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!

  • HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL OUR AMERICAN FRIENDS!

Fun with the Hasselblad 907x

jng

Well-known member
Godfrey,

Ah, a 56 x 56mm sensor - if only! I think the main benefits of the SWC and 38mm Biogon would be lost on the smaller sensor, although this would not prevent me from having fun with a 100 Mp BSI sensor if/when it does materialize in a CFV-type back. I actually acquired and later sold a newer model SWC/M to use with my IQ160 (since sold as well). It turns out the early vintage SWCs have a small ridge built into the light trap that prevents the Phase One backs from seating. But I will never sell my old SWC, regardless...

John

If I had any faith that a full 56x56 format back which would work well with the Biogon 38mm f/4.5 T* lens would be available at some time soon and at a price that I could afford, I'd not have sold my SWC. Sigh; I don't. I used the money from selling the SWC to help fund the 907x and XCD 21mm lens, and I'm happy with that combination. :)

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Ah, a 56 x 56mm sensor - if only! I think the main benefits of the SWC and 38mm Biogon would be lost on the smaller sensor, although this would not prevent me from having fun with a 100 Mp BSI sensor if/when it does materialize in a CFV-type back. I actually acquired and later sold a newer model SWC/M to use with my IQ160 (since sold as well). It turns out the early vintage SWCs have a small ridge built into the light trap that prevents the Phase One backs from seating. But I will never sell my old SWC, regardless...
For me, the cropped format takes away most of the joy of the SWC .. a major part of which is the Biogon's wide field of view with extraordinary correction and resolution over the huge 56x56 format. Fitted with a 33x44 mm back, regardless of 100 Mpixel or the current 50 Mpixel, the difference in FoV between the SWC and the 907x fitted with 45P or 30 mm lenses is mostly inconsequential. The 21mm lens on the 907x nets me a square crop just a hair wider than the SWC and, with the lens profile applied in Phocus, the correction and resolution is close to the same.

While I'll take more pixels if they come along at a reasonable price, I honestly cannot see the benefit for my photography in general. I don't make huge prints that would benefit from 100 Mpixel and the dynamic range of the current sensor is already very very good. I think it's a case of technical superiority vs practical utility.

G
 

jng

Well-known member
For me, the cropped format takes away most of the joy of the SWC .. a major part of which is the Biogon's wide field of view with extraordinary correction and resolution over the huge 56x56 format. Fitted with a 33x44 mm back, regardless of 100 Mpixel or the current 50 Mpixel, the difference in FoV between the SWC and the 907x fitted with 45P or 30 mm lenses is mostly inconsequential. The 21mm lens on the 907x nets me a square crop just a hair wider than the SWC and, with the lens profile applied in Phocus, the correction and resolution is close to the same.

G
Agreed! But just being able to use the SWC as a point and shoot would be great fun, even with the narrower FOV. I tried this with the IQ160, but even the Dalsa sensor didn't play well with the Biogon, necessitating stopping down to f/16 to bring the edges into reasonable shape, a problem that should be obviated by the newer generation BSI sensor. I certainly have other options at my disposal in the meantime (40HR on a Cambo + IQ3100 -- +/- 10mm vertical shift + flat stich => 54x54mm), but this has its own limitations.
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
Thank you for the compliment!

I do my finish rendering and such in either Phocus or Lightroom. If Phocus, I bring the result into LR then. I use the Slideshow module to create the drop-shadow framing I want. I create JPEG files to export from that (option key changes the 'export to PDF' button to 'export to JPEG') and set the output to be 3000x3000 (for 33x33 square crop) or 3000x2250 (for 44x33 full frame) pixels dimension. These files are imported back into LR and the IPTC metadata is copied from the master file into the JPEG for each, then metadata is saved to the files.

At this point, the files are uploaded to Flickr.com. For each photo, I copy the BBCode output from the Share button with the output parameter set to 1600x1600 or 1600x1200 (about) for posting here. I edit out the unnecessary information from the default BBCode output when I create the post to display the file here (or anywhere else on the web).

Using this process means that my files are all located in ONE place online no matter which forum or group I'm sending them to, and i can control the size of the display image with very good granularity as well as give access to half-resolution images through flickr directly for those who would like to see larger sized versions.

The process is dependent upon my understanding of just how much input and output sharpening I need to apply to a 6000x6000 or 6000x8000 image file in order that a 3000x3000 or 3000x2250 file looks good, of course, and I can only point to lots and lots of time (20+ years) and experience sharpening my photos for that. ;)

G
Hello Godfrey

Thank you very much for your detailed insight into your workflow . Very sofisticated . Far too complicated for me .
The obtained results rectify your effort . I envy you . I envy you very much .

My goal in the moment is , to obtain acceptable file quality for the forum by just using given export possibilities say in LR CC or LRC or PSCC or ON1 PHOTO RAW .
I do not want to store my images on any media outside my own computer . No external source .

Therefore I would like to know what image size can the forum take . Currently it seems to under 1MB , around 850K , which of course does not show satisfaying image quality .
For example say , jpeg with long side xxx pixels . This could be seen in the old forum , but I can not find anything in the migrated version .
An attempt to the administration of this forum about this topic ended up with no answer .

Perhaps one of the users can help .
 
  • Like
Reactions: spb

Photon42

Active member
Thanks! I am looking for some adaptable 135 lenses for wide angle work, preferably ZM. Not sure how any of the Zeiss Biogons would fare... any thoughts?

I know that extreme ray angles are going to be a problem, but 3:2 and 1:1 crops should make them perform at pretty much their optimum, right?
The ZM 1.5 / 50 works well on the X1D.
 

spb

Well-known member
Therefore I would like to know what image size can the forum take . Currently it seems to under 1MB , around 850K , which of course does not show satisfaying image quality .
For example say , jpeg with long side xxx pixels . This could be seen in the old forum , but I can not find anything in the migrated version .
An attempt to the administration of this forum about this topic ended up with no answer .

Perhaps one of the users can help .
I think you will find that the uploads handle files bigger than 1MB. This one is 1.3MB I used Phocus to export square 3048x3048. The same should be possible in the software you use for editing. When I tried to go past 6048x6048 images it would no longer upload. I tried 4048x4048 too that would have been OK.13.09.20_lucerne_0004.jpg
 
Last edited:

KlausJH

Active member
Thanks! I am looking for some adaptable 135 lenses for wide angle work, preferably ZM. Not sure how any of the Zeiss Biogons would fare... any thoughts?

I know that extreme ray angles are going to be a problem, but 3:2 and 1:1 crops should make them perform at pretty much their optimum, right?
The Distagon 1.4/35 ZM works very well, only the far corners show a strong vignette. I use scene calibration to mitigate some color shift and vignetting. It renders beautifully. ZM 1.5/50 works OK. The Biogon 2.8/25 ZM does not, unless you crop a lot and stop down to f/11 or more.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Godfrey

Thanks for posting, really impressive to see the output of the back with the 500CM and planar 80/2.8. I've looked at the original on Flickr and you certainly cannot tell that it is taken with a classic rather than modern lens.

Thanks

Louis
This one is actually using the 907x's back on my 500CM for a walk around session a few weeks back.


Pipe - Santa Clara 2020
Hasselblad 500CM + CFVII 50c + Planar 80mm f/2.8 T*

enjoy!
G
 
  • Like
Reactions: spb

Godfrey

Well-known member
Hello Godfrey

Thank you very much for your detailed insight into your workflow . Very sofisticated . Far too complicated for me .
The obtained results rectify your effort . I envy you . I envy you very much .

My goal in the moment is , to obtain acceptable file quality for the forum by just using given export possibilities say in LR CC or LRC or PSCC or ON1 PHOTO RAW .
I do not want to store my images on any media outside my own computer . No external source .

Therefore I would like to know what image size can the forum take . Currently it seems to under 1MB , around 850K , which of course does not show satisfaying image quality .
For example say , jpeg with long side xxx pixels . This could be seen in the old forum , but I can not find anything in the migrated version .
An attempt to the administration of this forum about this topic ended up with no answer .

Perhaps one of the users can help .
Thank you for the compliment, Jürgen! :)

For display purposes on this forum, you don't need to upload the largest, biggest size in pixel dimensions or file size that the forum server can handle to present high quality photographs. In fact, that is a little wasteful of server resources and slows down display for those who have less than fantastic network connection speeds, never mind that too large an image is resized anyway by the forum software to fit both the screen and a maximum dimension set by the forum management.

The pixel size that I upload has migrated upwards over the years as network speeds have risen, as computers have improved, and as average display size has grown. That said, I find very little practical advantage to uploading images larger than 1600 pixels on the long edge to the forum ... this size image displays very nicely at 1:1 on a 27 inch diagonal display and can be viewed at that magnification in its entirety on the same display for 1600 x 1200, and with a small amount of scaling for a 1600 x 1600. Example: Here's a 1600x1200 image captured in full screen display mode on my display.



Set that to 1:1 and it fills the screen nicely and is good to view at normal display distance from the eye.

I set the JPEG compression in LR to about 72-75. The difference between this setting and other settings in the range from 65 to 100% is measurable but not visible. Doing so with this image nets an output JPEG file around 340 Kbytes, which is fast to upload, fast to download, and easy for even a relatively slow connection.

Summing up: Set JPEG output to 1600 pixels on the long edge, set compression to 72, and tell LR to do output sharpening for computer display. That's my standard settings... :)

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thanks for posting, really impressive to see the output of the back with the 500CM and planar 80/2.8. I've looked at the original on Flickr and you certainly cannot tell that it is taken with a classic rather than modern lens.
Thanks
Louis
Indeed very impressive, sharp and excellent colour too.
Thank you both!
Yes, I find my old V system lenses bat way above what their age might imply! The critical things, as far as I can see it, are taking the time to get the focus right on the money and holding the camera still enough. The latter is one reason why I use a tripod as much as I do, it nets far more exposure flexibility than hand-holding with a big, heavy mirror flapping about in the camera, and it also gives you a way to set the focus critically without the camera moving afterwards. Hand-held work is far less consistent on both counts, in general.

G

"My sharpest lens is a sturdy tripod."
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I was experimenting with Phocus Mobile 2 yesterday, on my iPhone for the first time, and I noted that I could not get focus assist magnification to operate. Someone on the Hasselblad User Forum said it was working with his X1D using the older Phocus Mobile app, so I sent a note to Hasselblad Technical Support to ask if I was missing a setting.

Hasselblad Technical Support responded to me promptly, as always; unfortunately this functionality is not available in Phocus Mobile 2 at present. It is in their feature request list.

In subsequent discussion with the Hasselblad Tech Support representative, he suggested strongly that the update team for the camera/back firmware and Phocus app software listen carefully to all input when planning features and prioritize based on demand. If all the X1DII and 907x/CVFII 50c users who might want to use Phocus Mobile 2 and have the magnification focus assist function would send in a request to Hasselblad Customer Support, it would help quicken the process.

Use the Contact link on the Hasselblad website to send a message to Hasselblad Customer Support and request this feature for Phocus Mobile 2! :D

Thanks!
G
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
Summing up: Set JPEG output to 1600 pixels on the long edge, set compression to 72, and tell LR to do output sharpening for computer display. That's my standard settings... :)

G
I have tried different sizes and found that JPG 72 and 1200 pixels for the long side works . Even 1250 Pixels result in a message , that the file is too large .
It used to be JPG 72 2000 pixels .
 
  • Like
Reactions: spb

mristuccia

Active member
I use 1200px longest side + 75px white border on each side (=1350px longest side) at 72 DPI.
For the sharpening, it depends on the particular image, but usually at ISO 100 the following two settings work well on average:
  • PHOCUS: sharpening set to 110-120 and export as JPG
  • LR: sharpening set to 60 and export as JPG with output sharpening set for screen at low or standard strength.
 
Last edited:
Top