Best older digital back for stitched landscapes on view camera?

[Clawery]

Doug/Chris,

I've been contemplating a scanning back for ages, and never knew these existed... the Phase site lists PowerPhase as 48MP and scsi so I didn't consider them any more. Is there any info available to view?

I presume they have to have a hefty battery carried along with them, like the BetterLights?

Graham.

Graham,

Take a look at this link from Phase One's web site. It will give you the technical information that you may be looking for.

http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/Discontinued hardware/PowerPhase.aspx


Chris Lawery (Email Me)
Sales Manager
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 404.234.5195
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

 

[Dave Gallagher]

When it comes to scan backs, I have about as much experience with them as anyone in the field today. In the mid to late 90's they were far superior to anything in the marketplace. At one point, 3 out of the 4 photographers in the Betterlight marketing material were my customers. I lived and breathed this technology due to its incredible rendering quality. Just for fun, when you look at the "price per mb" for the Powerphase FX it is only $13 compared that to the 39mp kodak chips at $180+. I know its skewed but its sure is interesting to compare........ : )

When it comes to Phase One's "Focus Tool". It not only gives you an audible tone it also yeilds a numeric contrast value that lets you visually set the perfect focus. In some environments the audible tone is either hard to hear or incredibly annoying and this makes it a much stronger tool.

If anyone has specific questions about this technology, please feel free to e-mail me directly or give me a call. The Powerphase FX is still an important product in our rental line and is great tool to play with if you get the chance.

Dave Gallagher (Email Me)
Owner / Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870* |* Cell: 770-846-5223
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

 

[Clawery]

Here is a link to the PowerPhase FX+: http://www.phaseone.com/upload/fx+us.pdf
The image above is actually is the standard FX. Sorry for the confusion.

Chris Lawery (e-mail Me)
__________________
Sales Manager, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 404.234.5195
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

 

[Lars]

I've been using an Ebony SW23 view camera for some years to do stitched panoramics, on film. The idea when I got it in 2002 was that eventually digital backs would come down in price. I'm still waiting...

Anyways, I shoot two 6x9 frames on MF film, shift the back between frames (rather than rotate the camera) to create a 6x17 (actually 6x16) image. This works reasonably well in most cases, with the exception of dawn/dusk when exposure times are 30 secs or more - too much time between exposures so the light changes too much for a good stitch, so some retouching is required to make the stitch smooth.

The tricky thing with the SW23 is that it only has front shift, so I had to invent a way to shift the back. I have an RRS rail that I slide in the clamp to shift the camera sideways, then shift the front in the opposite direction.

Here are a few samples:

 

[dougpeterson]

Absolutely great work Lars!

 

[Francois_A]

When it comes to scan backs, I have about as much experience with them as anyone in the field today. In the mid to late 90's they were far superior to anything in the marketplace. At one point, 3 out of the 4 photographers in the Betterlight marketing material were my customers.

Hi Dave,

I am just wondering how the powerphase fx+ compares with the current Betterlight scanning backs.
Also, would it be possible to scan slides and negative by placing the film directly on the scanning area, instead of using a macro lens with a view camera ?

Thanks,

Francois

 

[Dave Gallagher]

Francois,

The big difference between the two is the interface. The FX+ is a real FW400 connection directly from the scanning head to the computer. Nothing else is necessary. Betterlight has always needed a controller box/hard drive that the camera writes to. The BL gets its power from this and uses it as a secondary Hard Drive. In the field, this is much more cumbersome than a single FW cable.

Another advantage of the FX+ is the RGB probe. This probe detects the flicker/phase of certain lights in all three channels. It then compensates for this in the final image, thus eliminating scan lines from the lighting scenario. No other scan back has this technology.

Alas, there is no good way to use this as a scanner of negs. We have tried multiple ways do this in the past with disappointing results.

 

[Lars]

Funny, people have experimented with doing the opposite - sticking a flatbed scanner into an 8x10 view camera. That didn't work so well either.

 

[Francois_A]

Francois,

The big difference between the two is the interface. The FX+ is a real FW400 connection directly from the scanning head to the computer. Nothing else is necessary. Betterlight has always needed a controller box/hard drive that the camera writes to. The BL gets its power from this and uses it as a secondary Hard Drive. In the field, this is much more cumbersome than a single FW cable.

Another advantage of the FX+ is the RGB probe. This probe detects the flicker/phase of certain lights in all three channels. It then compensates for this in the final image, thus eliminating scan lines from the lighting scenario. No other scan back has this technology.

Alas, there is no good way to use this as a scanner of negs. We have tried multiple ways do this in the past with disappointing results.

Thanks Dave for this valuable information.

Regarding scanning slides and negs, all I want is to be able to digitalize medium and 4x5 film with better quality than my Epson V700, especially in terms of dynamic range, without buying an Imacon.

With my Canon 5D and the 65mm 1-5x macro lens, I get results that are slightly sharper with a very close Dmax. Using a 250 watts Lowel Pro light and diffuser to light a 35mm slide, yields an exposure of 1/100 sec @ f/11 ISO 200, which would be perfect for the scanning back. At 2X magnification, 1/50 would be needed.

Since the scanning back has better dynamic range than the Canon 5D and that it does not use an AA filter and demosaicing, and the fact that Schneider or Rodenstock macro lenses are as good (probably better!) than the Canon 65, I should get better results; unless there is something missing in my reasoning...

Thanks,

Francois

 

[routlaw]

Thanks Dave for this valuable information.

Since the scanning back has better dynamic range than the Canon 5D and that it does not use an AA filter and demosaicing, and the fact that Schneider or Rodenstock macro lenses are as good (probably better!) than the Canon 65, I should get better results; unless there is something missing in my reasoning...

Francois

Francois

A number of the Betterlight users have apparently had very good success at scanning slides and negs with the scan back. Most have used enlarging lenses from what I understand, though the digital macro lenses from Rody and Schneider no doubt would work very well also. From what I understand a few people have used an enlarger setup to project the slide or tranny onto the scan back which lays with its imager facing up in place of the paper.

I have not tried this myself but at some time in the future plan on it. In other words its very doable and your logic makes sense.

Hope this helps

Rob

 

[Francois_A]

Thanks Rob. This helps a lot!

I hadn't thought about using an enlarger, and projecting on the scanning back. What a great idea!
I have two enlargers that are collecting dust, since I no longer have a darkroom. For 35 mm film I have a sharp 50mm Apo-Rodagon that could be put to good use. There should be plenty of light since only a 3"x4" image needs to be projected.

Francois

 

[routlaw]

I hadn't thought about using an enlarger, and projecting on the scanning back. What a great idea!
I have two enlargers that are collecting dust, since I no longer have a darkroom. For 35 mm film I have a sharp 50mm Apo-Rodagon that could be put to good use. There should be plenty of light since only a 3"x4" image needs to be projected.

Francois

However it still seems it would be easier to use the scan back with macro/enlarging lens and shoot a tranny back lit. One of the disadvantages here is the lack of Digital Ice so if you go this route post scan cleanup might be a bear depending upon how dirty or scratched your negs are. One thing to be concerned with also, is dust collecting on the sensor while its scanning in this position. It might not be a big deal, but certainly worth thinking about.

Its cheaper than buying an Imacon/Hassy scanner though!

Rob

 

[routlaw]

...The FX+ is a real FW400 connection directly from the scanning head to the computer. Nothing else is necessary. Betterlight has always needed a controller box/hard drive that the camera writes to. The BL gets its power from this and uses it as a secondary Hard Drive. In the field, this is much more cumbersome than a single FW cable.

Dave makes a good point here regarding the simple use of FW to puter connection, but there are a few downsides to the scenario also. Some of the newer generation laptops have very bright screens even for outdoor usage. I have heard of a few people turning the display down even outside with some of the new Vaio's. And Sony now has a 1.4 lb exceedingly small laptop as in not much larger than a checkbook. Not something that you could run the P1 FX+ on due to FW needs. Not sure about the software.

Also the BL battery (newer L-ion) has been known to run some 15 hours or so on location. But agree it is a somewhat more cumbersome situation though not nearly as much as I thought going into it. None of the older Apple laptops able to run the P1 software have a very bright screen, in fact they are quite dim outside. I know I have one.

Another advantage of the FX+ is the RGB probe. This probe detects the flicker/phase of certain lights in all three channels. It then compensates for this in the final image, thus eliminating scan lines from the lighting scenario. No other scan back has this technology.

This technology becomes much more important for hot lights such as tungsten etc than newer generation lights such as FLD's or HMI's. Having done a couple hundred studio scans thus far I have yet to see any flicker problem using the fluorescent lights I have.

The FX+ appears to be a heck of a deal for the price they are now selling them, and have thought about getting one myself if for no other reason than the simpler FW location setup compared to the BL.

I am curious though, is the chip set in this FX+ the later K2 version or the older Kodak sensor?

Hope this helps

Rob

 

[Francois_A]

I am curious though, is the chip set in this FX+ the later K2 version or the older Kodak sensor?
Rob

I am curious about that too.
Also, when using shifts and tilts with wide angles, does one get colour cast, as it is the case on some medium format digital backs?

Thanks,

Francois

 

[routlaw]

I am curious about that too.
Also, when using shifts and tilts with wide angles, does one get colour cast, as it is the case on some medium format digital backs?

Thanks,

Francois

Not with the BL scan back and have no reason to believe it would create the problem on the P1 either. From what I understand it only happens on bayer chips with no AA filter.

Rob

 

[shakeshuck]

I've had a quick look through the user manuals for both these brands.

Unless I'm reading them wrong, the BL has a better choice of 'virtual' line times (the actual line times are similar, if not the same), and allows full choice of ISO speeds.
If my interpretation was correct (I'll have to re-read it), the P1 back can only do 400 ISO at full res; it will go up to 1600 ISO, but only at tiny file sizes.

I've just ordered a P1 back from CI, but as I said elsewhere I'm a long way from any of my gear so I won't be able to make a report for a considerable time.