here, I agree, the 39 and 60-megapixel offerings are a "nice start". I am very excited to see if RED can ship their 261 megapixel 617--that is a super-appealing product from my standpoint.
I also favour large prints--I have work hanging at 4 feet by 12 feet, and while it does look great, the 160 megapixels (it is a stitch) are at their max.
I'm not saying I have a need to print even larger, but I would love to see what the same print would look like at 1/2-3/4 of a gigapixel. I'm sure it would improve noticably as well.
Of course there are at least two practial limits to all of this (cost, which we've removed for the sake of discusson) and technology. Photoshop CS3 really labours under 160 megapixels (particularly with a non-destructive editing workflow--smart objects, smart filters and the like). So when it takes me 45 minutes to run a filter on my image, it becomes too expensive time-wise to work very many of these images.
Digital photography pioneer Steven Johnson has also run into this limitation -- he would often take photographs knowing he wouldn't even be able to open them for years until the technology caught up (back in the Photoshop 5-ish days, if memory serves). I feel like ultra-high resolution capture is in this same boat to some degree. (64-bit Photoshop, and i7 Xeon's with the capability to handle 128GB RAM are very welcome innovations in my book).
In the end all the tools are about delivering emotional impact. And in addition to the artistic content, the sheer presence and clarity of these prints helps to deliver that impact.
So I'm in agreement--folks who don't need more resolution are probably right. And those that do are as well.
-Brad
-
Seems like the OP makes (possible) sense to rich amatuers but absolutely no sense to any business. How can any business plan justify more than is needed or can possibly be charged to clients just to fulfil some inner need for the very best possible however unnecessary?
-
But in my job I can pull any back/body/lens off the shelf to shoot (provided it's not being otherwise used. Recently I took a large case full of gear to Moab for GetDPI.com's landscape workshop. In the kit were technical bodies, MF bodies, the best lenses of each system, and P45+s and P65+s (39 and 60 megapixels respectively) and it solidified what I've begun to feel for the last few months: if you remove cost I will always use the maximum resolution possible. In fact 60 megapixels was not enough for me; every shot I liked I shot two or four image stitches on the tech camera (moving the back within the static image circle rather than rotating the camera/lens) to achieve 100 megapixels or more.
What prevents you from stitching many more frames with a high resolution DSLR?
The following image is a 250MP pano with infinite DoF...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3292173093_73361d672f_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What prevents you from stitching many more frames with a high resolution DSLR?
The following image is a 250MP pano with infinite DoF...
Cheers,
Bernard
Time...
When you're shooting a sunset at its last stages you may have as little as 30 seconds before the scene changes completely. I'm with Doug on this, I'd love to have 1 frame per second of 200 megapixels each with a dynamic range of 50 stops.
You can always dumb it down if you really want to, but I suspect no one will.
WARNING FOLLOWS: I'm in the same situation as Doug, I have my choice of virtually any toy I care to play with if its not being used by our rental department or at a sales demo.
-
To me, the constant quest for extra resolution is misguided. I need more depth of field than I can get shooting at f/11 or even f/16, not more resolution. If parts of my image are not in good focus because of insufficient depth of field, all the resolution in the world will not overcome it. I wish that Phase would devote its R&D to that. (Rebadging Hartblei stuff and jacking the price by 4x doesn't count.) If the Hasselblad Tilt/Shift device works really well, and the proof will soon be in the pudding, that will be functionally way more valuable to me with 39mp than moving to 60mp, or 80mp or.....
-
Nothing is going to help your DOF except a T/S OR and i have been using it with great success Helicon Focus. http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5306 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5306)
For the money a darn nice solution for a lot of work
-
Nothing is going to help your DOF except a T/S OR and i have been using it with great success Helicon Focus. http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5306 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5306)
For the money a darn nice solution for a lot of work
Yes, I know. I bought Helicon Focus over a year ago and I have gotten some very good results with it, but it has its limitations, like images with foliage, which I shoot regularly. The focus blending in CS4 is a bad joke. A view camera with tilt movements is not an option for me. The only other option that's on the table is the forthcoming Hasselblad T/S device. We will see how it performs in the real world in the hands of photographers with no axe to grind. (Is that an oxymoron today?) I am particularly curious about how hard it is to do critical focus with it through the viewfinder. I wonder if Hasselblad has given any thought to the need for some sort of supplemental magnifying device to use for focusing.
-
It could be tough to focus but I agree like to see how it really works out for the Hassy. Just no real wide here is the bummer
-
Doug,
After 4 years of contemplating the switch to medium format, and now approaching 2 years of having been here, I agree, the 39 and 60-megapixel offerings are a "nice start". I am very excited to see if RED can ship their 261 megapixel 617--that is a super-appealing product from my standpoint.
-Brad
Hi,
Yes I believe the Mega RED 617 is well on the way to be a viable product we have a slight in to it's production and have our order in at the top of the queue !
Frankly in RED's case it is absolute pleasure to deal with a company that refrains from the MFDB Dealer/ Importer/Retailer/sales shacking/etc/etc that has taken hold of these forums lately.
Good Shooting
DesW
-
Time...
When you're shooting a sunset at its last stages you may have as little as 30 seconds before the scene changes completely. I'm with Doug on this, I'd love to have 1 frame per second of 200 megapixels each with a dynamic range of 50 stops.
I am denying the fact that higher resolution sensors have value, but considering the huge price difference vs the quality gap once stitching is part of the equation, the value proposition of backs is even worse than when a single frame only is considered.
About sunsets or low light shooting in general... my view is that this is in fact where the DSLR has the largest advantage over the backs if stitching is involved on both sides... :-)
Here is why (this is coming from extended real work experience with both solutions...). What matters then is how long an exposue you need... and DSLR have a 3 fold advantage on this:
1. Their high ISO is much cleaner, you can shoot at ISO 400 with a D3x and pretty much get away with it,
2. They don't need dark frame substration up to 8 sec (for the D3x at least) and image quality is not affected at all up to 8 sec (I seriously doubt this is the case with a P65+),
3. You don't need to stop down as much to get the same depth of field... a 2 sec frame at f11 with the D3x will have more DoF than a 4 sec f16 frame with a P65+ (and that one becomes 8 sec on the P65+ because of dark frame substraction - see point 2 above),
With all of time combined, I could shoot at ISO400, 1 sec, f11 on the D3x, vs ISO200, 4 sec * 2 = 8 sec on the P65+, all other things being mostly equal.
Staying conservative (taking into accout pano head operation adding one second between frames), all in all, you can shoot at least 4 times more frames with a D3x than with a P65+ in the same amount of time, all other things being mostly equal, but you will have a lot less time gap between successive frames in the sky with the DSLR... and that is what really matters.
Both the 6 frames DSLR and the 2 frames MFDB pano will be shootable in 15 seconds or less, but there will be only 2 sec gap between each segment of the sky with the DSLR, while there will be 8 sec gap between left and right with the P65+...
So what we have in fact is the very opposite of what you are writing above, if stitching is done with the back of course. It is true that a single P65+ frame is easier to handle... but you probably still have problems with lower image quality at longer exposures.
You can of course say that a 200MP sensor would be great, but considering the current curves, the image quality of DSLR's sensor is improving much faster than that of MFDB (think nvidia vs Silicon Graphics in the high end graphic card market). So the value of stitching with a DSLR vs single captures/Stitching with a back is going to only increase in the coming years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am denying the fact that higher resolution sensors have value, but considering the huge price difference vs the quality gap once stitching is part of the equation, the value proposition of backs is even worse than when a single frame only is considered.
About sunsets or low light shooting in general... my view is that this is in fact where the DSLR has the largest advantage over the backs if stitching is involved on both sides... :-)
Here is why (this is coming from extended real work experience with both solutions...). What matters then is how long an exposue you need... and DSLR have a 3 fold advantage on this:
1. Their high ISO is much cleaner, you can shoot at ISO 400 with a D3x and pretty much get away with it,
2. They don't need dark frame substration up to 8 sec (for the D3x at least) and image quality is not affected at all up to 8 sec (I seriously doubt this is the case with a P65+),
3. You don't need to stop down as much to get the same depth of field... a 2 sec frame at f11 with the D3x will have more DoF than a 4 sec f16 frame with a P65+ (and that one becomes 8 sec on the P65+ because of dark frame substraction - see point 2 above),
With all of time combined, I could shoot at ISO400, 1 sec, f11 on the D3x, vs ISO200, 4 sec * 2 = 8 sec on the P65+, all other things being mostly equal.
Staying conservative (taking into accout pano head operation adding one second between frames), all in all, you can shoot at least 4 times more frames with a D3x than with a P65+ in the same amount of time, all other things being mostly equal, but you will have a lot less time gap between successive frames in the sky with the DSLR... and that is what really matters.
Both the 6 frames DSLR and the 2 frames MFDB pano will be shootable in 15 seconds or less, but there will be only 2 sec gap between each segment of the sky with the DSLR, while there will be 8 sec gap between left and right with the P65+...
So what we have in fact is the very opposite of what you are writing above, if stitching is done with the back of course. It is true that a single P65+ frame is easier to handle... but you probably still have problems with lower image quality at longer exposures.
You can of course say that a 200MP sensor would be great, but considering the current curves, the image quality of DSLR's sensor is improving much faster than that of MFDB (think nvidia vs Silicon Graphics in the high end graphic card market). So the value of stitching with a DSLR vs single captures/Stitching with a back is going to only increase in the coming years.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, You are correct in your math. I believe the original intent of the post was to remind people that if we say we have enough resolution, dynamic range, etc we won't be encouraging progress. When the Phase One H20 came out we though we had all we would ever need. The H25 was better, the P25 even better, the P45 even more so and now the P65+ is beyond all those. At every step of the way, a lot of people said it was too much, we don't need all this. Today most people won't consider less than 12-16 megapixels in a camera, and the trend is to 21+ MP. The reality is we are still far away from the ideal picture making machine. We've surpassed all previous quality marks but we're still very far from what the eye sees, especially in dynamic range.
I know, printers need to catch up as well, but the fact still remains that if don't at least verbalize our wish lists, how will we get there.
Wouldn't you like to have your 200 megapixels, 20 stop dynamic range and ISO 1,000,000 all in one package and one exposure?
I don't think we're talking about value for money here, just a wish list.
-
Let us look at what it really takes to double linear resolution of the main subject.
First, doubling sensor resolution.
Second, doubling lens resolution: hard to say how hard that will be when over 100MP is desired.
Third, keeping diffraction spot size small enough: the minimum acceptable aperture diameter is doubled. This sounds like accepting half the maximum DOF, but in fact it is worse due to the greater degree of enlargement making OOF effects more noticeable.
Fourth, to keep the same DOF, meaning keeping all the same stuff looking in focus despite doubling of print size, requires halving of the maximum acceptable aperture diameter.
So the range of aperture choices between "too large, causing things I want in focus to be visibly OOF" and "too small, leading to a visible loss of sharpness due to diffraction" is reduced by two stops for each doubling of linear resolution. In other words, by one stop for each doubling of pixel count, if you wish to get the full resolution benefit of the extra pixels. At some point very few subjects will benefit.
-
Seriously after shooting the P65 several times now with tests on the Mamiya 80 , 150 D glass and even the 28d we still have yet in my mind surpassed the lens with that back. I think we still have some room to go before we do. I would seriously like to move up to the P45 plus from the 25 plus and I will when things settle out some with business but just being in Mf even on the lower end side with a 22 mpx back is such a improvement to me. I think we all would like to improve what we have be it mpx, features , ergonomics and glass and than some. Not sure those desires or needs will ever go away.
-
I am denying the fact that higher resolution sensors have value, but considering the huge price difference vs the quality gap once stitching is part of the equation, the value proposition of backs is even worse than when a single frame only is considered.
About sunsets or low light shooting in general... my view is that this is in fact where the DSLR has the largest advantage over the backs if stitching is involved on both sides... :-)
Here is why (this is coming from extended real work experience with both solutions...). What matters then is how long an exposue you need... and DSLR have a 3 fold advantage on this:
1. Their high ISO is much cleaner, you can shoot at ISO 400 with a D3x and pretty much get away with it,
2. They don't need dark frame substration up to 8 sec (for the D3x at least) and image quality is not affected at all up to 8 sec (I seriously doubt this is the case with a P65+),
3. You don't need to stop down as much to get the same depth of field... a 2 sec frame at f11 with the D3x will have more DoF than a 4 sec f16 frame with a P65+ (and that one becomes 8 sec on the P65+ because of dark frame substraction - see point 2 above),
With all of time combined, I could shoot at ISO400, 1 sec, f11 on the D3x, vs ISO200, 4 sec * 2 = 8 sec on the P65+, all other things being mostly equal.
Staying conservative (taking into accout pano head operation adding one second between frames), all in all, you can shoot at least 4 times more frames with a D3x than with a P65+ in the same amount of time, all other things being mostly equal, but you will have a lot less time gap between successive frames in the sky with the DSLR... and that is what really matters.
Both the 6 frames DSLR and the 2 frames MFDB pano will be shootable in 15 seconds or less, but there will be only 2 sec gap between each segment of the sky with the DSLR, while there will be 8 sec gap between left and right with the P65+...
So what we have in fact is the very opposite of what you are writing above, if stitching is done with the back of course. It is true that a single P65+ frame is easier to handle... but you probably still have problems with lower image quality at longer exposures.
You can of course say that a 200MP sensor would be great, but considering the current curves, the image quality of DSLR's sensor is improving much faster than that of MFDB (think nvidia vs Silicon Graphics in the high end graphic card market). So the value of stitching with a DSLR vs single captures/Stitching with a back is going to only increase in the coming years.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hmmm...
This really calls for a test (which I am going to do soon enough)
6 images Vs 2 images means 7 stitches Vs 1 stitch. Let's ignore the time factor and just look at the possible errors/ scene changes, knocking the tripod/ mishandling the pano head. That's 6 beautiful frames going straight into the dustbin.
Now let's take the DB and mount it on a pancake camera and leave the pano head at home. With a lens such as let's say 35mm Digitar you will be shifting 15mm to the right, Click, 15mm to the Left, Click, done. Composition is done is ONE ACCURATE GO versus "let's guestimate where my actual frame is" and a single-stitch 300MB+ file is 2 minutes away in CS4. Straight lines, no CA, no sharpness falloff and massive amount of detail. Also at f11 with the above lens you will get more or less infinite DOF.
This is not to say that there are no situations where a good DSLR will give the best result, but your scenario above I'm afraid is not one of these.
See if you can get hold of Richard Bryant's book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Deluxe-Richard-Bryant/dp/0847831531) or even better if you're in London before June go and see the exhibition at Somerset House (http://www.somersethouse.org.uk//visual_arts/786.asp). Those 6 metre Lambda prints will knock your socks off. Looking at the raw files and/ or the 16-bit stitched files will cause a real damage to your bank account.
all IMHO
Yair
-
Wouldn't you like to have your 200 megapixels, 20 stop dynamic range and ISO 1,000,000 all in one package and one exposure?
I don't think we're talking about value for money here, just a wish list.
Joe,
Sure, I far from being against progress! As I mentioned above, I am not saying that stitching is an answer for all needs, nor that it doesn't have any drawback compared to a single high resolution frame. There is room for P65+ like devices and I would probably buy one myself if I could justify the cost.
I just want to keep things in perspective, there are many things we ca ndo today that were simply impossible just 2 years ago.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This really calls for a test (which I am going to do soon enough)
6 images Vs 2 images means 7 stitches Vs 1 stitch. Let's ignore the time factor and just look at the possible errors/ scene changes, knocking the tripod/ mishandling the pano head. That's 6 beautiful frames going straight into the dustbin.
Yes, you need reasonnable skills. Shooting 4x5 was not super easy either, was it?
I shoot quite a lot, and mostly shoot only panos. The truth be told, I have a success rate in excess of 99%. I do in fact not remember a single pano I tried to shoot that didn't end up as a totally seamless image in the last 12 months. And I am talking about litterally thousands of them. I don't consider myself as a particularly skilled person.
Granted, there are some scenes I am not trying to address because I know the result will not be good. For these cases a single high resolution frame is clearly superior.
Now let's take the DB and mount it on a pancake camera and leave the pano head at home. With a lens such as let's say 35mm Digitar you will be shifting 15mm to the right, Click, 15mm to the Left, Click, done. Composition is done is ONE ACCURATE GO versus "let's guestimate where my actual frame is" and a single-stitch 300MB+ file is 2 minutes away in CS4. Straight lines, no CA, no sharpness falloff and massive amount of detail. Also at f11 with the above lens you will get more or less infinite DOF.
Yes on all of your points but the infinite DoF. I have shot a Mamiya 28mm for long enough to know that f11 is far from ensuring adequate sharpness along the Z axis if that is what you trying to achieve. Even if it were, the DSLR would still feature more DoF at f8. You cannot wi against smaller sensors when taking DoF into account.
This is not to say that there are no situations where a good DSLR will give the best result, but your scenario above I'm afraid is not one of these.
See if you can get hold of Richard Bryant's book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Deluxe-Richard-Bryant/dp/0847831531) or even better if you're in London before June go and see the exhibition at Somerset House (http://www.somersethouse.org.uk//visual_arts/786.asp). Those 6 metre Lambda prints will knock your socks off. Looking at the raw files and/ or the 16-bit stitched files will cause a real damage to your bank account.
I will unfortunately probably not have the chance to attend, but I am sure that this is remarkable work.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yair
Why will looking at the raw files cause real damage to one's bank account? - serious question -
ie what did you mean by this?
-
Bernard:
Just out of curiosity which pano head are you using to allow for such speed between captures?
Thanks
am
-
This was an interesting read concerning how many megapixels is enough ...
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-be-enough.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html)
-
Bernard:
Just out of curiosity which pano head are you using to allow for such speed between captures?
Thanks
am
I am using a RRS fully manual head. Things couldn't be faster, rotate the head 10 degrees (I am using mostly a Zeiss 100mm) use MLU, shoot.
When I really need to be really fast for some reason, it is manageable at a bit less than 2 seconds between images belong to the same row, and around 7-8 sec to change row. When there is no rush I usually keep 5 to 10 seconds between images belonging to a given row and around 15 to change row.
The D3x's mirror generates very few vibrations and 0.5-1 sec between MLU and actual shot is usually OK for optimal sharpness.
Regards,
Bernard
-
What prevents you from stitching many more frames with a high resolution DSLR?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
I wish I had the patience to do stitching like you do. I like to move fast and do most shooting handheld when possible. I probably stitch less than 1% of my shots and even at that, I'd rather have it all in one shot. Whatever camera a person had, they could stitch with it. We work different ways.
Myself, I'd like clean higher ISO more than anything else, then more DR, then more pixels, then a faster frame rate. Of course I want it all and in a square format too!
Eric
-
Yair
Why will looking at the raw files cause real damage to one's bank account? - serious question -
ie what did you mean by this?
Serious answer: You will either want to go back and buy some of those big prints or you will want to buy a high-end digital back, a 6X9 view camera and a set of good lenses....
Yair
-
Serious answer: You will either want to go back and buy some of those big prints or you will want to buy a high-end digital back, a 6X9 view camera and a set of good lenses....
Yair
Thank you Yair. a P3 and or an artec are next on my list - at current prices I am happy to stay with (only ) 40 megapiels though.
Pete
-
I remember when Phase One introduced 6MP LightPhase with a slogan that it had more resolution than any pro photog would ever need. I still have the picture from this add showing an eye close-up.
I for one do not want more pixels. I just simply do not need them. They clog my computer and add no benefit. I the past couple years I shot several campaigns that were featured on full size highway boards. All with 33MP and at a width on 40+ feet. I printed 40x60 fine art prints and never felt that extra pixel would help. Matter of fact what I would love to see is a 22MP full size sensor for Rz67 with ability to produce 3 images a second.
I would trade it for 200MP full size mini MF. Just my two cents.
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
-
it solidified what I've begun to feel for the last few months: if you remove cost I will always use the maximum resolution possible.
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com) | Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
By jove I think you've found the missing key that will solve all our problems:
"Ignore cost."
Well done! ;-)
-
6 images Vs 2 images means 7 stitches Vs 1 stitch. Let's ignore the time factor and just look at the possible errors/ scene changes, knocking the tripod/ mishandling the pano head. That's 6 beautiful frames going straight into the dustbin.
Spoken like someone who has no concept of modern stiching software that couldn't care less about any of the above and no I'm not referring to CS4...
(http://www.studio-beni.net/shuki.jpg)
From the Rova (Old City, Jerusalem), took under a minute to shoot, 7 frames.
-
Thank you Yair. a P3 and or an artec are next on my list - at current prices I am happy to stay with (only ) 40 megapiels though.
Pete
You won't go wrong with these fur sure;-)
(http://www.imagehut.eu/images/77362IMG_9306.jpg)
-
Spoken like someone who has no concept of modern stiching software that couldn't care less about any of the above and no I'm not referring to CS4...
From the Rova (Old City, Jerusalem), took under a minute to shoot, 7 frames.
Same place, 12 33MP verticals handheld 80mm @ f14, 1/160 and 100iso. Took about 20 seconds to shoot
(http://www.imagehut.eu/images/10718Jerusalem_Pano_s.jpg)
-
Thing is that I don't actually agree with Bernard, stitching might make sense for landscapes and possibly architecture but not in the studio or for product work. Too much computer time. A one shot solution still makes sense in most applications.
-
Thing is that I don't actually agree with Bernard, stitching might make sense for landscapes and possibly architecture but not in the studio or for product work. Too much computer time. A one shot solution still makes sense in most applications.
Actually, we do probably agree on this. I am not claiming that stitching is a universal solution. I am fully aware that different photographers have different needs, and it is true that stitching times can sometimes be long.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"yes it is time for the HOMER muscle camera a 1 billion pixel super resolution aerodynamic device... to impress dentists, housewives and neighbors.... "
i hope nobody in the upper management of the mf companies think that adding more and more resolution is they way to go. the only real revolution digital brought
to photography is high iso performance this made a new way of shooting possible unthinkable with film.
-
Wouldn't you like to have your 200 megapixels, 20 stop dynamic range and ISO 1,000,000 all in one package and one exposure?
Let's see:
200MP / 60MP = 3.3
20 stop DR / 12.5 stop DR = 1.6
1,000,000 ISO / 400 ISO = 2500
I think it is clear where the first improvement should be. Right after the screens on the backs, that is. Note that I am assuming a completely satisfactory and usable ISO 400, which may be optimistic.
-
You won't go wrong with these fur sure;-)
( the only thing I dont like btw )
is teh 3X loupe enough - or do you think higher maginification woudl be better again?
show some shots with the artec!!
Thanks
Pete
-
Ok I am ordering on Monday - but I have the S back and the H back(s) - yours has a silly battery hanging off the bottom... ( the only thing I dont like btw )
is teh 3X loupe enough - or do you think higher maginification woudl be better again?
show some shots with the artec!!
Thanks
Pete
Hi there Pete the only lens I've got at the moment is the 70mm Rodenstock (which is stunning BTW) and it is very bright so the loupe is fine. I hope to test it (with some sample shots of course) next week during the show also with the Rod' 28mm. We just need some half decent weather whcih is a rare thing in UK these days...
PS the battery hanging off is just what it is and it's not a problem on any of these cameras, plus you can get a triple size one which last forever (relatively speaking)...
Yair
-
Yair,
When the AFi 10 sensor and housing are in portrait orientation,
is what's displayed rotated as well?
Thanks,
Billy
-
Yair,
When the AFi 10 sensor and housing are in portrait orientation,
is what's displayed rotated as well?
Thanks,
Billy
By housing you mean the back? Why would you rotate it?
But anyway you can set it so that the display either rotates or not.
Yair
-
If the shot is vertical
the sensor is vertical
why shouldn't the housing be vertical
to maximize screen real estate?
-
Hi there Pete the only lens I've got at the moment is the 70mm Rodenstock (which is stunning BTW) and it is very bright so the loupe is fine. I hope to test it (with some sample shots of course) next week during the show also with the Rod' 28mm. We just need some half decent weather whcih is a rare thing in UK these days...
PS the battery hanging off is just what it is and it's not a problem on any of these cameras, plus you can get a triple size one which last forever (relatively speaking)...
Yair
i agree about the 70mm. stunning lens, and perfect to stitch even at 20mm left right. resulting resultion is amazing and, as yair says, its done in seconds. i often did and do this with the 28hr as well,- ps stitching is a big help here and so this does not cost much work, but you extend the possibilities of your lenses lot.
i would not recommend to work with a loupe, at least not with 3x mag.
better you use at least 6x, and even there i prefer to zoom in the display to 100%
which is more easy to read. the lens scales on the helicon mounts help a lot,
i am interested how easy it will be work to focus exact with the new linhof techno,
which otherwise looks very appealing to me. the HR lenses really want to be focussed 100% accurate,
more if one use them wide open, which delivers stunning results till the edges, if the focus is set absolut right.
-
If the shot is vertical
the sensor is vertical
why shouldn't the housing be vertical
to maximize screen real estate?
If he's using the new back with the rotating sensor within the back then his comment makes sense, why would you ever need to rotate the back itself.
-
Deleted incorrect attachment
-
When I see threads such as this I'm reminded just how miniscule the MFD market is and how challenging the economic crisis must be for MFD manufacturers and dealers.
Doug does make some interesting points and regardless of where medium format is at the moment there is a compelling case for the working photographer to own (or rent) more than one format or one system.
Whether there is a compelling case to own anything more than 30 megapixels is debatable and more personal preference than client dictates.
What Doug didn't mention is that no matter what the camera makers offer, current lithographic printing for standard page sizes means anything over 20 something megapixels usually requires downsizing for commercial printing. Even large format printing like outdoor, shelter cards, in-store is not designed or meant to be viewed at 3 inches but at a much further distance.
In the commercial and editorial world from a client's perspective, camera choice is usually way down on the list, if ever mentioned, so what we buy, what we use is more personal preference than an actual need to have x number of megapixels.
We can all guess at what the future might bring, but as I see my work purposed in a lot of different media and formats, the fastest growing segment is not tradition print, it's viewing on a computer or some other form of electronic deilivery and once you go to that medium megapixels are not that important.
In fact the changes I've seen in the last 5 to 7 years in photography have been more production related than anything that revolves around the detail of the capture. Pre production, shooting and post production routines have changed dramatically in the last half decade and most clients assume that with proper production, almost any professional camera the photographer choses will allow for the required results.
It's interesting that today there are volumes of reviews online about the Nikon D3x, basically applauding it as a medium format alternative, with the only real downside to the camera being the $8,000 costs.
In the world of medium format, even used, $8,000 is just the beginning.
-
Excessive resolution will be a problem for a lot of MF users, who need to work quick and cant afford to needlessly be working on 300 mb files when 20mb is plenty. Now if we can select the resolution required prior to shooting, it doesn't matter if the job is baseball caps for a web site or a tourism landscape for a BB. Being able to select highest resolution should solve a lot of moire problems too.
David
-
Sometimes I think that the really exciting and interesting things in life are about working within certain limitations. Golfers around the world are bemoaning the death of the traditional course structure and length because some geeks in lab coats keep improving the distance a ball can fly. Distance doesn't make the game more fun or any more interesting and in many ways has m,ade teh game worse - except in the crudest most low brow fashion possible.
I am getting tired of the propeller head world - with NASA price tags and dubious benefits. All these digi improvements haven't helped teh working pro much either - the margins are down and the expectations are up. It is a giant con and a sham in many ways.
I see direct parallels between the over leveraged world and so called tech improvements - too much leverage in the wrong areas. too much not so bloody obvious yearly improvements and the next great thing to buy right now - or else..I am thinking to myself - or else Fark%^&ng what?
I am no Luddite btw - but enough is enough already. So much focus on a P65+ chip and your base body still has P&S shutter lag - gimme a break.
-
Sometimes I think that the really exciting and interesting things in life are about working within certain limitations. Golfers around the world are bemoaning the death of the traditional course structure and length because some geeks in lab coats keep improving the distance a ball can fly. Distance doesn't make the game more fun or any more interesting and in many ways has m,ade teh game worse - except in the crudest most low brow fashion possible.
I am getting tired of the propeller head world - with NASA price tags and dubious benefits. All these digi improvements haven't helped teh working pro much either - the margins are down and the expectations are up. It is a giant con and a sham in many ways.
I see direct parallels between the over leveraged world and so called tech improvements - too much leverage in the wrong areas. too much not so bloody obvious yearly improvements and the next great thing to buy right now - or else..I am thinking to myself - or else Fark%^&ng what?
I am no Luddite btw - but enough is enough already. So much focus on a P65+ chip and your base body still has P&S shutter lag - gimme a break.
100% agreed.
-
Sometimes I think that the really exciting and interesting things in life are about working within certain limitations. Golfers around the world are bemoaning the death of the traditional course structure and length because some geeks in lab coats keep improving the distance a ball can fly. Distance doesn't make the game more fun or any more interesting and in many ways has m,ade teh game worse - except in the crudest most low brow fashion possible.
I am getting tired of the propeller head world - with NASA price tags and dubious benefits. All these digi improvements haven't helped teh working pro much either - the margins are down and the expectations are up. It is a giant con and a sham in many ways.
I see direct parallels between the over leveraged world and so called tech improvements - too much leverage in the wrong areas. too much not so bloody obvious yearly improvements and the next great thing to buy right now - or else..I am thinking to myself - or else Fark%^&ng what?
I am no Luddite btw - but enough is enough already. So much focus on a P65+ chip and your base body still has P&S shutter lag - gimme a break.
100% agreed, too, Peter.
Thierry
-
Sometimes I think that the really exciting and interesting things in life are about working within certain limitations. Golfers around the world are bemoaning the death of the traditional course structure and length because some geeks in lab coats keep improving the distance a ball can fly. Distance doesn't make the game more fun or any more interesting and in many ways has m,ade teh game worse - except in the crudest most low brow fashion possible.
I am getting tired of the propeller head world - with NASA price tags and dubious benefits. All these digi improvements haven't helped teh working pro much either - the margins are down and the expectations are up. It is a giant con and a sham in many ways.
I see direct parallels between the over leveraged world and so called tech improvements - too much leverage in the wrong areas. too much not so bloody obvious yearly improvements and the next great thing to buy right now - or else..I am thinking to myself - or else Fark%^&ng what?
I am no Luddite btw - but enough is enough already. So much focus on a P65+ chip and your base body still has P&S shutter lag - gimme a break.
Very well said and I couldn't agree more.
-
Sometimes I think that the really exciting and interesting things in life are about working within certain limitations. Golfers around the world are bemoaning the death of the traditional course structure and length because some geeks in lab coats keep improving the distance a ball can fly. Distance doesn't make the game more fun or any more interesting and in many ways has m,ade teh game worse - except in the crudest most low brow fashion possible.
I am getting tired of the propeller head world - with NASA price tags and dubious benefits. All these digi improvements haven't helped teh working pro much either - the margins are down and the expectations are up. It is a giant con and a sham in many ways.
I see direct parallels between the over leveraged world and so called tech improvements - too much leverage in the wrong areas. too much not so bloody obvious yearly improvements and the next great thing to buy right now - or else..I am thinking to myself - or else Fark%^&ng what?
I am no Luddite btw - but enough is enough already. So much focus on a P65+ chip and your base body still has P&S shutter lag - gimme a break.
1. I tend to agree with Doug. I find it incredibly comforting to have a giant file to work with, when doing advertising. There are always retouching requests -- head swaps, new skies, merging four or five partial frames into the final TIFF, whatever -- and it's just nice doing the retouch on a very large file, and then rezzing it down and resharpening for the final repro size. I too would welcome the P65 when the price gets realistic. Not to mention a noncropping viewfinder image.
2. Yes, that Mamiya body is still not near ready for heavy duty advertising, but what was Phase to do when Hassie slammed the door? Seriously. Do you have a better solution than what they did? Stand there and do nothing? So they get in bed with Mamiya and try to salvage a half-ass camera design -- it was the only (bad) option that they had left. Who knows if the shutter lag will ever be fixable. But i'm feeling that anyone writing the check for a p65 is going to be using H bodies anyway, or Contax in the least. Mamiya will generally fall to the price-conscious crowd only.
3. Good to remember that, in the grand scheme, the MF market is a tiny sliver of the marketplace. You could say that the fact that we have as many choices that we do to be a miracle, really. It is truly a 35mm world out there. Exponentially.
Just one opinion.
-
In the commercial and editorial world from a client's perspective, camera choice is usually way down on the list, if ever mentioned, so what we buy, what we use is more personal preference than an actual need to have x number of megapixels.
...almost any professional camera the photographer choses will allow for the required results.
Here's some videos for you.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009_swim...lyn-decker.html (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009_swimsuit/video/brooklyn-decker.html)
Maybe it's no surprise, but just about every photographer shooting for this entire 2009 issue, which is viewed by tens of millions, is shot on a Canon. Think they are getting many complaints about IQ from the Canon vs. Phase 30+ images? Does anyone here have the magazine? If so, can you tell which are which? Do you care?
-
1. I tend to agree with Doug. I find it incredibly comforting to have a giant file to work with, when doing advertising. There are always retouching requests -- head swaps, new skies, merging four or five partial frames into the final TIFF, whatever -- and it's just nice doing the retouch on a very large file, and then rezzing it down and resharpening for the final repro size. I too would welcome the P65 when the price gets realistic. Not to mention a noncropping viewfinder image.
2. Yes, that Mamiya body is still not near ready for heavy duty advertising, but what was Phase to do when Hassie slammed the door? Seriously. Do you have a better solution than what they did? Stand there and do nothing? So they get in bed with Mamiya and try to salvage a half-ass camera design -- it was the only (bad) option that they had left. Who knows if the shutter lag will ever be fixable. But i'm feeling that anyone writing the check for a p65 is going to be using H bodies anyway, or Contax in the least. Mamiya will generally fall to the price-conscious crowd only.
3. Good to remember that, in the grand scheme, the MF market is a tiny sliver of the marketplace. You could say that the fact that we have as many choices that we do to be a miracle, really. It is truly a 35mm world out there. Exponentially.
Just one opinion.
Welcome back George
-
I wish some would actually try a AFDIII body with the latest firmware. The Shutter lag is so much more improved before i had to shoot a golfer at the top of his back swing , not no more and much more at about 2 feet from contact. That is a big improvement. A new design would be nice and i hope to see one very soon. I'm sure we will see it too.
-
Here's some videos for you.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009_swim...lyn-decker.html (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009_swimsuit/video/brooklyn-decker.html)
Maybe it's no surprise, but just about every photographer shooting for this entire 2009 issue, which is viewed by tens of millions, is shot on a Canon. Think they are getting many complaints about IQ from the Canon vs. Phase 30+ images? Does anyone here have the magazine? If so, can you tell which are which? Do you care?
Honestly Lisa you provided a bad example.
SI is of average print quality and the reason why those photos are taken and what really matters about them, is clearly explained by Brooklyn Decker early on the video. She did not need to say a word while she is lowering her bikini to the point of almost revealing why the world is spinning.
-
I gather the new firmware is not for the older bodies, right? (so they are still slow?)
Guy, with the new III, are you stuck with the new $3000 lenses? Or are the older lenses fine with the new body?
Thanks.
-
Honestly Lisa you provided a bad example.
SI is of average print quality and the reason why those photos are taken and what really matters about them, is clearly explained by Brooklyn Decker early on the video, when she is lowering her bikini to the point of almost revealing why the world is spinning.
Do you have this issue? Have you looked at it?
I agree it's not the ultimate in print quality, but it is no worse than the vast majority of what is out there in terms of commerce on the printed page, is it? Of course it was not meant to be a sample of utmost quality. It is, though, big time high profile, big time viewership, big big big time budgets. And is anyone (other than us photo nerds) complaining about IQ?
What's the IQ of my favorite photographers...Peter Lindbergh (grainy), Paolo Roversi (fuzzy), Ellen von Unwerth (grainy) etc., etc., etc. In a technical sense, what you are seeing in SI is better/sharper/smoother than these amazing photographers above. And with more MP, bigger chip, yada yada yada, you could get even better/sharper/smoother, but will it elevate your work? Will people buy more magazines because of it? Will you get the job because of it? Will it ever make you better than this guy?? (who by the way shoots for SI in some of those videos, shoots for Bergdorf Goodman, etc., etc...:
http://www.miconworldwide.com/fashion-2006.htm (http://www.miconworldwide.com/fashion-2006.htm)
-
Do you have this issue? Have you looked at it?
I agree it's not the ultimate in print quality, but it is no worse than the vast majority of what is out there in terms of commerce on the printed page, is it? Of course it was not meant to be a sample of utmost quality. It is, though, big time high profile, big time viewership, big big big time budgets. And is anyone (other than us photo nerds) complaining about IQ?
What's the IQ of my favorite photographers...Peter Lindbergh (grainy), Paolo Roversi (fuzzy), Ellen von Unwerth (grainy) etc., etc., etc. In a technical sense, what you are seeing in SI is better/sharper/smoother than these amazing photographers above.
Anyway, my point is another, first SI is not big time high profile or for a very sophisticated readership. I have nothing against that kind of photography, since half of my work is like that, but the scope of that photos is not showing photography at is best state but just get us men horny. let's do not confuse this.
A couple of friends of mines shoot those stories on SI and they use canon (as I would as well), but they are smart enough to discern between sexy girl twisting their bodies and looking at the camera sexy work, and other work they do, where they use different kind of equipment.
As someone mentioned above, we shot we with a certain kind of equipment to satisfy our pleasure of getting a certain kind of image.
I can shoot with what ever I want. Nobody ever asks what I'm using.
-
double post
-
I wish some would actually try a AFDIII body with the latest firmware. The Shutter lag is so much more improved before i had to shoot a golfer at the top of his back swing , not no more and much more at about 2 feet from contact. That is a big improvement. A new design would be nice and i hope to see one very soon. I'm sure we will see it too.
G'day Guy - some points which you may not like to hear.
Firstly I wasn't criticising Mamiya bodies , I was trying to make a general point about too much focus on too little value add - from the whole industry.
Second point - I play off a handicap of four. it has blown out because these days I am on only one and half legs - two feet from point of contact the golf club is travelling at a speed of between 70 mph and 130mph - depending on wether you are photographing a hack or a pro hitter.
As a photographer you cant trigger at two feet from impact for either - so I dont get your point on Mamiya improved shutter repsonse - it wouldnt make any difference wether one was shooting Mamiya / Hasselblad or whatever - club head speed is too fast for a photographer to guess and react. Thats where DSLRs and strobes kick in with set -up trigger units - but you know all that - new tech coming where you shoot video and pick whatever still you want - will help. In the meantime good luck trying to shoot "two feet from from impact".
As for comments on what Phase should or should not have done - again not my point. The 'easy' money has been made delivering tweaks on chips to boost megapixel count and charging fortunes every year in MF land. Phase makes great backs with great software - as do others. I am just not a buyer anymore - the BS is over till someone gives me a proper 6x6 coverage chip so I can use my MF glass better - and I dont care about megapixel count or high ISO BS either ...
or RED delivers on their promises - if they do - it is syonarra time for a lot of camera manufacturers- and everyone knows it.
Cheers
Pete
-
............I too would welcome the P65 when the price gets realistic. Not to mention a noncropping viewfinder image.
........Yes, that Mamiya body is still not near ready for heavy duty advertising, but what was Phase to do when Hassie slammed the door? .....................
Medium format relies on the past historical reference of bigger is better and in some scenarios it is. The question is is it worth it and is it the frame that much bigger?
What was Phase to do? I don't know, I would think make a better camera, or maybe hook up with Rollei. If Nikon made a $800 n90 with the lcd, the shutter lag, the autofocus and the build quality of the AFD III they would be behind casio in sales.
As to where the market is going for me, I'm not a medium format buyer anymore. I've done my stint, ground through the changes, the hardware workarounds, the software glitches and I'm done because at the end of the day I doubt seriously if I could trade either one of my medium format backs for one used d3x.
Because of this I'll keep what I have but 15k to upgradge from a 1.24 crop to a 1.04 crop in a 645 frame. I don't see it.
-
G'day Guy - some points which you may not like to hear.
Firstly I wasn't criticising Mamiya bodies , I was trying to make a general point about too much focus on too little value add - from the whole industry.
Second point - I play off a handicap of four. it has blown out because these days I am on only one and half legs - two feet from point of contact the golf club is travelling at a speed of between 70 mph and 130mph - depending on wether you are photographing a hack or a pro hitter.
As a photographer you cant trigger at two feet from impact for either - so I dont get your point on Mamiya improved shutter repsonse - it wouldnt make any difference wether one was shooting Mamiya / Hasselblad or whatever - club head speed is too fast for a photographer to guess and react. Thats where DSLRs and strobes kick in with set -up trigger units - but you know all that - new tech coming where you shoot video and pick whatever still you want - will help. In the meantime good luck trying to shoot "two feet from from impact".
As for comments on what Phase should or should not have done - again not my point. The 'easy' money has been made delivering tweaks on chips to boost megapixel count and charging fortunes every year in MF land. Phase makes great backs with great software - as do others. I am just not a buyer anymore - the BS is over till someone gives me a proper 6x6 coverage chip so I can use my MF glass better - and I dont care about megapixel count or high ISO BS either ...
or RED delivers on their promises - if they do - it is syonarra time for a lot of camera manufacturers- and everyone knows it.
Cheers
Pete
Peter maybe you misunderstood a Pro actually David Tom's swing speed(which I just shot) let's say is a good 95 per hour. In the past I had to give myself enough time with shutter lag from the start of the back swing (Starting) for the camera to actually give me a image at ball contact. So it took that much time from the finger depressing the shutter till a Pro actually made contact. That is a long time for shutter lag. Now i can wait until the club approximately two feet away till the capture is made so my timing or better yet the shutter lag has shortened up a great deal. So the difference in time between the actually start of his back swing (previous camera) to 2 feet (new camera with firmware has dramatically shortened the shutter lag . That is the ONLY point I was making otherwise i don't care about the rest of the comments but wanted it to be clear things have changed since most folks shot a Mamiya or ever shot a Mamiya body. The new firmware has very much improved this and I hear more to come.
Peter some folks sit in rocking chairs and do not actually shoot this stuff everyday. Not directed at you but the internet is full of so called experts. I work in reality as you know
-
Guy I am sitting in my armchaor right now! - I like my armachaior - it is an old friend LOL
No intention to offend you or anyone else - life is too short buddy - and if you say the Mamiya works well enough for you to do X Y or Z I am sure it does. Of course maybe I was picturing you making a shot of the clubhead hitting the golf ball @ impact - well that was my impression of what you were saying - excuse me if I was wrong!
As for club head speed from David - who isnt a known long hitter and he would be the first to agree ( but sure knows his way around a mid iron and fairway woods) - I guarantee you his swing speed at impact is over 100mph - but thats just an aside with not much photographic interest.
My point of talking golf in this thread was as an anology - the game is not more interesting or even better because of improved ball technology - and I dont think that photography is more interesting or better because of lotsa a megapixels. Now if progress in gear and photography to people is all about DR/megapixels and all that stuff ..which was the wistful and philosophical point of Doug's post - mine was a different view and even on the armchair I guess maybe I am entitled to a view no matter how stupid it is.
So from a gearhead like me ( and you know I am ) - my point to myself is that hey - @ 30-40 megapixels - that part of the game ( for me ) is over - and the point was only being made in friendly manner in response to the topic.
If we wish to start a topic about Mamiya bodies - hell man - only too happy to play that one - bring it! - they arent much worse than anyone else's in MF land...
Pete
-
I was with him all day and i would kill for his swing. Smoothest thing I ever seen. LOL
I will have to send you one of those BIG files. The gear head in you will be amazed. I thought 39 was enough too but Wow.
-
I was with him all day and i would kill for his swing. Smoothest thing I ever seen. LOL
I will have to send you one of those BIG files. The gear head in you will be amazed. I thought 39 was enough too but Wow.
Deal -