Is Betterlight Still the Standard?

[gfsymon]

One of the problems with the Betterlight, is that there are no 5x4 lenses designed for digital use. Film allows for a depth-of-focus that is far greater than that required for a CCD, which is to all intents and purposes, completely flat. What this means is, for a CCD, maximum sharpness demands that all three colours of light (RGB) be focused at the same point on the 'film' plane. With film based cameras, this is far less critical, because if one layer is sharp, it's 'good enough'.

I agree with you about the cost advantage, but your suggestion of a 'moving wall' fails to understand the problems of parallax for stitching. You could use your Betterlight for stitching accurately, by doing something similar to the now ancient Sinar system called 'macro-scan', which moved (with a motor) an MF sized back around a 5x4 camera to give a perfect 4 frame stitch ... So you could use a 10x8 for your Betterlight and use rear lateral and vertical shift to give you a correct stitch, but 10x8 lenses are all film based too.

Whilst the Betterlight clearly has the *considerable* advantage over single-shot MF backs (especially Kodak chipped backs) of having all 3 colours independently scanned and thus does not require colour-interpolation, it looses this advantage when compared to MF multi-shot, which doesn't use colour-interpolation either.

It looses another too, which is moiré. Small pixel wells are not all bad. As they've become smaller, so has moiré become more rare. In fact, Jenoptik's micro-scanning (for 4 and 16-shot) (Jenoptik make Sinar's backs) was developed specifically to eliminate moiré, which it does completely in 16-shot and in 4-shot, although it can theoretically be seen sometimes in 4-shot (I never have in 16 years using them).

So I think your claim that Betterlights are 'still the best for now' is overstated. In fact, since I happen to know, at museum level, the most absolutely critical demands use the Sinar system. This is not only for their colour and extremely high resolution (200mpx) but also for specular highlights which are messy on single-shot by comparison (when being discerning). However, please don't think I'm knocking the Betterlight, which you have clearly managed to use very effectively, but the question was; what is the current 'state of the art?' and it isn't a Betterlight.

[Adamphotoman]

The question was "Is Betterlight Still the Standard?" and if you had no equipment what would you buy?

Betterlight may no longer be State of the Art but The Sinar Multishot has not yet been adopted universally.
Nor can it make gigapixel panoramas without stitching. Nor can it make rollouts at all.
Betterlight scanning backs are no longer being made so it is not current, but as Alan Salsman found out many institutions will not accept other digital image solutions. Therefore it is still the standard.
For now. Soon another standard will be adopted. And then one will be able to buy Betterlights for less$ and still have world class capture.

Yes the Sinar Multishot is State of the Art...A complete Sinar repro kit will cost many more $ though. Closer to 60K. As software improves it can correct for noise & colour. Software and digital lenses help to make the smaller wells acceptable, but software cannot completely change the laws of physics. And few of us individuals can afford the Sinar Exact.
I can shoot rollouts and panoramas. I also use stepping motors to pull art across a stationary camera.

Rodenstock makes a 180mm Apo Sironar Digital. Sinar Sells a 210mm Sinaron Digital lens.
When one uses the panoadapter MF lenses can be used, which brings many more digital lenses into play.
Betterlights larger wells do a very impressive job of capturing subtle tone graduations. However it is not a system easy to use or to master.
As well size gets smaller digital lenses are being designed and manufactured as they are absolutely needed.
Apo Sironar S lenses are quite capable with the larger micron size of the Super 6 and 8K.


Dozens of museums still make use of Betterlights. Ben Blackwell goes all over the US working for museums and Art Galleries. The Royal Museum in our capital city uses a Betterlight. So does the university library.

Parallax is only a problem when the gear is not used properly or if lenses with a distortion are used. Ron Finley , Randy Hufford , John Castonovo , Craig Yorke all use custom gear to move the art. No Parallax issues if done right. Randy teaches and sells moving walls.

Moire has never been a problem with the Betterlight.

[8x10 user]

I have heard that the best lens for art repo with betterlight is the 210mm Apo El Nikkor. If you wanted to stitch in an 8x10 image circle then the 480mm Apo El Nikkor would be the lens of choice but it would be near impossible to find and would cost as much as the scanning back or more. For reproduction of small items (around 1:1) the "Printing Nikkor" is considered to be the best. This lens was made to produce the distribution copies of movies from of the original masters.

The 180mm Sironar digital and Apo Sironar S should also be top notch. I once used a 240mm Sironar S with a 9 micron phase one back and the results were very sharp. The 90mm might cover and is technically an HR but I think the perspective would be too wide. One betterlight user that I met, swore by the Apo Ronar. He had a giant but very old (originally multi hundred K) motorized horizontal copy camera that he converted for use with his backs.

The "macro scan" will not work with anything newer then the 54h. Its on my wish list. It will also allow me to properly use the asymmetrical tilts on my P2. The macro scan was designed for smaller square backs and many pixels will be loss due to overlap. I have calculated the maximum number of pixels possible with the macro scan to be 190 something megapixels (I cant remember right now).

The betterlight is certainly a respectable device for Art Reproduction. Pulling artwork around a stationary camera is a very good approach... It allows you to use more of the center of the image circle which is the sharpest part. Basically you have made yourself a cruise scanner at a fraction of the cost. Your setup might be better then a cruise in a few ways. A horizontal setup allows for a longer focal length lens which will yield a better perspective.

I have not used betterlight first hand but it does seem like Sinars software might be a little bit better for repo since it can calibrate using either the regular or the large number of patch gretag targets. It seems like betterlight users have to do manual grey balancing using a gretag target and/or they can profile outside of the software like any other camera or scanner. It seems like betterlight does not have an integrated software solution to balancing the hot spots from the lighting or natural light fall of from the lens so this too would need to happen in post. These are two more areas where the knowledge / skill of the operator would make a difference in the final product.

When shooting multishot you need a very low vibration system. Multishot will not work with copal shutters so you need to use a electronic shutter solution or hasselblad. The quality of ones flash lighting might become a concern. Newer flash generators will give you control over the color temperature. Balancing both of your lights is important and fresh flash tubes are more consistent than old ones. New flash tubes are pricey.

Its possible that the millions of tiny filters used in bayer grid based systems might have more inconsistencies then the 3 larger filters used in a trilinear sensor.

[Adamphotoman]

Ron Finley and Randy Hufford both use Apo Ronars for stitching with their moving art walls as they have very little distortion. They were very good for map making. I use a modern [coated] 360 and a straw coated 480mm. I have tested a number of other lenses. and the Apo Sironar S actually has a flatter field than the Apo Ronar process lenses. Note the Apo Ronars only behave like a flat field lenses when stopped down. In fact they are only apos when stopped down.
Several softwares allow for correcting uneven light. One is Equalight which also corrects for lens fall off.
One thing that the Viewfinder software can do is to adjust exposure in 1/100 of a stop. It allows for panos and for rollouts. Betterlight also sells Color Sage software. I use In Camera's profiling software and Edit lab to tweak a profile. 900 watt Northlights are flicker free HID lights and provide me with more control than a Cruse Scanner operator has at their disposal. I can't tell you how many times I had to rescan artwork after after bad Cruise scans. When I want to show both texture and metallics in the same shot I can. This does necessitate putting more light from one side and evening it out in the software.

[8x10 user]

Have you tried the Apo Ronar Cl line of lenses? Which view camera do you use with your betterlight?

[Adamphotoman]

Yes my 480 is a CL. I am fortunate that I do not need shutters so barrel lenses are fine. The 360 was supplied in a shutter and is multicoated.

I use 3 view cameras. A Sinar P and Norma front. It is a hybrid. Then I have a complete Norma for travel and a complete P as well with an 8X10 back which I don't use.

I also have 2 Stainless Steel Globuscope 4X5 which I use for pano and for pulling artwork. These are fitted with Mamiya and Bronica 645 lenses. Because the MF lenses are designed for a smaller image circle they are very sharp and faster than 4x5 lenses. This rig only works with the pano adapter.

[Adamphotoman]

Here are my Norma and Hybrid. The Norma is outfitted with a 180 mm Apo Symar and the Hybrid with a 480 Apo Ronar CL

[Adamphotoman]

And the Globuscope which is attached to the camera mount for the pano adapter.
Also a Pano from the unit

[Racer X 69]

I guess i should tell the fuji rep to not sell or market any FP100c...

But that is 3.25 x 4.25", not 4x5".

[StoneNYC]

But that is 3.25 x 4.25", not 4x5".

FP100C45 is the 4x5 version, it's also still made but only in Japan I believe.