p.1 #4 · any thought on the new blad tech wizardery?
"and thanks to the large format of the H-System cameras..."
36x48 is large format? What does that make 24x36? half-large format? :-| marketing marketing...
So I guess for non-moving subjects, you're essentially getting full RGB data at each individual pixel level, eliminating the need for mosaic-ing the bayer patter spreads into a single image?
p.1 #5 · any thought on the new blad tech wizardery?
This is not new. This is the way multi-shot backs work and have worked for several years. I believe that the Jenpotic and Sinar multi-shot backs move the sensor in steps as small as a half of a pixel.
p.1 #6 · any thought on the new blad tech wizardery?
Looking at the Sinar searches on Google, it's hard to find the precise technical data on their "4 shot system" for still lives, as most every search re-directs to the revised Sinar webpage (e.g. links are broken and I cannot find a cached PDF document that explains it anymore...though a Google Search showed one exists?)
p.1 #7 · any thought on the new blad tech wizardery?
Reminded me of the Contax N (if I remember correctly) with its mechanism to "suck" the film flat against the back plate to minimize plane curvature. that didn't develop that well...
Using an analog means to resolve a digital issue is kind of backwards no?
p.1 #8 · any thought on the new blad tech wizardery?
dasrocket wrote:
Reminded me of the Contax N (if I remember correctly) with its mechanism to "suck" the film flat against the back plate to minimize plane curvature. that didn't develop that well...
It was on the RTS III and the Contax 645. It worked just fine, and particularly useful in critical applications.
dasrocket wrote:
Using an analog means to resolve a digital issue is kind of backwards no?
I'm not sure I'm getting your point, and I'm not sure what a vacuum film back has to do with multi-shot digital back.
p.1 #10 · any thought on the new blad tech wizardery?
That is a known and old technology, and actually the only way to avoid chroma aliasing effects/moire in a camera without AA-filtering. You still get some luma aliasing, depending on how well your microlens system and PD-well fill-rate work together though...
Another great benefit is that you lower the noise power in all exposure levels by (up to) exactly 1Ev, just like you would by averaging four identical exposures of already Bayer-interpolated data. But you skip the Bayer-interpolation, so you get almost 2x higher colour resolution :-) Lower noise, higher colour resolution and no (or almost no) moire in an AA-filter-less camera. That's all good in my book - for product/architectural photography - but not very convenient at a hockey-game maybe... :-)
p.1 #12 · any thought on the new blad tech wizardery?
Lotusm50 wrote:
This is not new. This is the way multi-shot backs work and have worked for several years. I believe that the Jenpotic and Sinar multi-shot backs move the sensor in steps as small as a half of a pixel.
p.1 #13 · any thought on the new blad tech wizardery?
sirimiri wrote:
Looking at the Sinar searches on Google, it's hard to find the precise technical data on their "4 shot system" for still lives, as most every search re-directs to the revised Sinar webpage (e.g. links are broken and I cannot find a cached PDF document that explains it anymore...though a Google Search showed one exists?)
p.1 #14 · any thought on the new blad tech wizardery?
Since the subject doesn't move in this scenario, options for multiple exposure go beyond an expensive Imacon back: I would simply use R/G/B filters in front of the lens. Current DSLR sensors register an adequate response in all channels - even a red site to blue light - that Bayer demosiacing can be skipped. Chroma noise can be reduced in the usual way (stacking). Of course, one must continue to interpolate for a final image, and the ugly truth about low-strength AA remains. Frankly, I don't see the payoff for all this effort: Bryce did good, right from the start!
