Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What future products would you WANT to see from MF(or other system) companies?  (Read 7054 times)
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2755


WWW
« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2013, 04:44:17 PM »
ReplyReply

1.) I want a foveon style non bayer moiré free digital back.

2.) I liked the option of the Hasselblad CF backs to swap camera mount. I´d like to use my old Blad instead of the H from time to time.

I want a Mamiya 6 digital. Full frame 56x56 mm chip, with large photo sites, resolution does not need to exceed 40mp, perhaps Foveon chip or Fuji Xtrans to prevent moire. EVF plus ability to switch off rear display  easily, for the sake of battery longevity.

As Erik points out Fovean nor X-Trans eliminates moire.

Smaller pixel pitch has made moire a very rare phenomenon. It's not impossible to get moire an IQ180 (it's not impossible to get it on ANY digital system, even micro-stepper backs) but it's very uncommon.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1051


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 06, 2013, 09:24:21 PM »
ReplyReply

As Erik points out Fovean nor X-Trans eliminates moire.

Smaller pixel pitch has made moire a very rare phenomenon. It's not impossible to get moire an IQ180 (it's not impossible to get it on ANY digital system, even micro-stepper backs) but it's very uncommon.

Doug,

Get phase to think about video.  If not in hardware, software.  They seem to have it down on difficult cameras, like nikon color, the x-trans etc., but so many people shoot combination projects, I can't explain how great it would be if we could ingest the video and still images together, batch out color and tone to match and process.

The software should also convert (transcode) in the process.  It's crazy we have to take an h264 file, convert it to pro rezz, them go to a grading suite, then process it out in prorezz, then downsample it for web view for client approval.

Have phase allow you to imbed a visible time code for dailies and do the processing so you can put out two different codecs per file, one for web, one ready for editorial.

Once again, I know your margins are in equipment, but nothing gets a person closer to a company than learning their software.

Ask RED how well cinex is received.

Oh and also find a way to use a dedicated video card to assist.

Thanks

BC
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2013, 12:23:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Reiterating, I'd love to see a big square sensor 56x56, but now that I think about it more, I'd also like to see it be multishot capable and really resistant to color casts so that it could support being mounted on a tech camera and shifted.  Video or live view would be icing on the cake.

I'd also like to see a much bigger sensor - 4x5 would be awesome!
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1437


« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2013, 03:26:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd like a cheap-as-chips Bronica-compatible digital back (of the quality of my D700 - I'm not greedy), and a heads-up before release, so I can buy up loads of Bronica hardware before the prices rise ridiculously.

I'd also like a 16mb digital back to be retro-fitted to my old Nikon FM
Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1363


« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2013, 06:13:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the established players will make larger sensors, too few sales and not compatible with their own camera systems.

However, making a tethered-only back should not be that hard, so possibly a new small (ie microscopic) player could make a digital back with a 56x56mm sensor or even larger. If Mitchell Feinberg could have two 8x10" digital backs custom-made, a small company should be able to make a 56x56 or even 4x5" back with available standard technology. Just don't expect live view or stand-alone operation or some break-through new sensor tech.

Perhaps DHW could make an own back for their Hy6, that would be awesome. Maybe do like Sinar, have Jenoptik make the back for them.

A 4x5" digital back maybe could be a project for Sinar, or Sinar, Arca-Swiss and Linhof in a joint venture.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 06:15:47 AM by torger » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7241


WWW
« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2013, 08:12:29 AM »
ReplyReply

A scanning back?

Best regards
Erik


I don't think the established players will make larger sensors, too few sales and not compatible with their own camera systems.

However, making a tethered-only back should not be that hard, so possibly a new small (ie microscopic) player could make a digital back with a 56x56mm sensor or even larger. If Mitchell Feinberg could have two 8x10" digital backs custom-made, a small company should be able to make a 56x56 or even 4x5" back with available standard technology. Just don't expect live view or stand-alone operation or some break-through new sensor tech.

Perhaps DHW could make an own back for their Hy6, that would be awesome. Maybe do like Sinar, have Jenoptik make the back for them.

A 4x5" digital back maybe could be a project for Sinar, or Sinar, Arca-Swiss and Linhof in a joint venture.
Logged

torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1363


« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2013, 10:00:23 AM »
ReplyReply

A scanning back?

There are already scanning backs on the market. Not sure about the status of them though, I think some have issues due to that the CCD sensors used have gone out of production. There's Better light, Anagramm and one more recent which I forgot the name for. Anagramm's top end is David2 with 72x118mm scan area, 374 megapixels (RGB in each pixel). Scanning backs have their place in repro photography but have been losing ground because the medium format backs provide quicker workflow and good enough quality for most applications.

4x5" "full frame" is about 100x125mm, so the scanning backs provide a crop of that based on standard CCD sensor width (those 72mm).

Since much landscape photography in the field is in practice still life a scanning back could work, but scanning times becomes extremely slow (and not possible to set?) unless there's really good light.

A 4x5" sensor one-shot digital back (probably with multi-shot function) would probably mainly be targeted at the repro market, to take back some ground lost to the smaller medium format. It would need to have really high resolution to compete well in that market. For a 56x56mm back which would be used for portrait photography mostly I guess, super-high resolution would be less important.

In the field I don't think a 4x5" sensor would be used for general landscape photography (too much bulk and too little gain), but for special extreme high resolution image making where 8x10 and 20x24 is used now, Castor scan have a few clients that give example of such work such as Vincenzo Castella and Massimo Vitali.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 10:06:33 AM by torger » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2013, 06:33:15 PM »
ReplyReply

If Mitchell Feinberg could have two 8x10" digital backs custom-made ...
The 10MP sensors in those backs, good only for low resolution proofs, are so different from anything of interest for making high quality photographs that they say nothing about the feasibility of 56x56mm or 5” x 4” sensors. They are of very low resolution by 10x8 standards [10MP] with huge [~70 micron] photosites, allowing them to made with the very large format equipment used to make LCD panels. That approach does not scale down to photographically relevant pixel sizes. Unless you make the sensors a few meters wide and high. Or you want a 2.5MP 5x4 back for about $100,000.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 01:27:55 PM by BJL » Logged
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 535


« Reply #68 on: September 10, 2013, 12:34:43 AM »
ReplyReply

<snip>
 If Mitchell Feinberg could have two 8x10" digital backs custom-made, a small company should be able to make a 56x56 or even 4x5" back with available standard technology.
<snip>

He uses the backs ONLY for proofing, since he can't get 8x10 Polaroid film anymore. And no, the Impossible Project stuff won't work, especially @ $20/sheet, vs ~$7-8/sheet when Polaroid was making it. He still commits final shots to reversal(slide) film.

Not to mention, those pixels are HUGE. The "sensor" is only like 10mp or so, not much. But enough to assess detail and if things are sharp and highlights are of proper density.
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #69 on: September 10, 2013, 11:42:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I read the whole thread. I find it surprising that everybody wants cameras. I want lenses.

For example, if a MF had the equivalent of the Minolta STF, that would be very, very nice.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad