Who Says size doesn't matter?

[Greg Miller]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040525/ap_on_hi_te/high_resolution_camera

[Ted Harris]

Interesting and also sad. Sad because it is not until near the end of the article that you see he is using film of a size (9x18) which is well inside the range of 'conventional' ULF! Wouldn't they love to see an image from a 12x24 or larger?

[Ken Lee]

This looks more like a case of ultra-large self-promotion.

[Paul Metcalf]

And no discussion of lens, focal length nor aperture utilized. The picture looks like a pretty long lens was used due to the extension. It sounds as though he needed a lot of DOF to cover the near-in blades of grass and the mountain 7 miles away. Because it sounds as though he used no tilts ("a dual-mirror device keeps the film parallel to the lens" - I think they meant perpendicular to the lens axis), he was probably diffraction limited in any case. The film flatness solution is cool although I suspect not your normal field work device, but it did help eliminate that source of error. And of course, there is the ever present quality of light that is necessary to truely get high resolution pictures. A grand undertaking nonetheless and it's good to see "big film" getting positive press.

[Jan Van Hove]

wow, I loved this bit :

"Some were too small. Others produced only black-and-white photos..."

How can a large-format camera produce only black and white photos ?? Maybe there is something I didn't understand in the process, but a camera produces an image on whatever photosensitive surface you put in it... Don't you love it when news people write what they think and don't know about what they are writing about... Always makes me wonder about all the other news that I don't know anything about and that I have to rely on the news source...

PJ

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

What a load of crap.....

[chris jordan]

From the JPEG on the internet, it looks like he has mounted some sort of optical lens in the front, with an accordian-looking light baffle behind it, and in the back is a metal device that appears to hold the film, and then the whole thing is mounted on a three-legged stand. The people at the patent office must still be shaking their heads at the sheer creativity of it.

[Jay DeFehr]

I checked out his website, and while painfully slow loading, none of the images I saw were in color, and the prints were 17"x36". I think I could manage a pretty sharp 17x36 from a 4x10 neg shot in my poor old Deardorff "accordion" camera. Looks like a lot of hype for a one trick pony to me.

[John D Gerndt]

I am guessing he has to use 9-inch film so that he can get color and that he has taken pains to align and flatten the film. OK. I wonder if the resulting resolution is somehow superior to any ordinary arial camera?

[Jim_3565]

Somehow I get the impression that there's a whole lot less here than meets the eye. But I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, so after perusing his website I'm willing to concede that his pictures might actually be better than they look.

[Jim_3565]

"The people at the patent office must still be shaking their heads at the sheer creativity of it."

Nowhere does the article mention a patent. This dovetails with my experience of having worked with some Patent Office guys. If Ross had applied for a patent they'd still be laughing down there.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Imagine if a piece of wood could be formed into a perfect circle, and if this circle of wood could be suspended from another piece at its center, perhaps by several wooden rods radiating out from the center piece. Now imagine that you had two such circles of wood joined by another long rod perpendicular to the circles running through the center piece, and a platform might be loosely attached to this rod, such that when the two circles of wood were perpendicular to the ground, the rod and the circles of wood might be able to turn freely beneath the platform. This platform with the circles of wood might thus be pushed along or pulled along, the circles of wood spinning all the while, thus easing the task of transporting heavy objects. Do you think such circles of wood might qualify for a U.S. patent? Do you think the gentleman with the heavy camera might be interested in purchasing such an invention to transport his heavy camera?

[Bob Eskridge]

The guy built a 9" X 18" camera with either front or back tilt that is designed to handle color film. It was a lot of work and took a touch of inventiveness to solve the problems that arose. My hats off to him.

I am just glad I don't have the problem of storing those image files.

[Jim_3565]

"Do you think the gentleman with the heavy camera might be interested in purchasing such an invention to transport his heavy camera?"

Only if you beat him to the Patent Office.

[Graeme Hird]

Reading that story brought one word to mind: Wanker!

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Anyone have any ideas where this "wanker" get his 9X18 inch color film from? I don't recall RVP coming in that size!

[J.L. Kennedy]

I'm with David Goldfarb. My first thought from this article was that the guy is reinventing the wheel, but he only made it to those logs they used to roll the pyramid blocks on in ancient Egypt. I also agree with Jan Van Hove regarding reporters. I have had a different perspective on the media since the first time I was "quoted" in my local newspaper. Needless to say, it wasn't what I said! Anyway, the article is quite a load of crap meant to inspire a "Gee Whiz" from the general population.

[Brian C. Miller]

Here's my take on it: a reporter was enamored with the camera!



As for large image size, I have a 13x36 panorama of downtown Seattle from Alki scanned from a Pentax 645 with Kodak E100S film. You can see every window in every building!! And this is from a $50 drum scan from Photobition (Ivey Seright).



So if 55mm is good for three feet, wouldn't that mean 250mm is good for 13 feet? Thus within the "bounds" of 5x10ft.



Well, there's no promotion like self-promotion. OK, guys, go and get yourselves in the paper tommorrow!! Schnell! Schnell!

[Darin Cozine]

Funny how the uneducated will gawk at something like this, like its never been done before.

I dont care how detailed a 10x15 foot print is, it does not give you the same feeling as BEING there. Also, it still needs to be a strong image. A strong image will beat out a detailed (yet dull) image any day.

That 9x18 camera doesnt compare to the 24x20 and 48x40 polaroid cameras that were discussed at the LF conference. Those were mamoths.

[Michael S. Briggs]

"Anyone have any ideas where this "wanker" get his 9X18 inch color film from?"

From the article, it is clear that he is using aerial negative film. He has to struggle with the high contrast of this film. This film would be 9 inch roll film. 9x18 was a standard format for some WWII aerial cameras. He seems to have adapted the back of an WWII aerial camera to a bellows. The thin roll film is probably the reason that a vacuum back is needed instead of a simple sheet film holder.

Various aerial films are available new from Kodak, but with high minimum orders. Sometimes expired film is sold at more reasonable prices and minimum orders.

[Pete Caluori]

Where to get 9x18 film?

I haven't tried this myself, but I recently acquired a 8x20 camera. The gentleman that sold it told me that he shot transparencies with it and when I inquired on the film he told me that Kodak still makes an Electronic Output film that is really Ektachrome. It comes in 9 1/2 x 50' rolls and he cut it himself. I certainly believe this fellow, because he gave me 5 sheets of the film and it was not factory cut.

Regards, Pete

[Mark_3899]

Did any of you guys see the article in View Camera a few years ago about the two guys that built two 9x18 cameras which were modified aerial cameras with the 500mm image circle Super Angulons on old Saltzman tripods. They were shooting construction projects in the west or something and making giant mural prints. There are no new original ideas. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Mark Sampson]

There is more to Clifford Ross than what the AP nitwit wrote. I have a copy of a 12-page document written by Ross describing his project and his R1 camera. It was given to me by a friend in the industry a year or so ago. Apparently his idea is to achieve greater levels of detail and realism in a photograph than have been seen before. (Not said in his story is his evident desire to make Struth and Gursky look like they work with Holgas...) The article says that he got his idea from seeing the "View Camera" magazine story about the Flint/Weissman camera, and worked with them, but decided to build his own camera in order to have precision movements. He also states "no over-size view camera had anywhere near the tolerances I was intent on reaching". So don't sell this guy short- he has a big idea and the resources to carry it out. It will be interesting to see if his pictures are worth the effort. I hope so, but I think of that Adams quote about 'there is nothing more boring than a technically perfect picture of a poor siubject" or words to that effect.

[David R Munson]

This guy definitely deserves some credit. The reporter who wrote the article on the other hand... Who wants to go egg her house?

[Chad Jarvis]

Sure, he deserves some credit, but what exactly did he invent?

[Dan Ingram]

CNN did a 15-second blurb on this thing last week -- they seemed impressed that the camera could resolve "individual blades of grass." Imagine that! By the way, my B&J 5x7 camera IS one of those that only produces black-and white images. But that's because I can't afford color film.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Apparently his idea is to achieve greater levels of detail and realism in a photograph than have been seen before



Sorry Mark, but there have been banquet and panoramic cameras for many decades, I doubt his 9x18 negatives have more detail or realism than my 12x20 ones.



As to enlargements, there has been a guy for a few years already that will enlarge up to 12x20 negatives, of course this is for analog. I know little about digital but from what I understand a drum scan from an 8x10 negative can get just as much detail as his negatives if it is done at high enough resolution, if not how about an 11x14 negative..am I wrong?



This is a clear self promotion piece disguised as journalism written by an obvious recent journalism graduate. The amazing thing is that the editor did not catch the "cameras that only take B&W pictures" line...lol...

[Michael S. Briggs]

Slashdot has picked up on the same article. People might be interested or amused in the comments there: When 8 Megapixels Just Isn't Enough (http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/26/0111209.shtml).

[David A. Goldfarb]

Unable to track down the reporter's e-mail address, I e-mailed AP pointing them to this thread and another on APUG.org. If I hear anything interesting, I'll post it here.

[Brian C. Miller]

Jay De Fehr wrote: "I checked out his website, and while painfully slow loading, none of the images I saw were in color...."

I just did a quick look throughout his entire site. You are right. There is no color! Although there are photographs of his scribblings in his notebooks.

Oh, man, am I keeping my money in my pocket!! Owning a camera (and having the will to use it!) makes me so glad that I am not dependent on others for something to hang on my wall. He has a series which is titled "Grain." From the images, I think he means film grain, not wheat grain.

"There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept." -Ansel Adams

[Jim_3565]

'There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept." -Ansel Adams'

Yes, there is. A fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept is worse.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Jim

Not true for me: The fuzzy image does underline the fuzzy concept and makes it stronger and is almost sold as modern art. And so it is the better image! So its not so easy my dear!

[Frank Petronio]

It was picked up in the Rochester, NY paper yesterday. The brilliant editors bought it hook line and sinker too. So he scanned aerial roll film to make a 2.6 gig file? BFD. But he's hanging it in a well known NY gallery and probably going to get $75K + per print. He's laughing all the way to the bank...