| Author | Message | ||
     Birdy |
and you thought your little 12 meg was the deal! http://www.gizmowatch.com/entry/worlds-largest-dig ital-camera-look-for-a-redefined-space/ | ||
| Froggy |
Actually its 1.4 Gigapixel, and its not the number of pixels that matter, its the quality of sensors and lenses that matter. Hence why a 2 megapixel cell phone cam looks like crap compared to 1 megapixel normal camera  | ||
| Court |
and the reason one of Nikon's top professional cameras is 2.1 megapixel. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Arguing about megapixels is like arguing over motorcycle spec sheets. Quality not quantity. | ||
| Barker |
stills: blah, blah BORING! Moving images now we are talking. My shop is ordering a Red Epic it shoots 28K  Let me try to put that in perspective. SD TV is 480i pixels HD is 720p or 1080i/p (1080 is just over 1K pixels) Most feature films are shot or converted to 2k or 4k pixels. this big bad mamma-jamma shoots 28k up to 25 FPS. 28000 pixels 25 times a second.  | ||
| Barker |
thats 261 megapixels @ 25fps! | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
ah, Court - and the reason one of Nikon's top professional cameras is 2.1 megapixel. That would be an inaccurate statement, wouldn't it? Nikons top camera used to be 12.1 megapixels. That was yesterday. Today their top camera, the Nikon D3x is a full frame 24.5 megapixel SLR.  http://www.dpreview.com/news/0812/081201nikond3x.asp#press Hard to keep up with what's what now a days. I heard Buell is thinking about a watercooled model, sounds unlikely to me. I mean, who would want one?  | ||
| Danger_dave |
Barker - What sort of hardware does it need to process the files? And what do you edit with? | ||
| Court |
The 2.1 MP Nikons are still the staple of the news industry and tough as nails. I've got several friends, including Mike here on Badweb, shooting with the D3's and they are amazing. I'm intrigued by the D700 if only for the 51 point light meter. Anyway I go, I'll keep the D100 with chunks missing and parts broken off. It was Nikon's first toe in the high end digital market and still the only one I have no worries if it rolls off the seat of the bike and bounces on the pavement. There is some NEAT hardware out and I think Nikon, with the D3, pried the lead from Canon. . . but you can bet they'll continue improving. | ||
| Hexangler |
Full frame 24x36mm needs to get to 33 Mpx before it will compete with 35mm slide film and a drum scanner. Then we can talk about lens resolution, zoom vs prime focus. Look to Leica in the next 5 years (if they survive the R&D expenses) to really tighten up the race with superior quality. That said, I would like the D3 as well. | ||
| Hexangler |
Oh, and I disagree with stills being boring. I would say the same about motion images. Everything's "in your face" with motion. No time to contemplate. Shallow. One doesn't go to the museum to view videos. But then again, maybe one doesn't go to the museum very often, anymore... | ||
| Barker |
theoretically the Red epic will use red's digital "lab" software called red alert. All specs are subject to drastic changes. We will have to see. edits in final cut pro (offline. then conform for final print) (Message edited by barker on December 01, 2008) | ||
| Bbbob |
I'll stick with my Rolleiflex TLR at least until my refrigerator runs out of Plus-X. | ||
| Jimduncan69 |
Barker, what is the price tag on that or do i even want to know? | ||
| Barker |
$$$, hard to say. its an ala carte system. Just the image sensor ("brain") is $55k then you need processor, storage, batteries, viewfinder, lenes, etc.  could be 250k for a full set up depending on needs. From the guy that brought you Oakley sunglasses comes kick ass cams http://www.red.com/ | ||
| Hexangler |
I'll stick with my Rolleiflex TLR at least until my refrigerator runs out of Plus-X. The not so secret formula for razor sharp, grain-less, 20 inch square, medium format, B&W prints is: Hasselblad or Rolleiflex, Tripod, Ilford FP4, PMK Pyro developer, a rock solid condenser enlarger with a Schneider enlarging lens. (our Camera/Arts technique) PMK Pyro can be obtained from: http://www.photoformulary.com/ | ||
| Reepicheep |
View a (well done) still, remember the event. View a video, remember the video. And video is ***sooo*** freaking invasive. I spend 90% of my time when shooting stills going out of my way to make sure I am invisible and that I snap a flattering moment, then another good chunk of effort in photoshop making it flattering (removing blemishes, nose drips, food stains, etc). Video is just relentlessly invasive, and (aside from a public performance) I don't know how you can shoot it without completely changing the nature of the event you are shooting. We need a modern Leica, and the technology is there. 1) It has to fit in a shirt pocket. 2) It has to shoot an effective 28mm at F1.2 at ISO1600 or better with image quality comparable to high end Kodak film shot at ISO400... (good enough to make an 8x10 enlargement that can be viewed at 2 feet away and look good). 3) It has to run for at least 200 shots on a single charge. 4) It has to store at least 600 pictures internally. I could care less how many megapixels it has, and I could care less if it has optional lenses with some sort of electronically controllable zoom (and would frankly prefer it didn't). A guy can dream... (Message edited by reepicheep on December 01, 2008) | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
Hex, As a professional photographer, I must say I admire the confidence with which you share your photographic information. Unfortunately, most of what you say seems simply untrue, and may mislead brothers who are inexperienced in the field. In the first instance your assertion that a digital camera must have 33 megapixels to equal drum scanned 35mm slide film, is not only fanciful, it is pointless. As Lunch suggests above, mere pixel count is, in and of itself, totally meaningless. Sensor size and type, lens quality, in camera electronics, bit depth, file type and the skill of the photographer, Photoshop operator, and printer are much more important. Of those, the skill of the photographer is paramount. As far as getting a great 20x20 out of a Rollei: well, it can be done, but a Rollei is an extremely difficult camera to focus, and hardly comparable to a Hasselblad, which largely replaced it, especially in professional applications. When these cameras were introduced, the largest print size normally used was 16x20, and that was considered an exhibition size. The biggest prints normally made from these cameras was a full magazine page, and certain magazines insisted on 4x5 chromes. Neither of these cameras can begin to approach the quality of properly operated full frame 12 megapixel professional digital camera and lenses, not to mention the 21.1 megapixel Canon 1DsMarklll. As a matter of fact, a simple Canon G10, a 14.7 megapixel digital pocket camera, in expert hands, is a much better tool for making photos than the dear old Rollei. And yes, I do own, and shoot all of these cameras. Been doing it for over fifty years. In addition, I regularly make large format prints, up to seven feet long, from film and digital originals.  | ||
| Hexangler |
GJ, I too am a professional photographer, a certified Linotype/Hell drum scanner operator, and I think you missed my point. Too often we are told that we need the latest and greatest product to do quality work when the old tools in the right hands can potentially do a better job. It's sad to go to a gallery these days and see dull, posterized, digital images being offered as art. Especially when one remembers CibaChrome prints. As for the Rollei, the 80mm f2.8 Zeiss Planar is the Hasselblad standard lens, and the Rollei will shoot side by side with that camera. I own both. Digital is more about convenience than quality. I guess convenience is a quality these days, everybody is in such a hurry to take so many boring snapshots. ...and as far as the 20" print, isn't your exhibition 16" x 20" just a crop of the 20" X 20" square format. So, we are talking the same language. Walk before you run. If you want to know photography, start with the Camera/Arts B&W formula above, and you may never need to leave it. | ||
| Slaughter |
Digital cameras are like motorcycles: If you don't know how to ride; and if you won't LEARN how to ride, it won't matter what the spec sheet says. | ||
| Danger_dave |
Drum scanners - how quaint. :-P | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>It's sad to go to a gallery these days and see dull, posterized, digital images being offered as art. Especially when one remembers CibaChrome prints. << That is due to the output device and $ of media more than the input device. | ||
| Hexangler |
That is due to the output device and $ of media more than the input device. Q1. What digital output media has the color gamut of CibaChrome??? Also, unless you are watching CGI, when you go to the theater to watch an original movie, you are still watching film input and film output. There may be a lot of digital in between, but film is still a viable and essential media. | ||
| Froggy |
The theater I go to has several of the theaters converted to all digital. Much nicer looking, crisper, no cigarette burns in the corner when the scene changes, no other particles on the screen that ruin quality. It kinda sucks too, I saw I am Legend twice, first time was by film, and liked it, then the second time was on the digital setup, and it looked so much faker and overkilled with the CGI! | ||
| Hexangler |
Yup. Too many hands in the soup. I just found this site: http://www.imatest.com/index.php | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Q1. What digital output media has the color gamut of CibaChrome??? << What commercial application needs it? >>but film is still a viable and essential media. << Until they make the projectors redundant - give it time. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>and it looked so much faker and overkilled with the CGI!<< Absolutely. I worked for a large building co years ago and I learned to use Autocad - so we could produce photo-realistic images of the Cottages. Sales dropped off. A hand drawn, water coloured artist impression sold the dream far more efficiently than the virtual reality. | ||
| Hexangler |
What commercial application needs it? The sale of Color Photography as Fine Art. | ||
| Danger_dave |
Ah yes - but that isn't really a commercial application is it - that is fine art. Reproductivity V creativity. | ||
| Hexangler |
Galleries are in the business of selling Fine Art. So in my book it is a commercial application. Mass Media vs. Fine Art. Photography has always had a problem crossing that line. And with the advent of digital, Color Photography has lost its Fine Art status; moreover, traditional Black and White along with the Platinum/Palladium large format contact print has gained greater Fine Art status thanks to digital. I've sold cameras for many years. Nikon, Canon, Leica, Hasselblad, Sinar, etc. The majority of the people who bought cameras from our store were hobbyists, students, and fine artists. A lot of them also aspired to become "professional photographers" until they realized how hard it is to be in business by one's self. Most also realized how unglamorous the job really is. By the way, our little photographic corner of the world didn't survive the transition to digital compounded by this recession. Camera/Arts, Sacramento, CA, USA. That was sad as well. Oh and if you want to know another commercial application for film photography. Look to the large format calendar people like: http://www.ghosts.com/ My brother-in-law was his CibaChrome printer for the last ten years. Phil shoots Nikon F6 with Velvia and prints CibaChrome for the Heidelberg Linotype/Hell drum scanners to color match the 200 megabyte digital files created from the 35mm slides. Even with the offset press media, the quality over digital capture was (and still is) apparent. | ||
| Court |
I usually carry a film camera and Fuji 160NPL portrait film with me and some of the photos from the 100,000th Buell built and the XBRR at Daytona reminded me of how powerful film is. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>> Even with the offset press media, the quality over digital capture was (and still is) apparent.<< If I spent the same amount of time on a magazine size digital image - as it takes to process, scan and correct a film image, by the time it was printed on good quality paper - only a very small handful of people could tell the difference - maybe. |
