Betterlight, what's so super about the super models?

[Nick]

Researching betterlight backs for primarily art repro (with personal landscape work a distant second, don't know if I can handle the hardware in the field), I am trying to understand what one gains moving from the 6000HS to the super 6000. The super model seems to add the feature of interpolation to produce a larger file. The ccd is the same. Is there really any difference from interpolating in photoshop?

Also, as far as output is concerned, I am very familiar with what sort of interpolation/upsizing I can do with my dslr. As I understand the BL backs are producing a true rgb per-pixel rather than a bayer array. Does this translate into more enlargability? My output for clients is primarily on canvas (Epson 9800), what sort of maximum print size could I expect for fairly exacting clients. Is 50" on the long side reasonable for a 6000 or do I need to buck up for the 8000?

Thanks for any thoughts.

[Kirk Gittings]

There are many people here who know these answers. They must be out of town. Check with Jim Collum or J Michael Sullivan.

[MJSfoto1956]

Researching betterlight backs for primarily art repro (with personal landscape work a distant second, don't know if I can handle the hardware in the field), I am trying to understand what one gains moving from the 6000HS to the super 6000. The super model seems to add the feature of interpolation to produce a larger file. The ccd is the same. Is there really any difference from interpolating in photoshop?

Also, as far as output is concerned, I am very familiar with what sort of interpolation/upsizing I can do with my dslr. As I understand the BL backs are producing a true rgb per-pixel rather than a bayer array. Does this translate into more enlargability? My output for clients is primarily on canvas (Epson 9800), what sort of maximum print size could I expect for fairly exacting clients. Is 50" on the long side reasonable for a 6000 or do I need to buck up for the 8000?

Thanks for any thoughts.

Their interpolation model is very similar to the methods used by flatbed scanners: specifically, the use the stepper motor to increment halfway between pixels in one dimension. As such, they can correctly claim an actual increase in detail in one dimension (the long dimension). So the 6000x8000 real pixel scan can be "captured" up to 9000x12000 with the long dimension being mostly real data and the short dimension being mostly guestimate data.

Notwithstanding, your insight is proved correct with real-world usage: the BetterLight data "scales" significantly better than Bayer data and you will find that it also takes sharpening better as well. I find that 6000x8000 is ideal for 20x30 prints that can scale up to 40x60 and it will look tack sharp at arm's length at this distance.

[Robert Hall]

Jim is out for a week, he is welcoming his new grandchild to the family.

[evan clarke]

Why don't you just call Betterlight??..EC

[Nick]

Why don't you just call Betterlight??..EC

I plan on it, but getting input from actual users is far more interesting and useful to me than talking to marketing drones.

[Nick]

Their interpolation model is very similar to the methods used by flatbed scanners: specifically, the use the stepper motor to increment halfway between pixels in one dimension. As such, they can correctly claim an actual increase in detail in one dimension (the long dimension). So the 6000x8000 real pixel scan can be "captured" up to 9000x12000 with the long dimension being mostly real data and the short dimension being mostly guestimate data.

Notwithstanding, your insight is proved correct with real-world usage: the BetterLight data "scales" significantly better than Bayer data and you will find that it also takes sharpening better as well. I find that 6000x8000 is ideal for 20x30 prints that can scale up to 40x60 and it will look tack sharp at arm's length at this distance.

Fantastic information, thank you very much.

[Kirk Gittings]

Nick,

The people at Betterlight are great. Though I have never used their product, I talk to them every year at the VIEW CAMERA CONFERENCE and they are not your usual "marketing drones". It is not a huge company.

[Gene McCluney]

I have a Betterlight 4000 (the Original entry-level model). I also have a 14mp DSLR. I find the Betterlight files scale up dramatically better than the DSLR files do, and even though this back is only capable of a native file of a little more than 16 inches wide at 300dpi., in reality the quality of the pixels is such that it scales way up in Photoshop. Looks much better than a DSLR file.

[Nick]

Nick,

The people at Betterlight are great. Though I have never used their product, I talk to them every year at the VIEW CAMERA CONFERENCE and they are not your usual "marketing drones". It is not a huge company.

Thanks Kirk, too cynical for my own good I guess! :)

[bglick]

If money is no object, a digital scanning back is an excellent tool for repro work. However, if money is an object, and you want a more versatile camera, you may consider a high end Digital SLR... a Canon 5d makes a nice choice. By setting up a grid system to move the camera around the image, you can acheive a very impressive Mossaic, which requires no corrections and is easily stitched in many software programs, even PS does a great job. A "normal to slightly long" fl lens is preferred to assure no distortion.

As long as the subject is still (a requirement for a scanning back unless you desire the oddities created by moving subjects) you have many choices. One can argue the scanning backs offer better dynamic range and RGB recording at each pixel site vs. Bayer. But with the power of digital today, IMO, all this can easily be overcome with a little inegenuity.

RGB recording at each pixel - can be overcome by overwehelming the image with more pixels in your mossaic strategy, equaling or beating the scanning back.

Dynamic Range - If the subject has an extreme dynamic range and you want to hold more details in both, shoot the image twice, at two different exposures, and blend them in PS. Again, this can superseded the dyanmic range of the scanning back.

Pixel count - no brainer, you can get all the pixels you want if the subject is still.

Of course the big advantage of this approach is, you have a multi purpose camera.... or the money saved can be used for other photo gear.

If you do 10 repro's a day, it will justify a scanning back for the time savings alone. But if you do a few a week, its pretty easy to perfect the mossaic system. It all boils down to what you have more of.... time or money ;-)

[Peter Mounier]

[QUOTE=Nick;233126] ... The ccd is the same. Is there really any difference from interpolating in photoshop?

Everyone's comments are true except for the original poster's statement that the sensors are the same. The Super series have a newer, higher sensitivity ccd.

Peter

[Nick]

Everyone's comments are true except for the original poster's statement that the sensors are the same. The Super series have a newer, higher sensitivity ccd.

Peter

Peter, not sure why you are playing fact police, but you are incorrect yourself. The "e" model uses the older ccd. The 6000-HS uses the newer ccd.

-Nick

[Nick]

If you do 10 repro's a day, it will justify a scanning back for the time savings alone. But if you do a few a week, its pretty easy to perfect the mossaic system. It all boils down to what you have more of.... time or money ;-)

Thanks for the thoughts. This is what I am moving away from though. Currently use a zoerk shift adapter with a pentax 645 macro lens. I have a lot of experience doing this kind of stitching and it's not as simple nor as quick as you make it out to be. Continuous tones, falloff and polarization are all real issues.

Regardless of how much time or money I have, I find that time=money, and at even such a low rate as 3 repros a week it's pretty simple to make back the additional cost.

[Peter Mounier]

Nick
You're right.
I have the Super 6k-HS and I was sure that Dan Colvin at Betterlight told me that the new Super models were their newest models with the improved sensitivity.
Your comment led me to their website where I learned differently.
BTW, as I look back at my original (wrong) answer, I see that I did come off as a "know it all". I didn't mean to sound like that.
I will now cower in the corner with my tail between my legs.
Peter

[bglick]

> Thanks for the thoughts. This is what I am moving away from though. Currently use a zoerk shift adapter with a pentax 645 macro lens. I have a lot of experience doing this kind of stitching and it's not as simple nor as quick as you make it out to be. Continuous tones, falloff and polarization are all real issues.


Hi Nick. I am curious about your response.

Question 1: When you use your Zoerk shift adapter, what part of the camera do you have affixed to the tripod, the camera, or the lens? If you have the camera affixed to the tripod and move the lens around, it can be a recipe for trouble if you want high quality stitched mossaics. However, if you rotate the back around the lens, you should be capturing the same image view a scanning back would capture, making it much easier to stitch.


Question 2: For large sized artist work, have you considered a Large Format scanner? I never used one myself, but will be exploring all these repro options in the near future for some projects I have coming up. My thoughts are.... it's a lot simplier and probably more effective to make a lower rez scan of a bigger image (large format scanner) vs. making a high rez scan of a smaller image (scanning back). Also, the LF Scanner will solve all the lighting problems as it isolates the part being scanned and can provide equal lighting throughout. I am curious your thoughts on this.

Bill

[solonphotos]

Researching betterlight backs for primarily art repro (with personal landscape work a distant second, don't know if I can handle the hardware in the field), I am trying to understand what one gains moving from the 6000HS to the super 6000. The super model seems to add the feature of interpolation to produce a larger file. The ccd is the same. Is there really any difference from interpolating in photoshop?

Also, as far as output is concerned, I am very familiar with what sort of interpolation/upsizing I can do with my dslr. As I understand the BL backs are producing a true rgb per-pixel rather than a bayer array. Does this translate into more enlargability? My output for clients is primarily on canvas (Epson 9800), what sort of maximum print size could I expect for fairly exacting clients. Is 50" on the long side reasonable for a 6000 or do I need to buck up for the 8000?

Thanks for any thoughts.
The Super Better Light backs can be use at 150% native resolution. They do that by making smaller steps with the CCD - the results are useful resolution increase due to real image data - not just an up-rez of an image.

I have been shooting 4X5 since 1968 and have seen a lot of changes and new developments. I have used a Dicomed digital back, a Better Light 4000, and now I am using the B.L. Super 6 K2 backs.

I posted a note that I have a Super 6 K2 for sale - but George Kara had if flagged after he confused it with a Chinese sex toy. He may, in fact, not know the difference. If you want information about using the Better Light backs in the studio, just send me a note.

Dick