Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: True focus  (Read 10277 times)
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2010, 01:44:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nick-T
gwhitf

You are making the process sound a lot more complicated than it really is. When you shot H did you have the AF on the user button and focus recompose? True focus works the same way but with the addition of a rapidly calculated adjustment based on the amount of tilt. What's it's doing is correcting for the inevitable back focus caused by the change in distance.

Kevin
As you (rather sniffily) pointed out the system cannot compensate for a moving model but it is still compensating.

I have been using the system for a while and it does work albeit with the caveats that others have mentioned (moving model, moving photographer).

As for film I don't think it was ever sharp, and as David says we never looked at it as closely.

My 2c

Nick-T

Edit
Forgot to mention that I did blather about true focus in the Hasselblad newsletter might be worth a read if you are trying to get your head around how it works.


So Nick as I mentioned the scenario above focus on the eye's than recompose by adjusting down ( given a vertical shot)and it calculates that tilt down. Hmmm
« Last Edit: February 11, 2010, 01:45:57 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

pchong
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2010, 09:11:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,

It seems to me that True Focus is a step forward, and bravo to Hasselblad to do that. And it also seems to me that this is achieved by software...calculating tilt, and applying it to each specific lens which the camera already knows about is just maths. So my question is would True Focus be available as a firmware upgrade to the earlier H cameras?
Logged

Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2010, 10:09:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pchong
Hi all,

It seems to me that True Focus is a step forward, and bravo to Hasselblad to do that. And it also seems to me that this is achieved by software...calculating tilt, and applying it to each specific lens which the camera already knows about is just maths. So my question is would True Focus be available as a firmware upgrade to the earlier H cameras?

You'd need a tilt/yaw sensor..
Logged

Barry Goyette
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2010, 10:30:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I attended the H4d-40 launch in los angeles yesterday...and I came away with perhaps a bit of a yawn over the new true focus system. It worked about half the time seemingly, and I'm not sure whether this was due to the use of the 28mm (the rep seemed to think this lens would show the greatest effect...which I was skeptical about...but). Yes it did work, but I think I came away with the conclusion that the "reposition error" is not really as great as has been discussed, and at even f/5.6 we could barely tell the difference between the TF version and using the standard autofocus. (after several attempts I finally suggested trying it at f4, and then the difference, while still subtle, was at least noticeable. Again, perhaps the issue was the lens used.

On the other hand...i was quite surprised by the low noise this new sensor is capable of even at 1600. While the rep was talking, I managed to squeeze off a few handheld shots at high ISOs and I found the results a decent step up (first thumbnail) from my 31. I compared these shots with some 1ds Mark3 (2nd thumbnail) frames shot under similar lighting conditions (mix of incandescent and warm flourescents)... and found the 40 to be just as good at 100%. I realize there are better FF35mm cams out there now in low light, but the current 1ds is no slouch, and for a MF camera to hit this level I think is good news. At 50%, in-focus areas show not a trace of noise (third thumbnail), and I think the color rendering is really pretty good given the mix of lighting. I'd feel very comfortable with this ISO setting if I needed it in a pinch.

Barry



[attachment=20215:h4d_40.jpg]
[attachment=20213:1dsmark3.jpg]
[attachment=20216:50percent_iso1600.jpg]
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2010, 03:51:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Barry Goyette
I attended the H4d-40 launch in los angeles yesterday...and I came away with perhaps a bit of a yawn over the new true focus system. It worked about half the time seemingly, and I'm not sure whether this was due to the use of the 28mm (the rep seemed to think this lens would show the greatest effect...which I was skeptical about...but). Yes it did work, but I think I came away with the conclusion that the "reposition error" is not really as great as has been discussed, and at even f/5.6 we could barely tell the difference between the TF version and using the standard autofocus. (after several attempts I finally suggested trying it at f4, and then the difference, while still subtle, was at least noticeable. Again, perhaps the issue was the lens used.

On the other hand...i was quite surprised by the low noise this new sensor is capable of even at 1600. While the rep was talking, I managed to squeeze off a few handheld shots at high ISOs and I found the results a decent step up (first thumbnail) from my 31. I compared these shots with some 1ds Mark3 (2nd thumbnail) frames shot under similar lighting conditions (mix of incandescent and warm flourescents)... and found the 40 to be just as good at 100%. I realize there are better FF35mm cams out there now in low light, but the current 1ds is no slouch, and for a MF camera to hit this level I think is good news. At 50%, in-focus areas show not a trace of noise (third thumbnail), and I think the color rendering is really pretty good given the mix of lighting. I'd feel very comfortable with this ISO setting if I needed it in a pinch.

Barry



[attachment=20215:h4d_40.jpg]
[attachment=20213:1dsmark3.jpg]
[attachment=20216:50percent_iso1600.jpg]


Hi Barry,

What you surmise is correct, that it is an refinement of an already very accurate AF system.  As I said earlier at greater DOF, you could argue the correction is not needed, but there is always an optimum point of focus and TF helps to achieve this at shallow DOF.

I am really glad you liked the results from the sensor.  It is indeed a step forward.

David
Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
pchong
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2010, 05:04:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nick-T
You'd need a tilt/yaw sensor..

Good point...though would be nice to have some backward compatibility with a small clipon device for older cameras.
Logged

Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2010, 01:14:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I would expect the system to be demonstrated with a very long lens ?
Portrait photographers have to focus on the eyes and than recompose the image, and I hardly ever shoot on 28mm.
Most of my work is done between 110-200mm.
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2010, 02:47:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Frank,

If you do the trigonometry then with longer lenses and distances, the True Focus correction is very very small.  Almost nothing!

David

Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
bart alexander
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #28 on: February 13, 2010, 04:18:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Are other people fighting focus too, no matter what digital camera you're using?

Yes, especially with the 5DII (and 5D and D2X and D200). For exact focus I use live view and after nailed the focus with contrast AF, I just go along with shooting normally with the AF off, since I don't need it anymore for the same shot. (This is in the situation you described.) The 5DII is known for having a great central AF sensor and bad outer sensors, so why aren't you shooting a 1Ds3 which is supposed to have better outer AF sensors, or even better why not use a Nikon D3X which is supposed to be AF king? The one and only digital camera that always and always focussed dead on, was the Kodak 14n. Too bad it was so slow and had other issues too. But it nailed focus on any lens. No calibration nonsense at all, really amazing.

This focus issue with modern digital cameras has taken away a lot of the fun for me shooting at all. The non aliasing filter 14n again was good fun shooting, but a lot of work getting the files worked on. So, I wonder, why is it so difficult for manufaturers to make a well focussing camera? The 40D is supposed to be a far better focussing machine than the more expensive 5DII Why is that? Well anyway, we'll have to shoot what's available here and now, or just go and do something else for fun I guess.





Quote from: gwhitf
David,

Hasselblad must be applauded for even trying to address this autofocus issue. I can't see that it would work for me, but maybe it would for others' style.

I was shooting a job last week on the road, and this focus thing again just slapped me in the face. I am amazed that more photographers don't talk about it. Maybe it's just too embarrassing that, in the year 2010, we're still dealing with basic things like keeping the subject sharp, (even when shooting on a tripod, with a non moving subject). My setup, at that time, was a location environmental portrait. I was shooting with an unnamed 35mm DSLR (5d2), tethered, on a tripod. To give you an idea about how far away, I was shooting with a 50mm f1.2, at f8, and the subject was full length, in vertical format, but there was a good deal of room around their body. So in short, the subject was pretty damn far away. You'd think, with f8, on a tripod, with a non moving subject, the autofocus sensor could nail it. I used one of the outer squares for my focus sensor, due to how my shot was locked down, and I was trying to find some constrast in her clothing for the AF sensor to grab onto. Here is the key: You CANNOT trust what you're seeing in the Viewfinder. So many times, it looks TACK SHARP, but you shoot tethered, and you lean over and peek at the monitor, and for, the focus is slightly off. To me, this issue is The Great Unspoken issue about all digital cameras -- the Viewfinder, (even with StopDownPreview pressed), does not match, at all, what's actually rendered into the file.

But the truly scary thing is: I have spent DAYS with my assistant, and we test these cameras's focus issues, sitting there, shooting tethered, looking at every frame. The scary thing is: There is no rhyme or reason sometimes. Sometimes, you shoot a frame, it's tack sharp. You shoot the next frame, everything the same, (on tripod), and it's slightly soft. It's like there's some kind of "autofocus hunting" going on, even though you can't see or hear any hunting going on. Frame after frame. I have calibrated each lens; I have thrown salt over my shoulder; I have even tried religion. But this autofocus sensor thing haunts me. (I gave up on shooting Manual Focus last year).

Back to Hasselblad, here is the problem to me: maybe I'm missing something. I see myself shooting in this way, and it seems like this:

a. Compose the frame. Lock down tripod.
b. Unlock tripod.
c. Find what you want sharp on the subject, (and hope it's contrasty).
d. Put focus sensor then and press some button.
e. Hold down on that button.
f. Unlock tripod.
g. Recompose frame.
h. SHOOT.
i. Unlock tripod.
j. Find what you want sharp on the subject, (and hope it's contrasty).
k. Put focus sensor then and press some button.
l. Hold down on that button.
m. Unlock tripod.
n. Recompose frame.
o. SHOOT.

Over and over and over.

The reason I post this question: Are other people fighting focus too, no matter what digital camera you're using? I'm no fan of LiveView, but on the 5d2, it's pretty damn amazing: double click on the zoom thingie, and you're at 10x, and you focus, and YOU KNOW YOU GOT IT, because you're see what the sensor is seeing. But I am not fast enough shooting people's fleeting facial expressions to actually use LiveView.

It just seems that, overall, the Focus Tolerance for digital is MASSIVELY smaller than for Old Timey Film. So much so that, I just wonder why more people don't fight with Focus, even using AutoFocus. I could put up a strong argument that, with the tiny tolerances of these digital files, that it's clearly time to abandon the Ground Glass, and mirrors, and simply use an Electronic Viewfinder, in order to know that you nailed it.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2010, 04:20:32 AM by bart alexander » Logged
AlexM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2010, 11:39:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
I would expect the system to be demonstrated with a very long lens ?
Portrait photographers have to focus on the eyes and than recompose the image, and I hardly ever shoot on 28mm.
Most of my work is done between 110-200mm.

If you shoot with portrait lens at f5.6 or f8 then there is little use of the true focus I suppose. However, when the lens is wide open the slightest error is noticeable and the TF might come in handy.

I had a chance to shoot with it this week and found the technology very naturally integrated in the camera. You don't have to think about it or press any additional button. Same as using a stand alone button for autofocusing which I do all the time anyway.

I didn't try it in continuous focus mode. I wish I had. No idea how it would behave.
Continuous is the only mode where I would prefer multiple autofocus sensors allowing me to select the point of a frame I want the autofocus to track.

My opinion concerning tripod shooting... You never have enough autofocus sensors when your priority is composition and not the convenient location of the focus point. 3,9 etc. sensors don't help. In most cases you still release the camera, focus, recompose and lock, or use manual focusing

Regards,
Alex
Logged

Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2010, 04:18:02 PM »
ReplyReply

@David,
Ok,
I find that especially with the shallow DOF getting the focus perfect is more of a problem than with wide angles.
But for the movement it could be that with wide angles it's more obvious, don't know that.
I do know that I would "guess" it would be more of a problem with long lenses and shallow DOF.

F5.6 on MF is by the way giving you a very shallow DOF on 200mm.
Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2010, 04:54:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Barry Goyette
I attended the H4d-40 launch in los angeles yesterday...and I came away with perhaps a bit of a yawn over the new true focus system. It worked about half the time seemingly, and I'm not sure whether this was due to the use of the 28mm (the rep seemed to think this lens would show the greatest effect...which I was skeptical about...but). Yes it did work, but I think I came away with the conclusion that the "reposition error" is not really as great as has been discussed, and at even f/5.6 we could barely tell the difference between the TF version and using the standard autofocus. (after several attempts I finally suggested trying it at f4, and then the difference, while still subtle, was at least noticeable. Again, perhaps the issue was the lens used.

On the other hand...i was quite surprised by the low noise this new sensor is capable of even at 1600. While the rep was talking, I managed to squeeze off a few handheld shots at high ISOs and I found the results a decent step up (first thumbnail) from my 31. I compared these shots with some 1ds Mark3 (2nd thumbnail) frames shot under similar lighting conditions (mix of incandescent and warm flourescents)... and found the 40 to be just as good at 100%. I realize there are better FF35mm cams out there now in low light, but the current 1ds is no slouch, and for a MF camera to hit this level I think is good news. At 50%, in-focus areas show not a trace of noise (third thumbnail), and I think the color rendering is really pretty good given the mix of lighting. I'd feel very comfortable with this ISO setting if I needed it in a pinch.

Barry



[attachment=20215:h4d_40.jpg]
[attachment=20213:1dsmark3.jpg]
[attachment=20216:50percent_iso1600.jpg]

that first thumb is a 100% crop from a 1600iso file? that looks incredible! really does...this is at least 3 or 4 stops better then anything i have seen from any other MF back....

i thought the true focus thing was made for longer lenses, for portrait guys where the point always lands on the chest? but it shows up best on superwides? i don't get that at all...but any advance is welcome i guess...

i still get the best results when i use manual focus (with the help of focus points) ...i always find AF is ALWAYS hunting...and always goes in and out even if it locks.....and people always move.....the 5DII AF is terrible compared to the rest of the camera....the worst to me is that i always feel that i am always slightly behind in timing when using AF...somehow the moment has passed when the lens is "locked on"....
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
Barry Goyette
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2010, 07:08:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
that first thumb is a 100% crop from a 1600iso file? that looks incredible! really does...this is at least 3 or 4 stops better then anything i have seen from any other MF back....

yes it was...and I do agree it does look incredible..not just in noise...but the detail seems preserved far and away better than any Hi ISO shots I've compared it too. Here's a shot at 1600 from my H3d-31 (tungsten light only)...it's got substantial tonal banding, and clumped grain like the canon shots..not horrible...but the 40 seems to really blow this away...

[attachment=20248:h3d_31_1600A.jpg]

Back to the true focus thing...I think the implementation is really superb...seamless in my opinion. They've replaced the user button with true focus...so for those of us who AF with the user button, there really is no change to your workflow...just better focus.

I do think that if the camera was demonstrated using a 100 f2.2 at f3.2 in a close-up headshot situation, that the TF would be more evident...with the wide angle it was just weird...you'd center the face in the shot, then tilt down into heavy-distortion-land to make the effect work...just not how you'd ever use that lens (unless you were chip simons in 1985).

Barry
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 11:02:46 AM by Barry Goyette » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4207



« Reply #33 on: February 14, 2010, 12:59:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, everybody here is battling focus. Bad focus ruins images taken with the sharpest lenses.
The 5DII is beloved on these forums for its image quality, ONLY. You pay $2K you get the steak ONLY, no fries.
My own experience is that the Nikon D3x offers decent focus on people, but the focus pint offset button is a real pest to use, it deactivates quickly.
A good trick in practice is to set the camera on Continuous focus, it will then track the area you focused on originally eg- face.
However AF on the Nikon has a tendency to "catch" on background high-contrast zones.

Edmund

BTW, I foundDragon Stop Motion to be an interesting tool for controlling the 5D.  http://www.dragonstopmotion.com/


Quote from: gwhitf
David,

Hasselblad must be applauded for even trying to address this autofocus issue. I can't see that it would work for me, but maybe it would for others' style.

I was shooting a job last week on the road, and this focus thing again just slapped me in the face. I am amazed that more photographers don't talk about it. Maybe it's just too embarrassing that, in the year 2010, we're still dealing with basic things like keeping the subject sharp, (even when shooting on a tripod, with a non moving subject). My setup, at that time, was a location environmental portrait. I was shooting with an unnamed 35mm DSLR (5d2), tethered, on a tripod. To give you an idea about how far away, I was shooting with a 50mm f1.2, at f8, and the subject was full length, in vertical format, but there was a good deal of room around their body. So in short, the subject was pretty damn far away. You'd think, with f8, on a tripod, with a non moving subject, the autofocus sensor could nail it. I used one of the outer squares for my focus sensor, due to how my shot was locked down, and I was trying to find some constrast in her clothing for the AF sensor to grab onto. Here is the key: You CANNOT trust what you're seeing in the Viewfinder. So many times, it looks TACK SHARP, but you shoot tethered, and you lean over and peek at the monitor, and for, the focus is slightly off. To me, this issue is The Great Unspoken issue about all digital cameras -- the Viewfinder, (even with StopDownPreview pressed), does not match, at all, what's actually rendered into the file.

But the truly scary thing is: I have spent DAYS with my assistant, and we test these cameras's focus issues, sitting there, shooting tethered, looking at every frame. The scary thing is: There is no rhyme or reason sometimes. Sometimes, you shoot a frame, it's tack sharp. You shoot the next frame, everything the same, (on tripod), and it's slightly soft. It's like there's some kind of "autofocus hunting" going on, even though you can't see or hear any hunting going on. Frame after frame. I have calibrated each lens; I have thrown salt over my shoulder; I have even tried religion. But this autofocus sensor thing haunts me. (I gave up on shooting Manual Focus last year).

Back to Hasselblad, here is the problem to me: maybe I'm missing something. I see myself shooting in this way, and it seems like this:

a. Compose the frame. Lock down tripod.
b. Unlock tripod.
c. Find what you want sharp on the subject, (and hope it's contrasty).
d. Put focus sensor then and press some button.
e. Hold down on that button.
f. Unlock tripod.
g. Recompose frame.
h. SHOOT.
i. Unlock tripod.
j. Find what you want sharp on the subject, (and hope it's contrasty).
k. Put focus sensor then and press some button.
l. Hold down on that button.
m. Unlock tripod.
n. Recompose frame.
o. SHOOT.

Over and over and over.

The reason I post this question: Are other people fighting focus too, no matter what digital camera you're using? I'm no fan of LiveView, but on the 5d2, it's pretty damn amazing: double click on the zoom thingie, and you're at 10x, and you focus, and YOU KNOW YOU GOT IT, because you're see what the sensor is seeing. But I am not fast enough shooting people's fleeting facial expressions to actually use LiveView.

It just seems that, overall, the Focus Tolerance for digital is MASSIVELY smaller than for Old Timey Film. So much so that, I just wonder why more people don't fight with Focus, even using AutoFocus. I could put up a strong argument that, with the tiny tolerances of these digital files, that it's clearly time to abandon the Ground Glass, and mirrors, and simply use an Electronic Viewfinder, in order to know that you nailed it.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 01:04:11 AM by eronald » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2010, 01:13:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Chip Simmons!  Wow, I haven't heard that name in a long time.   Makes me think of gelled speedlights.

Those 1600 shots do look amazing. Way better that my old P30+ or my current Aptus.  

Quote from: Barry Goyette
yes it was...and I do agree it does look incredible..not just in noise...but the detail seems preserved far and away better than any Hi ISO shots I've compared it too. Here's a shot at 1600 from my H3d-31 (tungsten light only)...it's got substantial tonal banding, and clumped grain like the canon shots..not horrible...but the 40 seems to really blow this away...

[attachment=20248:h3d_31_1600A.jpg]

Back to the true focus thing...I think the implementation is really superb...seamless in my opinion. They've replaced the user button with true focus...so for those of us who AF with the user button, there really is no change to your workflow...just better focus.

I do think that if the camera was demonstrated using a 100 f2.2 at f3.2 in a close-up headshot situation, that the TF would be more evident...with the wide angle it was just weird...you'd center the face in the shot, then tilt down into heavy-distortion-land to make the effect work...just not how you'd ever use that lens (unless you were chip simons in 1985).

Barry
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4207



« Reply #35 on: February 14, 2010, 06:09:46 AM »
ReplyReply

David,

 Is this the same sensor as used in the Leica S2? Can you give us the reference? I would like to look it up.
 Thank you.

Edmund

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
Hi Barry,

What you surmise is correct, that it is an refinement of an already very accurate AF system.  As I said earlier at greater DOF, you could argue the correction is not needed, but there is always an optimum point of focus and TF helps to achieve this at shallow DOF.

I am really glad you liked the results from the sensor.  It is indeed a step forward.

David
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4207



« Reply #36 on: February 14, 2010, 06:09:49 AM »
ReplyReply

David,

 Is this the same sensor as used in the Leica S2? Can you give us the reference? I would like to look it up.
 Thank you.

Edmund

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
Hi Barry,

What you surmise is correct, that it is an refinement of an already very accurate AF system.  As I said earlier at greater DOF, you could argue the correction is not needed, but there is always an optimum point of focus and TF helps to achieve this at shallow DOF.

I am really glad you liked the results from the sensor.  It is indeed a step forward.

David
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #37 on: February 14, 2010, 06:55:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
Is this the same sensor as used in the Leica S2? Can you give us the reference?
apparently it's at least the same underlying design (Kodak "Truesense"):
http://tinyurl.com/ya52l2s (German)
KAF-40000 - http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acroba...ductSummary.pdf
Logged
Barry Goyette
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2010, 11:14:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
David,

 Is this the same sensor as used in the Leica S2? Can you give us the reference? I would like to look it up.
 Thank you.

Edmund


it appears that Kodak doesn't list the S2 (KAF-37500) sensor on its product pages..so we don't have all the specs..although indeed it seems to have a similar design approach (6 micron pixel pitch, micro lenses) as the KAF-40000 that's in the hasselblad. It isn't the same chip (smaller format, 3:2 aspect ratio), but certainly a close cousin.

http://www.kodak.com:80/global/en/business...l?pq-path=14425

article about the truesense sensors..

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/IS...ath=12991/13672
Logged
Esben
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 14, 2010, 01:17:56 PM »
ReplyReply







I got to handle the H4D 40 with the 100mm 2.2 shooting wide open. I have to agree with Barry that the photographers who normally use the user-button as their focus button will find that True Focus is amazing. The images that I took of a Hasselblad representative at a distance of 1-3 meters confirm that the camera will stay focused on the face and that the chest or belly will remain out of focus. I would also like to mention that the camera felt like it had a softer mirror-slap, but that might just be me.

I did shoot some images at ISO 1600, and although I didnít bring another camera for comparisons, I have to say, I really like the look of the grains in the Hasselblad files.

I think that Hasselblad in 2009 got a bit closer to their goal. Soon they might have a blockbuster in their hands, but there are still some small steps to take before this happens - and I doubt they are be ready to take them.

I do know that with just about every job I work on where the files are delivered as raw to the client, the client will use Photoshop CS3 or CS4 for processing. A good percentage of agencies still use CS3 or sometimes even CS2. I know this, because I frequently get the call from the agency asking why the Phase or cr2 file is only a few hundred pixels wide. All this doesnít matter though, because Hasselbladís FFF files donít open in any other application then Phocus. Hasselblad has to get CS4 onboard, without waiting for CS5. Do it now, the transition is as important as the availability of Hasselblad in any rental house across America.

The second thing I would suggest to Hasselblad is to change the concept of Ultra Focus: where a back and body are matched together in order to deliver perfectly sharp focus. Of course its an ideal starting point, but what happens if the body fails. You would have to purchase a second spare body. Okay, fine, but what if I would like to buy two backs. I would have to buy 4 bodies in order to back-up my system. Why not use the same micro-focus system as Canon has implemented in their camera bodies? Instead, Ultra Focus prevents me from using my H2 body with the H4D 40 digital back. I know itís probably not as perfect as if the combo were matched in heaven, but in an emergency, why not?



This leads me to the fact that I have two Leaf backs and 3 Hasselblad H2 bodies. If I want to upgrade to two new Hasselblad H4D 40s, I would have to buy 4 bodies and two backs. In other words, for people who upgrade into the Hasselblad system, there is an unnecessary cost exponential in comparison to Phase or Leaf. On the other hand, if you are a first time buyer, and you know that you are buying a system that will work for you, i.e. for the next 5 years, then it's a smooth ride because you donít have any old valuable luggage you have to ditch at the side of the road.


Either way, I liked what I saw and Iím intrigued, but my dream has to be a 60mp with the same micro-lenses as the 40mp = ISO 1600


On a side note, those of my clients that still choose to shoot with digital backs are photographers who want the ultimate in image quality, which makes me think twice about the form factor of the H4D 40, since the 40mp is awfully close to the next generation of Canon 1Ds cameras. Who would choose a 40mp Hasselblad, Phase, or Leaf digital back over a DSLR at roughly the same resolution?




.e



Logged

Digital Tech NYC // LA
www.captureforce.com

phone. 212 203 6427
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad