Hasselblad 50 MP announced

[James R Russell]

I think you could edit, do ADR, foley, and run some FX on a documentary that took a month to shoot in less time than post work on a months worth of MFDB files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is the absolute truth.

I've talked to a lot of camera makers, a lot of labs, digital labs, techs etc. and I am amazed at how hitting a film look is still a roll your own color, or the makers are just shooting color charts and veggies to get to a look.

Before film and labs die completely somebody should take their camera and back along with about 200 rolls of film and shoot every type of scene/lighting possible, shoot film, lay the film next to the computer and make presets for their system.

You know, call it nc100 hard light, nc100 back light, nc100 soft side light, nc100 pushed one stop, nc100 low key, nc100 dark, nc100  . . .

JR

[BJL]

... it is a new Kodak 48mm x 36mm sensor ... It appears that glory will still go to PhaseOne at Photokina?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206163\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, it appears that the MF photographic sensor industry has settled at 36x48mm maximum digital format size (or to be pedantic, 36.8x49.1mm from Kodak). Kodak has now used exactly this size for three generation of sensors (22MP, 39MP, 50MP) going back about six years, and has used exactly that maximum short dimension of 36.8mm for four generations, going back to its 16MP square sensor.

I would be stunned if Kodak makes another slightly larger sensor, and so having one used only by Hasselblad, another only by Mamiya/Phase. Or in fact if any sensor maker finds it worthwhile to produce a MF sensor in a format that Hasselblad is not interested in using.

Like it or not, there seem to be substantial cost and/or technical reasons for staying at these maximum dimensions for so long. (Maybe chips per wafer drops substantially if chips get any bigger.)

Perhaps it is time to start adapting to the new formats of the digital era, instead of insisting that only the historic film formats of 24x36mm, 42.5x56mm and 56x56mm are divinely appointed and anything else is a stop-gap measure. Adaptions like using a viewfinder that displays and meters correctly for the sensor format, like the 3.1x mag. HVD90x. (Though of course, Hasselblad also has the 2.7x mag. HV90x 645 format VF available, as used on the H2F, so all H bodies could accommodate 645 format sensors with the right VF and with all lenses except the 28mm.)

[James R Russell]

Perhaps it is time to start adapting to the new formats of the digital era, instead of insisting that only the historic film formats of 24x36mm, 42.5x56mm and 56x56mm are divinely appointed and anything else is a stop-gap measure. Adaptions like using a viewfinder that displays and meters correctly for the sensor format, like the 3.1x mag. HVD90x. (Though of course, Hasselblad also has the 2.7x mag. HV90x 645 format VF available, as used on the H2F, so all H bodies could accommodate 645 format sensors with the right VF and with all lenses except the 28mm.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree, though lenses need to come down in size and f-stops need to go from 2.8/3.5 to 2.0 and 2.4.

We need 110's, 120's, 70mm, etc. etc.

with a 1.16 crop a 150mm lens puts you way back, with a 1.26 crop it puts you out the door.

 (174mm) and (189mm).

JR

[TMARK]

No, it appears that the MF photographic sensor industry has settled at 36x48mm maximum digital format size (or to be pedantic, 36.8x49.1mm from Kodak). Kodak has now used exactly this size for three generation of sensors (22MP, 39MP, 50MP) going back about six years, and has used exactly that maximum short dimension of 36.8mm for four generations, going back to its 16MP square sensor.

I would be stunned if Kodak makes another slightly larger sensor, and so having one used only by Hasselblad, another only by Mamiya/Phase. Or in fact if any sensor maker finds it worthwhile to produce a MF sensor in a format that Hasselblad is not interested in using.

Like it or not, there seem to be substantial cost and/or technical reasons for staying at these maximum dimensions for so long. (Maybe chips per wafer drops substantially if chips get any bigger.)

Perhaps it is time to start adapting to the new formats of the digital era, instead of insisting that only the historic film formats of 24x36mm, 42.5x56mm and 56x56mm are divinely appointed and anything else is a stop-gap measure. Adaptions like using a viewfinder that displays and meters correctly for the sensor format, like the 3.1x mag. HVD90x. (Though of course, Hasselblad also has the 2.7x mag. HV90x 645 format VF available, as used on the H2F, so all H bodies could accommodate 645 format sensors with the right VF and with all lenses except the 28mm.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with you re: legacy formats, but it is the lenses which keep people thinking in terms of 35mm, 645, 6x6 etc.   There are no digital era lenses, aside from the Mamiya and blad 28s.  Everything is based on 120 film.

So the question becomes:  who is going to change the market by producing a real high end digital camera for the new age, with new lenses to fit the sensor sizes offered by Kodak and Dalsa?

[tom_l]

More information is now available on their website:
http://www.hasselblad.com/downloads/datasheets/h-system.aspx

http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/hts-15.aspx

The T/S adaptor only works with 4 wider lenses it seems.
The Sliding adapter looks funny, still don't get it. Is it just a "where shall i put my batteriy" thing? Most view cameras already accept a H-Mount back anyway.


Tom

[robert zimmerman]

i think the 50 mp cam from hasselblad has come just in the nick of time.  we've finally reached overkill in the resolution department, there is as of now absolutely no other way to get photographers to buy new cameras than to 1. sink prices and 2. make better cameras.

better higher iso, better camera & back integration, better (faster) lenses, better lcd's, yes!!! better software, better looking files that reduce the need for hours of post processing, better (higher) shutter speeds, better (lower) camera vibration via better (less) mirror slap or, uh oh, in camera vr, better moire reduction, better (lower) battery consumption, better (smaller) bodies and lenses for better (easier) use on location, and last but not least better (beautifully) designed cameras (hasselblad is the h the best you can do?!? look at hans j. wegner, arne jacobsen, verner panton, finn juhl, so many great scandinavian (danish) designers... oh well, just hire a danish designer and say he's swedish, we'll never know.).

[BJL]

lenses need to come down in size and f-stops need to go from 2.8/3.5 to 2.0 and 2.4.

We need 110's, 120's, 70mm, etc. etc.

with a 1.16 crop a 150mm lens puts you way back, with a 1.26 crop it puts you out the door.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Edit:] James Russell and TMARK have hit on questions I had, and I was going to speculate that a 70mm or 75mm standard lens would be a natural addition for "48mm format".


How much does the 14% linear difference with Kodak's 49.1x36.8mm sensors hurt with framing, perspective, or needed working distance, particularly in the studio?

How much difference does it make to DOF and OOF effects wide open? (Optical formulas and an essay at this site suggest that backing up with same focal length and same f-stop should given a bit more DOF, but equally strong visible blurring on background elements well behind the subject.)

[TMARK]

[Edit:] James Russell and TMARK have hit on questions I had, and I was going to speculate that a 70mm or 75mm standard lens would be a natural addition for "48mm format".
How much does the 14% linear difference with Kodak's 49.1x36.8mm sensors hurt with framing, perspective, or needed working distance, particularly in the studio?

How much difference does it make to DOF and OOF effects wide open? (Optical formulas and an essay at this site suggest that backing up with same focal length and same f-stop should given a bit more DOF, but equally strong visible blurring on background elements well behind the subject.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't see much of a difference in practice between my P30 and a P45 in terms of oof, but again, this is in practice and I don't have a P45, so my experience is limited.

[hubell]

So if someone wants to move me, give me a film presets that look like film, wb corrections that are more than global, generic click and adjust, and give the ability to make my own film looks, lock them into the camera and go shoot.

There is a lot to digital that can be way better than film (knowing you have the shot), but the back end is a lot of work and takes a lot of study and time.

So rather than 50mpx how about 50 film looks?

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I could not agree with you more. I have suggested this on a number of occasions with Hasselblad, and they seem to have no interest in it. They appear to be wedded  to the idea that the camera and software should be set up to provide "accurate" color as the default setting(a good Macbeth Color Checker?), and if you want an alternative look, go figure out how to do it yourself and create a preset in the software. Well, it's easy in digital to amp up the look of the file with S curves and saturation bumps, but I have grown to dislike that look.  Most digital color work that I see looks way over the top. It screams. I find it difficult with digital to achieve the look of beautiful, large format color neg films like you see in the work of photographers like Joel Meyerowitz.  Hasselblad should go figure this all out for me. This is their job, not mine. I am NOT a color scientist. There are no doubt a lot of unemployed guys in Rochester that were terrific at doing the R&D on film that could help Hasselblad.

[John_Black]

No H3DII-22 mentioned in the new PDF...  So to get "FF", than means we have to buy H3DII-39?  That's a steep entry price.

[mtomalty]

Would it be safe to assume that use of the coming Tilt Shift adapter will introduce
some color shift into captures when shift and/or tilt is applied?

As I am more familiar with how Phase handles corrective files to deal with LCC (lens
cast correction) and the ability to work untethered I would also like to know if the
Blad backs can apply their corrective files in post  foollowing  shoot or does the corrective
capture need to be handled in a tethered workflow.


Thx,
Mark

[vandevanterSH]

No H3DII-22 mentioned in the new PDF...  So to get "FF", than means we have to buy H3DII-39?  That's a steep entry price.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

On the UK site, the H3DIIs are now listed as the 31MP, 39MP and the 50MP.  The 22MP is no longer listed.  The 31MP seems to be the entry level now.  IIRC, the H3DII/31 is selling for ~$18k after rebate.

Steve

[pss]

50MP at 60 frames per minute is impressive.  I wonder what other improvements Kodak made (are pixel wells less deep for less color cast?)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

the specs say it shoots 1.1frame/sec and 33/minute....still impressive and should be more then fast enough for burst use....

i guess now i know how they go around the lens coverage problem with the T/S adapter....it turns the 28 into a 45....1.5 magnification...i guess that is a trade-off some people can live with but for the architecture/landscape shooters this probably won't do it at all...

50 mpix at 400iso at 1.1 frames/sec....has anyone involved in the production of this ever read ANY feedback in ANY forum? i honestly doubt that there is a visible difference between the 39 and the 50...especially since the pixel size is going into a direction i really did not want to see it going....

as someone here said: it it time someone took all the "old" chips and put together a rig of 4, sync the exposure and make somekind of stitch action to create one large raw file....actually even 2 would be great on a fuji 680....

[BJL]

No H3DII-22 mentioned in the new PDF...  So to get "FF", than means we have to buy H3DII-39?  That's a steep entry price.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is probably little difference in unit production cost for the various "48x36mm" backs, so price differences reflects demand and hopefully backs using the now "obsolescent" 39MP sensors will slide down in price, just as the 22MP did after the 35Mp and 39MP backs arrived. And look for bargains on those 22MP dinosaurs!


As to likely sales success of the new 50MP sensor: wasn't there a lot of forum skepticism about the need for 39MP? Sales often to tell a different story than forum chatter. The enthusiasm for the resolution advantages of the 39MP MS back over 39MP single shot shows that some people want higher resolution, and for some, MS is not an option. A 39MP MS raises resolution by about 1.4x or more, so the lens resolution demands are greater than for a 50MP single shot sensor; more like 80MP.

[Nick-T]

It's not clear to me if the T/S is only for the new camera or for the existing line too.

That would be of great interest to me.

Anyone care to speculate?

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The T/S will work on any H series camera but of course you will only get the DAC corrections with a Hasselblad back.
Nick-T

[snickgrr]

Just like when Kodak introduced a new film, it doesn't really matter until you shoot with it see what it looks like.

In all honesty that's kind of what we are talking about, a new film . . . right?  Except nowdays new films cost $30,000. 


JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't need nor want a new back but I have looked at the price of the backs as I did when I shot film.  $25,000 is not that much compared to what I used to pay for film and processing in a year.

I didn't shoot crazy quantities of film like the people shooters did but still my large format film  with processing was between 10-20K per year.  Yes, still less than the price of a back but not that much less.

Of course the big difference was I, and everybody else, marked up the film and processing and past it on to the clients.  I have a hard time adding an outright charge for the digital "film" and hide it in other ways nowadays.

[michael]

Many pros simply add a "digital image processing fee" to their invoices. This is pretty much SOP in most major markets.

Michael

[snickgrr]

Yes, I'm aware of that.  I do things differently.

[James R Russell]

Many pros simply add a "digital image processing fee" to their invoices. This is pretty much SOP in most major markets.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Correct and on a per job basis, it probably is a wash or somewhat of a small profit center.

Everyone works differently, some hand it off to a digital tech, process everything out to Tiffs and are done with it, some photographers offer more full service.  Usually it's client dependent.

Then again when figuring in digital profits, you have to consider computers, software, upgrades, multiple storage drives, portable drives, battery power sources, backups, monitors, calibration tools and that is before you factor in the time it takes to learn and do it.

Actually we've traced and put a average number to what anyone in my studio should be charging everytime they touch a computer and factoring in the above, you can't get close to charging the full amount.

Actually if I told you what I spent on hard drives a year, nobody would probably believe it, because I don't believe it, though today I just added another $4,000 in drive expenditures and we're early into the month.

In fact, speaking to someone today about the difference in digital now vs. 5 years ago, my workflow is virtually identical.  Some of the software is a little faster and more featured, some of the cameras have more resolution and shoot a little faster, but compared to the days of the 1ds1 to now, there is not that much difference in shoot to finish workflow, except now I deliver 95% of our work over the internet where 5 years ago 95% went hard copy.

Anyway, if your busy and you keep on on upgrades,  computers/cameras/software, even if you skip a generation or two digital is much more expensive than film.

A studio manager I had in LA that started working digital with me, had probably the most astute observation yet, comparing film to digital.

He was sitting at his computers, cataloging drives with a calibration puck hanging off his monitor and said "You know  . . . some day we'll look at a roll of film and think "with processing that only cost me $15 and we'll laugh at how cheap that was".

Out of the mouths of babes.

The other thing that few factor in the digital process is how much more we shoot per day, and I don't mean holding the button down, but how many more setups and shots we accomplish in a digital day vs. the polaroid/film days.  

That factors in also.

JR

[TMARK]

The other thing that few factor in the digital process is how much more we shoot per day, and I don't mean holding the button down, but how many more setups and shots we accomplish in a digital day vs. the polaroid/film days. 

That factors in also.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206287\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Digital brought these efficiencies that allow multiple set ups etc.  We bought the gear, put in the time, etc to realize this efficiency, and rates have remained stagnant or have declined in real terms.  I think there must be a price drop on MFDB because the photography market in general doesn't really support it.  

When I shoot film I drop it off, get contacts messengered to me, send the contacts to the client, wait for selects, and have it scanned for digital delivery.  Meanwhile I'm slurping lattes and chatting up clients, not starring at an ACD posting to LL as another batch runs.