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!

H2 or Hy6???

David Klepacki

New member
I think I have beaten to death the flexibility of the open (non-fixed mount) capability of the Hy6. So, I will not repeat those arguments.

The other part of the story is LONGEVITY of your images, which some people care about. The ONLY open standard that guarantees the longevity of your images is DNG. It is a clearly defined specification that is non-proprietary, open and available to anyone. With such a specification, there is always guaranteed a DNG converter for ANY computer platform, now or in the future.

As an example of its importance, let's say Hasselblad unexpectedly goes out of business some day (maybe like Contax). And, let's say that Windows or MacOS evolves to the point where it no longer supports "old" applications. (like today where applications that ran on Mac Classic no longer can work with the advent of Mac Leopard). Eventually, this kind of thing will happen, as backward compatibility cannot be maintained indefinitely, especially with computing systems.

Where would this leave such Hasselblad users? Only two choices: never being able to go back to the raw data, or reverting back to DNG. In the first case, for whatever reason (maybe newer and better ways of interpolating the raw data), there may be a need or preference to work with the raw data. In the second case, the DNG file would lose all of the
(DAC) lens correction information and the images would be left with CA and vignetting issues that the Hasselblad DAC otherwise removed.

Basing your workflow on DNG from the beginning, will never cause you to face such a dilemma. The entire industry is indeed supporting the DNG standard, for longevity and archival purposes. For more information on long term archival issues, take a look at "The DAM Book", by Peter Krogh. It is a bit dated, but the concepts are still valid.
 

LJL

New member
I think I have beaten to death the flexibility of the open (non-fixed mount) capability of the Hy6. So, I will not repeat those arguments.

The other part of the story is LONGEVITY of your images, which some people care about. The ONLY open standard that guarantees the longevity of your images is DNG. It is a clearly defined specification that is non-proprietary, open and available to anyone. With such a specification, there is always guaranteed a DNG converter for ANY computer platform, now or in the future.

As an example of its importance, let's say Hasselblad unexpectedly goes out of business some day (maybe like Contax). And, let's say that Windows or MacOS evolves to the point where it no longer supports "old" applications. (like today where applications that ran on Mac Classic no longer can work with the advent of Mac Leopard). Eventually, this kind of thing will happen, as backward compatibility cannot be maintained indefinitely, especially with computing systems.

Where would this leave such Hasselblad users? Only two choices: never being able to go back to the raw data, or reverting back to DNG. In the first case, for whatever reason (maybe newer and better ways of interpolating the raw data), there may be a need or preference to work with the raw data. In the second case, the DNG file would lose all of the
(DAC) lens correction information and the images would be left with CA and vignetting issues that the Hasselblad DAC otherwise removed.

Basing your workflow on DNG from the beginning, will never cause you to face such a dilemma. The entire industry is indeed supporting the DNG standard, for longevity and archival purposes. For more information on long term archival issues, take a look at "The DAM Book", by Peter Krogh. It is a bit dated, but the concepts are still valid.
David,
All valid points. However, DNG is not being universally accepted and used at this point. Would be great if it was, but it is not. And that is not just Hasselblad...Nikon, Canon, and many others are spending a lot to keep their image conversions proprietary. They see this as having some sort of competitive advantage, and in the case of Hasselblad, they are doing a lot of correction and adjustment with tools designed specifically to get the most from their gear. You really cannot fault them for doing that. Would it be nice if all of those adjustments and corrections were delivered as a DNG file also? Absolutely, but it is not the case right now. One of my bigger "gripes" has been around how much R&D is spent on the software side of things at many of these companies. Why does Hasselblad need a special app called Phocus? Why does Sinar need eXposure, or Phase One needing their app? If the competitive landscape is such that there are algorithms being used with specific data that yields an image that other conversions cannot, is that really a bad thing? It is the way it is right now. What option do any of us have.....just not buy the products? Not going to happen. While the "universal format" is supposed to be open and last "forever", what happens if Adobe goes under or gets bought out by Apple or something? What happens to that open source app that still needs lots of folks supporting it?

Like everybody else, I worry about the hundreds of thousands of image files I now have stored in both RAW and completed files (PSD). With all of the changes that are being made so quickly to so many apps today, it is hard to expect anything to be compatible for very far into the future. Some folks are storing old OSs and apps just in case support stops, thinking there will be some emulator or virtualization tool that will allow them to run the old OS and old apps on whatever system is out there in the future.

Does that make Sinar "better" for delivering a DNG file out of the gate? For some folks, maybe so. On the other hand, if one has to buy lots of other apps to do many of the corrections needed on various lenses after the RAW conversion is made, is that really a better way? What happens to those apps in the future? So you have a plain vanilla DNG file with all of the data. Somebody still has to create an app to extract and use that data to its fullest, and right now, the only folks doing that are those that built the equipment and know how that data was intended to be used. That does put us at their hands, but until the entire industry gives up on proprietary algorithms and secret sauces, we are going to be stuck.

Not wanting to turn this into a different kind of argument/discussion, but the DNG thing, though noble and possibly a viable option, is not being embraced to the levels that will really create a universal RAW file. Adobe even gave into that side of things by allowing proprietary date to reside in the files. So, until that whole thing changes, we will be looking upon software much the same way we look upon lenses and backs now. Not everything works with everything else, so you pick and choose the system and software that best meets your individual needs, and hope to hell it remains in play ;)

LJ
 

Graham Mitchell

New member
LJL, the DNG format is not perfect - no-one is arguing to the contrary. However, it is by far the best option to date, by an order of magnitude. Unlike the other formats, it will continue to be suported even if one or two supporting manufacturers were to go out of business.

DNG is already in use by Casio, Hasselblad, Leica, Megavision, Nucore, Pentax, Ricoh, Samsung, Sea&Sea, Seitz, Silicon Imaging and Sinar, and can be opened by every raw developer I know of.
 

LJL

New member
LJL, the DNG format is not perfect - no-one is arguing to the contrary. However, it is by far the best option to date, by an order of magnitude. Unlike the other formats, it will continue to be suported even if one or two supporting manufacturers were to go out of business.

DNG is already in use by Casio, Hasselblad, Leica, Megavision, Nucore, Pentax, Ricoh, Samsung, Sea&Sea, Seitz, Silicon Imaging and Sinar, and can be opened by every raw developer I know of.
Graham,
Not disagreeing with you on this at all. I never said it was perfect, and there still are some issues with some RAW developers being unable to read the files. We just are not yet there as a universal RAW file. It is the best thing going in that respect right now, but there are a number of folks just not adopting it and using it yet, and that will most likely remain an issue for some time. Does not mean we should abandon it, or anything like that, but as long as manufacturers see some competitive advantage to produce their own proprietary codes and conversions, they will. Most of the player in the DNG realm today are those that do see it as a somewhat future-proof tool, or they are not in a position to be able to support their own in-house IT group. In some sense, I applaud that approach.....let coder folks do what they do best, and let the camera folks spend their R&D dollars on new developments, not new proprietary software. But your list does not include many of the really heavy hitters that are steering large portions of the digital photography market today. Is that important? So far, that seems to be the case. While Hasselblad does support DNG, they also maintain their own closed system for reasons they have chosen.

I am a supporter of the entire DNG concept and want to see it succeed. I am also looking at the reality of where things are today. Would lack of total data incorporation into a DNG file keep me from going with Hasselblad if what Hassy delivered met my needs? Not likely, and I am sure I am not alone. On the flip side, does the Sinar back file offer me something more than just RAW data, thus requiring me to use other tools (DxO, etc.) to best extract the most from the gear being used? Not really. Neither is all that big a deal to me right now, but may become more an issue in a few years. We just do not know, and I see little point waiting on the sidelines for the final tally on that part. If/when DNG conquers all, there will be an ability to convert files and extract that secret sauce data, unless those companies have gone away. And I would bet that there still will be some folks writing apps to do that if it becomes needed.

So, I agree with the DNG concept and ambition. I would love to see it universally embraced and fully supported and further developed. Until it is, I will just have to live with the other stuff to get the results I want or need. Not that big a deal.

LJ
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Just for your information:

Sinar eXposure does create DNG files, yes, BUT ....

the real RAWs are saved and kept AS WELL, assuring that you are ready for any situation in the future.

Best regards,
Thierry

David,
Why does Sinar need eXposure, or Phase One needing their app? If the competitive landscape is such that there are algorithms being used with specific data that yields an image that other conversions cannot, is that really a bad thing? It is the way it is right now. What option do any of us have.....just not buy the products? Not going to happen. While the "universal format" is supposed to be open and last "forever", what happens if Adobe goes under or gets bought out by Apple or something? What happens to that open source app that still needs lots of folks supporting it?

Does that make Sinar "better" for delivering a DNG file out of the gate? For some folks, maybe so. On the other hand, if one has to buy lots of other apps to do many of the corrections needed on various lenses after the RAW conversion is made, is that really a better way? What happens to those apps in the future? So you have a plain vanilla DNG file with all of the data. Somebody still has to create an app to extract and use that data to its fullest, and right now, the only folks doing that are those that built the equipment and know how that data was intended to be used. That does put us at their hands, but until the entire industry gives up on proprietary algorithms and secret sauces, we are going to be stuck.

Not wanting to turn this into a different kind of argument/discussion, but the DNG thing, though noble and possibly a viable option, is not being embraced to the levels that will really create a universal RAW file. Adobe even gave into that side of things by allowing proprietary date to reside in the files. So, until that whole thing changes, we will be looking upon software much the same way we look upon lenses and backs now. Not everything works with everything else, so you pick and choose the system and software that best meets your individual needs, and hope to hell it remains in play ;)

LJ
 

David Klepacki

New member
LJ,

I think you misunderstood. It is not that all of the camera vendors who are adopting DNG as their raw format, but rather many photographers in the industry. Of course, the camera vendors invest some money into software processing in order to control the look of their images. It is a necessity for them. Otherwise, software not under their control could make their images look bad, and hence their camera would not sell.

Many photographers who are conscious of longevity and archival are converting and storing their raw images as DNG (yes, especially Nikon and Canon users). They do not RELY on any proprietary software, although they may choose to use one converter over another at any given time. This way, they are always assured of having access to their raw data in the future.

In other words, it is less risk for a photographer to work with a system that needs less lens correction and uses a known open standard format (DNG), so that they will always have access to their raw data, now and in the future.

It is more risk to the photographer to use a proprietary system that corrects their lenses with software, since that software may cease to function or be unavailable in the future.
 

LJL

New member
Just for your information:

Sinar eXposure does create DNG files, yes, BUT ....

the real RAWs are saved and kept AS WELL, assuring that you are ready for any situation in the future.

Best regards,
Thierry
Thierry,
That should be true for all DNG files, as an option is to create a file that embeds the original RAW data in its native format, just for that purpose. (That was Adobe's concession, or hedging its bet to get more widespread adoption, just in case it does not make it.) There may still be code in that native RAW file that is not brought into the DNG file for use. I started to store my Canon .CR2 files within the DNG file for later use at one point, figuring I could extract the file and convert it with whatever tool did what I needed.

That is a wonderful "safeguard", but I think the better approach is to not generate a .3FR, .CR2, .FFF, or whatever file at all. Instead, the "native" file should be a DNG, as it is for the Leica M8 for example. Eliminate all that other stuff completely. We are not at that point yet.

LJ
 

LJL

New member
LJ,

I think you misunderstood. It is not that all of the camera vendors who are adopting DNG as their raw format, but rather many photographers in the industry. Of course, the camera vendors invest some money into software processing in order to control the look of their images. It is a necessity for them. Otherwise, software not under their control could make their images look bad, and hence their camera would not sell.

Many photographers who are conscious of longevity and archival are converting and storing their raw images as DNG (yes, especially Nikon and Canon users). They do not RELY on any proprietary software, although they may choose to use one converter over another at any given time. This way, they are always assured of having access to their raw data in the future.

In other words, it is less risk for a photographer to work with a system that needs less lens correction and uses a known open standard format (DNG), so that they will always have access to their raw data, now and in the future.

It is more risk to the photographer to use a proprietary system that corrects their lenses with software, since that software may cease to function or be unavailable in the future.
David,
I understood what you said, and I am one of those Canon shooters that is headed to DNG myself. My point made to Thierry is the bigger issue. I have no problem with Hasselblad using all sorts of correction tools to deliver the best image it can. That is essentially what you are suggesting is being done to some degree when a manufacturer includes its own software to best display its planned image conversion. However, what would really be nice is for that DNG file to hold the corrections that are being used so that the file opened at some later date with some other software, has the best display of the image capture as the manufacturer designed their system to deliver. I do not see that as a bad thing. What is more problematic is opening a file of RAW data that lacks any interpretation direction or optimization for specific hardware that may need that sort of correction. My expectations from a system are for it to deliver and get out my way. I do not want to have to spend huge amounts of time correcting image files to best display what the design was supposed to deliver. Maybe I am very different in that respect. Using the M8, this has become an issue for lots of folks. If I fail to use a UV/IR filter, or do not have a coded lens to tell the camera's built-in generator how to correct things, I get a lousy file. Yes, I can "fix" that with several different tools, but what is that point? The rest of the IQ is unchanged, but the workload has gone way up.

Not trying to be difficult here at all. My comments were more about not letting the software/file issues dissuade someone from using a system that may do everything they want/need and more.

LJ
 

David Klepacki

New member
That is a wonderful "safeguard", but I think the better approach is to not generate a .3FR, .CR2, .FFF, or whatever file at all. Instead, the "native" file should be a DNG, as it is for the Leica M8 for example. Eliminate all that other stuff completely. We are not at that point yet.

LJ
In principle, this would be great. Unfortunately, it puts too much constraint on the back makers who have to manage the signals and dataflow within the back. Sometimes, allowing the back makers a little flexibility in the internal format of the raw data can yield vast improvements in speed and efficiency. The later conversion of this internal data to DNG is just fine.
 

David Klepacki

New member
...However, what would really be nice is for that DNG file to hold the corrections that are being used so that the file opened at some later date with some other software, has the best display of the image capture as the manufacturer designed their system to deliver. I do not see that as a bad thing. What is more problematic is opening a file of RAW data that lacks any interpretation direction or optimization for specific hardware that may need that sort of correction. My expectations from a system are for it to deliver and get out my way. I do not want to have to spend huge amounts of time correcting image files to best display what the design was supposed to deliver...
LJ
LJ,

First, you are not being difficult at all, so please do not feel that way. It is an important discussion to have.

Actually, I agree with your above comment 100%. I also think that lens corrections can done to the raw data and embedded in the DNG. That would certainly benefit everyone. Nobody wants to spend inordinate amounts of time correcting images.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
LJ,

I think you misunderstood. It is not that all of the camera vendors who are adopting DNG as their raw format, but rather many photographers in the industry. Of course, the camera vendors invest some money into software processing in order to control the look of their images. It is a necessity for them. Otherwise, software not under their control could make their images look bad, and hence their camera would not sell.

Many photographers who are conscious of longevity and archival are converting and storing their raw images as DNG (yes, especially Nikon and Canon users). They do not RELY on any proprietary software, although they may choose to use one converter over another at any given time. This way, they are always assured of having access to their raw data in the future.

In other words, it is less risk for a photographer to work with a system that needs less lens correction and uses a known open standard format (DNG), so that they will always have access to their raw data, now and in the future.

It is more risk to the photographer to use a proprietary system that corrects their lenses with software, since that software may cease to function or be unavailable in the future.
Flexcolor and Phocus DAC corrections are OPTIONAL. They are simply time savers. As anyone who uses PS knows, Distortion and Aberration Corrections (DAC) can be performed manually in LR and/or PS. Hasselblad simply maps these corrections for each lens and allows one touch auto corrections. Just one bonus of an integrated system designed primarily for working pros where time is money.

Any Hasselblad 3F RAW file can simply be converted to DNG by selecting files, individually, or all, as desired. DNG is not manditory, it is an optional choice. I know few if any Hasselblad digital users who think DNG conversions produce better files than the propritary software. Haven't heard that from any Phase One users either.

I use both. For things like a wedding where I have 100-200 shots, and another 200 from a Canon, I convert to DNGs and drop all of them in a single file to be sorted by time shot. But for critical color control, etc. of commercial work I use Phocus.

Now, I would like to see Hasselblad offer the option of migrating the Phocus corrections with DNG conversions ... if that isn't already in the works ... since Phocus is only Beta right now and has yet to be completed or optimized.
 

David Klepacki

New member
Flexcolor and Phocus DAC corrections are OPTIONAL. They are simply time savers. As anyone who uses PS knows, Distortion and Aberration Corrections (DAC) can be performed manually in LR and/or PS. Hasselblad simply maps these corrections for each lens and allows one touch auto corrections. Just one bonus of an integrated system designed primarily for working pros where time is money.

Any Hasselblad 3F RAW file can simply be converted to DNG by selecting files, individually, or all, as desired. DNG is not manditory, it is an optional choice. I know few if any Hasselblad digital users who think DNG conversions produce better files than the propritary software. Haven't heard that from any Phase One users either.

I use both. For things like a wedding where I have 100-200 shots, and another 200 from a Canon, I convert to DNGs and drop all of them in a single file to be sorted by time shot. But for critical color control, etc. of commercial work I use Phocus.

Now, I would like to see Hasselblad offer the option of migrating the Phocus corrections with DNG conversions ... if that isn't already in the works ... since Phocus is only Beta right now and has yet to be completed or optimized.
Yes, I also hope Phocus will provide its corrections to the DNG file. That would give the images the longevity that I mentioned above.

In the meantime, I try to use optically corrected lenses as much as possible, so that I do not have to rely on software corrections. It is a nice alternative to the software solution, and works great, at least for me.

Hey, no pissing contest. The important thing is that we have systems that can take great pictures and can deal with image corrections, whether optically or with software.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Yes, I also hope Phocus will provide its corrections to the DNG file. That would give the images the longevity that I mentioned above.

In the meantime, I try to use optically corrected lenses as much as possible, so that I do not have to rely on software corrections. It is a nice alternative to the software solution, and works great, at least for me.

Hey, no pissing contest. The important thing is that we have systems that can take great pictures and can deal with image corrections, whether optically or with software.
Hi David - could you please explain what you mean by the phrase 'optically corrected lenses'?
 

David K

Workshop Member
Well tomorrow I get to shoot with my friend's H3DII-39 and my friend gets to shoot with my Sinar e75. Should be interesting.

@ Thierry,

Is there a user manual for the e75 somewhere ?
 

Arjuna

Active member
Peter, I believe that he means lenses that are so good optically (e.g. apo-chromatic, with very low distortion) that one does not feel the need to do any digital corrections. The counter-example would be the new Hasselblad H 28 mm lens, which I think pretty much demands digital correction (by design).
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yes, I also hope Phocus will provide its corrections to the DNG file. That would give the images the longevity that I mentioned above.

In the meantime, I try to use optically corrected lenses as much as possible, so that I do not have to rely on software corrections. It is a nice alternative to the software solution, and works great, at least for me.

Hey, no pissing contest. The important thing is that we have systems that can take great pictures and can deal with image corrections, whether optically or with software.
Sorry David, but it sounds like some sort of patonizing slight towards the H/C lenses again ... like they were not well corrected and need the software.

This is patiently untrue, the H/C lens line up is already highly corrected and well thought of amongst one heck of lot of demanding professional photographers doing one heck of a lot of highly visable commercial and artistic work ... work done prior to the advent of DAC corrections being recently added to the software BTW.

I've run controlled tests between H/C lenses and their Zeiss CFi or CFE counterparts, and as often as not, the H/C outperformed the Zeiss. But no lens is ever perfect, there is always some compromise ... especially at the wide angle end. The thought behind the DAC corrections is to map the compromises and aid in getting them closer to being perfect in terms of Distortion and CA especially as it applies to the current state and limitations of digital capture.

This is not a unique nor exclusive idea. For example firmware and software solutions are used to correct vignetting inherent in even the very best wide-angle optics which usually required very expensive center filters to correct the issue ... Leica being one of them.

Now it IS true that there are optics that are super highly corrected right from the get go, but they don't reside in any MF lens line-up I've seen yet. They are Digital APO view camera lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock. No moving elements and bellows focusing helps eliminate many compromises in lens design.

The net result is that a $1,500. lens outperforms a $6,000. MF equvilant lens by a mile. There are mobile cameras that allow use of these optics without the bulk of a view camera ... as Peter A and others have aptly demonstrated with their ALPAs ... or other less expensive mobile cameras sporting Digitar view lenses.

Horses for courses.
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Well tomorrow I get to shoot with my friend's H3DII-39 and my friend gets to shoot with my Sinar e75. Should be interesting.

@ Thierry,

Is there a user manual for the e75 somewhere ?
Ok, based on the weight discussion here, and the fact that the H3D has an adapter for the Alpa (I think ) The H3D II has taken over top position. Yet to be handled of course!

There is one other advantage, the MS version. This provide the potentioal for incredible resolution in long range landscape and Architecture. Better than rotating for me.

I see no downside (except $$$) for the MS. I believe same form factor. It is not likely to be much heavier (though that will depend on the technology used for the 4 cell shift)

From an IQ factor also a few more MP (since the 74LV is what I would put on the Hy6, oh maybe I am really talking the SINAR Hy6 set)

Of course, there is the live view issue-HB doesn't have it. Yet I dont even use a ground glass with alpa, I use range est and lens is well calibrated (for WA anyway)

SOOOOO...what about the LV guys?

1. Will Hb have it?
2 Does it matter?
3. Is MS THAT much better (example are quite impressive MUCH more improvement than 25MP to 39MP)
4. Will an upgrade to 60MP sinar blow that away?


This is a VERY rich compendium on top MF; this thread has people who actually use and know about these systems:salute:

say, where's PeterA?

regards
Victor
 

David Klepacki

New member
Peter, I believe that he means lenses that are so good optically (e.g. apo-chromatic, with very low distortion) that one does not feel the need to do any digital corrections. The counter-example would be the new Hasselblad H 28 mm lens, which I think pretty much demands digital correction (by design).
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Thanks.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Ok, based on the weight discussion here, and the fact that the H3D has an adapter for the Alpa (I think ) The H3D II has taken over top position. Yet to be handled of course!

There is one other advantage, the MS version. This provide the potentioal for incredible resolution in long range landscape and Architecture. Better than rotating for me.

I see no downside (except $$$) for the MS. I believe same form factor. It is not likely to be much heavier (though that will depend on the technology used for the 4 cell shift)

From an IQ factor also a few more MP (since the 74LV is what I would put on the Hy6, oh maybe I am really talking the SINAR Hy6 set)

Of course, there is the live view issue-HB doesn't have it. Yet I dont even use a ground glass with alpa, I use range est and lens is well calibrated (for WA anyway)

SOOOOO...what about the LV guys?

1. Will Hb have it?
2 Does it matter?
3. Is MS THAT much better (example are quite impressive MUCH more improvement than 25MP to 39MP)
4. Will an upgrade to 60MP sinar blow that away?


This is a VERY rich compendium on top MF; this thread has people who actually use and know about these systems:salute:

say, where's PeterA?

regards
Victor
Hasselblad has live view. It's current in Flexcolor V 4.8.5. It hasn't been implimented in Phocus Beta yet. Here's the quote from Hasselblad Product Managment:

" RE: Public Beta of Phocus: This is considered function complete except for the Live Video, Custom White features and Ixpress hardware connectivity. These features will be included in the final version of Phocus 1.0, expected to be ready by mid May."

In addition:

Phocus highlights include:

Improved Image Quality
The new Phocus RAW processor provides the ultimate in processing quality for Hasselblad digital images, including:
• Digital lens corrections for color aberration, distortion and vignetting
• Hasselblad Natural Color Solution for perfect colors
• Moiré removal based upon filtering of raw data which preserves image detail

Perfect Viewing Quality
The Phocus Viewer uses all the advanced features contained in Phocus to deliver image viewing quality that matches every detail of what you will see later in Photoshop.

New Camera Controls
Phocus provides special extended controls with which to drive your Hasselblad camera. These features, include the ability to control the lens drive for focusing when the camera is in a remote position.

Flexible Workflow
The GUI includes straightforward options for customizing your set-up to suit a number of different workflow situations, such as choice of import source, browsing/comparison functions, file management, image export in a number of file formats, pre-setting of options for upcoming shoots, and much, much more.

New Metadata (GPS, etc)
Phocus images follows the IPTC Core standard with XMP. GPS data functionality in order to allow a range of new functions. Phocus links GPS data directly to Google Earth, for example, making geographic reference a snap and image storage and retrieval much easier.

Leading Edge Moiré Removal Technology
Even extremely high resolution images can exhibit moiré under certain circumstances. With the new Phocus software, moiré is effectively removed from your images without the need to carry out special mask selections or other manual procedures. Moiré removal is performed directly on the raw data.

Peter A is on his farm for their long weekend holiday.... maybe supervising the planting of those 20,000 trees on his land ... LOL.

Yes, H3D-II backs can and are mounted on ALPAs.

Yes, Live View matters, it's VERY helpful in composing and focusing when the camera is in an awkward position, or when the back is mounted to a a View Camera. BTW, there is also an audio focusing feature that provides feed back to zero in the focus.

M/S is only for studio work where there is no subject movement. It's used for super demanding work with fine detail, etc., and for fabrics
 
Last edited:

BJNY

Member
1. Will Hb have it?
2 Does it matter?
3. Is MS THAT much better (example are quite impressive MUCH more improvement than 25MP to 39MP)
4. Will an upgrade to 60MP sinar blow that away?
http://www.alpa.ch/index.php?path=products/backs_adapters/digital_backs_and_adapters&detailpage=257

See WDS-618
http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Group502.html

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24271&view=findpost&p=184895

I read somewhere Linhof and Silvestri are working on their plates to attach Hy6/AFi digital backs.

Yes, multi-shot is THAT much better for static subjects.
 
Top