This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011An 8x10 inch digital back
p.1 #1An 8x10 inch digital back
... basically a digital Polaroid substitute. I take my hat off to this guy!
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/
Aug 23, 2011 at 10:48 AM
p.1 #2An 8x10 inch digital back
What, 10 years and they'll be avail for low $teens? I'd shoot with one!
Aug 23, 2011 at 10:57 AM
p.1 #3An 8x10 inch digital back
looking forward to shooting multi-row panos with that
Aug 23, 2011 at 11:16 AM
p.1 #4An 8x10 inch digital back
It's way over my head, but it's hard to imagine the context where the digital capture is still insufficient, given that high-end medium format is used for fashion now, right? Would you think the quality of the sensor image is that poor?
Aug 23, 2011 at 11:22 AM
p.1 #5An 8x10 inch digital back
joekraft wrote:
It's way over my head, but it's hard to imagine the context where the digital capture is still insufficient, given that high-end medium format is used for fashion now, right? Would you think the quality of the sensor image is that poor?
it might be, and maybe monochrome too. I wrote to the guy who built it and asked if he could show me a sample. If it happens, I'll post it here.
It's way over my head, but it's hard to imagine the context where the digital capture is still insufficient, given that high-end medium format is used for fashion now, right? Would you think the quality of the sensor image is that poor?
it might be, and maybe monochrome too. I wrote to the guy who built it and asked if he could show me a sample. If it happens, I'll post it here.
Aug 23, 2011 at 11:51 AM
p.1 #6An 8x10 inch digital back
I think a 5x4 version would be of particular interest, but only at the right price, and that's not one with 6 figures!
One day...
JJ
One day...
JJ
Aug 23, 2011 at 04:06 PM
p.1 #7An 8x10 inch digital back
JohnJ wrote:
I think a 5x4 version would be of particular interest, but only at the right price, and that's not one with 5 figures!
One day...
JJ
ftfy!
I think a 5x4 version would be of particular interest, but only at the right price, and that's not one with 5 figures!
One day...
JJ
ftfy!
Aug 23, 2011 at 04:09 PM
p.1 #8An 8x10 inch digital back
I would love a full 67 or 4x5 sensor at a 4-digit price. I don't expect it in the next 5 years though, maybe not even 10.
Aug 23, 2011 at 04:10 PM
p.1 #9An 8x10 inch digital back
That's awesome and I'd give an arm and a leg for one (although nobody will pay me six figures for them 
).
I can't help but wondering though why the guy did not just use a scanning back. He does product photography - it's not like the stuff moves around... Still, a very impressive achievement.
I wonder how they did it. You can't just buy a bunch of smaller sensors and put them side by side - there's a lot of electronics in the way...
As for image quality - this is what the constructor wrote:
A number of people have emailed me regarding the back’s specs. The device creates images a bit over 10MP; when cropped to correspond to 8×10 the final image size is 3285 x 2611. The image is 16bit, in RGB. Quality is excellent, due in part to the large pixel pitch. I am currently on vacation, so I can not post any examples. The image quality is not exemplary, but similar to a very high quality amateur camera of similar resolution. I do not use the back for final art; it simply does not have enough pixels to go to print.
10 MP makes it unfortunately an academic exercise rather than a serious tool.
Edited on Aug 23, 2011 at 04:22 PM · View previous versions
). I can't help but wondering though why the guy did not just use a scanning back. He does product photography - it's not like the stuff moves around... Still, a very impressive achievement.
I wonder how they did it. You can't just buy a bunch of smaller sensors and put them side by side - there's a lot of electronics in the way...
As for image quality - this is what the constructor wrote:
A number of people have emailed me regarding the back’s specs. The device creates images a bit over 10MP; when cropped to correspond to 8×10 the final image size is 3285 x 2611. The image is 16bit, in RGB. Quality is excellent, due in part to the large pixel pitch. I am currently on vacation, so I can not post any examples. The image quality is not exemplary, but similar to a very high quality amateur camera of similar resolution. I do not use the back for final art; it simply does not have enough pixels to go to print.
10 MP makes it unfortunately an academic exercise rather than a serious tool.
Edited on Aug 23, 2011 at 04:22 PM · View previous versions
Aug 23, 2011 at 04:11 PM
p.1 #11An 8x10 inch digital back
In addition to the strobe point, he also mentions portraits somewhere. Not impossible, especially since I imagine he might be dealing with longish exposure times anyway, but certainly not ideal.
Aug 23, 2011 at 04:22 PM
p.1 #12An 8x10 inch digital back
denoir wrote:
Ah, this makes sense to me know. The owner of the back is simply using it as a replacement for his 8x10 Polaroids only, so that he can judge exposure before making his real captures with 8x10 sheets. It seems like a costly endeavor, but, I guess if makes sense if he was spending $50K a year on throw-away Polaroids in the first place.
Earlier quote
A number of people have emailed me regarding the back’s specs. The device creates images a bit over 10MP; when cropped to correspond to 8×10 the final image size is 3285 x 2611. The image is 16bit, in RGB. Quality is excellent, due in part to the large pixel pitch. I am currently on vacation, so I can not post any examples. The image quality is not exemplary, but similar to a very high quality amateur camera of similar resolution. I do not use the back for final art; it simply does not have enough pixels to go to print.Ah, this makes sense to me know. The owner of the back is simply using it as a replacement for his 8x10 Polaroids only, so that he can judge exposure before making his real captures with 8x10 sheets. It seems like a costly endeavor, but, I guess if makes sense if he was spending $50K a year on throw-away Polaroids in the first place.
Aug 23, 2011 at 04:43 PM
p.1 #13An 8x10 inch digital back
Hmm. Fair point about the strobes. Yeah I guess it wouldn't work all that well with a scanning back and you'd have to replace them with some fixed light unit.
Aug 23, 2011 at 05:07 PM
p.1 #14An 8x10 inch digital back
Aha. Missed that in the comments, thanks. Sounds like an odd bird to get that low a resolution out of it. Must not be very noisy.
denoir wrote:
As for image quality - this is what the constructor wrote:
denoir wrote:
As for image quality - this is what the constructor wrote:
Earlier quote
A number of people have emailed me regarding the back’s specs. The device creates images a bit over 10MP; when cropped to correspond to 8×10 the final image size is 3285 x 2611. The image is 16bit, in RGB. Quality is excellent, due in part to the large pixel pitch. I am currently on vacation, so I can not post any examples. The image quality is not exemplary, but similar to a very high quality amateur camera of similar resolution. I do not use the back for final art; it simply does not have enough pixels to go to print.Aug 23, 2011 at 05:09 PM
p.1 #15An 8x10 inch digital back
denoir wrote:
Hmm. Fair point about the strobes. Yeah I guess it wouldn't work all that well with a scanning back and you'd have to replace them with some fixed light unit.
And you'd have to make sure your step duration was in sync with the frequency of the lights.
Hmm. Fair point about the strobes. Yeah I guess it wouldn't work all that well with a scanning back and you'd have to replace them with some fixed light unit.
And you'd have to make sure your step duration was in sync with the frequency of the lights.
Aug 23, 2011 at 05:10 PM
p.1 #16An 8x10 inch digital back
It would be nice to be rid of that parasite 5d2...
http://www.johnjovic.com/temp/Sinar/Sinar_5d2.jpg
JJ
http://www.johnjovic.com/temp/Sinar/Sinar_5d2.jpg
JJ
Aug 23, 2011 at 05:11 PM
p.1 #17An 8x10 inch digital back
douglasf13 wrote:
The owner of the back is simply using it as a replacement for his 8x10 Polaroids only, so that he can judge exposure before making his real captures with 8x10 sheets.
Hmmm.... Wouldn't ground glass with a wide angle macro/copy camera behind be a heck of a lot cheaper and achieve the same result?
Ken
The owner of the back is simply using it as a replacement for his 8x10 Polaroids only, so that he can judge exposure before making his real captures with 8x10 sheets.
Hmmm.... Wouldn't ground glass with a wide angle macro/copy camera behind be a heck of a lot cheaper and achieve the same result?
Ken
Aug 23, 2011 at 07:21 PM
p.1 #18An 8x10 inch digital back
It seems that the Impossible Project might still be making and selling 8x10 Polaroid. Anyway the guy who commissioned this 8x10 back did mention that he was spending $50K a year just on Polaroids so maybe it was an economical decision, not just a lack of Polaroid stock.
http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film
http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film
Aug 28, 2011 at 03:37 AM