 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / May 2004Clifford Ross R1 camera: highest resolution?
Hi In today's Denver Post, page 4A, is an article about Clifford Ross, his 110-pound R1 camera he built, and the spectacular "Mountain I" image that is on display in the Sonnabend Gallery in New York through July 30. The image is of Mount Sopris, Colorado and, according to the article, may be onw of the highest resolution images ever made. There are no details about the camera except that it is a "six foot" camera and weights 110 pounds. The photo with the article shows what looks like an 8x10, or perhaps 11x14 camera on about a 6-foot tripod. Anyone have info about this guy, his camera, and his images? Roger Clark > Hi > In today's Denver Post, page 4A, is an article about [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > with the article shows what looks like an 8x10, or perhaps > 11x14 camera on about a 6-foot tripod. Thanks for the pointer, Roger. I'd bet he made the camera himself, or had the machine work contracted. The Ross-1 is 9" by 18". Darn! Now I'm going to have to find a 6" Biogon (upsized 38mm Zeiss Biogon design), and I'm almost positive there never was such a thing. Some "additional information" on his camera http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/20040522-1007-high-resolutioncamera.html Some "additional information" on Ross http://www.thephotographyinstitute.org/www/events.html http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/ > Some "additional information" on his camera > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/ Thanks, now it gets interesting. It is, like jjs said, a 9x18 inch camera. The "innovations" are a dual mirror system to keep the lens plane and film plane parallel, and a vacuum system to keep film flat. I'm pretty sure I've heard of others making a vacuum film holders for 8x10 and 4x5, and even thought about it myself (for astrophotos when you shoot wide open). But I fail to see why keeping the lens and film planes parallel would be a big deal, and in fact is a disadvantage for images like Ross' "Mountain I" image. In the Denver post article, it says the mountain is sharp 7 miles away as is a blade of grass 100 feet away. Assuming a 3 foot focal length (a guess from the pictures) a subject at 100 feet would be displaced by 1.1 inches whereas the mountain top would be displaced .002 inch from infinity. But it might be a 6 foot focal length because they call it a 6-foot camera. If so, the 100-foot distant subject would be displaced 4.6 inches. In either case, a front tilt would be needed, not some rigourous lens and film parallel. For most landscape work, it seems that film flatness is not an issue because focal point differences are far greater. Then the article goes on to state that aerial photography film is used, and the film is scanned to produce a 2.6 gbyte file. Assuming 8-bits/channel, it implies about a 2300 ppi scan. Pretty impressive, but because it is aerial photo film, a high speed pretty grainy film, I would bet one could do better with an 8x10 camera and modern fine grained film like velvia or provia 100F. I am studying what this guy does, as I'll probably learn something. Comments? Roger Clark > > http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/ > But I fail to see why keeping the lens and film planes parallel > would be a big deal, and in fact is a disadvantage for images [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whereas the mountain top would be displaced .002 inch from > infinity. As the man says: "Ross acknowledges that he has very little technical background" The gushing reporter has even less. Vacuum backs are only needed when taking pictures of flat land from 10,000+ feet, ditto extreme parallelism. The camera looks to be a Sinar P front standard (full front movements), a custom back and bellows and a Sinar F (?!) back standard with a badly designed (if rigidity is your thing, that is) outrigger rear standard/frame. The windage to stiffness ratio looks to be pretty awful. Nothing new here. For extreme resolution mountain photos done with an aerial camera see the works of Bradford Washburn. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > For extreme resolution mountain photos done with an aerial camera > see the works of Bradford Washburn. Indeed. Great stuff. Washburn's photos speak for themselves. There's some good notes somewhere regarding the cameras he used, how difficult it was to find a good one of the lot, the conditions under which he worked. Quite the man and photographer. I am intrigued by a camera that can only "take black and white film". This has to be a technical tour de force, no? Regards, Marv >>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/ > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com > psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ "Marv Soloff" posted: "... I am intrigued by a camera that can only "take black and white film". This has to be a technical tour de force, no? ..." No. IMHO: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nailed it when he posted "... As the man says: "Ross acknowledges that he has very little technical background." The gushing reporter has even less. ..." All of this "has been done before" ... it has just not been "promoted" by some NYC Art Gallery with an over-priced and over-creative NYC "Publicist." Indeed, I commonly shoot 11" X 14" neg, or pos, film, scan on drum to similar file sizes, print on my own ColorSpan large format printer. Yes, my camera can actually accept color film in addition to BW. I know I am not particularly unique in this. However, the amazing part of this is, how in the world did he get such fantastic press. Specifically? Any interest, see www.jvee.com (not quite revamped though). On 5/24/04 8:15 AM, in article Ikosc.22240$ZQ.16043@nwrddc03.gnilink.net, > "Marv Soloff" posted: > "... > I am intrigued by a camera that can only "take black and white film". This has > [...] > Any interest, see www.jvee.com (not quite revamped though). From your page: "J Vee is a fine arts photographer with a unique background as a physician and is a board certified anatomic and clinical pathologist." Marketing is how much of the image? If I put initials behind my name, will it improve my pictures? posted: "... If I put initials behind my name, will it improve my pictures? ..." NO ... but if you add "A Gallery" and "A Publicist" you can probably shoot crap (1) and charge large sums for it [Note 1: BTW: IIIRC Someone did that ... was "exhibited" in an "Exclusive Beverly Hills Gallery," and reportedly made a lot of money about fifteen years ago! The "Subject" was "Dog Feces of Los Angeles" ... and the pictures were done in the "Fine Art" style.] Ah, jjs, you have hit on a problem for me over many years. In the past I have always kept my two lives absolutely separate. My feeling has always been that galleries and print buyers will feel that I must simply be a dilettante if I have another profession, even though neither art photography nor medicine is a full time pursuit for me. The truth is that few fine arts photographers can make a living selling prints alone and that the discipline of recognizing histological patterns for diagnosis informs my photographic "vision". Therefore, I mentioned it in my bio after being strongly urged by people assisting me in marketing. I will be greatly appreciative of the opinion of the group on whether it is a good idea (print sales) or not. On 5/24/04 1:07 PM, in article 10b4lfe9i4utn72@news.supernews.com, "jjs" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote: >> [...] >> Any interest, see www.jvee.com (not quite revamped though). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Marketing is how much of the image? If I put initials behind my name, will > it improve my pictures?  SignatureJ Vee > Ah, jjs, you have hit on a problem for me over many years. In the past I > have always kept my two lives absolutely separate. My feeling has always [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > people assisting me in marketing. I will be greatly appreciative of the > opinion of the group on whether it is a good idea (print sales) or not. It might inform the viewer and make him more appreciative if you could articulate how your recognition of histological pattern recognition influences your photography. Beware that it is rather easy to rationalize almost any 'nature photograph' as belonging within the context of histological patterns. When the term 'histological pattern' is used by an MD, I'd consider the use in photography to point to a pathological state (over time), possibly related to evidence of humankind in an otherwise pristine frame of reference. Generally, it is risky to use specialized medical jargon in art. But what do I know, I'm just letting Broca's area have its way with me. >highest resolution images ever >made. Total system detail has three imputs. 1. The focal length of the lens. 2. The distance to the subject. 3. The resolution of the film+lens Generally, a 10 inch lens at 50 ft will show the same detail as a 5 inch lens at 25 ft as long as the same film is being used. In the early 50's, the US Air Force designed a camera out of a 4 engine C54 transport plane. Focal length was over 200 inches and the plane few at about 5000 ft. With this setup, you could read the words "Luck Strike" off a cigarette pack sitting on the berm of the road. Larry Interesting, the article seems to be 20% fact, and 80% BS. I like the fact the image will only stand up to a 5'x10' print. Didn't you mention something about a 20' panarama shot, Roger? The whole thing reminds me of a famous PT Barnum quote. -- > Hi > In today's Denver Post, page 4A, is an article about [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Roger Clark |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.