Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: "Digital 4x5"?

  1. #11

    "Digital 4x5"?

    I have worked with photographers who used to spend tens of thousands a year on film, and hours of precious time making drum scans, for magazine ads and catalogues that run no larger than 8x10. Makes a digital back seem cheap. I on the other hand, sell a couple of prints a year. Makes a digital back seem impossible to afford.

    But I don't see film dying. It is ageing gracefully. In 20 years, we are going to be gurus in a world where most photographers have never used film, except once in thier "alt processes" class. Digital looks different, has a different work flow, advantages/disadvantages, etc. It leads to a different kind of image. We film shooters are going to be deemed "high-art" photographers.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 1998
    Posts
    1,973

    "Digital 4x5"?

    Hasselblad is reportedly becoming uncooperative with third-party digital back suppliers

    . that is only the case wit the H1 family of cameras. They can't do anything about the square format ("V" series) cameras and this is the type of mount that all of these "medium format") back manufacturers have decided on as a common denominator. After all there are literally tens of thousands of these cameras being used or sitting on shelves. As long as the back doesn't need an electronic connection to the camera you'll be good to go.

    Secondly. I strongly suspect that that the P40 will be 4 or 16 shot capable. What this means for studio still life and product photographers tis that the sensor is moved in either 1 pixel increments so that each point i in the frame is photographed four times (4 shot mode) so there is no color interpolation from pixel to pixel, or the sensor array is moved in 1/2 pixel increments so that every nanometer in the frame, including the very small gaps between photo-sites (pixels) is photographed 16 times (4x4) not only no color interpolation no interpolation between pixels either. The 22mp backs that do this already produce files that are roughly 526 megabytes in size. At this point you are getting detail that far surpasses film up to at least 5x7. The downside is that the camera can't move, the light can't fluctuate , and the subject can't move between the shots that make up the cumulative exposure.

    Also these backs are qsquarely targeted for professional use in high volume studios: it is the only way these backs can pay fo themselves. They pay for themselves in two ways: cost of materials and time saved.

Similar Threads

  1. Digital ULF!
    By John Kasaian in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25-Feb-2005, 23:01
  2. Going digital!
    By paul owen in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-Sep-2004, 04:48
  3. 4X5 & Digital?
    By Bob Ring in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 6-May-2004, 04:04
  4. Do you use Digital?
    By Jim Billlups in forum On Photography
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 19-Jan-2004, 07:40

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •