Am I missing something?

[Asher Kelman]

No harm at all: I understand that.

Thierry

Thierry,

Ray means no disrespect; he's just cantankerous, if I may say, (at times)! He loves to challenge and test the reality of things and get a perspective. He is in a way a contagonist, one who thinks of something else when you are choosing between two options.

I know that Digital offers the practical way for most professionals to earn a living getting better pictures with more control and at a lower cost. No one even considers stitching moving grasses or a sports game! So we should not worry about these "red herrings".

Those who make landscape pictures for their living have mostly switched to digital too. However, we recently discussed the Gaorsi for 6x17 panoramas and we are delighted that this form of photography is still used and appreciated. The practical benefits of digital outweigh the steep, initial investment. People who use cameras as a hobby may not have such great economic advantages.

I know for my own artwork or large events, I could not afford to develop the film and get everything scanned at a professional lab. Still, I do continue to use film for special circumstances and for my enjoyment.

Asher

 

[Ray West]

Hi Asher,

I've been called many things, but

a contagonist,

is the first. (I also used to be arrogant, but now I'm just perfect).

Best wishes,

Ray (I don't care what you call me, provided you don't call me late for dinner)

 

[Dean Jones]

(have to keep an eye on these Aussies, they stir up trouble, ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

I'm actually a Pom from Leicester.......but you must admit my original question stirs a debate....which I love, and as long as no one gets heated, it's fine.
I use 4x5 because I make the cameras, I guess the same applies for Thierry and digital backs. Although I consider stitching somewhat like cheating in an exam, I guess it has a place.
We have a 10 foot wide 'Duratrans' sign, backlit with twelve flouro tubes hanging at the rear of the store, a single late evening shot of Melbourne taken with my first 6x17. What suprises me is that everyone thinks it's a stitched digital image, what is the world coming to?

Cheers, Dean.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

Hi Thierry,

Well, a certain photographer on the Isle of Wight took superb shots with lf cameras, afaik. They may well use digital these days, stitched or otherwise, but it was possible (I don't think the yachts were slower, or bigger, and the water was probably just as wet.)

Ray, I just don't get the point here: aerial photography is possible with both digital and film. If you can shoot this yacht with film, then you can do it with digital, provided you have the right lens with you It is obvious that stitching would not be the method of choice here.

I'm only finding things against one or the other, because there are things to be found. Both have benefits, neither are best at everything, in some situations, digital can not be used, in other situations film will give an inferior result. No, I did not go to the site, I expect I've seen it before. But, if the subject has parts that move, then I think stitching has disadvantages.

Agrre!

So, I looked. At the web size, the images could have been taken with anything, unless I have to do something else the images were about 2 by 3 inches. However, most are devoid of people, of any movement that I can discern. They have obviously been selected for that type of work. That is not a bad thing, but it confirms my initial thoughts, that stitching is not usable with movement in the subject. I have built manual panoramic systems, I am considering building servo driven systems, I think it may be possible to get it down to a second or less between shots, but a car moving at 30mph, will move 44 feet in that time, or a human walker will move 5 feet..... (two feet really ;-)

Sure, the images could have been take with anything, film or digital, technically speaking. And there are no moving objects in it, sure too. The images you are seeing have been printed for an exhibition in a size of 2.50 meters width and they look perfect. Stitching has been used here to get a panoramic view, and all I was trying to explain is that stitching is easy to do, fast and very precise.

This being said, I have in my had what Rainer Viertlböck told me during his 1-year shooting of the Bangkok airport: this work could never have been done on film, not only technically but also quality-wise! And for having been with him, I can understand why.

For you, very little, for others it matters more. In digital photography, for many people coming from a film background, maybe using a print lab, they now have to be concerned with a number of unfamiliar issues, just so they can see what they have captured.

Agree

provided your batteries are charged. What is the digital equivalent of the ground glass screen in digital stitching? Is it the situation that you have to shoot wider and crop in post?

Sure, provided also that you have loaded your filmholders.

Digital equivalent of groundglass while stitching? Simply a format-mask, your hands/fingers, or for some like Rainer V., simply having the picture in his mind.

So, if you are taking a 3*3, nine images, with say a tilt/swing lens, you do not adjust the lens? You must be using a lf lens, are you not, and merely scanning the digital camera across its image plane. I missed that, somewhere.

In this particular shooting of the BKK airport, R.V. was using Sinaron digital HR lenses, from 28mm up to 135mm: those lenses are built for the use on a view camera, thus allowing movements. He did not need to tilt/swing for sharpness distribution, but I was saying that it is possible when stitching, provided your tilt/swing is not set on the standard you are shifting on, thus keeping the sharpness plane and focus the same for each tile.

I think what I was also trying to enquire after, is more related with video, where a lot of effort was expended in trying to get the digital video cameras, with 1/3 inch sensors to give the same look as 35mm film. It is possible to get the speed, scratches, etc., but not the selected focus possible with the larger format. I expected the same thing to be with still images, digital 35mm stitching cf 10*8 film - I guess its depth of field. Again using the lf lens will solve that.

Yes

So, you are using the camera on a lf lens, instead of a scanning back on a lf lens. That is easier? than using a standard 35mm lens, in some respects.

I am neither a film nor digital lover, or hater, and I respect opinions, ideas, concepts. But, I will press for explanations if I in my opinion it is needed.

So, for your photography, digital works fine. For others, it has to be lf film.

That's exactly what I was telling, and it works for a vast majority of photographers who have to live and earn money with their images, and with the same or better outstanding quality than before on film.

I do not consider that I was attacking you, I was merely asking questions more directly, since you ignored my previous post (although it was not addressed just to you). So, you are in a very good position to help explain the differences between the application of film or digital in creating an image. But it will need a bit of thought to sort out the framework.

Sure, I was not meaning "you" in particular, and I was not meaning to take the word "attacking" in its negative meaning. I just noticed that I have touched a very sensitive subject on which many disagree or have different views as per opposition to mine. As said, I respect and even admire those still shooting on film, no question about that. As long as you dont' have to make a living with your images, it is hard to see and understand all the advantages digital has brought.

So, I would say, in answer to Dean's original question. It depends. 1) what you are happy with at the moment 2) if you can change 3) how much you can spend (time and money) 4) what type of photography you are needing to do 5) how much gear you have at the moment 6) tons of other stuff.

Sure

But, if Dean wants the 4 by 5 film look for portraits/candid, then I think he has to get a 4 by 5 film camera. A digital solution can give similar, but not identical results.

(have to keep an eye on these Aussies, they stir up trouble, ;-)

I have many Aussie photographers as friends. I don't see them as trouble makers,

Thierry

Best wishes,

Ray[/QUOTE]

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

not necessarily, Jack: wait for the Sinar Hy6, it allows you "Focus-Bracketing".

Beside, and as said, you can make use of your view camera with digital and set your Scheimpflug as with film.

Thierry

Here we will need focus-blending software to improve a few generations before stitch-and-blend captures can replace a view camera's movements. This ability, coupled with my desire for high-rez single capture of potentially moving objects, the view camera and film remains a top option for me.
Cheers,

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

No harm at all: I understand that.

Thierry

Thierry,

Ray means no disrespect; he's just cantankerous, if I may say, (at times)! He loves to challenge and test the reality of things and get a perspective. He is in a way a contagonist, one who thinks of something else when you are choosing between two options.

I know that Digital offers the practical way for most professionals to earn a living getting better pictures with more control and at a lower cost. No one even considers stitching moving grasses or a sports game! So we should not worry about these "red herrings".

Those who make landscape pictures for their living have mostly switched to digital too. However, we recently discussed the Gaorsi for 6x17 panoramas and we are delighted that this form of photography is still used and appreciated. The practical benefits of digital outweigh the steep, initial investment. People who use cameras as a hobby may not have such great economic advantages.

I know for my own artwork or large events, I could not afford to develop the film and get everything scanned at a professional lab. Still, I do continue to use film for special circumstances and for my enjoyment.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Thierry,

You have now passed the right of passage for smart knowledgable guys joining OPF! Now we all know that digital can do what film does upto MF and more, but 5x5 or 8x10 film get more resolution.

I know that real working photographers have made the choices with their checkbooks and switched over to digital. The next phase is getting all our critical work into the 14BIT to 16BIT wide dynamic range choices of the MF and newer 35mm dslrs.

What many users or 35mm dslrs have not full explored are the extra options for utilization of MF digital backs. For example, one digital back can go on

1. a MF camera,
   
2. a special camera such as the Alpa or Gottschalt or else
   
3. replace film on a 4x5 camera with the right adapter.

This can potentially make the digital back multipurpose and so the price difference from 35mm is maybe not so great after all!

In this respect, Thierry, could you explain the role of microlenses in getting good images in each of the cricumstances I have mentioned. For Phase one, for example, only certain backs have microlenses.

Asher

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

hi Asher,

well, not a lot to say here, about microlenses: backs with this microlenses on top of their pixels are not meant to be used when shifting/tilting/swinging are needed (use on a view camera, e.g.). I will lead to serious colour casts.

The 39 MPx (Kodak) as used in the P45 and 33 MPx sensors (Dalsa) as used in the eMotion 75 DO NOT have microlenses, the 31,6 MPx (as in the P30) does have microlenses.

This being said, one can get rid of this colour cast by making a so-called "white shading": it is a second shot of the scene, with the same camera setting and with an opal glass in fron to f the lens. This file will contain the data for the software to "subtract" the colour shift from the image.

For information: colour casts produced by sensors with microlenses has nothing to do with colours casts produced by wide lenses (although the same effect in the image can be observed). The colour casts produced by short focal length lenses is due because the lightrays do hit the sensors in a diffrent angle on the edge as in the centre of the sensor.

Best regards,
Thierry

Hi Thierry,

In this respect, Thierry, could you explain the role of microlenses in getting good images in each of the cricumstances I have mentioned. For Phase one, for example, only certain backs have microlenses.

Asher

 

[Jack_Flesher]

hi Asher,
backs with this microlenses on top of their pixels are not meant to be used when shifting/tilting/swinging are needed (use on a view camera, e.g.). I will lead to serious colour casts.

Okay, now I am confused!

I thought the microlenses helped *PREVENT* color casts on the shifted or tilted cameras? I read the Phase P20 and P30 were the preferred backs to use on view cameras (alluded to in a LL article by Richard Sexton) because of having micro-lenses... Moreover, I am pretty sure I've read the P25, P45 and Aptus 75 without microlenses *DO* impart color shifts on occasion and need the white frame for subtraction -- in fact I have seen images from the P45 and Aptus 75 that showed the color casts...

I am considering buying a MFDB so *REALLY* need this clarified -- help!

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

Dear Jack,

Yes, so it is that microlenses under certain conditions do produce colour casts (go on Phase's webpage and check under the P30 data sheet ---> it reads "Wide angle and large format tilt and swing positions may produce a color cast in the image".

This being said (and true), I have also intentionally written about the lens colour cast, which is something different (with the same effect). As such YES, sometimes the Dalsa 33 MPx and the Kodak 39 MPx do also have colour casts and do need a "white shading" to correct it.

Thierry

Okay, now I am confused!

I thought the microlenses helped *PREVENT* color casts on the shifted or tilted cameras? I read the Phase P20 and P30 were the preferred backs to use on view cameras (alluded to in a LL article by Richard Sexton) because of having micro-lenses... Moreover, I am pretty sure I've read the P25, P45 and Aptus 75 without microlenses *DO* impart color shifts on occasion and need the white frame for subtraction -- in fact I have seen images from the P45 and Aptus 75 that showed the color casts...

I am considering buying a MFDB so *REALLY* need this clarified -- help!

 

[Jack_Flesher]

Dear Jack,

Yes, so it is that microlenses under certain conditions do produce colour casts (go on Phase's webpage and check under the P30 data sheet ---> it reads "Wide angle and large format tilt and swing positions may produce a color cast in the image".

This being said (and true), I have also intentionally written about the lens colour cast, which is something different (with the same effect). As such YES, sometimes the Dalsa 33 MPx and the Kodak 39 MPx do also have colour casts and do need a "white shading" to correct it.

Thierry

Okay. So is there any MF digital back that doesn't have the color cast problem when used on a view camera?

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

You cannot answer this question in general, but basically Dalsa sensors tend to have less colour casts. In my experience of use, they have a much more linear response from shadows to highlights.

And may be what is important to know: most of the time and under normal shift/tilt & swing, there might be a slight colour cast, but which you wont notice with your eyes.

Thierry

Okay. So is there any MF digital back that doesn't have the color cast problem when used on a view camera?

Cheers,

 

[nicolas claris]

Ray, I just don't get the point here: aerial photography is possible with both digital and film. If you can shoot this yacht with film, then you can do it with digital, provided you have the right lens with you It is obvious that stitching would not be the method of choice here.

Bonjour Thierry, just FYI, I guess that Ray is talking about the father (well the grand father now) of all marine photographers : Frank Beken

This man did shot stunning images of J Class boat in the early 1900…
His son Keith did continue then … well they created a real Dynasty, but IMO Frank, beside being the founder, was really a brilliant photographer. No doubt, this guy would have change for digital today, he has always been in advance…

Alfred Edward Beken, originally from Canterbury in Kent, moved to the Isle of Wight in 1888 with his son Frank and purchased an existing pharmacy situated in the small port of Cowes, famous for its International Sailing Regatta. The sight of yachts sailing past his bedroom window made such an impression on Frank that he decided to capture these images on film.

Interested? more here

Just for the pleasure, Endeavour!:

© www.beken.co.uk

 

[Ray West]

Hi,

If I post say five images, hand held, which are sort of stitchable with the software that Bart linked too, (which will do a much better job than that which I was using a few years ago *) would anyone be prepared to stitch, and _explain the steps required_ to stitch them using that software, or other similar priced software. Where is the best place to stick this new thread ?

My idea is to show how easy this is, to get reasonable results, even if the original images were not taken with stitching in mind.


Best wishes,

Ray

* better in the sense that equivalent results are obtained more quickly/easily, not necessarily always a more precise result.

 

[Michael Fontana]

Ray

put ' em on a tripod, it' s much easier to stich. And have a overlap of 30% between the shots.

The challenge is still 8 x 10 :-=

IMO, stitching make sense to accumulate details (image data) or to avoid the disadvantages of very wide lenses.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If I post say five images, hand held, which are sort of stitchable with the software that Bart linked too, (which will do a much better job than that which I was using a few years ago *) would anyone be prepared to stitch, and _explain the steps required_ to stitch them using that software, or other similar priced software.

I'd give it a whirl, using PTAssembler. I might be able and compare to Photoshop CS3's out-of-the-box functionality, the CS3 upgrade just arrived 15 minutes ago... (hope it installs without hassle on my memory challenged PC).

Where is the best place to stick this new thread ?

I guess Image Processing and Workflow is a suitable forum, unless the images picture a special subject for which there is a more appropriate forum, and which could benefit from stitching.

My idea is to show how easy this is, to get reasonable results, even if the original images were not taken with stitching in mind.

The base material does impact the success rate, although handheld shooting of more distant subjects is relatively easy. When I shoot without mono/tri-pod I do attempt to rotate the camera around its 'entry pupil' point (instead of my neck) to improve the stitched foreground quality, and use a fixed exposure for all shots (uniform color balance is done in Raw processing). An image overlap of up to 50% will also deal best with moving subjects and lighting gradients.

Bart

 

[Jack_Flesher]

You cannot answer this question in general, but basically Dalsa sensors tend to have less colour casts. In my experience of use, they have a much more linear response from shadows to highlights.

And may be what is important to know: most of the time and under normal shift/tilt & swing, there might be a slight colour cast, but which you wont notice with your eyes.

Thierry

Thanks for the clarification Thierry... I had heard Dalsa was better, but still has the problem. Unfortunately I am looking for *NO* color casts, not just less... My main reason for wanting a high-res digital back would be for use on a view camera. But unfortunately I use scheimplug and rise quite a lot, and thus it sounds like a very good good reason for me to avoid digital backs for the time being and stick with 4x5 and 8x10 film.

Cheers,

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

oh Jack, that is really not a reason for not going with a digital back on a view camera: there are tausends , really tausends of photographers out (incl. myself) and using a digital back and needing Scheimpflug and rise & fall.
In case you need to do white shading, it is so easy and fast to do: it takes only a few seconds.
And as said, most of the time, even with a tilt or swing or a shift, you won't notice any colour cast.

Thierry

Thanks for the clarification Thierry... I had heard Dalsa was better, but still has the problem. Unfortunately I am looking for *NO* color casts, not just less... My main reason for wanting a high-res digital back would be for use on a view camera. But unfortunately I use scheimplug and rise quite a lot, and thus it sounds like a very good good reason for me to avoid digital backs for the time being and stick with 4x5 and 8x10 film.

Cheers,

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In case you need to do white shading, it is so easy and fast to do: it takes only a few seconds.

Hi Thierry,

Besides shooting an additional Bias frame / White shading frame through opaline glass (which I carry in the bag anyway, for dust checks, vignetting correction, and other evaluations), how is the actual correction applied? Is it a function in the accompanying software?

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

I've started a new thread for that here .

Asher

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

Dear Bart,

yes, this is a software function, which conducts you through the process of creating the "white Reference" and at the end will apply (by saving this white ref) to the image: it is automatic and takes a few seconds, really not a hassle to do.

Regards,
Thierry

Hi Thierry,

Besides shooting an additional Bias frame / White shading frame through opaline glass (which I carry in the bag anyway, for dust checks, vignetting correction, and other evaluations), how is the actual correction applied? Is it a function in the accompanying software?

Bart

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Thierry,

It is interesting that in this long thread there is no discussion of the more up to date and practical implication of the question about larger sensor DBs.

And that is the fact that the new Sinar Hy6 -- as the name implies -- is based on an image circle larger --6x6-- than that of all digital backs --6x4.5-- currently available, that derive from the sensor of two makers.

I think that there could be such digital back in the future, after all, no one predicted the internet, for example, so who are we to say such and such device will never happen?

The interesting question is why Sinar designers decided to base this new system in a format that doesn't fit 100% of the existing digital backs.

You can argue that this is not the case because all available 6x6 lenses "work" with the backs, and that the only effect is a "crop factor", same as what happens with, for example, Nikon's DX.

The argument is correct, but, Sinar could have started over and from scratch with a system that could hug the available sensor in a much better way than Hasselblad or Mamiya. They could have even discarded the entire reflex mechanism altogether as an obsolete mechanical device that taxes lens architecture with the imposition of retro-focusing.

Instead, the Hy6 is going in the opposite direction, it is using a larger image circle than necessary to incorporate support of film?. They are presenting a very conservative system that looks cutting age.

In other words, the Sinar system wants the digital backs to adapt to a camera that adapted itself to a line of existing lenses when it should have been the contrary: a camera that adapts to the new technology and optics that do the same to the body.

If we ever see a larger size sensor, then a new system would have to be created for that new technology. Probably it would cost so much that would have special applications, but the 6 x 45 size is probably here to stay for some time to come.

 

[Asher Kelman]

It's the 3rd party camera platforms that will count, more, perhaps!

..........Sinar could have started over and from scratch with a system that could hug the available sensor in a much better way than Hasselblad or Mamiya. They could have even discarded the entire reflex mechanism altogether as an obsolete mechanical device that taxes lens architecture with the imposition of retro-focusing.

Hi Leonardo,

You addressed this question to Thierry, but allow me to interecede with part of an answer, at least from my perspective.

I look to camera platform with no reflex viewfinder with interest as they can take the latest Digitar lenses. I am able to frame with or without a viewfinder. A viewfinder mounted on top of the camera is wonderful.

Sinar knows this and the digtal backs are being used by architectural photographers with the Gottschalt, the Cambo Wide, the Alpa and Fotoman (coming soon) and many other choices.

Professionals doing interior and exterior landscape, photography for museums and landscape have therefore, a greater choice. Likewise, Sinar has a much greater market opportunity, albeit in competition with Leaf and Phase one.

The various alternate platforms will accomodate newer backs too with new lenses forming larger image circles. I imagine that this is where progress will be made.

Maybe this point of view is fed by my own wishes! Still it seems reasonable enough.

Asher

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

hi Leonard,

I understand well your interest in speaking about larger sensors. But as written on this forum already, I do not like to speculate and speak about vaporware and products which might hit the market in an uncertain future.
However, we all (those selling this new Hy6 camera) also are clearly saying that this camera is ready and compatible with bigger sensors, should those come and be ready.

Yes, the fact is that this Sinar Hy6 is a 6x6 camera body and the largest sensor currently available in the market has a size of 49x37mm. Fact is that all existing Rollei 6008 lenses are compatible with the Hy6, as well as some accessories, as well as complete new Schneider AFD lenses which will be introduced at the same time. Finally, fact is also that this camera body allows the use of MF film (currently 6x4.5 and hopefully soon 6x6).

I don't see these arguments as negatives, rather as an advantage in comparison with others, and that's what comes out from the many reactions we have got from endusers.

But clearly, the ideal would be a larger sensor sometime, and let's see what happens.

The argument that one should have started from scratch and design a camera fitting 100% the current digital backs can be defended, but then one has to know also the R&D costs involved in each new camera platform. It is not a few tausend $'s, but a few hundreds. Therefore, designing a camera ready right from the begining for the future, even with the uncertainty around this future, makes also sense and can be defended as well.

For sure, as I do not like to speculate about new larger sensors, I do not wish to speculate how long the 645 will be the platform for digital backs.

Best regards,
Thierry

Thierry,

It is interesting that in this long thread there is no discussion of the more up to date and practical implication of the question about larger sensor DBs.

And that is the fact that the new Sinar Hy6 -- as the name implies -- is based on an image circle larger --6x6-- than that of all digital backs --6x4.5-- currently available, that derive from the sensor of two makers.

I think that there could be such digital back in the future, after all, no one predicted the internet, for example, so who are we to say such and such device will never happen?

The interesting question is why Sinar designers decided to base this new system in a format that doesn't fit 100% of the existing digital backs.

You can argue that this is not the case because all available 6x6 lenses "work" with the backs, and that the only effect is a "crop factor", same as what happens with, for example, Nikon's DX.

The argument is correct, but, Sinar could have started over and from scratch with a system that could hug the available sensor in a much better way than Hasselblad or Mamiya. They could have even discarded the entire reflex mechanism altogether as an obsolete mechanical device that taxes lens architecture with the imposition of retro-focusing.

Instead, the Hy6 is going in the opposite direction, it is using a larger image circle than necessary to incorporate support of film?. They are presenting a very conservative system that looks cutting age.

In other words, the Sinar system wants the digital backs to adapt to a camera that adapted itself to a line of existing lenses when it should have been the contrary: a camera that adapts to the new technology and optics that do the same to the body.

If we ever see a larger size sensor, then a new system would have to be created for that new technology. Probably it would cost so much that would have special applications, but the 6 x 45 size is probably here to stay for some time to come.