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.
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.
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
Do you really, really think that somebody who owns a Hasselblad is going to drop $14k on it just because digital is the new hotness?
No.
They're going to do it if they have a job they can do with the digital back that can't be done with film.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Why would your cat have its own fridge, and why would you hang your photos there?
LOL, you think those CDs are archival? You think magnetic hard drives aren't vulnerable to data loss/corruption? You think flash memory can't go bad?
Of course you can lose data on a computer. BUT, it's way easier to back up a computer file than it is a film negative. I can copy it to a second USB hard drive and leave it at a friend's house. I can upload photos to Mozy. I can rent a server somewhere and upload my data to that.
Way easier than arranging some way to copy all my film negatives, figuring out somewhere to store it in a proper environment, etc., and even then it wouldn't be lossless like backing up data is.
In the "which is easiest to prevent data loss" wars, digital wins hands down.
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/
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.