[LargeFormat] Re: Latest Camera Technology

[michael at haywood-sullivan.com]

I have seen some detailed comparisons of one of the published "gigapixel" 
images with that of a Betterlight scan of the same scene. The upshot of it 
is that the MTF, dynamic range, noise, and resolution comparisons favor the 
clean Betterlight scan significantly in spite of the fact that there is 
(theoretically) 10x more "data" with the monster camera. 

For many people the issue remains that the Betterlight is a scan while the 
film camera is a "single shot" and they prefer working this way -- ok, point 
taken and nothing can be done about that. You either accept "scanning" and 
incorporate it into your technique, or you do not. 

OTOH, the Betterlight can be shot w/ 4x5 equipment which is significantly 
lighter. And has been demonstrated to me (and I have validated) -- delivers 
a better image. 

I for one have no interest in hauling around such a huge contraption (in 
spite of how cool the technology is). Guess we all make choices in our 
lives!! 

Michael 


Schuyler Grace writes: 

> I was watching The Science Channel's "Discoveries This Week" program this
> morning, and they had a segment on the "latest" in camera technology.  It
> seems one of the people who worked on the Hubble Space Telescope, and who's
> now retired,  has designed a completely new, digital camera with a
> resolution of 3.1 Gigapixels, which (according to the reporter and the
> designer) is an astounding level of resolution, never before attainable.
> They even showed how much detail the camera captured by progressively
> blowing up shots and picking out very minute pieces of the image. 
> 
> But all the while, I was thinking, "that's pretty good, but I'd think you
> could get something close to that, if not better, with a good old LF
> camera." 
> 
> Well, it turns out this very industrial looking device--it's big hunks of
> metal, with dial indicators all over the thing and a serious roller cart to
> move it around--is actually a LF roll film camera (what looked like a car
> window crank is used to move the film through).  Judging from the film
> handling mechanism, the film is about 18" to 24" wide, and I couldn't tell
> how they focused it (didn't see a ground glass, viewfinder, or video link),
> unless they were using the dial indicators for that.  It also appeared to
> have a fairly short lens for that film size. 
> 
> What made it a "digital" camera was that they were using the film as a
> "buffer" to capture the image (their words)--direct digital capture would be
> too slow--and then scanning the film to create the digital image.  Wow!
> Whoever would have thunk it was possible? 
> 
> The more things change, the more they stay the same... 
> 
> -Schuyler 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat at f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat
 


MJS