[HUG] SV: Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Tom Just Olsen <tjols@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:56:45 +0200 (MEST)
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:
