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!

Phase 60mpx MF back

PeterA

Well-known member
Hi Bob,

I totally agree with you regarding the relatively simplistic strategy adopted by those who 'own' the industry. Bigger fins and fatter engines - guzzling down even more megabits of processing power demanding ever more terrabits of storage capability, ignoring fundamental niceties like - umm a database that allows for users to access stored files without needing a PHD in database management :ROTFL:

in another thread I put that i was more interested in some simple technologies of far more significance to a photographer than the resolving ability to see hairs on hairs on hairs of models shot from a distance of a mile away...

what are these valuable technologies?

to add to your list - how about image stabilization ( so that resolving power can actually be used) how about multiple and accurate autofocus points ..the list could go on - see any cheap consumer DSLR body for hints..

the more I shoot digital - the more I like film - so glad I have recently reacquired an Xpan system and kept my film Leica M kit.:)

this MFD joke of chasing megabits and ignoring other factors is now definitely looking like a con job - I wonder when photographers will start saying .thanks but no thanks..

Regarding the Alpa and Hasselblad H series backs - the work around is using the portable hard drive ( yes expensive) to power the back - a simple cable connecting back to lens ( there is no sleep mode with Hasselblad) is all it takes. Maybe I should post a picture of how it works for me..


Cheers
pete



Peter,

I agree with the assessment above...however changing out a chip would not seem like that big of a deal. Really, how much different are the present backs from those of a couple of years ago. Maybe a slightly improved screen but many of the support functions for the back may not be that different. So you can hype interest with a little change of imaging chip.

Most of the chip R&D is shouldered by Kodak or Dalsa so the back manufacturers need only modest changes in architecture to accomodate the new chip. It would be nice if some forward thinking were involved as demonstrated by Apple in the PC realm. They tend to push the envelope in an effort to stay at the forward edge of the curve.

Dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, color fidelity get short shrift while the ever enlarging pixel number is tantamount to sales. Have you noticed how much bandwidth has been consumed since the new announcements in the past week on this site and others? One wonders what would happen if the back manufacturers really did something truly innovative.

Consider a back that overlayed grid lines in classic, rule of thirds, or user defined layers that would correct for axis and horizontal disymmetry on the fly. Or a hardware based capture that would allow multiple inflection points for automatic depth of field stacking. Or how about one that did more than give a historical histogram based on JPG but one in real time based on raw data with suggestions to improve dynamic range for capture.

The present paradigm is somewhat analogous to the old auto industry...add fins or a bigger engine but keep the old design structure. Although I own a H3DII back I was amused by the recent sliding back adapter. Kind of an admission of difficulty using H3D back on other platforms due to the integral battery/body situation...in fact, after seeing that I cancelled an Alpa TC order as I am unwilling to deal with multiple cables etc.

It seems that we are at a point where it would behoove us to learn how to best utilize the tools we have than to assume that what they market next week or next Photokina will change our art...or in my poor practice my therapy.

Bob
 
N

Natasa Stojsic

Guest
Regarding the Alpa and Hasselblad H series backs - the work around is using the portable hard drive ( yes expensive) to power the back - a simple cable connecting back to lens ( there is no sleep mode with Hasselblad) is all it takes. Maybe I should post a picture of how it works for me..


Cheers
pete
Peter, I would appreciate that very much!!!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Just spoke with Lance form Capture Integration as he wrapped up his meeting with Phase. He didn't have time to go into details now, but will make a full post on Monday. Bottom line is there is some really cool news on that front. Stay tuned!

:),
 

LJL

New member
How about a larger sensor with larger and fewer pixels, say 30MP, but higher ISO and other great things? That would be a bold and useful move, I think. IOW, take all the great new 60MP development stuff and offer a lower res sensor at the same 645 "full frame" size that is being talked about. That could become the entry point if priced decently.

LJ
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
LJ, keep think along those lines -- I suspect you are about to get your wish. And Hassleblad may have to re-do it's "Full Frame" marketing thingy :D
 

mtomalty

New member
J Bottom line is there is some really cool news on that front. Stay tuned! :) said:
P65+ to be announce on monday by phaseone, 60.5 mpg, sensor size 53,9x40,4, pixel pitch 6x6 micron, 50-800 iso, 1 fps, no info about sensor manufacturer. EC price 26.900 euros +tax. delivery supposed to start in Q4 of 2008.


The above was posted on another forum earlier today and,I'm certain,will
hold up to be accurate. The sensor will be a Dalsa product.

Will be interesting to see how Phase handles long exposures knowing that
extreme exposure times have long been one major distinguishing factor
between Phase + series backs and other brands and knowing,from firsthand
experience,that the Dalsa chipped backs I've used seem to regularly hit
the wall between 20-30 seconds where pretty apparent 'salt and pepper'
noise started showing up.
It will also be interesting to see if this new sensor will find its way into
other products or if Phase was able to secure some sort of exclusivity.

Mark
 

LJL

New member
LJ, keep think along those lines -- I suspect you are about to get your wish. And Hassleblad may have to re-do it's "Full Frame" marketing thingy :D
Jack,
That could be a powerful 1-2 shot.....two new sensors at the newer 645 dimensions being talked about. One at 30MP, with ISO 1600 capabilities, and all the other new tweaks, and one at 60MP, with ISO 50-800 or so plus the new capabilities. To me, that would make for a very practical and powerful combination of backs. Toss in a 3" very high res LCD for both, and an adapter strategy similar to what Sinar has (not having to return to get retrofit), and you move from good to great offering in as single sweep.

Price the 30MP unit at say $12-15K for entry and the 60MP unit at whatever is being discussed. I think that would get a lot of folks waiting to leap into MF to make that move. The option to drop onto a leaf or focal plane shutter body would be icing on the cake for some. This is where it needs to go in my thinking.

LJ
 

fotografz

Well-known member
LJ, keep think along those lines -- I suspect you are about to get your wish. And Hassleblad may have to re-do it's "Full Frame" marketing thingy :D
Jeeze-o-peezo, what's with the piss on Hasselblad at every oportunity?

EVERYONE calles it full frame ... including Kodak and Sinar... and, yes, Phase One also Jack :rolleyes:

P.S., note on the Kodak list that there is no 22 meg CCD sensor listed any more ... just as I predicted! Bye, Bye 22 meg for Hasselbald and Phase One ... at least from Kodak.
 
Last edited:

Graham Mitchell

New member
Jeeze-o-peezo, what's with the piss on Hasselblad at every oportunity?

EVERYONE calles it full frame ... including Kodak and Sinar... and, yes, Phase One also Jack :rolleyes:
Hasselblad deserves everything they get for that marketing turd.

Btw, you are getting confused between two different meanings of 'full frame'.

The main meaning in this forum, and the way in which Hasselblad meant it, relates to a sensor which covers the whole area of a given format, whether that be 35mm or 645 etc.

When discussing CCD architecture, 'full frame' has another meaning. The 3 most common architecture types are: full-frame, frame-transfer and interline. This bears no relation on the overall size of the sensor.

Only Hasselblad has ever (wrongly) described a 48x36mm sensor as full frame 645.
 

mtomalty

New member
From wikipedia:

"Architecture

The CCD image sensors can be implemented in several different architectures. The most common are full-frame, frame-transfer and interline. The distinguishing characteristic of each of these architectures is their approach to the problem of shuttering.
In a full-frame device, all of the image area is active and there is no electronic shutter. A mechanical shutter must be added to this type of sensor or the image will smear as the device is clocked or read out."


It's pretty clear that most photo imaging products we are familiar with use
'full-frame' ccd architecture.


I guess what got peoples goat,initially, was that Hassleblad chose to play up
the 'full frame' aspect of their H3D series cameras when,in fact, the sensors were
not geometrically full frame with respect to the 6 x 4.5 camera format.

Why,two years later,this is still a bone of contention for many is beyond me.
Hasselblad took their lumps and sold a sh*tload of product.

Mark
 

David K

Workshop Member
All these MFD back manufacturers are relatively tiny cottage industry players - competing in a relatively tiny market. So weak are their balance sheets that they outsource pretty much everything in the manufacturing value added curve. That is to say they already run lean and mean. Therefore mergers would deliver not much in marginal utilities from synergies and the wrong mergers may actually backfire.
Doubt I'd call Jenoptik a tiny anything... it's a very substantial company.
 

LJL

New member
I guess the question that needs be asked is did Hassy really play something up or not. Advertising their 48x36mm sensors as "full-frame" was not incorrect with respect to the architecture now was it? With respect to what many wanted to believe and interpret for 645 size, was that Hasselblad's doing or photographers mis-applying the marketing to their wants and wishes? Seems like a lot of the latter, but Hassy sure did not go out of their way to clear anything up. Interestingly, if you look over the Hasselblad site now, there is no mention of "full-frame" when they talk about their sensors now. They still talk about them being twice the size of a 35mm frame, which they are.

I have to wonder if the entire "full-frame" marketing was used to contrast with scanning backs or something?

LJ
 

David K

Workshop Member
From wikipedia:
Why,two years later,this is still a bone of contention for many is beyond me.
Hasselblad took their lumps and sold a sh*tload of product.
Mark
Not a bone for me Mark but it certainly is for a lot of folks. Frankly, I expect a bit of marketing puffery from anyone selling anything. Many feel they stepped over the line with this one. Funny thing is that I doubt one single purchaser of a "full frame" back was truly mislead, irrespective of their intentions.
 

mtomalty

New member
I have to wonder if the entire "full-frame" marketing was used to contrast with scanning backs or something?
On this point I agree with Graham.

Blad did try to gain some marketing leverage over it's MFDB competitors,
at the time, by using a little marketing slight of hand.
At the same time,they had also just released a new viewfinder that did
not require a mask to show the true crop.
This logic, also,could be stretched a little to sell 'full frame' since the user
saw only the capture area through the viewfinder thus 'full frame'.

Mark
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hasselblad deserves everything they get for that marketing turd.

Btw, you are getting confused between two different meanings of 'full frame'.

The main meaning in this forum, and the way in which Hasselblad meant it, relates to a sensor which covers the whole area of a given format, whether that be 35mm or 645 etc.

When discussing CCD architecture, 'full frame' has another meaning. The 3 most common architecture types are: full-frame, frame-transfer and interline. This bears no relation on the overall size of the sensor.

Only Hasselblad has ever (wrongly) described a 48x36mm sensor as full frame 645.
Show me where they say exactly that.

Hasselblad's discription is: ... "H3D/39 & H3D/22 are both full frame 48mm DSLRs using a sensor format 36X48.

So, I've only seen it stated the way everyone else has. I don't know anyone who took it as meaning full frame 645 as they clearly communicated it as being a 1.1X sensor and even devloped a WA lens for 1.1X ... so only a complete idiot would take as meaning a FF 645 size as in 645 film ... which aparently some here have :ROTFL:
 
Top