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.
Film. You know, that cellulose acetate image capture and storage medium that uses silver halides? You might remember it from "last century".
Why not just shoot a $4 roll of film, and scan it on a $200 flatbed scanner at a mere 2400DPI for a fat 30 megapixel image, plus you have an in-camera archival backup slide, which can later be drum-scanned at an even higher resolution if needed?
And you don't even need batteries.
It's nice to see a capability like this being added to such an old design. Personally I'd like to see a camera manufacturer or third party come out with digital versions of old manual focus SLR greats like the K1000, or produce reasonably priced digital backs for them.
I've got news for Mr. Santayana: we're doomed to repeat the past no matter what. That's what it is to be alive.
I own a blad, but there is no way I can afford this back (yet). Nor would it be justified for the shooting I do. That said, if Nikon would offer backs that would fit their older cameras I would be in the market, especially if they were <$1000 and FX sensor size, even if "only" 6 to 10 MP.
Dear Nikon:
I want a digital back for my F3HP and my 90s please.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
That's not the point, cellphones can have a ton of megapixels but with their tiny lens setup the image will be garbage no matter how fine grained the sensor is. This isn't about getting more megapixels, it's about getting digital images out of expensive old cameras with very expensive lens setups.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
One thing you just cannot physically get with small lenses and small CCD-areas like in you phone is plenty of light without too much distortions. There's a reason there's a DSLR market. And i you want to to make a moving picture, you're gonna have to settle with even lesser amounts of light per frame/photo per unit area, which is why almost any good movie camera is an oversized machine on wheels with cannons (not the brand!) for lenses. Obviously there's a good enough for people like you and me, but Hasselsblads are targeted at the high end of high end, for the cases in which physics leaves you no other choice.
Why would your cat have its own fridge, and why would you hang your photos there?
Two problems. The sensor is barely what could be called "medium format". The article says these sensors are 36.7 x 49 mm. That's basically twice the size of the standard 35 mm frame (36 x 24 mm). Even 6x4.5 is bigger than that.
The other problem is bigger - price. For $14K you could get several medium format film cameras and lenses (e.g Hasselblad/Zeiss, Mamiya, Fuji, Bronica, etc), a very good film scanner (e.g Hasselblad Flextight X5), a big server to store your scans on, plus a fridge full of film.
You'd only go the digital route if you need fast turn-around. For everything else, I'd rather go the film option, thanks.
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.
They've been doing this ever since the first digital backs came out in 1992. You put the back on your 'blad (or, generally speaking, any MF cam you can mount your back on to - I've seen hacks putting them onto Rollei TLRs), connect a cable to PC sync port in the lens (where the shutter is) and you're good to go. If you need to trigger strobes, most backs have their own PC sync. Ta-da.
Seriously, you can put a MF back on a shoebox with a pinhole in it and you'll get a picture, just short the PC sync cable to fire it. Soooo not news.
Maybe it will if marketing wants it to but if it does they will be shit 50 megapixel shots.
The trouble is putting lots of megapixels on a small sensor doesn't work very well for a couple of reasons.
Firstly the coverage factor is poor on small high resolution sensors, most sensor types need some space between the active cells for various reasons, so more pixels means LESS active area.
Secondly as I understand it (i've done a little bit on optics but i'm not an expert) depth of field is related to the ratio between aperture and sensor size. So if you want lots of light (and you DO want lots of light because of "shot noise") AND a reasonable depth of field you need a big sensor.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I'd like to see a hack of old movie cameras. If someone would replace the film cartridge area with a cheap, off-the-shelf elctronic video system, that would be awesome.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I routinely shoot the other way around: old Pentax and Nikon lenses on my DSLR (Canon Digital Rebel series), with suitable lens adapters. The best adapters are the M42 to EOS adapters, which let you use Pentax screwmount lenses. The digital imaging doesn't cut you any slack, a crummy lens makes crummy pictures, while a good lens makes good pictures. Plus all that old-fashioned lens flare, cool bokeh, and more. Fun.
The Nikon adapters aren't as solid. Maybe it's the fault of my cheap Ebay adapter. Nikon made some amazing lenses in the F2/F3 era.
Forget automation, of course: stop down metering, manual focus.
...laura
Yes, but that's for 35mm format. You're talking roughly $3 per frame for the developing alone, no prints. And if you want them to do the prints you're probably talking about at least another $7 there. At that rate, you'd break even at only 1400 prints.
You're definitely not going to equal the quality with any 35mm or digital of similar frame size. It's just not going to happen, even with expert technique.
Not to mention that a scanned image will never achieve the same quality as a born-digital picture. Also, convenience. If you take hundreds of shots, and factor in the time spent in getting them processed, then scanned, you'll be loosing a lot (compare to just plug in your camera and there are your pictures).
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
And i you want to to make a moving picture, you're gonna have to settle with even lesser amounts of light per frame/photo per unit area,
Actually, when shooting motion pictures on film, the typical shutter speed is 1/48th of a second to provide proper motion blur, while that shutter speed is considered fairly long by still photography standards. You can get away with shooting movies with a lot less light than a still photographer is going to be able to get away with.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
I've still got the Hasselblad I bought when I graduated college. It cost me $1000 and was all the money I had back then. With a kid in college now, there's no way I could ever afford a digital back for my camera. But the notion of being able to shoot in that beautiful square format and then upload the huge RAW file to Photoshop is a dream.
While I'm dreaming, I'd like to be able to afford a digital back for my 11x14 Deardorff, too.
(my wife says "Dream for 10 million dollars and a thicker cock, while you're at it". Thanks a lot, hon.)
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
A high-end camera with no lens will give you grey or black, or occasionally multi-colored blurry, fuzzy blobs at the very best. I think you meant "a high end camera with the most basic kit lens"
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
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.
He also keeps his last cat in there.