janvanhove

Those of you unfamiliar with the sheer size of the master prime, here is (roughly to scale) what the 35mm (although all focal lengths share the same barrell...) would look like on a Sony R-1...

Scary isn't it?<div></div>

Or, speaking of gutting cameras... Rip open a Sony R-1, and put a monster Arri-Zeiss lens in

front... that's an Idea, a Prime fixed-lens camera... With the soon-to-be Minolta-Sony sensor

stabilization, this has to be a killer low-light camera!

I know What I'm ordering next time I win the lottery! :p

PJ

Yes, sorry, that was what I meant with 'the zeiss lenses have a protrusion at the back of the lens, and I guess this could create problems with the shutter of a dSLR'... I meant the morror of the DSLR, not the shutter... my bad...

So the mirror would hit the back element? what is the distance from focal plane to the back element on a 35mm movie lens, then? I've heard of Canon SLRs receiving a modification to their mirror to accomodate Leica R lenses, Is that thinkable with movie lenses?

(just thinking out loud...)

PJ

Ok, before I start, I'd like to say that the following is a purely

theoretical question, I know that 35mm movie camera lenses are

prohibitively expensive, I'm just wondering...

A full 35mm movie frame is 18mm x 24mm, which is slightly bigger than

a DX-sized (23.7 x 15.6) dSLR sensor... Now, the specs I've see for at

least the Zeiss Arri lenses, is that the flange distance is 50mm,

longer than either nikon (46.50mm)or Canon (44.00mm) dslr mounts...

Is there anything that physically prevents the mounting of an Arri or

PL mount 35mm movie lens on a Nikon or Canon DSLR, and keep infinity

focus? I'm not familiar with shutter mechanisms on movie cameras, but

the zeiss lenses have a protrusion at the back of the lens, and I

guess this could create problems with the shutter of a dSLR...?

Those Zeiss Master Primes are gorgeous hunks of glass (monstuously

expensive as well...) and at f1.2 for the whole range of focal lenghts

... (16, 18, 21, 25, 27, 32, 35, 40, 50, 65, 75 and 100...), they are

serious pieces of photographic equipment!

PJ

With all due repect, the said 16-million pixels are both larger, and cover a larger chip, which are both critical caracteristics of digital image quality. Add to that the convenience of being able to switch easily between film and digital, and to use already existing equipment, make it a very interesting proposition for pros already using a Hasselbald system...

Just my 2 cents...

Well, the cost of the CCD in scanners can be kept down because of the use of linear arrays, so it is cheaper, but there is the need for the scanning time, which is too long for any moving subject, and can create odd artefacts...

It is basically the same limitations as a standard scanning back, plus all the limitations caused by the fact that I'm using a scanner for something it wasn't designed for, which can create more scanning artefacts...

So in terms of massive production of pixels, it is the cheapest method I know of, the said pixels are unfortunately not all usable... but hey, 10,000x14,000 pixel images are not easy to come by, straight out of the camera.

Hold on, I'll see if I can get a picture of it, but it pretty much looks like a run-of-the -mill

scanner ! The mage quality is not amazingly spectacuar, but is well worth the 89 euros I

spent on the scanner... :)

As for the rotating camera, that would involve a lot more thinkering than I am willing to

undertake on tat unit... I'm pretty much happy with what I get now. I'll just need to refine

my calibration algoritms in order to get the cleanest possible image...

Plugging in my 102-year old camera is an interesting concept in itself anyway... :)

PJ

Ok, ok, it might not be the find of the centiry, I know it's been done before, but I'm happy I'm

doing it too ! :)

Basically I took a CanoScan LiDE 60 scanner, ripped out the lens assembly to expose the CCD,

disabled the light, and voilà! instant (well almost instant..) scanning back ! And the best thing

is, those Canon scanners are so thin, they fit just like a film holder in my 11x14 camera ! :)

Anyhow, I just though I'd share my joy...

PJ<div></div>

Thanks,

In fact my specific application is rather simple : I'm putting together a scanning back for a

LF camera, using a flatbed scanner as a basis. The estimated sensitivity of the specific

scanner I'm using is like using 100 ASA film at 1/60th of a second, which, on a LF camera,

needs a lot of light.

So basically I'm looking for a way to take the massive file that will come out of the scanner,

though underxposed, and turn it into something usable by integrating the signal from a

number of pixels...

The averaging might actually be the easiest way...

I'll run some tests, and let you know...

PJ

Yes I see your point, worth a try, but i'd guess that there would be a limit to how much unerexposed to image can be with that technique...

What i'm thinking of is a way of adding dieefernt neiboring pixels, not stacking up the same image over itself... something like downsampling, but instead of averaging the value of x pixels, to actually add them up ...

PJ

If I have a high pixel count image (let's say for a 8mpix digital

camera) but that the sensitivity of said camera is not high enough

for a given situation, is it possible to under-expose the image, and

then add the light values from 4 or 9 or 16 neighboring pixels,

effectively lowering the resolution but making the image brighter?

I'd assume it's not an ideal solution, since there is a theshold

value under which pixels have a light value of 0, and as such a solid

black which cannot be added...

Could that somehow offset the effect of luminance digital noise?

How would one go about adding pixel values together??

thanks,

PJ

You could also go down the speed graphic route...

They offer less movements, but have the extra advantage of a focal plane shutter, which means that you can stick any old piee of glass in front and get a picture (not always a descnent picture, but a picture nevertheless...).

They also fold into a a convenient little box, and you might even be rewarded by a working rangefinder, which allows hand-held shooting !

Plus they can be had for significantly less than your 500-500$ budget...

just my 2 cents...

PJ

The idea is to have big sensor, which would give great tonal range, as well as keeping the

depth of field control of MF...

And having a monochrome sensor allows for none of that bayer-array filter artefacts...

I for one like the instant feedback...

PJ

It just came to my attention that kodak makes a 50mmx50mm ccd sensor

(yes, that's almost 6x6 full frame...), with a pixel size of 24

microns (that's HUGE!), but it's a monochrome sensor and it has a

resolution of only 4 Mpixels...

Now, maybe I'm just being silly, but i would love to have a high

sensitivity, high dynamic range, monochrome, almost full frame digital

Back for my 6x6, and 4 Mpix, is good enough for 10x10 inch prints in

200dpi, and more than good enough for anything involving the web and

snapshots, etc....

Am I the only one who thinks that it might be an interesting product,

or am I just, as I said, being silly...

Cheers,

PJ

For formal portraits, if you know that you will have the bride and groom for at least half an hour for formal portraits, then 4x5 is good...

Be absolutely sure that you are very proficient with the camera, because the chance of screwing up is greater in LF than smaller roll-film formats, and you will have a smaller number of images...

I know a guy who recentl did this "formal portrait at a wedding" thing with a 12x20 banquet camera...

Cheers,

PJ

If you start fresh in a new digital MF system, there are a number of choices available. Mamiya is I think the best value-for-money, and they are going to release soon (how sonn? no one really knows...) a digital MF SLR, with a 22 mpix sensor, and accepting the 645AF lenses...

Hasselblad makes the H1D, but it's very expensive, and Rollei bundles their 6008AF with digital backs, but the best integrated solution for now i think is mamiya...

I'm speaking out of thoretical knowledge, here, so it's worth what it's worth...

PJ

I concur, t-55 for neg: ASA25...<br/><br/>

The negatives are never really thick, though, and the contrast might be too low for some alternative processes, but I've made oilprints from T-55 negs...</br><br/>

<img src="http://paw.janvanhove.com/PAW/images/swordoil.jpg" align="center" vspace="20">

I use the left hand hasselblad handle for my 500cm, and It actually feels more natural to me as a way to handhold the camera than the "cradle with the left hand" option. I know it is supposed to be a flash bracket, but i've never used it with a flash, and don't plan to either...

I'm right handed and I am used to triggering cameras with my right hand, but the left hand trigger on the handle is very comfortable...

Actually, the hasselblad is not a light piece of hardware, especially with a prism mounted on it, and I have problems with my right hand, due to both computer-related problems and a previous injury (a broken wrist...) so the left-hand hold is very convenient for me !

So here Are my thoughts, hope it helps !

PJ

That's St-Roch Church, of course...

And by the way, it's the shop with the largest selection of used gear in the Quebec city area, they always have a few hassies or mamiyas lying around, that's where I bought my 500CM...

PJ

My favorite, and actually I think the only option near the old city.. ( I actually used to work there...) is Photo Presto, on St-Joseph street in the St-Roch neighborhood...

It's between the St-Roch Chorch (big stone thing, can't miss it...) and the rue du Pont...). It's just down the hill from the old city... (ask around, people should be able to direct you towards the area...)

Good luck, and say hello to Henri, Yannick, Andre and Patrick for me...

Cheers,

PJ

Iguess the solution to the problem of bandwidth is to create a low bandwith all html version...

It's the only way around, I guess, i'll keep the flash, and add another index...

PJ

Well, for now photography is not a source of money for me, far from it, and as such I need

not worry about the scaring away the clients part...<br/><br/>

When I will set up a photography business, It will be built around my other website : <br/

><br/>

<a href="http://www.mamutphoto.com">Mamut Photo</a>

Thanks for the comments on the pictures, I am neglecting my photo.net gallery since I have my own website...

For the size of the pictures, if I get them bigger than that, the load time will be very long indeed...

Thanks for the layout comments, I'll check my contacts page on various browsers, maybe that's one of those notorious bugs with explorer, but here on Safari and Firefox the font is the right size.

Wo, and looking at that page I just found some bad typos I need to correct, thanks for pointing my attention to it !

PJ

Jim, my site is not "safe for work" anyway... But that's no excuse for not being accessible, of course.

I see the need for accessibility, and in fact on other websites I'm building, I'm using CSS design for the sake of simpleness and accessibilty.

Flash is not all bad I think, and before I came across simpleviewer I was never very impressed with flash intros, and music, and animations, but this thing is simple and efficent, and I think I'll stick to it.

Thanks a lot you guys for your comments, they made me think, and that's why I asked !

PJ

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just wanted to know...

And flash is hardly an obscure plug-in, i think.

Thanks for taking an interest an commenting, any thought is helpful !

PJ