[HUG ] SV: Re: SV: Re: SWC: I think I understand now...

  • From: Tom Just Olsen <tjols@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:09:24 +0200 (MEST)

I have the Leica M9 and a WATE (16-18-21 mm 4,0) which possibly is the closest 
to a 'digital SWC'.  Allegedly with micro lenses.  To what I can see; it is 
mostly software corrections in the corners that makes this possible.  It works 
OK, but is not perfect.  When thinking of how popular the SWC was it is likely 
that a digital version would do good too.  May be it is not possible to have 
the same field of view yet with a digital version.  But how far is it possible 
to go and retain the excellent SWC properties?  I wonder.

Tom of Oslo

> From: Richard Man [richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 2012-03-30 08:16:10 MEST
> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: SWC: I think I understand now...
> 
> I heard that all digital backs without microlens (meaning every one except
> Phase One's P30/30+) work fine. You have the 645 crop at best though, and
> 33x44 at "worst."
> 
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Tom Just Olsen <tjols@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Why could'nt Hasselblad (or somebody) try to make a digital version of the
> > SWC?
> >
> > Tom of Oslo
> >
> >
> -- 
> // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/>
> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/>
> // richard's personal photo blog: <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
> replies in your msgs. ]

Other related posts: