It looks like a sick 1990s cross breed between a Sinar and some high-end component stereo system. I'd hate to get electrocuted while trying to make a photo.
It looks like a sick 1990s cross breed between a Sinar and some high-end component stereo system. I'd hate to get electrocuted while trying to make a photo.
Holy crap! The interface from Hell! Ready for a Sci Fi movie set Frank.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Though obviously not the world's greatest field camera (and you don't even show the PC-AT computer to which it had to be tethered), I think the Sinar e was one of the most amazing cameras ever made. You'd focus on a few key points, and the computer would give the optimal tilt, swing, focus, and f-number to get everything sharp. If you believe the Sinar literature (and it's also discussed briefly on pp. 70–72 of Urs Tillmanns's Creative Large Format: Basics and Applications), experienced Sinar p users were able to achieve better sharpness while using an f-number 1.5 steps smaller with the Sinar e. According to Tillmanns, the development of this camera led Sinar to rediscover the "hinge" rule a few years before Merklinger; unlike Merklinger, however, Sinar had little to say about it other than a very brief mention in the diagram on p. 71 of Tillmanns's book.
For a planar subject, setting tilt or swing is fairly straightforward; by whatever means, you align the plane of focus with the subject, and everything is sharp. For a non-planar subject, such as a product or a landscape, it's not nearly so simple, and often involves trial and error. Little has even been written on the topic; Merklinger explored it, but QT's article How to focus the view camera is about all I've seen on how to actually find the optimal settings. I've had an article in progress for five or six years, and it's likely to remain in that state ...
The complexity, bulk, and cost (it was over $30k, including the computer) kept the Sinar e from becoming a hot seller. It's unfortunate that a more practical second-generation version was never developed.
Frank,
I keep wishing I could run across one inexpensively, I have some ideas using a PIC to automate one, sadly I'll likely have to wait til I hit the lottery. (If I ever played it...)
Egad ! I'll stick with mahogany and brass !
Horseman had an LX-C camera with a "Focus Computer". It had a small LCD on the rail below the groundglass. Has anyone ever used it?
Kumar
A predecessor to the HAL 9000 was the HAL 7000 and that was part of it's visual system. HAL 7000s were big and slow and didn't have a pleasant voice but they always opened the pod bay doors when asked.
...Mike
Jeff probably refers to this "sci-fi" image of the good old days :
http://jeanba3000.free.fr/sinarE.jpg
In my opinion with the Sinar E started the going down the river of the Sinar company! It was a camera more for computer freaks then for photogs!
It was the first of more to come hype products.
Just my two cts Armin
Despite my terse comment, this effort by Sinar had some plausible advantages, in theory, but I think the complexity sort of usurped the artistic endeavor. Nowadays the implementation could be much simpler, more compact and cheaper. Small, powerful micrprocessors, mixed with digital signal processors, fast A to D and connectivity by wireless could result in a package not much more bulky than the Sinar camera itself. Just takes a few million in engineering development costs for what is probably still a tiny market.Originally Posted by Emmanuel BIGLER
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks