Robert Randall wrote:

You are very observant. As you will note from the original post, one was shot with a Leaf back, and one was shot with a Canon.

Too funny!!!!

Clique7 Studios wrote:
Hasselblad offers it's latest creation priced at $22,000.00 to $36,000.00 for the pro pack. Granted it shoots at 50 megapixels, but $36,000.00?

Does anyone own one of these beasts, handled one or used one? Obviously it's an excellent camera, but $36,000.00???

QUESTION:  How big of a file does "50 megapixels" translate to . . . as TIFF . . . as JPEG . . . printable dimensions at 300DPI???

Robert Randall wrote:
one inch square from a Canon 1Ds Mark III using default settings.
...

one inch square from a Leaf Aptus 75S on A Hasselblad H2 using default settings.

...

Same girl, same lipstick, same gray card for white balance, same lighting. The girl was slightly smaller in terms of composition in the Leaf image.

Thanks for the examples.  Are you serious about the color shift in the lipstick?  I don't see how they could be so different if both are balanced...that's huge.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
QUESTION:  How big of a file does "50 megapixels" translate to . . . as TIFF . . . as JPEG . . . printable dimensions at 300DPI???

not sure of the 50, but my P65 gives me a 346meg file in rgb 16 bit

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

QUESTION:  How big of a file does "50 megapixels" translate to . . . as TIFF . . . as JPEG . . . printable dimensions at 300DPI???

RAW 3FR capture 65 MB on 
average. TIFF 8 bit: 150 MB

Apfel Photography wrote:

Well, seeing that there many commercial photographers doing $30,000.00 to $100,000.00 commercial assignments, this price is completely acceptable.

My buddy, who is a pro, knew a guy that was paid $98,000 for an hour shoot for promotional materials for a major studio Hollywood movie.  It is these kind of photogs using this equipment and it makes sense for them to do so.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
QUESTION:  How big of a file does "50 megapixels" translate to . . . as TIFF . . . as JPEG . . . printable dimensions at 300DPI???

It would be roughly 6000 x 8000 pixels ... or approx 20" x 27" at 300DPI.

PhotosbyChuck wrote:

Thanks for the examples.  Are you serious about the color shift in the lipstick?  I don't see how they could be so different if both are balanced...that's huge.

same logic would apply to how can one WB for accurate color and then adjust tone in capture, like a picture style, would that not alter the interpretation of the colors?

And yet, they do, and then we adjust more in a raw converter to get different colors, and again the WB is accurate, but the colors shift, strange huh 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

StephenEastwood wrote:
same logic would apply to how can one WB for accurate color and then adjust tone in capture, like a picture style, would that not alter the interpretation of the colors?

And yet, they do, and then we adjust more in a raw converter to get different colors, and again the WB is accurate, but the colors shift, strange huh 

I'd expect a difference, but the amount of shift is surprising!

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

I saw one of those or whatever Kodak was based on a 8008 body, it was $200 or $150 on craigslist. I almost bought it just to have one...




Couldn't you get a loan for one that would come out to $500-600 a month for a few years?

Either way 2-3 regular jobs a month in your market would easily pay for it.

Andrew,

I'll bet my cowboy boots are older than you?  The Old Kodak / Nikon you saw was a DCS 420, which is a very different setup, earlier.  The 460 was and in the studio still is a really sweet, but slow 6.1 CCD DSLR based on a Nikon N-90s.  The CCD is the sharpest sensor I have ever seen, yea it was originally built by Kodak for NASA.

Sorry pal, but you should listen to your elders....

Chuck

PhotosbyChuck wrote:

Thanks for the examples.  Are you serious about the color shift in the lipstick?  I don't see how they could be so different if both are balanced...that's huge.

The lips were at different angles to the light, as I imagine was the gray card I used for white point, and I did use default settings from raw. I must say that I experience a great deal of variation in color, channel density, and sharpness when using the Canon. And it doesn't seem to matter whether I use Canon software or Adobe software. Phase, according to the reps at Pro Gear in Chicago, doesn't support the Mark III yet, that might be better.

Robert Randall wrote:

The lips were at different angles to the light, as I imagine was the gray card I used for white point, and I did use default settings from raw. I must say that I experience a great deal of variation in color, channel density, and sharpness when using the Canon. And it doesn't seem to matter whether I use Canon software or Adobe software. Phase, according to the reps at Pro Gear in Chicago, doesn't support the Mark III yet, that might be better.

as for sharpness some has to do with the anti aliasing filter, but otherwise I ask do you use zooms or primes? and have you set the microfocus adjustment for each lens?  Can make huge differences.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

BCADULTART wrote:
Andrew,

I'll bet my cowboy boots are older than you?  The Old Kodak / Nikon you saw was a DCS 420, which is a very different setup, earlier.  The 460 was and in the studio still is a really sweet, but slow 6.1 CCD DSLR based on a Nikon N-90s.  The CCD is the sharpest sensor I have ever seen, yea it was originally built by Kodak for NASA.

Sorry pal, but you should listen to your elders....

Chuck

it was this one,

Robert Randall wrote:
one inch square from a Canon 1Ds Mark III using default settings.



one inch square from a Leaf Aptus 75S on A Hasselblad H2 using default settings.



Same girl, same lipstick, same gray card for white balance, same lighting. The girl was slightly smaller in terms of composition in the Leaf image.

Holy shit! My next question was would somebody please post some comparision pics?

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
QUESTION:  How big of a file does "50 megapixels" translate to . . . as TIFF . . . as JPEG . . . printable dimensions at 300DPI???

StephenEastwood wrote:
not sure of the 50, but my P65 gives me a 346meg file in rgb 16 bit

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Thanks Stephen . . . how many megapixels is the P65?

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
QUESTION:  How big of a file does "50 megapixels" translate to . . . as TIFF . . . as JPEG . . . printable dimensions at 300DPI???

Thanks Stephen . . . how many megapixels is the P65?

60


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
RAW 3FR capture 65 MB on 
average. TIFF 8 bit: 150 MB

Thanks!  The 3FR is a digital back?  If so, how many megapixels is that?

H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
My own 31mp H3D produces tiff 16bit files at 181mb & 3FR raw files at 50mb +-

Oops!  It appears you have answered my question.

Clique7 Studios wrote:
Hasselblad offers it's latest creation priced at $22,000.00 to $36,000.00 for the pro pack. Granted it shoots at 50 megapixels, but $36,000.00?

Does anyone own one of these beasts, handled one or used one? Obviously it's an excellent camera, but $36,000.00???

If they're anything like its Rolleiflex counterpart, they're likely targeting the doctor/lawyer market.

Robert Randall wrote:

2

Bob,

I always thought you just walked on water and images appeared?

Just kidding. Thanks for posting the comparision images. And again I'll say holy shit! What a difference.

I'm going to get a Hassy tomorrow. Think BH will take a series of post dated checks? 30 or so?

Farenell Photography wrote:

If they're anything like its Rolleiflex counterpart, they're likely targeting the doctor/lawyer market.

We have 2 of the Leaf Aptus II - 10  56mp backs for our Contax 645 systems and as backup a Phase One P45+ and a Leaf Aptus 75s.  They are in use almost daily.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
Well, all the pros seem to think that it's worth $36,000.

But there are a lot pros that rent them and won't buy them. If you have insurance, you can rent them pretty cheap. There are a few places near me that rent the entire system.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
so my hands are going to be cut off for thinking differently? its always funny how that comes out and i thought photography was quite liberal

Not at all.

You've made it quite clear that your opinion is the cameras are not worth the price.
You've made it clear you don't 'need' such a camera.
You've made it clear that your opinion is that they're "expensive cause they use bs marketing"

Youve simply failed to provide anyone with any reason to care what your opinion about this is, or to provide any facts to support your opinion.

There's no penalty, other than making it harder to get people to listen if/when you have something useful to contribute in the future.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
oh and i know quite something about bs selling, point of sale systems are basically bs systems, the bottom line of how much those systems cost can be up to $5,500 max, they are sold starting from $45,000 per station and a store might have at least 8 stations.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of 'point of sale' as it refers to photographs.

MF digital backs have a place, just as the scanning backs still do. (Need artwork copies at resolutions such as 10,200 x 13,600 at 16 bits? Try a BetterLight back.) It might not be useful for everyone, but neither are SLRs.

Kevin Connery wrote:
MF digital backs have a place, just as the scanning backs still do. (Need artwork copies at resolutions such as 10,200 x 13,600 at 16 bits? Try a BetterLight back.) It might not be useful for everyone, but neither are SLRs.

I want one!

Kevin Connery wrote:
Quite true.

Consider Canons 2 megapixel D2000 (AKA Kodak DCS520): MSRP was over $15,000 when it came out--and many professionals considered it worth buying.

Bought my DCS520, 2MP used in 2002 for about $700 to replace the DCS3C that I bought used in 1999 for $2500.  The DCS560, 6MP camera had MSRP of about $30K which seems to be more expensive than the Hassy when inflation is considered.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the big drawback of some (perhaps not all) of the MF digital cameras, such as the H3D. They are superb at ISO 100 (or 50). They are usable at ISO 400. They are, well, not good above ISO 400.

So they work brilliantly in the studio, and can be used in sunlight, or where you can ensure there's plenty of light, but don't plan on using them to shoot in places where you need to use ISO 1600 or higher. In those sorts of conditions you'll probably see the owner of an H3D shooting with a 1Ds or D3x.

As someone mentioned, there are places where a scanning back will produce the best results (reproduction work is an excellent example). You won't see people shooting motor sport with a scanning back, though.

Different tools for different jobs.

So far the iso limitations have not been an issue... I just take my profoto battery packs & shoot at iso100 on location... iso is only going to be a problem when you dont pack location lighting.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
QUESTION:  How big of a file does "50 megapixels" translate to . . . as TIFF . . . as JPEG . . . printable dimensions at 300DPI???

StephenEastwood wrote:
not sure of the 50, but my P65 gives me a 346meg file in rgb 16 bit

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
Thanks Stephen . . . how many megapixels is the P65?

StephenEastwood wrote:

60


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Hmmm . . . that's a slightly smaller file size than I get from a comparable scan of my color 6x7 transparencies on Minolta DiMage or Nikon CoolScan which average around 370+MB.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
QUESTION:  How big of a file does "50 megapixels" translate to . . . as TIFF . . . as JPEG . . . printable dimensions at 300DPI???

StephenEastwood wrote:
not sure of the 50, but my P65 gives me a 346meg file in rgb 16 bit

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
Thanks Stephen . . . how many megapixels is the P65?

Hmmm . . . that's a slightly smaller file size than I get from a comparable scan of my color 6x7 transparencies on Minolta DiMage or Nikon CoolScan which average around 370+MB.

You can bump up the file size of scans of 6x7 chromes all you want---but the level of detail, amount of QUALITY information in the file, and quality of a capture made with a P45+/P65+ (or equivalent from Leaf and Hasselblad) will far exceed the film scan.

And that's with the simple press of the shutter button.

Let's print big.

Erick Kush Photography wrote:
$220-$240/scan?!!! are you kidding me?... heck no. Every lab I scanned at is $50-60. Think about it. Drum scanners have come down in price and you can get one for $12K and that's for a Hasselblad drum scanner, I've seen some go for $3-5K. All you would have to do is scan 1 set and you'd meet that price. Maybe some labs are different then others but all the medium format slides I took to my lab were only $50-$60/per.

Please send me lab contact info.  Every reputable lab I have used and still use charge me $220.00 for 16-bit 4x5 drum scans and $245.00 doe 16-bit 8x10 scans.  $50-60 is what I pay for 35mm to 125mm 16-bit drum scanning.

If you read what I responding to you would have noted that the individual was stating that there was no reason to pay $30k for the new Hassy when you could match it pixel for pixel when shooting a 4x5 and 8x10 film camera.  I believe at 50MP, a film 125mm will not match it pixel to pixel when scanned.

Fast Trax wrote:
You have to be making oodles of moolah to justify that purchase. The depreciation on that piece would be probably result in salvage value of 20 cents on the dollar within a few years.

Technology is moving at such a fast pace. You can get 21 megapixels with cutting edge low noise for $2,700 a la the 5D ii, or spend 7K and get Nikon's top unit. Both will provide fantastic images in the hands of a talented photographer.

I dont care how old it is, Id love a 50mp MF digital camera system that only cost a few k, woo depreciation! guess I'll own one in 5+ years?


And for much less, you can set yourself up with a nice 6x7 film kit + flatbed scanner (like the V700 which is capable of 2400 true dpi from scanning at 6400 dpi and pulling it down) and home dev B&W and C41 on the cheap, which provides more detail than the 5D ii ... and all you damn yanks get ridiculously cheap film AND chem prices...

Apfel Photography wrote:

Please send me lab contact info.  Every reputable lab I have used and still use charge me $220.00 for 16-bit 4x5 drum scans and $245.00 doe 16-bit 8x10 scans.  $50-60 is what I pay for 35mm to 125mm 16-bit drum scanning.

If you read what I responding to you would have noted that the individual was stating that there was no reason to pay $30k for the new Hassy when you could match it pixel for pixel when shooting a 4x5 and 8x10 film camera.  I believe at 50MP, a film 125mm will not match it pixel to pixel when scanned.

It does match pixel to pixel for digital... and the pixel to pixel can even be better, depending on the resolution and grain of the film... it has to do with the detail of the scan... oversampling is key (and critical for flatbed scanners to achieve their max detail which is equiv under 50% of what they scan at), then pulling it down to what you want.

At that cost, why dont you have a V700? At a real 2400 dpi, you'd be getting 115 mp images

H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:

So far the iso limitations have not been an issue... I just take my profoto battery packs & shoot at iso100 on location... iso is only going to be a problem when you dont pack location lighting.

+1   Yah for Profoto 6 & 7b's

Ken Doo Photo wrote:

You can bump up the file size of scans of 6x7 chromes all you want---but the level of detail, amount of QUALITY information in the file, and quality of a capture made with a P45+/P65+ (or equivalent from Leaf and Hasselblad) will far exceed the film scan.

And that's with the simple press of the shutter button.

Let's print big.

Ditto. I recently made this point to a medium format and 35 mm film shooter. There's a guy in my area that shoots digital medium format landscape photography, it's no contest. The size, color, clarity and detail is incredible.

Ken Doo Photo wrote:
You can bump up the file size of scans of 6x7 chromes all you want---but the level of detail, amount of QUALITY information in the file, and quality of a capture made with a P45+/P65+ (or equivalent from Leaf and Hasselblad) will far exceed the film scan.

And that's with the simple press of the shutter button.

Let's print big.

I read stuff like this all the time, and I think this attitude is the result of not having experienced a real drum scan before. The notion that there is as much information available on a medium format digital capture, as there is available on a quality drum scan, is preposterous. The scanner used in this example is an Isomet 405XX. It was developed for the military in conjunction with some Kodak products, for obvious purposes. The technology was released to the public around 1993, and was marketed in tandem with the Kodak LVT until the late 90's. Its original purchase price was $160,000.00.

If you click the link, you will see a one inch square section of a res 60 (1524 PPI) scan of a portion of a 6X7 BW negative. I say portion, because it was my habit to eliminate the frame of the file whenever possible. The film is unknown to me, as this file is 10 years old, and the film wasn't in the job bag with the CD. The square cut you will be looking at is 1524X1524, or approximately 5 inches at 300 PPI. The full frame is there for an indication of relativity.

Edit... There was no sharpening applied to this file, either on the scan side, or the PS side. It was intended to be output on the LVT, and therefore, sharpening would be detrimental. Also, the camera was an RZ Pro II with a 110 lens.

http://www.robert-randall.com/MM2/res60.scan.jpg