Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix

Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Note: I don't understand the "94% full-frame" claim since 645 is 56 x
41.5mm, so this sensor is actually a sliver larger than "645" or 101%.

Alan-

There may be some weasel-wording of sensor specs, like effective pixels
verses total pixels. Perhaps it is something like a 100 MB hard drive
formatting to only 94 MB?

I pointed it out as a curiosity as to Hassy's interpretation of FF v.
what 645 dimensions are in 645 film cameras. It's really not that
important.

Such a camera, however, could produce some monster prints with fine
detail. I hope those Fujinon lenses are up to it.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote in
:

Maybe Santa will think of me next year...

"" Hasselblad also announced the forthcoming H3DII-60, an even higher
end camera that we'll launch in early 2009. The H3DII-60 will feature a
60 megapixel, 56×42mm, Dalsa-manufactured CDD sensor that provides 94%
full-frame, 645 coverage. It is important to emphasize the exact 645
format coverage as the phrase 'full-frame' is being used quite
frequently, however no manufacturer has yet achieved true medium format
full-frame. ""

60 mpix over that area works out to 25.5 kpix/mm^2 about the same as
the
Canon 5DII at 24.3 kpix/mm^2 or slightly less

dense that the Sony a900 at 28.5 kpix/mm^2.

Note: I don't understand the "94% full-frame" claim since 645 is 56 x
41.5mm, so this sensor is actually a sliver larger than "645" or 101%.

ref: http://www.dtgweb.com/blog/?p=73

The whole concept of "Full frame" needs to be dispensed with. It is
based on ancient film specs that have zero bearing on sensor technology.
What will they call Canon, Sony and Nikon pro cameras when the S2 Leica
is released, "Former full-frame?"

dunno this "Full Frame" concept that "needs to be dispensed with." What I
want - and am waiting for - is the sensor where a 20mm lens functions like a
20mm lens and not a 38mm lens.

A 20mm lens always functions like a 20mm lens regardless of the sensor.
However, for what you really mean, see the closing note below.

Where a 105 mm lens has the depth of field
at f/2 that a 105 mm lens has rather than that of a lens of a different
focal length (and perspective).

DOF is an enlargement issue.

Where f/stops of f/16 and f/22 are usable
without running into diffraction issues.

You can't avoid diffraction issues with a larger sensor.

Where a macro lens really is a
macro lens allowing images at 1:1.

The image of a grain of rice 10mm long at 1:1 is exactly 10mm long on
the sensor regardless of the sensor's size. IOW, at 1:1 you can image
something up to the size of the sensor.

Where dirt on the sensor can be easily
cleaned without risk (as the lens itself can be) and is not the issue it
currently is.

eh? Over nearly 5 years I cleaned the sensor on my 6 Mpix camera 4
times. What issue?

And I truly would relish a camera with which I can see the
actual depth of field at the selected aperture with the lens stopped down.

Damned physics, eh? Actually, Sony almost got this right with the
intelligent preview of the a900 which stops down the lens before taking
a non-flash-recorded test image. If they would allow zooming in on the
test sample in the monitor, then the above would be achieved at all
apertures and in all light conditions. Something the optical VF cannot
do. Perhaps with the next firmware update they will add this...

Call it what you will - you have have all the other bells and whistles (the
smile detection, the sports setting, the fireworks setting, etc.) if you
can get me these "features." I know, I know...I have one heck of a long
wait!

No, it's available now. Most of your yelp for satisfaction is well
taken care of with the full frame cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony.
Well, they don't necessarily do smile detection, you just might have to
do that yourself.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Noons" wrote in message
...
snip
LOL! Dunno about others, but I've also been enjoying 70MP on
my Arax 6X6 for years, around 50MP on the Fuji 645S, as well as
20MP on various types of sensor on my F, F2, F4 and F6.
In fact, I can now get 20MP from images taken in 1980,1970 and even
some Kodachromes from 1958. And nearly 100MP from 6X7 stuff.

Oh, and it didn't cost me the price of a small car to get all that,
most of the gear works even without batteries and I don't have problems
focusing in the dark. And every time I get dust on the sensor, I replace
it with a fresh, brand new sensor.

But of course, I'm "behind the times", I'm "old school" and
I don't know what "real photography" is all about.

Yup.

Sure.

yaaaaaawn

It's not "real photography" unless it involves a darkroom, precious metals,
and toxic chemicals...

RichA wrote:

The whole concept of "Full frame" needs to be dispensed with. It is
based on ancient film specs that have zero bearing on sensor technology.

Let's thrrow out the water with the baby and also dispense with
"image circle" and "lenses", shall we?

Oops, there goes RichA right out of the windoooooow too and
straaaaaight into the circular folder. What a loss!

-Wolfgang

Alan Browne wrote:
Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:

Where dirt on the sensor can be easily
cleaned without risk (as the lens itself can be) and is not the issue it
currently is.

eh? Over nearly 5 years I cleaned the sensor on my 6 Mpix camera 4
times. What issue?

That often? What are you doing? Playing in the mud -- again? :-)

And how does one properly clean a good old film once dirt
gets to it?

-Wolfgang

On 2008-12-27 06:32:26 -0500, Wolfgang Weisselberg
said:

Alan Browne wrote:
Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:

Where dirt on the sensor can be easily
cleaned without risk (as the lens itself can be) and is not the issue it
currently is.

eh? Over nearly 5 years I cleaned the sensor on my 6 Mpix camera 4
times. What issue?

That often? What are you doing? Playing in the mud -- again? :-)

And how does one properly clean a good old film once dirt
gets to it?

-Wolfgang

One advances the film to the next frame.
--
Michael

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:51:53 -0500, Michael wrote:

And how does one properly clean a good old film once dirt
gets to it?

One advances the film to the next frame.

If real dirt is on the film, complete with small stone particles,
it could mess with pressure plates so that the backs of following
frames are scratched. I had several Nikon SLRs, in including the
original F and a later model (Photomic T), but that zombie
technology was buried in my photo graveyard at the dawn of this
century. Before too many years pass, many of the dwindling number
of MF film users will decide that it's best to do the same. About 4
years ago the digital photography newsgroups had a fairly large
number of posts from 35mm film users that proclaimed that 35mm film
SLRs were vastly superior to DSLRs and film would never die. Most
of those 35mm film chauvinists appear to have become extinct well
before film has. Either that or they've gone into lurk mode due to
their old arguments becoming more and more unsupportable. I can
appreciate the different kind of craftsmanship that the hands-on
working with film provides, but working with film is much less
practical than it used to be, and scanning negatives to avoid having
to switch to digital cameras is only a delaying tactic, even with
the larger film formats. Use it while you're able to . . .

Michael wrote:
On 2008-12-27 06:32:26 -0500, Wolfgang Weisselberg

And how does one properly clean a good old film once dirt
gets to it?

One advances the film to the next frame.

So, in the best case, now you have a dirty frame. How do you
clean said frame? Or do you throw away the photo?

Did you ever have a film scratched by the lab?

-Wolfgang

On 2008-12-27 13:58:49 -0500, ASAAR said:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:51:53 -0500, Michael wrote:

And how does one properly clean a good old film once dirt
gets to it?

One advances the film to the next frame.

If real dirt is on the film, complete with small stone particles,
it could mess with pressure plates so that the backs of following
frames are scratched.
This has never happened to me since my first 35mm camera in 1956

I had several Nikon SLRs, in including the
original F and a later model (Photomic T), but that zombie
technology was buried in my photo graveyard at the dawn of this
century.
I sold my Nikon F Photomic FTN in 1979 to get a Pentax 6x7, which I
still have, and which still outperforms any digital format I've seen,
and I eventually retired my Olympus OM equipment and replaced it with a
"new" used Nikon F (prism only, handheld incident light meter to go
with it).

Before too many years pass, many of the dwindling number
of MF film users will decide that it's best to do the same.

Only the "pros" who are "pro" because they make money with their
cameras; digital is a faster workflow, and their clients can't see the
difference anyway. I suspect the MF fine art photographers will
continue to use film until digital has several more iterations,
including equaling film for quality. That will probably come some day,
IF the technology is allowed to evolve and isn't stalled by being "good
enough" for the masses.

About 4
years ago the digital photography newsgroups had a fairly large
number of posts from 35mm film users that proclaimed that 35mm film
SLRs were vastly superior to DSLRs and film would never die. Most
of those 35mm film chauvinists appear to have become extinct well
before film has. Either that or they've gone into lurk mode due to
their old arguments becoming more and more unsupportable.

More likely they are tired of making arguments to those who cannot
understand them.'
I can
appreciate the different kind of craftsmanship that the hands-on
working with film provides, but working with film is much less
practical than it used to be

Actually, it is neither more nor less impractical. it is exactly the same.

, and scanning negatives to avoid having
to switch to digital cameras is only a delaying tactic, even with
the larger film formats. Use it while you're able to . . .

Scanning negatives and making digital prints is more like a very good
proof sheet. Niether digital prints from scans nor digital prints from
digital originals equal fine optical enlargements from film. 4x6 and
5x7, I will grant you, are pretty much the same in any decent format.
--
Michael

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote:
Michael wrote:
On 2008-12-27 06:32:26 -0500, Wolfgang Weisselberg

And how does one properly clean a good old film once dirt
gets to it?

One advances the film to the next frame.

So, in the best case, now you have a dirty frame. How do you
clean said frame? Or do you throw away the photo?

For small amounts of dust, on slide and color negative films, the scanner
ignores the section of the frame that are opaque to IR and interpolates.
This works enough of the time that, with reasonable care to remove the worst
of the crud, dust and dirt really isn't a problem.

For silver-based B&W, one blows up to 400% in PS and patches the lacunae by
hand.

Did you ever have a film scratched by the lab?

The IR trick in scanning works for scratches as well. (But I've never had
scratches from a lab here in Japan.)

By the way, everyone who has actually compared prints made from scanned
files to wet projection prints, has found the scanned-film prints to be as
good or better. The art papers printed on either a stock R2400 or a printer
with third-party B&W inksets are right up there with the best hand-printed
darkroom prints.

There was an article in LensWork recently pointing out that back in the
1960s (when I was doing B&W in a darkroom), commercial printing was nowhere
near as good as what Weston and White and Adams were producing in their
darkrooms, but that by now, commercial printing is just as good (in terms of
resolution, dynamic range, density of blacks) as wet projection printing
ever was. In those days, the hand-printed art print was better visually than
the calendars and mass-produced posters, but nowadays, the art print has
lost some of its meaning.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan