Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Seitz camera  (Read 12473 times)
Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


WWW
« on: September 18, 2006, 01:52:32 PM »
ReplyReply

What irony. A day after Alain Briot's article and we see the announcement of a 160 megapixel camera that would make any landscape photographer salivate. Although I suspect the price tag may make them gag.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2006, 02:25:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Holy crap!  Put some wheels on that and Shaun White can use it at the X games.
Logged
Big Bird
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2006, 05:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd love to borrow that thing for a week.    
Logged
situgrrl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2006, 05:56:44 PM »
ReplyReply

For sale:  2 parents, good condition, 2 former keepers.  UK based but can be flown worldwide at your cost.  Offers in the region of 35 000 euros to allow for lens and tripod.
Logged

Andrew Teakle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2006, 06:02:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow, a 21 250 x 7500 file. If they could use this scanning sensor in a 6x7 back for our Mamiya RZ67, it would give a 9640 x 7500 file and 72MP. And if it can scan 17cm in 0.5 seconds, it should be able to scan 7.2cm in ~0.2s (I don't know whether this follows  )

...And if it costs 28000 euro for 17cm, it should only be...aw forget it.

Just thinking out loud
Logged

Andrew Teakle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2006, 07:24:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Now that I think about it, this could be a truly incredible all-in-one camera. It could be used 6x17 (1:3 & 161 MP), but of course could be cropped to 6x12 (1:2 & 112MP), 6x9 (2:3 & 84MP), 6x8 (3:4 & 75MP), 6x7 (4:5 & 72MP) and 6x6 (square & 56MP) to give all the standard formats.

I wonder about noise. Its iso range is 500-10 000. If image quality is as good as I fantasise about, thist could be IT!

Now where did I leave that spare 35K...
Logged

photo570
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2006, 07:43:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now that I think about it, this could be a truly incredible all-in-one camera. It could be used 6x17 (1:3 & 161 MP), but of course could be cropped to 6x12 (1:2 & 112MP), 6x9 (2:3 & 84MP), 6x8 (3:4 & 75MP), 6x7 (4:5 & 72MP) and 6x6 (square & 56MP) to give all the standard formats.

I wonder about noise. Its iso range is 500-10 000. If image quality is as good as I fantasise about, thist could be IT!

Now where did I leave that spare 35K...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OH MY GOD. That is so cool!!!!

Reading the blurb, it sounds like they have a real winner, bring on the samples and reviews. This sounds like what I really need, not just the huge files, but the whole cassette idea so it can go on a monorail for studio/architectural as well, may even be suitable for talent utilizing the smaller formats. Yay.  

And it uses real lenses!

Did I say Yay already?
Logged

Jason Berge
www.shoot.co.nz
Stephen Best
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2006, 07:54:47 PM »
ReplyReply

TDI? 300MB per second? Makes Better Light look positively neanderthal. Maybe practical largeformat digital for field use is gonna happen after all. Now if they could just make an insert/back that uses a MacBook for exclusive control, power and storage ... and work on the price:

http://www.roundshot.ch/
Logged
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2006, 08:42:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
TDI? 300MB per second? Makes Better Light look positively neanderthal. Maybe practical largeformat digital for field use is gonna happen after all. Now if they could just make an insert/back that uses a MacBook for exclusive control, power and storage ... and work on the price:

http://www.roundshot.ch/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can't see why (yet) they couldn't subsititute any new Intel mac laptop for the mini in the package  as listed.  May need a separate battery/Power supply for the unit, but I'm with you on (p)review on the laptop screen with zoom and camera control.  No tilt/shift but if it can take "regular" LF lenses, perhaps a Zoerk type adapter would emerge.   Need more details , already started saving
« Last Edit: September 18, 2006, 08:42:31 PM by AJSJones » Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2006, 11:23:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Did someone else already make the obligatory print/share button joke?
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2006, 12:07:46 AM »
ReplyReply

At 300dpi that works out to be a 25"x71" print right out of the camera.  I would expect it to uprez nicely (poor CPU) to at least double that.  That might just be the digital camera for Clyde Butcher.  Be sad to see a gator make off with a camera like that.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2006, 12:08:21 AM by DarkPenguin » Logged
pulsar999
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2006, 01:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

If the camera needs 0.5s to take a picture, how was the photo with the surfers at the Seitz-homepage done?
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2006, 01:21:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If the camera needs 0.5s to take a picture, how was the photo with the surfers at the Seitz-homepage done?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's 1/2 sec to complete the exposure scan, not a 1/2 sec exposure. The image at one side of the scene will be 1/2 sec delayed compared to the other side but this is not visible like it would be with other scanning backs where it takes many seconds to complete the scan.

The actual exposure would have been more like 1000th sec for each scanning line.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2006, 01:56:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's 1/2 sec to complete the exposure scan, not a 1/2 sec exposure. The image at one side of the scene will be 1/2 sec delayed compared to the other side but this is not visible like it would be with other scanning backs where it takes many seconds to complete the scan.

The actual exposure would have been more like 1000th sec for each scanning line.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, but assuming that each of the surfers takes up about 1/20th the width of the scene, it still took about 1/100 sec to scan that area of the scene, right?

Normally, you would need shutter speeds around 1/500th to get them real sharp.

I would be very interested in looking at a 100% version of the image, I bet that it is full of scanning artifacts.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2006, 03:04:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, but assuming that each of the surfers takes up about 1/20th the width of the scene, it still took about 1/100 sec to scan that area of the scene, right?

Normally, you would need shutter speeds around 1/500th to get them real sharp.

I would be very interested in looking at a 100% version of the image, I bet that it is full of scanning artifacts.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True, but you have to remember that it's a line of photosites exposing in sequence so the exposure time of each individual 'strip' is actually very short. It's the 'stretching' of the moving subject that you have to watch for - remember that classic shot of the old car with the oval wheels? That was taken using an early focal plane shutter moving in a vertical direction. Thus the top of the car had moved relative to the bottom by the time the shutter exposed that part.

With scanning backs it is less the 'shutter' speed than the scanning speed that makes an image look sharp - within reason of course.

So if you are correct and it took 1/100th sec to scan over the surfer then the amount he would have moved in that time is small and the distortion is invisible (hopefully). I would expect to see a sharp image, but maybe a tiny bit of distortion.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2006, 03:08:08 AM by Nick Rains » Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2006, 03:37:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So if you are correct and it took 1/100th sec to scan over the surfer then the amount he would have moved in that time is small and the distortion is invisible (hopefully). I would expect to see a sharp image, but maybe a tiny bit of distortion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76905\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nick,

Wouldn't you be overlooking one phenomena?

The problem with those scanning devices is that each component of the RGB coordinates is exposed at different times for a given point in space. Meaning that it is enough for the surfer to move a tiny bit for the pixels at the edge of its body to exhibit RGB artifacts.

Indeed, let's assume that the red channel is captured first, and that we are looking at a pixel that is still inside the surfer's body at time T=0, the surfer moves enough that that same pixel is now over water at time T=T1 during which the Green channel is exposed for that pixel (the CCD moved one step) -> we have a color that is completely meaningless, since the red and green channels effectively relate to different objects due to the movement in the mean time.

All the moving objects are bound to have artifacts at their edges. This is true for the surfer, but also basically for all the waves in the scene...

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2006, 03:45:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nick,

Wouldn't you be overlooking one phenomena?

The problem with those scanning devices is that each component of the RGB coordinates is exposed at different times for a given point in space. Meaning that it is enough for the surfer to move a tiny bit for the pixels at the edge of its body to exhibit RGB artifacts.

Indeed, let's assume that the red channel is captured first, and that we are looking at a pixel that is still inside the surfer's body at time T=0, the surfer moves enough that that same pixel is now over water at time T=T1 during which the Green channel is exposed for that pixel (the CCD moved one step) -> we have a color that is completely meaningless, since the red and green channels effectively relate to different objects due to the movement in the mean time.

All the moving objects are bound to have artifacts at their edges. This is true for the surfer, but also basically for all the waves in the scene...

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yeah, good point, assuming that's how this particular scanning back works - maybe it's an RGB capture like the Foveon.  I guess we will have to wait for samples!

Cheers
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2006, 03:52:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yeah, good point, assuming that's how this particular scanning back works - maybe it's an RGB capture like the Foveon.  I guess we will have to wait for samples!

Cheers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if the Dalsa sensor in the Zeitz has the ability to capture all three channels at once (a la foveon as you say), then I would seriously consider buying this device!

But what I described above is how current Betterlight work for instance.

Let's wait indeed.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Stephen Best
Guest
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2006, 04:00:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Indeed, let's assume that the red channel is captured first, and that we are looking at a pixel that is still inside the surfer's body at time T=0, the surfer moves enough that that same pixel is now over water at time T=T1 during which the Green channel is exposed for that pixel (the CCD moved one step) -> we have a color that is completely meaningless, since the red and green channels effectively relate to different objects due to the movement in the mean time.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It appears the data is aggregated over time:
 
[a href=\"http://vfm.dalsa.com/support/primers/HSLineScanPrimer.asp]http://vfm.dalsa.com/support/primers/HSLineScanPrimer.asp[/url]

I'm not sure if this explains why it wouldn't be a problem, but Seitz seem to think you can handhold this thing.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2006, 07:30:58 AM »
ReplyReply

A few points, forget any kind of studio flash lighting, it's hot lights only and with the kind of lighting needed for LF style photography you are going to melt the model before you manage to finish the frame!

Computers. What kind of monster would you need to process those files, just 5 layers would grind down almost every desktop available at this point in time!

How does the price compare to a phase 1 P45? it doesn't seem that far from it or am I mistaken?

This chip in a rather more conventional medium format setup and you will have landscape photographers wetting themselves!
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad