NOTHING yet... until next Tues when I visit my arTec pimp! :angel:
RS perfect. The ONLY problem is the d@#n DB that is attached to the RS
re: removing bullbars - wish I could find the right rubber caps/plugs for the holes.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Sinar arTec available for Hasselblad V, H, Phase One/Mamiya backs
- Thread starter carstenw
- Start date
RS perfect. The ONLY problem is the d@#n DB that is attached to the RS
re: removing bullbars - wish I could find the right rubber caps/plugs for the holes.
do the holes bother you?
tashley
Subscriber Member
Because I am far too intelligent to think of something as simple as that. Obviously.
Doh! I will now do so. Thank you!
I know this is about arTec NOT RS.
Holes - shouldn't be a bother. Although no light leakage but just like to have the front elements to be all sealed as much as possible. I have seen the older version DS with rubber caps. Tried using the end cap from a humble blk Bic pen - ended up putting the bars back on.
Back to the arTec, the Cambo TS can do both at once. The arTec can only do one or the other. likewise with Alpa.
My main interest with arTec is to see how effective is the GG from Minolta (?) Fresnel lens per DOF and focusing using HR lenses. As you know, I'm concerned with RS GG but only to be confirmed by you (?) that it is now shipped with Fresnel lens BUT yet has limitation - at least it is brighter than the older Cambo GG. Cambo supplier here has the OLD GG not the new fresnel. So the best and closest GG fresnel "relative" is my friend Sinar dealer - the arTec. If I can live with that, I can live with the new RS GG.
you're welcome!
yes, that was me.
The GG of the arTec has basically the same limitation (with movements the edges go dark). It's a limitation of fresnel lenses: if you move the lens off the center a fresnel GG always goes dark.
From remembrance the GG of the arTec is probably a little bit brighter.
You can, of course, order a customized GG from anyone else. E.g. Bill Maxwell makes GGs in any size (they are pricy but certainly very good).
You are right. My friend Sinar said that it is BRIGHTER. Of course, anything to do with Sinar is always the best and never "better".
NB: I can see where the rumours about HR40 prone to flare came from "when shooting in direct sun..."
I'll test the HR40 with the arTec w/ movements in "direct sun light..." and put to rest this "flares" mystery. At least it is coming from the best gear (?). Plenty of direct sun downunder and many thanks to another sort of "hole" that really bothers me went I moved here - its called the Ozone "hole" :ROTFL:
Hello,
I have been using an artec with 75lv back for some time now. Yes when you shift the screen darkens HOWEVER the loupe that comes with the camera is attached with a flexable mount so you can move it around and see all the image quite clearly.It really is a very nice camera!
While we are talking about focus screens - the camera comes with a magnetic mask for the screen. Most of the time I shoot without it -- the screen itself has grid lines and the sinar back rotates easily . I find it more convenient to not use the mask.
JOHN
...You are spot on with those findings!
"H" series DBs have serious timing issue with technical cameras except if you shoot @ 1/30th or lower (unless they have corrected and recalculated the sync since last year and with their new DBs 50mp and up)! I had a H39 and I know! I now have a CF39 and good up to 1/125th for good white shading. Thereafter, I use 4x ND to bring down my shutter speed. It has worked well since. I tend to shoot early AM and later PM. I'm attempting to move to Phase now. But I am afraid Sinar will convince me otherwise this Tues.
but at large movements you have to look at the GG from quite a steep angle so that it is almost impossible to judge sharpness or DOF at the edges. But it's okay to see the composition.
The focusing hood of the WRS is even more flexible so for moving it around the WRS focusing hood is much better. However for regular viewing the arTec focusing hood is better as it holds the distance to the GG (whereas you have to hold the WRS hood always with one hand).
What in particular is so special about the white shading workflow in the Sinar software?
David Grover / Phase One
New member
I am sorry Richard, I have to take issue with that statement....You are spot on with those findings!
"H" series DBs have serious timing issue with technical cameras except if you shoot @ 1/30th or lower (unless they have corrected and recalculated the sync since last year and with their new DBs 50mp and up)! I had a H39 and I know! I now have a CF39 and good up to 1/125th for good white shading. Thereafter, I use 4x ND to bring down my shutter speed. It has worked well since. I tend to shoot early AM and later PM. I'm attempting to move to Phase now. But I am afraid Sinar will convince me otherwise this Tues.
There are NOT serious issues with timing and using Tech Cameras with Hasselblad products.
It was explained to you many times with plenty of correspondence from support and even directly from R&D themselves.
Agreeably a few mechanical shutters have caused issues (as I have spoken to PeterA about this too) but to say ALL cameras will cause you a problem is incorrect and unfair.
Even the minor amount of shutters that can give incorrect timing signals, can still be used with a simple work around.
The actual white shading method in Phocus is now almost exactly the same as the Sinar solution, and can be used for tethered or untethered capture.
David
David,
Can you tell me what the simple work around is. I had a few problems when I first started using my CFV39 digital back on a tech camera but managed to sort myself out be asking some questions on this forum.
I set the digital back to 2 seconds exposure in the menu. Plug a Hasselblad electronic cable release into the digital back. Send in a wake up signal. Fire the mechanical lens shutter which is set for correct exposure. Back times out at 2 seconds and then writes the file out. The photo is ok when I do this.
If you have a link to a web page or a forum discussion which talks about this please could you let me know.
Regards
Neil
Can you tell me what the simple work around is. I had a few problems when I first started using my CFV39 digital back on a tech camera but managed to sort myself out be asking some questions on this forum.
I set the digital back to 2 seconds exposure in the menu. Plug a Hasselblad electronic cable release into the digital back. Send in a wake up signal. Fire the mechanical lens shutter which is set for correct exposure. Back times out at 2 seconds and then writes the file out. The photo is ok when I do this.
If you have a link to a web page or a forum discussion which talks about this please could you let me know.
Regards
Neil
Last edited:
Bob,
Thanks for the post. I just took a look at the Alpa website and they actually documented the solution to the problem I was having initially with the Hasselblad digital back.
http://www.alpa.ch/en/news/2009/new-kid-on-the-block.html?year=2009&num=2
I had the problem with increased noise levels in the shadows. The solution they write about on the Alpa site is what people from this forum advised me to try. Big relief to me when it all worked.
I should consider an Alpa camera.
Regards
Neil
Thanks for the post. I just took a look at the Alpa website and they actually documented the solution to the problem I was having initially with the Hasselblad digital back.
http://www.alpa.ch/en/news/2009/new-kid-on-the-block.html?year=2009&num=2
I had the problem with increased noise levels in the shadows. The solution they write about on the Alpa site is what people from this forum advised me to try. Big relief to me when it all worked.
I should consider an Alpa camera.
Regards
Neil
PeterA
Well-known member
David - you have to be congratulated for the help you provide on this forum it is much appreciated. :thumbup:
Phocus allows as Bob points out a lot of the colour caste issues to be fixed. I am looking forward to testing the new Phocus white shading methodology.
All that being said - Sinar has nailed the easiest workflow on this issue up till now. Also I must say that the main reason I went to Hasselblad 40 megapixel was to avoid the mucking around that the P45+ needed - using a wake up cable....only to find that I need a similar routine with the H back -
Compared to getting no photo- any technique is worth adopting - however , it would be great if you posted a definitive link for work flow to get a white shading / calibration shot when using a H series back on an Alpa or tech camera - we can make it a sticky!
Whilst Sinar have an easy and elegant white shading feature - I can also say the back has a lot of " eccentric" behaviour and "chunkiness" inbuilt - compared to Hasselblad elegance it is a clumsy drunken oaf in many aspects of its operation :thumbdown:....LOL
Still there is something to be said for the quality of that measly 33 megapixel file you get from Sinar ( once you get 'em) !!
You may be very right about the manual Shutter on my most used 35 Schneider digitar..I know for sure it has focus issues anyway - another reason to prefer an arTec - because the Rodenstocks are mounted better on Sinar mounts.
I look forward to being convinced otherwise - but I fear that going for a 60 megapixel back would make focus even more problematic on a tech camera ...shall we start talking pixel sizes and consequent (negative) effects that come from diffraction kicking in at lower Fstops?
Some P65+ users are having to shoot at f8 with heir Alpas - because f11 is (now) too soft..( before Doug gets too hot under the collar - teh same will hold true for the blad version of the 60 megapixel..but guys i am hapy to be shown to be wrong...and then I woudl buy into teh big boy chips...IF I coudl use them to advantage on a tech camera!!!
I dont really know how much ( negative ) news the forum can bare though - thats why I do my own tech head testing - in the main the level of understanding about the problems/challenges associated with actually getting a string of variables working sweetly from lens/shutter/camera connection/shimming/digi back timing and release/ white shading files/ alignment between all components...etc etc etc..increases with the high megapixel backs coming out..not just micro lens laden devices either...
The artEc gives me a better test bed to calibrate the whole workflow against...Plus movement(s) + an enclosed Fresnel focusing system + a rotating back
because of these positives - the camera is a no brainer - it is the choice of back/mount to use that is trickier..
Thankfully Sinar now cater for all Sinar/Leaf/PahseOne and Hasselbald as well as V mounts.:clap: - at least that way peopel can optimise a workflow that suits their pesonal circumstance(s)
is there some information available about the implementation of white shading in the software?
Or could you outline the workflow in a few words?
Thanks in advance!
It is pretty straight forward and documented in the exposure help files.
Basically you shoot a white ref file with the diffuser attached ( a neat arrangement how it fits onto the lens ) , then you create the DNG files by importing from the card/memory then you click on view/shading mode , select the shaded file and the images you wish to apply the corrections to , you can also choose the level of vignette correction --then you just drag/import into another folder and new corrected DNGs are created. When you get the hang of it , it is quite easy. I dont know how other software deals with colour casts... would be interested to find out.
Cheers JOHN
Hi Peter,
I too want to hear about sinar's white frame implementation!
.
Re your point two: All the smaller pixel means in relation to f-stop is you hit a diffraction limit earlier. However, you only see this IF YOU COMPARE FILES AT THE PIXEL LEVEL. If you compare files at the same final sensor magnification size, there is essentially no visible difference. Moreover, I shoot my P65+ at f16 a LOT of the time, and frankly have ZERO issues with diffraction. At f22 I start to see some obvious diffraction issues (and frankly saw them with my P45+ too) but they remain small enough that in many cases the added DoF from the extra stop is more of a benefit than the slight loss of accutance -- a loss that is very difficult to see in a print.
Lastly, re softness on a tech camera. Here the issue may be the lens design itself and not the back; the fact that the lens may be optimized for f8 and is VERY sharp one stop either side of there, and then resolution drops off afterward is probably not due all to diffraction, but the design of the lens itself. (Leica glass often has this same issue, great wide open and gets notably worse than the competition after f5.6.)
So my advice is do not shy away from "one of the big boys" because of diffraction or it having smaller pixels
PS: Similarly, you may notice that some of your legacy Zeiss and Schneider glass will NOT hold up well at 100% pixel view with the higher resolution backs. Again, as long as your output size stays the same as it was for the larger pixel back, the print will still look the same, just know ahead of time you will probably be finding more issues at the pixel level...
Cheers,
I too want to hear about sinar's white frame implementation!
I shot my P65+ on a Cambo RS with the 40 HR in a T/S mount. Re your first point: Focus was no more difficult than with any other back -- bottom line is you need to nail it with anything you use, period. Anybody tells you different, like that a larger pixel is more forgiving for focus, send them my way and I'll straighten them out -- at this level, they are all critical
. Re your point two: All the smaller pixel means in relation to f-stop is you hit a diffraction limit earlier. However, you only see this IF YOU COMPARE FILES AT THE PIXEL LEVEL. If you compare files at the same final sensor magnification size, there is essentially no visible difference. Moreover, I shoot my P65+ at f16 a LOT of the time, and frankly have ZERO issues with diffraction. At f22 I start to see some obvious diffraction issues (and frankly saw them with my P45+ too) but they remain small enough that in many cases the added DoF from the extra stop is more of a benefit than the slight loss of accutance -- a loss that is very difficult to see in a print.
Lastly, re softness on a tech camera. Here the issue may be the lens design itself and not the back; the fact that the lens may be optimized for f8 and is VERY sharp one stop either side of there, and then resolution drops off afterward is probably not due all to diffraction, but the design of the lens itself. (Leica glass often has this same issue, great wide open and gets notably worse than the competition after f5.6.)
So my advice is do not shy away from "one of the big boys" because of diffraction or it having smaller pixels
PS: Similarly, you may notice that some of your legacy Zeiss and Schneider glass will NOT hold up well at 100% pixel view with the higher resolution backs. Again, as long as your output size stays the same as it was for the larger pixel back, the print will still look the same, just know ahead of time you will probably be finding more issues at the pixel level...
Cheers,
Thank you, John!
Finally found the manual of the software.
The basic principle is pretty much the same as in Capture One (and I assume Phocus, too).
The batch mode seems to be neat - all files followed by a calibration shot that is marked for shading are corrected autmatically. In Capture One you first have to select a calibration file, create the correction and apply the correction to the files in question. Which does basically the same - but you have to do more selection/deselection clicks in C1.
Finally found the manual of the software.
The basic principle is pretty much the same as in Capture One (and I assume Phocus, too).
The batch mode seems to be neat - all files followed by a calibration shot that is marked for shading are corrected autmatically. In Capture One you first have to select a calibration file, create the correction and apply the correction to the files in question. Which does basically the same - but you have to do more selection/deselection clicks in C1.
the trick with eXposure is - if I understand correctly - that the calibration file is applied automatically to all the files followed by the calibration file in the browser. In C1 you first have to select the captures the LCC should be applied to.
Now, when you are working with captures shot with different movements you certainly don't want to apply the same LCC to all the files whereas you probably do want to copy/apply your CA (and/or purple fringe) settings to all the images. As you just can copy/apply all the lens corrections as one setting you always have to select/deselect the files.