Any Digital Back Users?

Greg--

these are nice studio shots, but these images aren't really showing what the dicomed back can do because of the necessity of compressing them so much for the web...

ie, here's a crummy, underexposed jpg fine shot from my nikon D1---full-frame thumbnail (edited for forum) and then 100% size cropped.---to my eye it has comparable "image quality".

is it possible for you to send the crop of the eye at full resolution? ---this is a better test of what your back can do.

Greg Suvino said:

I use a Dicomed 16 million pixel digital back on a Sinar X 4x5
camera. It also can be used on a Hasselblad as well. This back
was manufactured in 1996. The CCD is larger than the new Kodak Pro
back, but I do not know if it makes much difference.

I do not do landscape photography, but do mostly product
photography. On occasion I do model testing and have used the
Dicomed back to do some black and white headshots. Here are two
images to help you see examples of the image quality.

Greg Suvino
http://www.suvinophotography.com





--
http://www.suvinophotography.com

Click to expand...

MM,

The part you cropped from your D1 image corresponds to more than 1/16 of the surface of your original picture, while the part cropped by Greg was a much much smaller part of his original Dicomed picture. I'd like to see more examples of 16 mp or more digital backs, but I am already quite convinced by Greg's example there is more there than one can get with a currently available 35 mm like digicam. Now, I'd like to see some samples taken with the forthcoming full frame 6mp Contax, as it should be also quite better than currently available 35 mm like digicams (will it really?).

By the way, too bad you had such a lot of stuck pixels that form a black rectange in your D1 pic....-

Jean-Paul

MM said:

ie, here's a crummy, underexposed jpg fine shot from my nikon
D1---full-frame thumbnail (edited for forum) and then 100% size
cropped.---to my eye it has comparable "image quality".

is it possible for you to send the crop of the eye at full
resolution? ---this is a better test of what your back can do.

Greg Suvino said:

I use a Dicomed 16 million pixel digital back on a Sinar X 4x5
camera. It also can be used on a Hasselblad as well. This back
was manufactured in 1996. The CCD is larger than the new Kodak Pro
back, but I do not know if it makes much difference.

I do not do landscape photography, but do mostly product
photography. On occasion I do model testing and have used the
Dicomed back to do some black and white headshots. Here are two
images to help you see examples of the image quality.

Greg Suvino
http://www.suvinophotography.com





--
http://www.suvinophotography.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ok lets try another example from the Dicomed 16 million pixel back utilizing a Sinar X 4x5 camera.

The following shot is the raw image, uncropped as it came from the camera. The original image is 13.653 x 13.653 inches, and produced a file that was 4096 x 4096 pixels with a file size of 48 mb without interpolation at 300 dpi. I have changed this image from 300 dpi to 72 dpi so it will load faster.

I have cropped a portion of the original image to evaluate detail. At 300 dpi the cropped area measured 1.31 x 1.44 inches. I have changed the cropped area to 72 dpi x 5.458 x 6 inches for better viewing. (this is proportional to the 300 dpi crop)

I hope this helps.

Greg Suvino
http://www.suvinophotography.com



http://www.suvinophotography.com/RB1CU.jpg--http://www.suvinophotography.com

Thank you Greg,

With this picture I feel we are really in another dimension in term of image quality with respect to current 3-6 mp digicams used by amateurs and professionals that cannot afford medium/large format digital backs or do prefer the handling of 35 mm like cameras.

Jean-Paul

Greg Suvino said:

Ok lets try another example from the Dicomed 16 million pixel back
utilizing a Sinar X 4x5 camera.

The following shot is the raw image, uncropped as it came from the
camera. The original image is 13.653 x 13.653 inches, and produced
a file that was 4096 x 4096 pixels with a file size of 48 mb
without interpolation at 300 dpi. I have changed this image from
300 dpi to 72 dpi so it will load faster.

I have cropped a portion of the original image to evaluate detail.
At 300 dpi the cropped area measured 1.31 x 1.44 inches. I have
changed the cropped area to 72 dpi x 5.458 x 6 inches for better
viewing. (this is proportional to the 300 dpi crop)

I hope this helps.

Greg Suvino
http://www.suvinophotography.com





--
http://www.suvinophotography.com

Click to expand...

I think digital backs have a place for photographers who do a lot of work, need a great amount of detail and/or need to print very large images without a great deal of interpolation, and are thinking of making the move to digital.

The new Kodak pro back is quite impressive, and the images I have seen are in every way as good as film, and it would be hard to tell if there are any differences between the two. With the fact this back can work without being tethered to a computer and it has two CF card slots, it opens up a whole new way of shooting for wedding, portrait and landscape photographers, as well as any other photographer.

With a price tag of $20,000, a photographer who does a good film business, will be able to see the savings in short order. In the first year of owning the Dicomed, our studio saved $36,000 in film, processing and polaroid cost.

I also use the Nikon D1x camera, and even thought it is hard to compare it to the Dicomed, I am very impressed with the quality of the images it produces, and often times use it in place of the Dicomed.

Digital cameras and digital back are tools for us to use, and each has their own strong points and weak points just like all film cameras.

Greg Suvino
-- http://www.suvinophotography.com

Greg Suvino said:

With a price tag of $20,000, a photographer who does a good film
business, will be able to see the savings in short order>
--

Click to expand...

How about waiting a couple months for the $7K Contax N? It has the the same sensor as many of the digital backs (Leaf, Sinar, etc.), at half the cost. And Phillips is supposed to be coming out with a full frame 4K x 3K sensor this summer. Surely (at last) these developments will drive prices down in the inflated digital back market?

John Hart

I am not saying anyone should rush out and buy a Kodak back or any other system. I am just stating the facts as they are for today.

There will always be something bigger an better and cheaper tomorrow. Anyone who owns a computer can see that by looking at what they had a few years ago and what it cost then, compared to what you can get now and what it costs today. The same is true in the digital market. But you have to jump in sometime, or else you will get left behind if you continue to wait for the perfect camera system to come along.

Every photographer has to decide for themselves what best suits their needs, and when to take the plunge.

Greg Suvino-- http://www.suvinophotography.com

I agree entirely, but sometimes in the course of technology evolution there are giant steps. It seems to me that the implementation of large low noise sensors in 35mm cameras is finally happening (Nikon and Canon must soon follow Contax), and that finally the price of these digital backs may be forced downwards. One just should keep as up on near-term trends as possible when considering the plunge.

JH

Greg Suvino said:

I am not saying anyone should rush out and buy a Kodak back or any
other system. I am just stating the facts as they are for today.

There will always be something bigger an better and cheaper
tomorrow. Anyone who owns a computer can see that by looking at
what they had a few years ago and what it cost then, compared to
what you can get now and what it costs today. The same is true in
the digital market. But you have to jump in sometime, or else you
will get left behind if you continue to wait for the perfect camera
system to come along.

Every photographer has to decide for themselves what best suits
their needs, and when to take the plunge.

Greg Suvino
--
http://www.suvinophotography.com

Click to expand...

So what would you recomend if the desire was to shoot digital, and the goal was to produce a 20x30" print of a landscape with the same quality and level of detail as a 4x5 view camera?

Are we there yet?

Michael that's a tough call. You might be able to get away in todays market with the Kodak pro back and computer interpolation and end up with what you want. But to be very honest, it is hard to beat 4x5 film for detail. Espcially if you shoot Fuji Velvia 4x5 film. It is hard to beat 50 asa 4x5 film for detail. I love digital, but I am realistic in its limitations.

In the studio I have shot jewelry shots with the Dicomed 16mp digital back and then the same shot with a 4x5 camera using Kodak Ektachrome Plus 100 film, and the film just flat out has more detail than the digital image. So for something like a landscape shot in which you want to be able to capture a great amount of detail, I still think 4x5 film is hard to beat.

Greg Suvino

Michael Long said:

So what would you recomend if the desire was to shoot digital, and
the goal was to produce a 20x30" print of a landscape with the same
quality and level of detail as a 4x5 view camera?

Are we there yet?

Click to expand...

-- http://www.suvinophotography.com

Michael Long said:

So what would you recomend if the desire was to shoot digital, and
the goal was to produce a 20x30" print of a landscape with the same
quality and level of detail as a 4x5 view camera?

Are we there yet?

Click to expand...

I think you first need to ask what the accepted viewing angle will be. If folks will be walking up to your print, to just a few inches away, expecting to get into the detail, then you need 4x5 or a scanning back. Arrays (even 4K x 4K) will not be good enuf.

IMO I think it is unfair to let people do this. A big print should be viewed from a distance that gives a wide angle of view, but not too wide. I prefer to look at prints from a distance about equal to its width (about 50 degrees). Since the eye can resolve about 2000 lines across this angle of view, then a 4K x 4K or even a 3K x 2K would produce a "good" print at 20" x 30" under these conditions. If you want 100 degree viewing angle (head is about 1/2 the width away), then stick with 4x5. It's simply a matter of how the prints will be viewed. I know some landscape photographers that should 8x10 films in B&W for the sole purpose of exceeding human vision in their prints. You can walk into these.

John Hart

John Hart

john hart said:

I think you first need to ask what the accepted viewing angle will be....
IMO I think it is unfair to let people do this. A big print should be
viewed from a distance that gives a wide angle of view, but not
too wide.

Click to expand...

On the one hand, I agree it's not fair, on the other, that's one of the things for which buyers of fine art/gallery photopgraphy will pay.

Walk into a gallery with an 20x30" print (or larger) stretched along one wall, where all of the detail is tack sharp when viewed from a foot away, and then check out the price tag.

People know that if they try to do that with their 35mm cameras their shot will turn to mush. Even if they use Velvia looking through L glass on a tripod with mirror lockup and a timer.....

As to the size, that's what I'm trying to determine. A 3.3MP D30 is giving me 8x12s with detail close to what I'm looking for, but they fall apart above that.

As such, a 8MB back should get me to 16x20, unfortunately, the numbers mean I need a 25MP back (at least) to get to 20x30.

Got to get those camera manufactuers working harder!!!!

Yes, there is a difference between painting (where Renoir would probably not want you to view just a fraction of his picture) and some art-photography where people will indeed be impressed by and pay for extra finescale detail. Art is art.

Using ratios of areas I get 3.3MP at 8x12, 13Mp at 16 x 24, and 20Mp at 20 x 30. Thus a 16Mp back is, taking advantage of digital filters, etc., pretty close to there.

John Hart

Michael Long said:

As to the size, that's what I'm trying to determine. A 3.3MP D30 is
giving me 8x12s with detail close to what I'm looking for, but they
fall apart above that.

As such, a 8MB back should get me to 16x20, unfortunately, the
numbers mean I need a 25MP back (at least) to get to 20x30.

Got to get those camera manufactuers working harder!!!!

Click to expand...

John. do you have a link on the Philips forthcoming 12 mp sensor?

And the 6 mp sensor that will come with the Contax N has a 24 X 36 mm surface if I understand well. Is it really the same that is used by digital backs you cited (Leaf, Sinar) in which case this would mean these digital back are not exploiting the full size the medium format lens would allow but only a small portion (with then a big multiplication factor on the focal lens). Sure??

Jean-Paul

John Hart said:

Greg Suvino said:

With a price tag of $20,000, a photographer who does a good film
business, will be able to see the savings in short order>
--

Click to expand...

How about waiting a couple months for the $7K Contax N? It has the
the same sensor as many of the digital backs (Leaf, Sinar, etc.),
at half the cost. And Phillips is supposed to be coming out with
a full frame 4K x 3K sensor this summer. Surely (at last) these
developments will drive prices down in the inflated digital back
market?

John Hart

Click to expand...

Greg Suvino said:

Michael that's a tough call. You might be able to get away in
todays market with the Kodak pro back and computer interpolation
and end up with what you want. But to be very honest, it is hard
to beat 4x5 film for detail. Espcially if you shoot Fuji Velvia
4x5 film. It is hard to beat 50 asa 4x5 film for detail. I love
digital, but I am realistic in its limitations.

In the studio I have shot jewelry shots with the Dicomed 16mp
digital back and then the same shot with a 4x5 camera using Kodak
Ektachrome Plus 100 film, and the film just flat out has more
detail than the digital image. So for something like a landscape
shot in which you want to be able to capture a great amount of
detail, I still think 4x5 film is hard to beat.

Greg Suvino

Click to expand...

but what can you say about scanning backs in comparison with 4x5
for example: power phase fx
it can beat 4x5 by details, why not

regards, andrey

We were talking about shooting outdoor landscapes. It would be a bit difficult to take a 4x5 camera out with a scanning back to do landscape photography. Plus it is my understanding that with a scanning back, the subject matter cannot move. Scan backs are great in a studio,(very slow though), and have a great amount of detail, but I don't see how someone could work outdoors on location with one, especially if they are in the middle of nowhere with no electricity. For landscape photographers it would seem much easier to go out on location with a 4x5 field camera and some film holders, shoot on film, and then if you wanted a digital version, have the film scanned. The best of both worlds.

Greg Suvino

andrey said:

but what can you say about scanning backs in comparison with 4x5
for example: power phase fx
it can beat 4x5 by details, why not

regards, andrey

Click to expand...

-- http://www.suvinophotography.com

SFJP said:

John. do you have a link on the Philips forthcoming 12 mp sensor?

Click to expand...

Check the November 2001 news archives. Here is a copy of the lead:

Jenoptik has announced that its 'eyelike' medium format back is ready for a new 11 megapixel chip from Philips. This new chip, expected Summer 2002 will have a resolution of 4008 x 2672 pixels. Currently the 'eyelike' medium format back uses the Philips 6 megapixel chip (3072 x 2048). It is driven by a PC through a fiber optic link or Firewire (optional kit). The 'eyelike' has adapters available for Hasselblad, Contax 645, Mamiya 645 AF, Mamiya RZ, Fuji GX 680, Bronica ETR, Rolleiflex 600x and more.

SFJP said:

And the 6 mp sensor that will come with the Contax N has a 24 X 36
mm surface if I understand well. Is it really the same that is used
by digital backs you cited (Leaf, Sinar) in which case this would
mean these digital back are not exploiting the full size the medium
format lens would allow but only a small portion (with then a big
multiplication factor on the focal lens). Sure??

Jean-Paul

Click to expand...

Yes, the digital backs that use array sensors have large multiplication factor. Even with the Kodak pro back the sensor is 36mm x 36mm, so the multiplication factor is 54/36 = 1.5X. Only scanning backs have lower factors.

Stephen Johnson:

http://www.sjphoto.com/

does just that. I have seen prints from an Epson 9500 on watercolor paper.

Amazing!

http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi008/pi008.html

Uwe ( http://www.outbackphoto.com )

Greg Suvino said:

Greg Suvino

Member said:

but what can you say about scanning backs in comparison with 4x5
for example: power phase fx
it can beat 4x5 by details, why not

regards, andrey

Click to expand...

--
http://www.suvinophotography.com

Click to expand...

It's close, but if I chop off a quarter of the pixels (4Kx4K) to get to a 3/4 format it's back down to 12 again....

There are a few problems with trying to guage relative quality simply by counting pixels. The primary problem is it assumes a pixel is a pixel, regardless of its source. This is a vast oversimplification that is rampant throughotu the industry.

The simple fact is, a bunch of crappy pixels makes a crappy image, whereas a smaller number of accurate pixels can make a beautiful image. Also, when considering factors like interpolation (regardless of methodology-- bicubic, fractal or what have you) the final result can only be as good as the source data. Garbage in, garbage out.

No two digital cameras (or camera backs) that use the same sensor will produce an identical file (even when used on an identical lens under identical lighting, etc.), and the two images will thus vary in "quality"

(however you measure it). Therefore the enlargement capability of digital capture systems cannot be measured in megapixels alone.

John Hart said:

Using ratios of areas I get 3.3MP at 8x12, 13Mp at 16 x 24, and
20Mp at 20 x 30. Thus a 16Mp back is, taking advantage of digital
filters, etc., pretty close to there.

John Hart

Click to expand...