is this camera possible...?

[matt_m__toronto_]

not now, but in the future, will we be able to shoot with ultra wide

lenses and then crop whatever we want out of the picture and have

enough resolution to make enlargements? i know the perspective will

be different than using the proper lens, and i know that there is not

enough information on film to do extreme cropping and enlarging, but

with digital, could this idea become a common practice amongst

photogs? i'm not up on the digital cam's/specs at all, but it sounds

as if a lot of progress has been made in the past few years.

 

(am talking resolution only, let's not get into the issues of camera

shake and focus)

[peter_l_ck]

If such a camera is possible doesn't matter, you have to "crop" anyway: before shooting (what we are doing now) or afterwords. The new camera would make us idle in thinking what we want and that's to bad

[dan_brown4]

It would also be necessary to consider the resolving power of the

lens, which I think max'es out around 200 lp/mm, so no matter

how fine the digital sensor might resolve, there will be a limit on

the system resolution, not to mention contrast.

[vic_.]

Hasselblad SWC. Or a large format camera perhaps?

[bruno_menilli]

Matt

 

Shot from the same position there would be NO change in perspective, as that is a function of camera/subject distance. Focal length just determines the field of view, unless you change your position.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[richard_milner2]

Surely one of the main points of photography is to decide what to put in the frame or outside the frame when you take the shot. The decisive moment and all that...

[douglas k.]

You can do this right now. Just buy an 8x10 view camera and a wide-angle lens. You could crop out about 95% of the image and still have a negative larger than the 35mm frame.

[matt_m__toronto_]

bruno, you are correct in your statement, i should have been more clear, and i in hindsight, "perspective" was the wrong word to use. i was going after focus issues here. your depth of field would be totaly different than using the proper lens for that crop, (taken from same camera setup)

 

yes 8x10's can perform this function very well, but they aren't much of a handheld camera :-)

 

so, (lenses and morals of "frame" aside) with the rate that digital is progressing, will we see resolution (in a handheld form) that can rival that of an 8x10? (maybe that's a better way to re-phrase my thought of the day.

[jay_.]

<<not now, but in the future, will we be able to shoot with ultra wide lenses and then crop whatever we want out of the picture and have enough resolution to make enlargements>>

 

Given how many people are in love with what digital currently offers, it doesn't seem at all impossible for us to be dummied down far enough for your scenario to become reality.

[ralph_barker]

<p>I agree with Douglas that an 8x10 can do that now. Naturally, working with the resulting 8x10 negative presents its own set of issues. ;-)</p>

<center>

<img border=2 src="http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/Photo-gear/Tachi810-02-550bw.jpg">

<p><small>Tachihara 8x10 w/ 150mm Super Symmar XL (about equal to 24mm on 35mm)</small></p></center>

<p>In the far future, however, I suspect photography will be less about photon capture and more about capture of spacial relationships of surface contours and data points. Thus, your Leica M666 Portable Reality Scanner will capture scenes with your 24mm OmniLux, and store the 2.4 petapixel images in some sort of molecular storage device (three generations behind the then-current technology). Post-processing will allow almost-infinite virtual cropping and zoom-out focal length variations for still images, as well as the creation of virtual 3-D interactive holograms that will be used to drive your personal HoloSuite.</p>

[douglas k.]

Actually, just to clarify something: if you used an 8x10 negative and cropped it down to an area of 24mmx36mm, that resulting print would have the same DOF as a 35mm shot using the same focal length lens. I think this is correct, but Ralph can probably confirm it(?)

[ralph_barker]

Douglas - I think you are correct - DOF is really a function of focal length and distance, modified by consideration of the circle of confusion appropriate for the size of the negative (or portion thereof) being enlarged. Thus, the 24x36mm section of an 8x10 neg shot with a 150mm lens would exhibit similar characteristics to a 35mm neg shot with a 135mm lens at the same f-stop from the same distance.

 

The Leica M666 Portable Reality Scanner, however, will have infinite DOF because it will create essentially a 3-D topographic data file. Blurkeh will be introduced in post-processing of that data file.

[kirk_thompson]

To get back to the initial question, in the 'realistic future,' no. Cropped and over-enlarged digital images look just awful. You're reviving the idea of a 'digital zoom,' which is just a cropping tool. The usual result is a combination of jaggies & artifacts, in anything but a small print. A small digital camera (soon to be 8 MP) has to be handled like a 35mm, coming as close to full frame as you can.

[gerry_szarek]

Assuming the 200 lines/mm is correct (I think it is for a 50mm Summacron @ F5.6) the best resolution camera now is the Canon 10D at ~70 lines/mm. If you make the pixel size smaller you lose in the noise department, along with the dynamic range of the sensor. For what it's worth department the 1Ds has a larger pixel size than the 10D. So it's going to take a long time until we have a foveon sensor with the 10D pixel size which should just about get us to the 200 number (note the foveon has 3 pixels stacked, the 10D has the RGB layout).

 

Gerry

[ray .]

It's already a common practice with 35 film photography in the darkroom. You can crop quite a bit and still end up with a good 8x10 or 11x14 print. Of course if you're afraid of grain, or you're going for an Ansel Adams seamless look, it's a different story. Otherwise the talk about resolution is a bit exaggerated I think.

[michael_rutchik]

I have a friend who spent a month in Iceland shooting bracketed 360 degree panoramas with a D60. He got home and wrote some very clever actions to digitally combine the 3 exposures of each frame giving him a dynamic range that is unbelievable. Then he stiched the images together to create these massive compositions that reminded me of the 19th century giant glass plate landscapes of the American west.

 

I suggested that what he was actually doing was getting "full coverage" while on location and that he now had the opportunity to compose (crop) the images he really wants in the solitude of his studio instead of making all those difficult decisions in the field.

 

This process is intensive and requires an enormous amount of work, patience and editing time. On the other hand, much of the work can be automated and it is still less trouble than coating giant glass plates, building a darkroom on location, processing the image on location and hauling back the glass negs all the while praying that they don't break. So I suppose that's progress :-)<div></div>

[andy_piper2]

"i know the perspective will be different than using the proper lens...."

 

Actually, not so - see attached.

 

A 21mm image shot from the same place and cropped to the framing of a 135 image will show the exact same perspective - compression and relationships (size/position) between objects.

 

DOF may be subtly different.<div></div>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

Maybe I don't understand the question. But if you use an ultra wide-angle lens as opposed to a telephoto you do change perspective!

 

With landscapes the background is pulled in with telephoto lenses and the background is �pushed back� with wide-angle lenses.

 

Andy�s example only works because he�s taking the dead-on center of the picture. However, if you look at the lines of the track, they�re slightly distorted on the �enlargement.� Try it with the same images 25% in from either side instead of dead center.

 

If you still don't believe me try taking a headshot portrait with a 21mm lens and stand back and take the same portrait with a 90mm lens. You may not recognize him or her as the same person!

[andy_piper2]

".....STAND BACK and take the same portrait with a 90mm lens..." (emphasis added).

 

Bill, once you "stand back" - you have, indeed, changed the perspective in the final image, by CHANGING YOUR LOCATION (and the location of the lens/camera).

 

Changing location (with any lens) will result in different perspective, precisely, exactly, and ONLY because of the change in point of view (a synonym for "perspective").

 

Portraits made from 2.1 feet with a 21mm and from 13.5 feet with a 135 will show different perspectives within (roughly) the same framing. The reason is the change from 2.1 feet to 13.5 feet - not the change from a 21mm to a 135mm.

 

If you do not "stand back", but shoot from the same point, the perspective (as my example demonstrates) stays exactly the same. The cropping, or framing, of the full image WILL change, due the different field of view of (say) a 21 vs. a 135.

 

Matt specifically referred to "cropping whatever we want to" out of the picture. Using the cropping technique (which is precisely what I did) - there is no difference in the perspective of an image shot with a 135 (and not cropped) and the perspective of an image shot with a superwide (and cropped).

 

Given infinite sharpness and infinitely small grain/pixels - it would be impossible to distinguish between a picture shot with a telephoto, and a picture shot with a superwide and cropped to the telephoto field of view - so long as they are shot from the same position.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

This is a test...