Slashdot Mirror
How To Get 39 Megapixels From a 53-Year-Old Camera
G3ckoG33k writes "An article at The Register Hardware describes how Hasselblad film cameras dating back to 1957 can be given a new life using a digital back to get images at a super resolution of 39 megapixels. From the article: 'The CFV-39 digital back allows you to get those cameras out from the last century and use the V-System cameras with their beautiful glass once again, it simply fits in place of where the roll film used to be. Hasselblads have never been inexpensive, but talk about a return on investment. Here is a manufacturer looking after a fiercely loyal user-base and along with it offering what could be seen as the ultimate green camera system.' Oh, by the way most pictures taken during the Apollo space program in the 1960s were taken with Hasselblad." Hasselblad's been making digital backs for quite a while now, but this one's very impressive in speed (and cost — "only" about $14,000) compared to earlier models.
Medium format film will cost you far more than $4.
http://freestylephoto.biz/83140981-Kodak-Ektar-100-iso-120-size-Single-Roll-Unboxed
$4.09 for name-brand film that happens to be one of the highest resolution and finest-grain color negative films available.
But to develop said roll of film, will cost you another $5 roughly, $4 if you're just getting processing which you want if you're scanning.
A decent medium format scanner (that will give you the quality of a digital back) runs you $2,200 + S&H that's assuming you can even get them! Film scanners, aside from the cheap crap, are getting harder and harder to come by. Flatbed scanner kind of suck and get you no where near the quality of a digital back especially a 39 MP one.
So, for the price of a digital back: $14,000 - $2200 = $11,800. $11,800/ 8 per roll = 1475 rolls of film - doesn't include postage.
That medium format back can shoot hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pictures before shitting the bed. So, each shot is less than a penny. Even if you can only get 300,000 shots of a typical pro level DSLR, that's $0.05 per shot.
Digital wins!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
It is called raw, but the other reply is otherwise incorrect. Some older DSLRs (early 2000s) used to have a TIFF option, but that isn't the same thing, just a lossless version of the processed image. RAW output is the data read off the sensor, and is pre-bayer, and other processing (usually with some lossless compression applied). Meta-data is also included, like focal length, and exposure settings.
What controls did the cameras you tried lack?
Or do you want one with no option to turn on the automatic stuff?
Its the UI. On my old K1000, the front ring on the lens is focus, back ring is D.O.F / F-stop, Mostly-Single-Function rotary dial on the top for shutter speed (and a complicated way to change film speed for the light meter, etc), a film advance lever, and a shutter release. Also a combination film rewind/back opener dial on the top. The UI is physically fast, simple, intuitive, instant to learn, lifetime to master. Like a CLI.
On the other hand, on an automatic digital Cannon from a couple years back, its clicky heaven, definitely a windows style interface. Clicky Clickly Clicky thru the menus and dials, no rhyme or reason, and maybe you can adjust the shutter speed, but not really interactively or easily. Like a GUI. Like trying to use a real camera while wearing oven mitts.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
A cheap, fairly slow film can resolve 140 lines per mm. Even on a 135 (35mm) film, that equates to 17MP. Obviously, a 17MP digital camera does not resolve 17MP, you have to anti-alias, so the actual resolution is less. I have never tested a DSLR, but I have tested the Red One film camera with a 4.5k sensor, with Master Prime lenses, resolution is close to 3.2k after debayering, anti-aliasing and low pass filtering.
This is worth a read: http://www.audioguy.co.uk/files/pdf/Arri_Digital_Camera_Basics.pdf
A good emulsion will resolve 25-30 MP on 135.
Back when I was a photo assistant a roll of medium format film (transparency) cost about $29, including the cost of getting it processed professionally, not down at the drugstore. So, being a bit lazy I'll figure $35 a roll now, which means that $14K can buy you about 400 rolls of film. To a pro photographer that is not a lot of film. The digital will pay for itself fairly quickly.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
The f-number which decides the depth of field is the ratio between the aperture and the focal length.
The real reason behind why small sensors does not work well with many pixels, is because it will make less light retrieved by individual pixel sensor (i.e. sensel). Since manufacturer tries to cramp as much pixels on a small patch, the image will worsen especially in low-light environment.
This is why FF (full-frame sensor, 135 film equivalent) and 6x6 (Hasselbrad V-system in TFA) has its market.
You're probably right about the sheer volume of halide crystals that could be shoehorned onto one square cm of film - but it would be very slow film. Low-speed films are composed of small uniform-size crystals. Faster film comes from adding larger crystals to the mix.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Not exactly. According to the specs the sensor has a 37mm x 49mm frame. 6x6 film has a 56mm x 56mm frame. So part of the lens circle will be "cropped" making those old lenses slightly more telephoto.