Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: H4D-40: Sample files  (Read 21743 times)
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2371


« Reply #120 on: March 31, 2010, 03:47:04 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW. I do step on the cable pretty often. In most cases I curse when the cable gets yanked out. Put it back in wait for the back to reconnect (within seconds) and continue. Rarely it is in the middle of a burst, you should not make a habit out of yanking out the cable.

To give an example of the reliability. I just got home after 3 days of shooting. I shot 2500single shots and over 400 multishots (which are also 2000shots) over 3 days without one single failure (besides problems of software startup but that had other reasons). At the end of each day I closed the laptop, put out the lights and went home. Next day, open up the laptop, lights on and continue..

Yes there have been days it did not go so well
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 03:48:57 PM by Dustbak » Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #121 on: March 31, 2010, 03:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

If you always shoot in the studio, and you do not need to make many post adjustments, and you do not need truefocus... maybe not, but if you do much outdoor work Phocus will make the difference, even if the camera does not.

Quote from: Nick-T
I believe that if I study hard and continue to learn about photography I will one day be able to understand what Dick just said.
Hi, Nick.

Sorry if I confused you.

In the studio (or in studio-like controlled conditions outside, with flash-fill, reflectors, etc.) it should be easy to "get it right in camera", with any camera, even with the reduced DR of transparencies, without much or any post adjustment.

If you are doing outdoor stuff in a semi-journalistic mode, or you are doing landscapes or townscapes (and you do not have full control over the lighting) then you are more likely to benefit from the extended DR that Phocus 2.1 gives (with raw fill and recovery), and phocus features like the clarity slider.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #122 on: March 31, 2010, 04:16:10 PM »
ReplyReply

There is virtually no software that is working 100% trouble-free.
Consequently every workflow that involves the use of software is per se not trouble-free.
Asking for a 100% stable software misses the point… the trick is to know the bugs and the scenarios when it crashes and to work around.

Many of you love to produce video these days. What about the stability of Avid? E.g. when working in projects with different formats. Or - as an comparable example to the disconnected digiback - when you cut the connection from the computer to the Avid hardware. Now, this reboot can take 15 to 45 minutes!
What about Final Cut Pro? What about Quantel? … … …
Man, compared to those softwares - daily used for professional production worldwide - a software like Capture One is 300% stable. Absolutely super rock solid. I assume it's the same with Phocus.

IMO...
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 04:16:34 PM by tho_mas » Logged
John.Williams
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


It's your life - make yourself useful!


« Reply #123 on: April 01, 2010, 10:59:45 PM »
ReplyReply

This is most likely OTP, but I think still applicable to the H4D-40 and perhaps useful for Phocus users out there...

The "recipe" for developing RAW files is stored inside the Hasselblad 3F file (which is a TIFF/EP v.6, but more on that later...) and this makes the transfer of images from one directory or external drive a snap, no worries about directory structure to maintain edits, etc.

A recent client wanted to have Phocus loaded on both laptop (on location) and also on the retouch desktop station; but not just the application - the same tool-sets, import naming sequence,  output naming sequence, and the same workpspace window arrangement. In other words, the same setup on both machines, no fumbling, all the same, just get on with it...

These two Phocus settings are stored in:
(tool-sets) ~/Library/Application Support/Phocus (including subfolders)
(naming-sequences for tethered shooting and import from CF card, layout) ~/Library/Preferences/dk.hasselblad.phocus.plist (file)

So he copied these files from one computer to the other and has identical workflows on two machines to make it easy for quick field edits and selects back in the shop.

It was a simple, fast way to get productive and wanted to share. On the youtube list that is growing like Saturday chores...

John
Logged

(678) 365-0435
jay_dub@mac.com
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #124 on: April 02, 2010, 05:29:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJNY
Nick,
Let's say the firewire cable gets disconnected in the middle of a non-stop burst of frames being captured....
...what happens to the half dozen or so frames still in the back's buffer queue when the cable is re-connected?
Do they not miss a beat and stream in, or are they lost?
Billy
It depends on the camera.
On some, if you a CF card loaded while you shoot tethered, if the cable disconnects or lose connection for some reason, they write to the card directly.
but it does not work 100% of the times.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #125 on: April 02, 2010, 08:02:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
3. When the cord disconnects (all cords eventually get stepped on or disconnect) how long does it take to restart the process, does it require a complete computer restart, or does it just connect when you plug it back in?

BC
Hasselblads have a very deep firewire socket... and I think this protects the socket connections, so that if the wire gets pulled out accidentally, it does not permanently wreck the digiback socket.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #126 on: April 07, 2010, 08:59:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I went to FotoCare yesterday, in Manhattan. Nice guys there. I went there curious about several possibilities:

1. H4D-40: I did not shoot it and process a file, but the LCD is pretty nice. It's large, and somewhat OK quality. Quality seems maybe somewhere in between the Leaf LCD and maybe a Canon 1ds. The 3 inch size really helps a lot. Would it be fine if I was shooting HMI or available light? Absolutely. If I was trying to use it untethered to judge adding fill? I'm not sure. Did not really try out the TrueFocus thing, but I get the idea, and it seems well designed. But the camera still seems to "lunge" in my hands; I know they've got the Mirror Delay, but still, in my hand, if I was shooting available light at say, 1/60th, I'm not sure I'd ever be comfortable with that camera. Also, I realized, since the back is made WITH the body, you'd be forced to buy two of them, one for backup, so that doubles the price tag. I'm sure the camera will be successful probably, but I simply do not like that camera in my hand, actually shooting it. Not sure why. Maybe in the studio, on a tripod, shooting stuff that you don't care about, for money, it would be fine. Still, I feel like Hasselblad is "getting it", and they are close to finding that sweet spot. For a wealthy amateur, it's probably already there, in this version. But I left there underwhelmed.

2. Putting a CFV on my 203FE: This is a possibility. I guess the back would be a 39MP Hassie back. Not sure the exact number. Send your body off, have it modified in Jersey, and then stick a back on it. Not sure if cable is needed, to sync post. Small LCD. Not sure about usability of ASA 800. Affordable. Seems risky though, for actual use. Kinda Fred Sanford.

3. 39MP: 39MP Hassie back on a 555 V body. I think no cords needed. Small LCD. Not sure about ASA 800. But affordable.

4. P65+ on a V 555: This interests me because I think the P65+ is easily rotatable, from vertical to horizontal. Horrible LCD, and big big money.

5. Screw it all, keep shooting film: No way. Film is dying more and more each and every day. This won't affect me, but I do wonder about guys who built their career on shooting LF, and whether they can keep that look when they switch over.

6. Keep shooting Canon: Snooze.

----

In short, I walked out of there just shaking my head. Walked into a pro camera store an hour later, on 17th St, to buy some 220, and I see Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon banners, and when I asked for film, they said, "Sorry, we stopped selling all film. Go to Calumet." My jaw dropped.

One really frustrating thing about all this search: It's often very difficult to really see, in your hands, what you want to buy. And if you've ever written the large check for one of these cameras, and then discovered something large and irritating later, you are NOT wild about repeating the mistake. Again, I'm amazed that these companies don't post up a million little YouTube videos for potential customers to get their heads around a possible solution. Nobody wants to get burned for twenty grand.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 09:11:04 AM by gwhitf » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #127 on: April 07, 2010, 09:29:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
1. H4D-40: I did not shoot it and process a file, but the LCD is pretty nice. It's large, and somewhat OK quality. Quality seems maybe somewhere in between the Leaf LCD and maybe a Canon 1ds. The 3 inch size really helps a lot. Would it be fine if I was shooting HMI or available light? Absolutely. If I was trying to use it untethered to judge adding fill? I'm not sure. Did not really try out the TrueFocus thing, but I get the idea, and it seems well designed. But the camera still seems to "lunge" in my hands; I know they've got the Mirror Delay, but still, in my hand, if I was shooting available light at say, 1/60th, I'm not sure I'd ever be comfortable with that camera. Also, I realized, since the back is made WITH the body, you'd be forced to buy two of them, one for backup, so that doubles the price tag. I'm sure the camera will be successful probably, but I simply do not like that camera in my hand, actually shooting it. Not sure why. Maybe in the studio, on a tripod, shooting stuff that you don't care about, for money, it would be fine. Still, I feel like Hasselblad is "getting it", and they are close to finding that sweet spot. For a wealthy amateur, it's probably already there, in this version. But I left there underwhelmed.

Interesting post. A few thoughts...

Obviously, the only way you can be certain is to try, but knowing your work and getting some idea of how you work I have to say I'd also have doubts it would suit you. But as you say, it's not that far off.

Quote
2. Putting a CFV on my 203FE: This is a possibility. I guess the back would be a 39MP Hassie back. Not sure the exact number. Send your body off, have it modified in Jersey, and then stick a back on it. Not sure if cable is needed, to sync post. Small LCD. Not sure about usability of ASA 800. Affordable. Seems risky though, for actual use. Kinda Fred Sanford.

3. 39MP: 39MP Hassie back on a 555 V body. I think no cords needed. Small LCD. Not sure about ASA 800. But affordable.

4. P65+ on a V 555: This interests me because I think the P65+ is easily rotatable, from vertical to horizontal. Horrible LCD, and big big money.

Unless permanently tethered, possible - even probable - focussing issues on all three options. see this link

Quote
5. Screw it all, keep shooting film: No way. Film is dying more and more each and every day. This won't affect me, but I do wonder about guys who built their career on shooting LF, and whether they can keep that look when they switch over.

In short, I walked out of there just shaking my head. Walked into a pro camera store an hour later, on 17th St, to buy some 220, and I see Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon banners, and when I asked for film, they said, "Sorry, we stopped selling all film. Go to Calumet." My jaw dropped.

Exactly how I feel, way too much hassle and now feels like I'm shooting blind.

Quote
6. Keep shooting Canon: Snooze.

Kind of uninspiring.
Logged

gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #128 on: April 07, 2010, 09:38:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban
Unless permanently tethered, possible - even probable - focussing issues on all three options. see this link

I started a Thread here on that similar topic over a year ago, and everyone laughed at me. Maybe no one was ready to admit it, a year ago. I swear to God, it's like it's some ghost from the dead, that jinxes digital in that way -- I can manual focus my 203FE all day long with film, and nail most every frame. Manual focus. But as soon as I pick up a digital camera, the fight for focus ensues. Maybe it's so Dummies101 embarrassing that it took this long for people to admit the problem. Film says, "Hey, come on, let's go for a ride and make some cool images", and Digital says, "Screw you; I just dare you to try to nail focus"; kicking and dragging its feet the whole way.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 09:39:18 AM by gwhitf » Logged
JdeV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


WWW
« Reply #129 on: April 07, 2010, 10:27:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
I went to FotoCare yesterday, in Manhattan. Nice guys there. I went there curious about several possibilities:

5. Screw it all, keep shooting film: No way. Film is dying more and more each and every day. This won't affect me, but I do wonder about guys who built their career on shooting LF, and whether they can keep that look when they switch over.

Currently I favour a D3x and scanned LF neg (though when a client wants it I rent a P65 and put it on an H-body or the back of my Arca M-Line or Toyo VX125). I shoot a lot of different stuff including fashion and architecture but very little in the studio.

I don't need to talk about the D3x. Everyone knows they are great by now. ditto 1ds MkIII and 5D MkII.

For LF I shoot Portra NC in 160 and 400 flavours. I process everything normal unless the subject is exceptionally flat or contrasty in which case I will push or pull up to 1/2 stop to correct contrast.
I get 'contact' scans done through the Print File sleeves to keep the negatives pristine. I edit from these.
I bought an IQsmart 3 scanner a few months ago and now get an assistant to do 16-bit 'raw' linear scans from the picks. There is no interpretation involved so the process is simple and purely mechanical. Anyone can learn how to do it in a few minutes. Quality is very high.
The 'raw' scans are brought into Photoshop and filtered through ColorPerfect which gives a very good neg. inversion and correction.
Further edits are done as needed within Photoshop. The scanned 'raw' files essentially function in a similar way to digital raw files.

In pure sharpness terms this process yields a file from a 5"x4" that is comparable to a P45+ file and a tad inferior to a P65+ file. (Using top-end lenses in both cases). Colour is better with a digital back but the neg. yields a nice look. There are no issues with moire or neon. Dynamic range is far superior with the scanned neg. Grain is, of course, more prevalent but under most circumstances it looks kind of nice. Composition and working process is also much better. Fujiroids are used on set to check overall look, groundglass for composition. No focus issues for architectural work. Much less to go wrong in remote locations (except for film and X-Ray machines). A 10"x8" yields way more detail than a P65+.

For all instances where, pre-digital, I would have used an RZ or a film Nikon, I now use the D3x. But given the cost and inadequacies of MF digital I think the scanned LF film route is still absolutely viable for certain niches and worth trying. I have no axe to grind and if digital backs didn't have all the problems they do I might even buy one and enjoy using it but for now, no, rental only, client pays.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 10:29:31 AM by JdeV » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #130 on: April 07, 2010, 10:36:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
I went to FotoCare yesterday, in Manhattan.

You've been this route before (well not with a Leaf) but here's your answer;

http://www.peartreephotoshop.co.uk/product-p/u-068.htm

Obviously it's in pound sterling, not dollars which I think the current exchange rate makes if $400,532. (actually just kidding I think the asking price with exchange is about $22,000.

Now I know you don't like the tiny view of a Contax, but with a waste level finder it looks damn big and Leaf makes a film like file, whatever that means and Lc11 is kind of a stripped down tethering option and there is always C-1 to tether with.

The real upside to this is you get to torture Yair, which is well worth the $22,000.  Actually You know and I know that Yair will take care of you.  I know I drove him completely out of his mind and he still gave me first class service.

I love the Contax (sorry I keep repeating myself) and honestly like the look of the file better than the Phase files, the only issue then for me was LC10 was a real work in progress and the workarounds drove me nuts.

Now with lightroom, C-1, etc. the workflow will be greatly improved.

The upside to the Aptus is you can set the back lcd to black and white, which is big fun.  The downside with the older Aptus is when you tether to a powerbook you gotta have a lot of power and the lcd on the camera goes blank.

The real upside to Leaf, regardless of the changes in ownership is I do believe they are a photographers photographers company.  I look back on my old Aptus files and they are the closest to film I've ever seen from digital.

The final upside is you get to go to Jolly Ol' England, hang out with the Queen and buy a camera all at once.

Can't beat that.

Or if I'm sure the fotocare people will fix you up.

Just a thought.

BC

P.S.  There are only two digital cameras that have touched me the way film did and that is the Contax (with the Leaf back) and the Leica M8.  

Maybe cause both are so damn hard to work in comparison to a Canon or Nikon, but both are real cameras with f stop rings and shutter dials.

You can't smell the fixer when you shoot them, but sometimes you think you can.

None of the digital backs work as easy as the new dslrs.  Nothing close and probably never will, but sometimes I think we expect too much of them.

Sure the previews are rough, (think polaroid), the iso is limited (think film), the frames rates are somewhat slow (think everything but a 35mm, but there is just something kind of nice shooting a real camera and even though client demands have moved to major quanity with huge pressure, maybe there is just nothing wrong with saying "wait a minute".
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 10:50:31 AM by bcooter » Logged
JdeV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


WWW
« Reply #131 on: April 07, 2010, 10:41:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
I started a Thread here on that similar topic over a year ago, and everyone laughed at me. Maybe no one was ready to admit it, a year ago. I swear to God, it's like it's some ghost from the dead, that jinxes digital in that way -- I can manual focus my 203FE all day long with film, and nail most every frame. Manual focus. But as soon as I pick up a digital camera, the fight for focus ensues. Maybe it's so Dummies101 embarrassing that it took this long for people to admit the problem. Film says, "Hey, come on, let's go for a ride and make some cool images", and Digital says, "Screw you; I just dare you to try to nail focus"; kicking and dragging its feet the whole way.

It's an exquisite paradox: shoot blind with freedom (and fear) knowing that focus at least will be nailed or have a man with a computer connected to you telling you whether you got it or not.
Logged
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #132 on: April 07, 2010, 11:02:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter

GW, ask first if this is Aptus 75S...you'd want the quicker capture speed.

Quote from: bcooter
I look back on my old Aptus files and they are the closest to film I've ever seen from digital.

Agree, I also like files from Sinarback eMotion75LV and eVolution75H
Logged

Guillermo
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #133 on: April 07, 2010, 11:07:57 AM »
ReplyReply

This is similar to my workflow and my thinking.  The backs aren't there yet, for me.  Almost: the S2 and H4d40 are just about there but neither are worth the cash, TO ME.

I shoot 67 and 4x5, B&W and C41.  I get contact sheets made, edit from there, then get a print made or a flat scan (that includes a raw) that I PP and send to the client.  This is mainly editorial portraits or jobs that do not require large numbers of images. Everything else is shot with a ds3.  That beiing said, I mainly work in motion and my stills jobs are not the main thrust of my business anymore.

Quote from: JdeV
Currently I favour a D3x and scanned LF neg (though when a client wants it I rent a P65 and put it on an H-body or the back of my Arca M-Line or Toyo VX125). I shoot a lot of different stuff including fashion and architecture but very little in the studio.

I don't need to talk about the D3x. Everyone knows they are great by now. ditto 1ds MkIII and 5D MkII.

For LF I shoot Portra NC in 160 and 400 flavours. I process everything normal unless the subject is exceptionally flat or contrasty in which case I will push or pull up to 1/2 stop to correct contrast.
I get 'contact' scans done through the Print File sleeves to keep the negatives pristine. I edit from these.
I bought an IQsmart 3 scanner a few months ago and now get an assistant to do 16-bit 'raw' linear scans from the picks. There is no interpretation involved so the process is simple and purely mechanical. Anyone can learn how to do it in a few minutes. Quality is very high.
The 'raw' scans are brought into Photoshop and filtered through ColorPerfect which gives a very good neg. inversion and correction.
Further edits are done as needed within Photoshop. The scanned 'raw' files essentially function in a similar way to digital raw files.

In pure sharpness terms this process yields a file from a 5"x4" that is comparable to a P45+ file and a tad inferior to a P65+ file. (Using top-end lenses in both cases). Colour is better with a digital back but the neg. yields a nice look. There are no issues with moire or neon. Dynamic range is far superior with the scanned neg. Grain is, of course, more prevalent but under most circumstances it looks kind of nice. Composition and working process is also much better. Fujiroids are used on set to check overall look, groundglass for composition. No focus issues for architectural work. Much less to go wrong in remote locations (except for film and X-Ray machines). A 10"x8" yields way more detail than a P65+.

For all instances where, pre-digital, I would have used an RZ or a film Nikon, I now use the D3x. But given the cost and inadequacies of MF digital I think the scanned LF film route is still absolutely viable for certain niches and worth trying. I have no axe to grind and if digital backs didn't have all the problems they do I might even buy one and enjoy using it but for now, no, rental only, client pays.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #134 on: April 07, 2010, 11:37:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
The real upside to Leaf, regardless of the changes in ownership is I do believe they are a photographers photographers company.  I look back on my old Aptus files and they are the closest to film I've ever seen from digital.

This is why I cannot bring myself to sell my Aptus 54s.  I haven't used it seriously in 8 months.  It sits there like a pile of money, looking at me, like the cash in those annoying GEICO commercials.  But then I think of how nice it is on the RZ, how it has the sharpness of chromes and the color of neg film, not TOO sharp with the RZ lenses.  And so it stays, and everytime I want to shoot with it, the batteries aren't charged, or there isn't enough light on set so I use a Canon or even an M8, or Portra 800.
Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



WWW
« Reply #135 on: April 07, 2010, 11:44:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
I started a Thread here on that similar topic over a year ago, and everyone laughed at me. Maybe no one was ready to admit it, a year ago. I swear to God, it's like it's some ghost from the dead, that jinxes digital in that way -- I can manual focus my 203FE all day long with film, and nail most every frame. Manual focus. But as soon as I pick up a digital camera, the fight for focus ensues. Maybe it's so Dummies101 embarrassing that it took this long for people to admit the problem. Film says, "Hey, come on, let's go for a ride and make some cool images", and Digital says, "Screw you; I just dare you to try to nail focus"; kicking and dragging its feet the whole way.

Here's an educational exercise (I'm 110% I've written this before, on more than one occasion):

Take 10 frames shot on transparency film, have them cropped and scanned @ 300dpi to 24"X18" (115MB, roughly what a 40MP back gives) and then put them on a screen at 100% magnification next to similar 10 frames that were shot digitally and check focus.

We'll patiently await your report, It'd be interesting to see your nailing rate. I think we can all agree that digital is less forgiving, per frame that is, but otherwise I think you'll be amazed at how similar the rate will be.

IMO

Yair
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #136 on: April 07, 2010, 12:18:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: yaya
We'll patiently await your report, It'd be interesting to see your nailing rate. I think we can all agree that digital is less forgiving, per frame that is, but otherwise I think you'll be amazed at how similar the rate will be.

You might be right, Yair. I hope you're right, (or do I?).

The weird thing: Now that I've been aware of it for the past year, sometimes I just do tests, and I sit there with my assistant, tethered, the day before a big job, and in my constant paranoia, we test and test, on a tripod. We use both Manual Focus and AutoFocus, (on a 5D2, not Hasselblad). (But I've heard identical reports with Hasselblad from trusted friends). You're sitting there, going very slowly, and you're locking down focus on something contrasty, not moving, and you shoot, and it's soft. You shoot again, and it's sharp. You shoot again, (nothing has moved), and it's slightly soft again. And we're talking f4 here, not wide open.

I don't like to test too much, because the more I test this issue, the more paranoid I become. I prefer Ignorance is Bliss sometimes. Or maybe more accurately: If you Ignore it, Maybe It'll Go Away.

It's very unsettling, almost as if the Sensor is moving around inside the camera, or that there are tiny little autofocus gears that are in increments that are too large to be critically accurate.

Gotta go -- gotta go put my head back in the sand.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #137 on: April 07, 2010, 12:38:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
Gotta go -- gotta go put my head back in the sand.

10 years ago I'd spend weeks at a time shooting film overseas with hardly a care in the world. No idea if I'd nailed focus or exposure, not a clue if the accumulated x-rays had fogged the film, and not a back-up solution in sight.

Along comes digital capture, I'm as sure as can be I've nailed focus and exposure, no x-rays to worry about, everything including the cat's arse is backed up and yet now I'm paranoid and a nervous wreck.

Go figure...
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 12:49:52 PM by KLaban » Logged

JdeV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


WWW
« Reply #138 on: April 07, 2010, 12:47:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: yaya
Here's an educational exercise (I'm 110% I've written this before, on more than one occasion):

Take 10 frames shot on transparency film, have them cropped and scanned @ 300dpi to 24"X18" (115MB, roughly what a 40MP back gives) and then put them on a screen at 100% magnification next to similar 10 frames that were shot digitally and check focus.

We'll patiently await your report, It'd be interesting to see your nailing rate. I think we can all agree that digital is less forgiving, per frame that is, but otherwise I think you'll be amazed at how similar the rate will be.

IMO

Yair

Done it. Shot for 20 years on view cameras. More than 10 years with neg. printed 16" x20" by me. Shot in all conditions, all round the world. I have filing cabinets full of negs. Just about none have missed focus.
On the other hand, give me a P65 on a view camera or an H and I have to have an operator check on a screen or I have to zoom in myself on the crappy LCD. If I don't I lose images because of focus.
This is not principally a matter of judging digital to a different standard because we are looking on screens at 100% it is simply much harder to hit focus with digital.
Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #139 on: April 07, 2010, 11:18:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: yaya
Here's an educational exercise (I'm 110% I've written this before, on more than one occasion):

Yair,

Here's another educational exercise I'd like to do: I'd like to take a MF body, any brand, and set it to any particular fstop, say, f5.6. And then, shoot a frame with a digital back on it, and then shoot another frame with a film back on it, and then check the relative depth of field at that same fstop.

I know, in theory, you'd think that the depth of field would carry the same with both the digital back and the film back, but everything in me says there's somehow less depth of field with a digital back than with film.

And that, somehow, this factor plays into this giant mystery about focus issues with digital, in general.

This is all pure speculation on my part, (but based on lots and lots of jobs shot, both with MF film, and MF Digital). Just a gut feeling.

I remember those tests I did, years ago with digital, and I'd set up a shot in the studio, on tripod, with nothing moving or changing, and I'd set the fstop to say f8, and then I'd press the Depth Of Field Preview button down, on the camera body, to somewhat previsualize how much focus would carry at that f8. But then, I'd shoot the digital file, tethered, and I'd check it on the monitor, and there would always be radically less depth in focus in the actual digital file than what was shown in the Depth Of Field Preview button.

I'm not a Scientist; I never knew why. You'd think, in theory, they would match.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad