Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: PowerPhase FX+ scanback in the field ?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like

    PowerPhase FX+ scanback in the field ?

    Just wondering if anyone here has experience of using a PowerPhaseFX+ in the great outdoors?

    Essentially what i am trying to figure out is how the line time will affect its usefulness in low light. I have seen on an older thread here that the line time only goes down to 1/125- is this correct? Or is this its just its slowest optimum line time?

    If it can go lower, e.g. 1/60 or 1/30 is it at the cost of resoultion?

    I am considering renting a powerphase for an upcoming job invloving lots of old industrial buildings and i need the resolution.

    I know the betterlights seem to be usable at 1/20 but i dont have access to one

    Any info is appreciated!,
    Aaron

  2. #2
    Senior Member routlaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: PowerPhase FX+ scanback in the field ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Just wondering if anyone here has experience of using a PowerPhaseFX+ in the great outdoors?

    Essentially what i am trying to figure out is how the line time will affect its usefulness in low light. I have seen on an older thread here that the line time only goes down to 1/125- is this correct? Or is this its just its slowest optimum line time?

    If it can go lower, e.g. 1/60 or 1/30 is it at the cost of resoultion?

    I am considering renting a powerphase for an upcoming job invloving lots of old industrial buildings and i need the resolution.

    I know the betterlights seem to be usable at 1/20 but i dont have access to one

    Any info is appreciated!,
    Aaron
    Aaron I don't have the FX but used to own the basic Photo Phase and now own and use the Betterlight Super 6K-HS in the field. All of these scan backs will operate down to 1/8 second line time, but that requires about 15-16 minutes for a full res scan. The specs could be slightly different for the FX not sure. Understand scan backs like lots of light and while you can push the envelop in dark or dim lighting shooting the inside of industrial buildings might be a bit much for this type of application. If you are only doing exteriors I think you will be fine.

    As for optimum line times many say you should not drop below 1/20th second line time because the signal to noise ratio becomes to high. However in studio conditions I have never seen this to be a problem. The longest line time I have used in the field has been around 1/30th of a second, thus far have not needed to dip below that. At least with the 6K sensor which has an extremely big pixel size, ie 12 microns, it can be very forgiving in its noise so using higher ISO's than you are normally used to is usually not a problem. The FX I believe has smaller pixels so not sure how well it handles high ISO's. But if memory serves me correct I think P1 on this model reduced the file size as you go up in ISO by binning pixels together and therefore also reducing the file size substantially.

    Does not answer all of your direct questions but maybe it will help to some degree.

    Rob

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: PowerPhase FX+ scanback in the field ?

    Thanks for that Rob,
    15-16 minutes is a looong time in Irish weather! I was thinking 2-3 mins max, so i may need to rethink my approach.

    I was out on site today doing a few readings and was only getting about 1/60 at f5.6- asa 200 so its not looking good of a large format scan back adventure. Its quite dark on overcast days here at this time of year.

    I may revert to stitching on the nikons, not ideal but what is.

    Thanks again,
    Aaron.

  4. #4
    Senior Member routlaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: PowerPhase FX+ scanback in the field ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Thanks for that Rob,
    15-16 minutes is a looong time in Irish weather! I was thinking 2-3 mins max, so i may need to rethink my approach.

    I was out on site today doing a few readings and was only getting about 1/60 at f5.6- asa 200 so its not looking good of a large format scan back adventure. Its quite dark on overcast days here at this time of year.

    I may revert to stitching on the nikons, not ideal but what is.

    Thanks again,
    Aaron.
    Aaron you might want to get in touch with the folks at Capture Integration to verify my comment on the ISO vs file size for FX model. But understand the vast majority of my scans in the field have been from 30 seconds to 1.5 minutes with varying ISO's from 200 to around 1000 or so. Exteriors are much more doable than the inside of these buildings unless of course you are pumping your own light into them. Its doable, but working with a scan back is a bit more difficult to wrap your head around initially than say your Nikons. One thing for sure is you aren't likely to find better image quality if you get it right.

    This image is an example with the 6K where I was pushing the envelop a bit.
    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/attach...7&d=1258570281

    1/30th of a second line time ISO 600, F11 with a Rody Sironar S 135mm. The lighting here was quite dim at the time and my total scan time was around 2.5 minutes give or take a bit.

    Rob

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lancs, UK
    Posts
    181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: PowerPhase FX+ scanback in the field ?

    Hi Aaron,

    Sorry if this reply is waaaaay too late to answer your query, it's been a long time since I visited GetDPI.

    The FX+ goes down to 1/8. There is no quality difference that I'm aware of by changing line speed, HOWEVER, if you're wanting the highest resolution you are stuck with ISO 200. Altering the film speed changes the resolution, by a massive amount - you effectively halve the resolution every time you double the ISO, i.e.
    ISO 200 = 378MB file
    ISO 400 = 95MB
    ISO 800 = 24MB

    Hope this helps.


    I don't know what the Betterlight does in comparison - I would be curious, though.

    Graham.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •