A New Betterlight Scan Back Article

[Scott Fleming]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml

[David Luttmann]

Scott,

I noticed one of the link images was down on the site, however, the other two clearly show the Betterlight being more detailed than 4x5.....and the model tested has less than 80% of the rez of their top back. Perfect for product photography. However, that 300 iso image at 9 minutes pretty much rules out the back for another other than some architectural and product photos. At higher isos the scan times are much better.

Now if only my lotto numbers come up tonight, I'll be able to set this puppy up again and have the kids sit still for 9 minutes! ;-)

[John_4185]

Dave Luttmann pretty much rules out the back for another other than some architectural

Yep. It obviates any architectural work that has a sky with clouds (unless you like the Twilight Zone), traffic or important human figures. It ain't ready for prime time yet.

[Jim collum]

9 minutes is way out of line for a normal image. I'd say that 90% of my images are taken before the sun comes over the horizon, and with the new usb unit, the most i scan is about 2:30. For normal daylight photography, or a well lit interior, then 30 seconds will work. Granted, it's not a people, action or wildlife camera.. but i do just fine with landscape images. Again.. not for everyone.. and it does have its drawbacks.. but the color fidelity and detail is worth it for me.

jim

[David Luttmann]

Hey Jim,

Seen your work on Outback Photo. I love the industrial images. Do you use one of these units on a regular basis? I've only been able to grab a couple of shots when a collegue was testing it for commercial product work.

Cheers,

[Jim collum]

thanks for the feedback.. appreciate any comments i can get.

i've switch back and forth between the betterlight and a 1dsmk 2 stitched (using a tilt shift lens). I have a long term love for the view camera, and am unwilling to let it go. The new Betterlight setup is a lot lighter and much more portable than the old. I've haued 8x10 around, and my 4x5 setup with betterlight is easier.

I've never considered large format to be an experience i need to hurry at, and since most of my images are done under overcast days, or before the sun rises.. i'm not all that worried about shifting light. Wind is a curse.. but then.. that's what i have the canon for :^)

I'm in the Santa Cruz area.. and if anyone ever wants to meet to share the 'experience'.. just let me know.

jim

[Jim collum]

i'm going to be doing a series of articles (in a diary type format) for the Outbackphoto site, on using the Betterlight back from the perspective of a landscape photographer. I'll be taking it to Cambodia and Thailand in October and that will be part of the series as well

Jim

[Ben Calwell]

For fine art applications, I still like film. But if BetterLight could some day manufacture a battery-powered digital back for view cameras that wouldn't have to be tethered to a computer and would cost a couple of hundred dollars, I would buy one.

[Eric Fredine]

There must be a simple formula for determing the scan time - I'd like to know what that is so I can determine for myself if the scan times are reasonable for what I want to do. The exposure value for a scene determines the base exposure based on the aperture I have to use. I'm assuming the scan time is then simply a factor of the number of scans required to make the image and the effective and useable (with quality) ISO of the scanner.

[Jim collum]

the line time can be considered equivalent to shutter speed. that's the exposure time for each row of pixels. multiply this by 8000 to get the total scan time (for a 6k back). With the new usb unit, the fastest scan time is 1/240 , which gives about 33 seconds. ISO can go to 3200. What i've found is that i still get extremely clean images at ISO 2400.

As far as a unit described above going for a couple hundred dollars.. that's not a very reasonable expectation.. so i guess what you're really trying to say is that you'd never buy one. (a polaroid film holder for a 4x5 goes for a couple hundred dollars)

jim

[David Luttmann]

Jim,

Considering many shots for architectural work can extend into 30 seconds to a minute.....this may have more of a place in the equipment arsenal than I thought. 33 sec ain't bad. This is around the 55 seconds I got for my test shots.

[Jim collum]

i don't really shoot architectural work.. but there are plenty that have been using the Betterlight back. I'm pretty sure Mike has some references, either on his web site, or by contacting him. You might find someone in your neighborhood that has the new unit.

Jim

[Eric Fredine]

Thank-you Jim. A simple and succint explanation. Better Light would do well to post a simple explanation of scan times and what to expect on their website.

I'll watch for your 'diary' on outbackphoto.

[Angelo Micheletti]

Eric, actually they do. If you go to http://www.betterlight.com/faq_sales.asp there is an answer to the scan time question as well as several others. After debating this purchase for some time (it ain't cheap) I got a 6000-HS about a month ago and am in the process of really finding out how to get the best out of it. One thing for sure, it is nice to use a 4x5 camera and see immediately what you got. Yes it's a little cumbersome to set up but then I've never thought of using a 4x5 as something to do in a hurry.

If you go to their home page and under the Applications tab select "Featured Applications" you can see the work of some of the landscape photographers who use this back. Of course Stephen Johnson does also.

Angelo

[Will Strain]

*sniff*

Why must I always sacrifice my precious wide angles when going digital.

Tho I suppose I could find a wider lens that doesn't need to cover as much for not too much scratch. But still.

[Ed Richards]

Think of it as a supersized 6x7, then you are getting extra wide duty.:-)

[QT Luong]

It has worked extremely well for Stephen Johnson, because it has allowed him to do something "new" and "different" (very important for marketing your work, something that he is good at too). However, now that he has done it and occupied that niche, other photographers trying to do landscape with current LF digital equipment won't reap this benefit, but they still will be subjected to the inherent constraints and limitations of the gear.

[Angelo Micheletti]

I may have misunderstood you but it sounds like you're saying that it's all about how many megapixels Stephen Johnson has and that now that he's shot with 48+MP, it isn't new anymore. Maybe I'm naive but I've always felt what sells a photograph is the subject and the treatment. The equipment simply allows me to capture what I saw and transfer that vision to the other person.

When some people see my photography they ask if it was taken digitally, was the print made in a darkroom, was it done on a printer, etc. I answer, politely, by asking if they like the photograph, if they are moved by it. If they are then my response is "then really what does it matter how I made it". If they don't like it my response is "then what does it matter how I made it".

My point is that I think sometimes we get too caught up in the technicalities and forget the art.

Angelo

[Jim collum]

Well, the technicalites do contribute to the art.. otherwise very few would still be shooting large format. I feel that this format contributes something to my vision, as does using the Betterlight back.

If i were just creating art for it's own sake, and felt i needed to stop there, that would be it. But if i want to sell it, being 'good' isn't enough to market it. Once you look at selling, then a lot more than just the quality comes into play... often you need a 'hook' to get a buyer interested. Often that 'hook' is being the first at something.. which is what Stephen utilized to help market his images (as an aside, i like his work a lot.... you need to see the actual prints to really see this).

Hooks have been used throughout.. (shot with 4x5, shot with 8x10, printed on platinum, dye-transfer, cibachrome.. real siver, archival, etc)

jim

[David Luttmann]

Uwe Steinmueller just posted another article on the Betterlight back:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/betterlight/betterlight_pointlobos.html

He shows some good cropped images as well as the standard moire fix for some of the false color inherent in scan backs. To bad bandwidth only allows a compressed jpeg crop instead of a full rez tif. And to think this 8000 pixel wide original is less than 40% of what their top model can capture at more than 20,000 pixels wide.

[Jim collum]

A new article was added to the outbackphoto website, comparing an Aptus 22Mp back to a Canon 1dsmk2 17Mp DSLR. They used a broken window as a test subject. www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/leaf_aptus_22/leaf_aptus22.html#20050905 (http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/leaf_aptus_22/leaf_aptus22.html#20050905)

There are some 100% crops in the article of a section of the window

at:

www.jcollum.com/fm/window-crop1.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/fm/window-crop1.jpg) and www.jcollum.com/fm/window-crop-sharp.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/fm/window-crop-sharp.jpg) , i've done the same test, only using the betterlight scan back. cropping was the same as the Aptus 22 shot on the site. the links i've supplied are 100% crops from the same area that the site used. lighting was slightly overcast. the one thing that you can see is the lack of the bayer artifacting at 100% that you see in most digital images.

i shot using an ebony view, 150 schneider lens @ f32, 2 min exposure at ISO 750

jim

[David Luttmann]

Thanks Jim.

I think that the lack of the Bayer mosaic tremendously adds to the detail and lack of false color softness that you can see at 100%. I found that most people thought it would take more than an 8000 pixel width to surpass 4x5 fine grain film......but it did. And as such, if 8000 beats 4x5, than 16,000 beats 8x10. And with the latest backs over 20,000, it appears 8x10 for product, commercial, and even some landscape work no longer holds the top spot for detail, noise & color.

Now if they could just speed it up so it wouldn't take 30 seconds to expose.......

[Jim collum]

as an added feature, you can do pano's with the back and a 4x5.. using www.betterlight.com/panoWideView.asp (http://www.betterlight.com/panoWideView.asp) .

there's a crop of a scan i did this morning (not art.. just a test shot) at www.jcollum.com/fm/panotest1.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/fm/panotest1.jpg). The scan was 1min 30 sec, about 20,000 x6000 pixels, was shot using a schneider 210 at f32. the only motion artifacts are to be found at the meeting of the water and the shore at the bottom of the image. I haven't done any modification to the image (contrast/levels/color).. this is pretty much out of the camera

(i'm not associated with Betterlight at all.. just been a happy customer/user of the gear)

jim

[Jim collum]

since landscapes aren't something you should be doing with a scan back

www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_018-cvt.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_018-cvt.jpg)

yesterday, mid morning, bright sunlight, 65mm, f22

[Jim collum]

oh.. that was taken without the IR filter normally needed to take color images. the sensor is very IR sensitive, so can take good IR images.

jim

[David Luttmann]

Thanks Jim,

I think I'll contact you off line with some questions I have that weren't answered when I got my chance to use the back.

Regards,

[Jim collum]

... and for those who don't think large format lenses have decent resolving power :^) taken with a schneider 210 5.6 @ f 32. (the older /convertable model)

betterlight scan.. about 30,000 x6000 pixels taken from the shore of Tenaya Lake, looking across the lake. This was taken without the IR blocking filter, so it's an IR image of the mountains.



www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_003-cvt.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_003-cvt.jpg)



closer
www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_003-cvt-crop3.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_003-cvt-crop3.jpg)

closer

www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_003-cvt-crop2.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_003-cvt-crop2.jpg)

100% (and unsharpened)

www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_003-cvt-crop1.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/yosemite/2005_09_10_bl_yosemite_003-cvt-crop1.jpg)

[David Luttmann]

Jim,

I hope you don't mind. I was playing with the 100% unsharpened crop and had interpolated it using my own interpolation routine by a ratio of 3:1. This was pre-sharpened USM 300 / 0.3 / 1. The portion I took, when viewed on a screen of 96 dpi, would work out to an enlargement of 78 feet.....assuming I've done the math right. Here's the link....

http://members.shaw.ca/daveandclaire/stuff/big.jpg

[Jim collum]

don't mind at all. nice interpolation !

[QT Luong]

Quite impressive. What interpolation do you use ? Also, how do you think this would compare to the so-called "gigapixel" images ?

[David Luttmann]

QT,

I use a number of different methods depending on the camera used in capture. I interpolate DSLRs differently than a consumer point and shoot. This was interpolated using a multi channel method I use for high end backs with low or no AA filter. This involves an in LAB mode luminosity presharpen and then a stair stepped bicubic smoother routine on the luminosity channel and a single bicubic standard interpolation with gaussian blur on the A & B color channels. I find that even though Bicubic smoother works well, it still works better stair stepped on extreme enlargements....and works better than any spline routine I've used from S-Spline to Qimage.

I've found this routine works well limiting false color & moire when images are captured with devices that don't have and AA filter, or at least a weak one.

As far as a gigapixel is concerned, in theory, this is quite close. If we used the same 4x5 aspect ratio, this would be a 24,000 X 30,000 uninterpolated image, or 720MP.

Because of the lack of noise and no bayer interpolation, I've found these images interpolated better than anything I've had from a conventional DSLR or film. People tend to react negatively to film grain and much less to a slight loss of detail.

The thing that is plainly evident here is that no matter what film format you are using, be it 4x5 or 8x10, and no matter what film.....at 78 feet wide, no film would hold up to this image.

[David Luttmann]

QT,

I forgot the most important part....I found this method also reduces haloing by about 50% over a standard interpolation routine. It's not quite as sharp, but I take that as a tradeoff in order to reduce halo effects.

[Ellis Vener]

jim

have you looked at the STM device for mounting a 1ds body on a Sinar P ox rear standard (in place of the 4x5 format frame and bellows?

It allows you to shift the 1Ds body and not move the lens : much smoother stitching results. POV remaains constant.

[Jim collum]

yes.. i wrote an article on it

www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_48/essay.html (http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_48/essay.html)

jim