[HUG] SV: Re: Digi-Blads Beware!

Jim,

Here falls a digital shooter out of the cubbard.  Excellent pictures of that 
hawk!  And the beautiful californian coastline.  - I remember driving it for 
the first time back in 91' - it was breathtakingly beautiful!  One of the most 
beautiful places in the world.

I miss a Hasselblad web page.  Like the Rangefinderforum where we could lay out 
pictures, add then to discussions etc.  Wouldn't that be something that would 
promote the 'old' Hasselblad V-system?

Look up the http://www.rangefinderforum.com/modules.php?name=Jig

I am sure that it has played an important part of the survival of Leica.

Tom of Oslo

> From: Jim Brick [jim@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 2007-08-23 05:18:45 CEST
> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
> 
> Well... pixel size for a high quality image has not changed in over a 
> decade. Foveon has attempted to beat this by using vertical layers. 
> All this did is make wide angle lens use more difficult. Yes, like 
> with microscopes, optical to electron, digital sensors with much 
> smaller pixel sites, with low noise, and high dynamic range will be 
> invented (they are working on it right now) but the technology will 
> be different than the current technology. I too am an engineer in the 
> electronic/semiconductor/imaging industry. Pixels, pixel size/depth, 
> Bayer, PRNU, etc, haven't changed in over a decade. Reading out the 
> data has become much faster, but the system still requires the 
> ability to capture a certain number of electrons to give a dynamic 
> range that can be interpolated somewhere near what film can produce. 
> The storage of electrons takes space. That's why pixels are still 7 
> to 9 square microns in size, in the better digital cameras. MF 
> digital backs will go up to 12 sq microns in order to increase their 
> dynamic recording capability.
> 
> Yes, Moore's law and the fact that no technology wall has ever been 
> left standing is a reality. But in most cases, some walls take a 
> quantum leap to get through. My personal belief is that making 
> extremely high quality images from a sensor that has the equivalent 
> of one micron or sub micron pixel sites, is a quantum leap into a new 
> technology. Like from the optical microscope to the SEM.
> 
> All of the image quality advances that we have been seeing over the 
> past decade are pretty much in the domain of firmware and software 
> advances. Hardware advances have been in getting the big pixels 
> closer together, making better lenses at each pixel site so to better 
> handle WA lenses, better low pass and aliasing filters, automatic 
> dirt removal systems, fab improvements, etc. But the electron count 
> (light intensity recording capability) is still the measure of image 
> quality capability. The difference between a 5.2 micron site (Canon 
> Rebel) and a 8.2 micron site (Canon 5D) in dynamic recording 
> capability is an order of magnitude. The Canon 5D can record an 
> outstanding amount of light information at each of its 12.8 mega-sites.
> 
> Here's a couple of snaps I took, the other morning from my kitchen, 
> with my Canon 5D and Leica 350/4.8 lens, wide open, hand held, ISO 400.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2e8nbs
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2n9dof
> 
> And a snap taken with the 5D and the lens that comes with it, 
> 24-105/4 IS USM at 24mm. Bob Adler and I took a road trip down the CA 
> coast last Friday (we do it at least once a month). It's a 
> Hasselblad/Rollei 6x6 trip but I took some snaps with my 5D.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2zngrw
> 
> And Bob Adler and his 203FE in action...
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2gr5em
> 
> :-)
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :-)
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 10:38 AM 8/22/2007 -0500, Barry Kleider wrote:
> 
> >Jim,
> >Your statement "Pixels cannot be made any smaller than they 
> >currently are being made." was meant to be challenged. It may be 
> >true of current technology (as you state.) But walls like this were 
> >meant to be hacked down. (Otherwise we would still be living in 
> >caves  eating cold meat.)
> >
> >To wit: I got my first PC in about 1985. It was a Turbo XT running 
> >at a sizzling 12 MHZ and had a 40 KB hard drive. (Who needed more 
> >power than that?) Ooh, I was so hot! Been cooling off ever since....
> >
> >Barry
> >
> 
> 
> =============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you 
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>

Other related posts: