Ok, for 35mm format....
Humm -- should we go with "gigabit" resolution, or just "multi-megapixel" resolution?
Adox Bluefire film, never tried it, but have it bookmarked, just in case.
[QUOTE=Oxide Blu;104681]The issue with Hubble is getting the image back to Earth -- and film ain't the way to go about doing that. [QUOTE]
Which is why we now have digital images.
But we miss the fun of capture of film returned form orbit.
John, you took the post out from under my fingers.
Yeah, I heard that Dwayne's was the last company doing that film pickup for a while. Then their Flying Boxcar blew a gasket, so the government had to give up and go to digital satellites.
I always wondered how they were able to reload the film and, moreso, how to deorbit the spent roll. There's a lot of kinetic energy in them there orbiting doohickies that has to be lost before they'll return to terra firma.
Oops, they just get one roll, and one de-orbit capsule. No wonder those satellites had a 1-day lifespan.
Your tax dollars hard at work, eh?
Last edited by gsking; 12th June 2009 at 21:13.
Where can we get that gigabitfilm? I'm having difficulty to find a dealer.
One gigabit... so thats 40.96 megapixels at 24 bits, or 20.48 megapixels at 48 bits.
http://fotoimpex.de/, has a film called Adox CMS 20:
I believe that must be the same film with a different name. Fotoimpex distributes worldwide, but the last time I checked, they also had a distributor in USA.
I don't care what gear I have.
Things I sell: http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/413...html?rid=61105
I have used Bluefire Police before, and found that it was just a dreadful film. It was very very sharp indeed, but it had a horrible tonal range and just a generally bad overall impression. I am not sure gigabit film is the same, but I think there are not many situations where the resolution that a modern tabular grain emulsion like Acros isn't enough.
Right you are...techpan also was wickedly sharp but had a limited tonality that few mastered well. The overall tone of a picture has a bit to do with sharpness and resolution but much more is involved. I love BW and a sad truth is that when you have processed your film you have made irretrievable choices. With digital DNG you can try a bunch of different things. Of course in printing or after you scan the negative you have options but the potential set is much smaller.
I have a wonderful 16x24 inch BW silver print of a cow sheltered from a North Sea gale behind a barn on Inis Meain of the coast of Ireland. Great BW tonality and sharpness from a Leica 35 Cron/M6. Photographer thought he had bricked his M6 in getting the picture but an hour or so by a peat fire made it right. A sharp picture without the tonal range this displays would not have worked. Only one copy of the print exists as the photographer was from the school that believed in making the best print from a negative then he would destroy the negative. He trained as a classical painter and this may have been to avoid criticism concerning photographs as art at that time. That line of thinking makes you consider every capture with utmost care.
Wish I had purchased 20-30 of his prints...not as investments so much, they were all that good.