 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / September 2004Finally a digital Hasselblad
Finally, Hasselblad came out with a digital medium format: http://www.hasselblad.se/ Paolo S:  SignatureHoto d'eros zoes enestin, aphthonos gerasketo. >Finally, Hasselblad came out with a digital medium format: >http://www.hasselblad.se/ And it costs as much as a decent automobile! ;-) SignatureCentral Maryland Photographer's Guild http://cmpg.org >>Finally, Hasselblad came out with a digital medium format: >>http://www.hasselblad.se/ > >And it costs as much as a decent automobile! ;-) I´m sure you meant ""And it costs ONLY as much as a decent automobile!" ;-) I´d need a bodyguard to stroll around with that beast... Ciao Enrico http://enricof.altervista.org/ > Finally, Hasselblad came out with a digital medium format: > http://www.hasselblad.se/ And as usual it is ridiculously overpriced. I worked in a studio equipped with Blads once and that taught me about this brand: Works great between stays at the repair shop I'd rather buy a Contax with a Phase One back Stephan . >> Finally, Hasselblad came out with a digital medium format: >> http://www.hasselblad.se/ >And as usual it is ridiculously overpriced. >I worked in a studio equipped with Blads once and that >taught me about this brand: Works great between stays >at the repair shop. I'd rather buy a Contax with a >Phase One back I'm not in any way opposing to your alternative choice but let me just say that my very old 500C has been in almost constant use since it was brand new but still spent time at Hasselblad service only once, about two years ago. And that service was not because there was something wrong with it, it was just me who thought that it was about time for a general overhaul. The Hasselblad team exchanged several parts they thought was worn beyond tolerances and made a readjustment of the camera as a whole. I got a "brand new" unit back from them and as it seems now it will be kicking around for another twenty years to come :-) Hasselblad cameras are high precision devices and needs to be treated as such to survive and do a good job. Now if I could have 16 Mpix on a 36.7 x 36.7 mm square as a back for my old 500C body, things would end up in a completely new perspective. The advertised resolution is equivalent to a square inch divided into 2,768,392 lines, each line having 2,768,392 individual pixels in it. It seems to me that we are really closing in on the chemical resolution that comes out of a standard processed ISO400 negative at least? If there is any way possible for me to get that new digital back to fit and work on my old 500C, I will probably pay a visit to my bank, with hat in hand and my best sunny smile on my face :-) Signature"Jan Roland Eriksson" <rex@fantasywoman.nu> www presence @ <http://www.fantasywoman.nu> > Now if I could have 16 Mpix on a 36.7 x 36.7 mm square as a back for my > old 500C body, things would end up in a completely new perspective. > > The advertised resolution is equivalent to a square inch divided into > 2,768,392 lines, each line having 2,768,392 individual pixels in it. Are you sure about those figures? 2,768,392 x 2,768,392 would indicate 7.6 million points. If each of them is equivalent to a sensor's pixel element you'd need nearly 1/2 million of those 16 Mpix sensors to duplicate that resolution, and a Blad big enough to hold them all would be a real Hassel to use. :) Working backwards from a square 16 Mpix sensor you get 4000 lines containing 4000 pixels per line. Divide 4000 by 36.7 and you get 109 lines (or pixels) per mm, which seems like a reasonable 'ballpark' figure for a lens's resolving power. Do you recall where the 2,768,392 figure came from? >> Now if I could have 16 Mpix on a 36.7 x 36.7 mm square as a back for my >> old 500C body, things would end up in a completely new perspective. > Are you sure about those figures? ... Nope :-) > Working backwards from a square 16 Mpix sensor you get 4000 lines >containing 4000 pixels per line. Divide 4000 by 36.7 and you get >109 lines (or pixels) per mm, which seems like a reasonable >'ballpark' figure for a lens's resolving power. You are absolutely right of course. I should refrain from posting too late at night :-/ >Do you recall where the 2,768,392 figure came from? My own lapsus. Square root of 16 is 4; so naturally the square root of 16 million must be 4 million, right? :-) (of course it's not, it's 4000 just as you say) Still even the real true resolution is pretty impressive I think. My film scanner has a true resolution of 4800 pixels per inch and it can definitely pick up the "graininess" in standard processed negatives at least from ISO200 film and upwards. The Hasselblad digital back is not far away from that. Once again, sorry for my miscalculation :-) Signature"Jan Roland Eriksson" <rex@fantasywoman.nu> www presence @ <http://www.fantasywoman.nu> >snip< > Hasselblad cameras are high precision devices and needs to be treated as > such to survive and do a good job. Exactly, they are by no way tools you can use to work.They look and feel solid but if you use them as pro tools make sure you carry a few bodies and lenses around. > Now if I could have 16 Mpix on a 36.7 x 36.7 mm square as a back for my > old 500C body, things would end up in a completely new perspective. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It seems to me that we are really closing in on the chemical resolution > that comes out of a standard processed ISO400 negative at least? Call me rude if you want but I visited your site and frankly your images could have been done on a standard 24x36 >snip< Stephan > Call me rude if you want but I visited your site and frankly your images > could have been done on a standard 24x36 Difficult to guess with which camera a picture have been taken, if seen on a website, I think. I have seen digipics looking as analogic photos and viceversa. Much depends on how the photo has been processed with PS and how the picture has been saved for the web. Also, professionals usually upload small pictures not to give people a chance to use those pics. Paolo S: SignatureHoto d'eros zoes enestin, aphthonos gerasketo. >> Hasselblad cameras are high precision devices and needs to be treated as >> such to survive and do a good job. > >Exactly, they are by no way tools you can use to work.They look and feel >solid but if you use them as pro tools make sure you carry a few bodies and >lenses around. Ok; I take your word for it, let's not argue about results of different experience. >> Now if I could have 16 Mpix on a 36.7 x 36.7 mm square as a back for my >> old 500C body, things would end up in a completely new perspective. >> >> The advertised resolution is equivalent to a square inch divided into >> 2,768,392 lines, each line having 2,768,392 individual pixels in it. And that statement of mine is all wrong of course, as explained in another post. >Call me rude if you want but I visited your site and frankly your images >could have been done on a standard 24x36 They are, Nikon 501-AF. Well not all of them, some comes from my digital camera too. Terras portfolio is a 70/30 percent mix of scanned 24x36 film and digital shots. Mickey is all scanned 24x36 film. Most pic's of Bee are from scanned film too and all the rest is digital as far as I recall now. All pic's has been processed for web publication, i.e. resized to 580 pixel in height and compressed for a final file size of max 80 kBytes not to totally overload the line for those who are on dial-up modem connections. My HB is used in studio only and for shots that are targeted to become big poster size prints and the likes. Signature"Jan Roland Eriksson" <rex@fantasywoman.nu> www presence @ <http://www.fantasywoman.nu> |
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.