39mp underwater

[craig 0]

OK Craig.

 

If you feel like taking it, here's a challenge for you.

 

DEFINE Image Quality! Remembering, of course, that you cannot seperate a format from its lenses! Is it merely a function of how large a print you can make from a given format? Is it about dynamic range? Or is it a far more complex interaction of projected image and sensor characteristics. What figures would you use and where would you set the levels of poor, acceptable and good? I'd say that this is a tricky one, but do give it a go.

I'm not the one ignoring IQ definitions while sweeping to conclusions regarding the superiority of the larger format, Paul.

 

Defining a subjective measure objectively is impossible by definition, but that doesn't mean you can't make relative comparisons (and make them easily). In this thread, an obvious, fair standard of comparison is a 35mm full frame, best-of-breed 1Ds2.

 

Considering that Troy states that the H3D is capable of 5'x8' prints, it's sensor is 1.5x larger and offers roughly 1.5x the linear resolution, that would mean that the 1Ds2 is capable of better than a 3'x5' print. If the 1Ds2 is not capable of that, then the H3D must have better per-pixel IQ. I don't need an absolute definition of IQ in order to conclude that. If anyone disagrees, I'm eager to hear their explanation for why I'm mistaken.

[craig 0]

Troy,

 

This thread didn't start out as an H3D underwater advocacy thread though there were bound to be elements of that and there's nothing wrong with advocacy. Anyone who chooses to read the thread does so because the topic interests them. That includes me and I'm quite interested in your results. If you can think back to the beginning of the thread, my first question was what macro lens you used and how did you obtain sufficient close focus. There was a reason for that. First of all, I researched housing MF a while ago and concluded the lenses didn't support the kinds of shooting I preferred. Second, I felt that good, reliable information about the format is an important part of advocating it.

 

Regarding macro lenses, the discussion didn't get contentious for me until my points about the limitations of your macro lenses were dismissed by Dan. There has been a fairly consistent string of specious comments coming from Dan that have been stated with an air of expertise that he most definitely doesn't possess. It's not conducive to friendly discussion.

 

Misleading and inaccurate claims don't serve anyone's interest here and I see no value in advocating equipment just because it is expensive and prestigious. A housed H3D could be the ultimate housed DSLR for certain kinds of shooting. It would be important to know the limitations of what it is suitable for, however. I've encouraged you to shoot certain kinds of shots, show crops and corners, etc. and others have as well. We do this because we want to see the strengths and weaknesses of the system. If your system has a compelling strength, we all want to see it and encourage you to demonstrate it in its most effective light. We aren't interested in beating you up over your shots.

 

I don't disagree with you that what's most important underwater is being in the right place at the right time and being prepared. It's far more important than the type of equipment you use. Many of us feel that's a good argument against such an expensive, limited system. A certain degree of flexibility is important to us underwater.

 

Finally, I don't want to discourage you from continuing to posting results. Just because I disagree with things you've said does not mean I am your enemy. I would be delighted to see results from your rig that impress everyone here.

 

craig

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Troy, part of image reproduction quality goes back to tonality, and dealing with the compression that results from reproducing an image.

 

Anybody who is familiar with the Zone System can relate to what I'm about to write. Basically, human vision has a very wide dynamic range, and about the limits as to what you can capture on a CCD is about 12 stops, while film is anywhere from 10 to 12 stops. The problem is that when you go to make a C-print, you're limited (by D(max) - D(min)) to about 6 stops; while in an enlarger with B&W film you can squeeze about 7-8 stops with dodging & burning. ALL of the commercial RIP's used by Durst, ZBE and Cymbolic Sciences only have 8 bit resolution -- That's 8 stops total range, assuming "perfect" paper.

 

But wait a minute! Didn't our scene contain 10-12 stops of dynamic range? This is where management of the toe and shoulder of the curve come into play, i.e. this is where shadow and highlight details are held... Or lost.

 

This is where the CCD-RAW image conversion software comes into play; and this is easily verified: You can take the same raw file from a 1Ds2 and convert it in ACR, Canon's own software, and CaptureOne... And get totally different results. (We did just that at Faulkner Studios this past spring, trying to diagnose an issue with wood tones reproducing properly.)

 

To make a long story short, an example of holding highlight details and shadow details simultaneously is a bride & groom: You have to hold the folds & lace in the white bridal gown while also holding the shadow details in the groom's tux. With color, it's even tougher, because you have three separate curves that have to be managed, without color crossover.

 

In addition, CCD's have "blind spots" where certain colors munge into others. Most notable is (are) purples, which fade into blue. Full Spectrum RGB (formerly DCF Full Spectrum) was basically the first product to address this issue; although it appears that PhaseOne has also incorporated the principle into CaptureOne.

 

DISCLAIMER: I was, a beta tester for Tribeca Labs for Full Spectrum RGB; and in fact my photo is on the shrink-wrap package.

 

I'm not very familiar with Hasselblad's Flexcolor software -- I think it was a holdover from their FlexTite scanner software -- but what was part of the dog & pony show 2 weeks ago in NYC at the H3D-II launch was the new "Phocus" software for handling their CCD-RAW images. In any case, the tonality of the images in their "end-to-end" -- Lens, camera, CCD, software -- system is quite stunning.

 

Incidentally, you (Troy) can probably open your Hassy files in CaptureOne Pro -- Download the 30-day time bombed demo and give it a try; and compare the results. I have a suspicion that, at least on land, your Flexcolor software is better, since it corrects for chromatic aberrations, because it "knows" which lens was used.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Part Two:

 

Another issue you (Troy) face is the distortion added by the variations in optical properties of the port, as well as at the water-port and port-air boundaries. I'm not sure if Phocus allows you to enter manual correction coefficients; but one of the hot products at PhotoPlus is DxO Optics Pro 5, which automates the process.

 

I almost forgot: Most any RAW converter will work with your H3D files, because Hasselblad fully supports the .DNG standard. (I know for a fact the H3D-II outputs .DNG-compatible files; so even if your H3D does not, the firmware upgrade will take care of it.)

 

Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand, there are many factors that go into "image quality;" and some of these, although subjective (such as bokeh), have "causes" (like the geometry of the aperture opening) that can be easily identified.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Speak of the devil: The announcement for CaptureOne v4 ß2 just hit my Inbox...

 

All of you RAW shooters, have at it!

 

Update: It requires WinXP/SP2, Vista, or Mac X10.4.10

 

 

 

[in case you're wondering why I am , it is because I'm running Win2k/Server/SP4; and I do not want Active Directory here at home...]

Edited October 31, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[Troy Aitken 0]

Troy,

 

This thread didn't start out as an H3D underwater advocacy thread though there were bound to be elements of that and there's nothing wrong with advocacy. Anyone who chooses to read the thread does so because the topic interests them. That includes me and I'm quite interested in your results. If you can think back to the beginning of the thread, my first question was what macro lens you used and how did you obtain sufficient close focus. There was a reason for that. First of all, I researched housing MF a while ago and concluded the lenses didn't support the kinds of shooting I preferred. Second, I felt that good, reliable information about the format is an important part of advocating it.

 

Regarding macro lenses, the discussion didn't get contentious for me until my points about the limitations of your macro lenses were dismissed by Dan. There has been a fairly consistent string of specious comments coming from Dan that have been stated with an air of expertise that he most definitely doesn't possess. It's not conducive to friendly discussion.

 

Misleading and inaccurate claims don't serve anyone's interest here and I see no value in advocating equipment just because it is expensive and prestigious. A housed H3D could be the ultimate housed DSLR for certain kinds of shooting. It would be important to know the limitations of what it is suitable for, however. I've encouraged you to shoot certain kinds of shots, show crops and corners, etc. and others have as well. We do this because we want to see the strengths and weaknesses of the system. If your system has a compelling strength, we all want to see it and encourage you to demonstrate it in its most effective light. We aren't interested in beating you up over your shots.

 

I don't disagree with you that what's most important underwater is being in the right place at the right time and being prepared. It's far more important than the type of equipment you use. Many of us feel that's a good argument against such an expensive, limited system. A certain degree of flexibility is important to us underwater.

 

Finally, I don't want to discourage you from continuing to posting results. Just because I disagree with things you've said does not mean I am your enemy. I would be delighted to see results from your rig that impress everyone here.

 

craig

 

Hello Craig,

 

That's a step in the right direction. I specifically stated that the mf is a good mid-macro shooter and is in not way an excellent choice for super-macro shots. I also said at least I can crop and get a good image to print. That being said, why would you say that I need to back it up with good sound technical information. there is nothing that I said that is remotely putting down 35mm format and glorifying the mf even as being prestigous. You throw in these words, adjectives and comments that are misleading people to think that I am saying something that I am not. You are putting me in a bad light. If other people choose to say what they want to say then so be it. Don't throw me in the pot.

 

If you are so interested in good sound technical information, then why are you reluctant to illustrate your points to give as a reference? It's like saying Troy you post, I critique and I will stay safe with my technical information. If I were the one stating mf is superior, then I would be like you and say "show it". You will most definately help me to understand you if you would simply post some of your super macro shots and very wide angle shots and give us your 100% crop and edge detail samples to illustrate your point. I bet there will be strengths and weaknesses in both formats depending on the purposes you use them for. So why speculate with continued tech talk again and again w/o any illustrations. Does that sound fair to you or will you give another excuse? Tropical storm Noel is coming our way and I have a 4 day wedding event so bear with me as I provide images to ILLUSTRATE my results. When finding limitations in the mf I hope to work around them and push the strengths as well. Who knows the potential of mf u/w. That is yet to be seen created by someone in the right place at the right time. You do u/w photography right? How many images do you throw away and honestly keep? If you take 100 do you keep 10, 15, 20 or maybe 5? A lot of the super macro images taken on the 35mm format are out of focus and edge detail are slightly blurred. They look awesome in 2x3 or 4x6 or even 5x7. But very few are actually in focus and have sharp definative lines on the subject. So we may all tout about our equipment but, I think its the experience of diving, exploring and looking for that awesome shot.

 

Troy

Edited October 31, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Dan,

 

Good to see you still at it.

The Imageprint rip software prints full 16bit .

All the best,

Troy

Edited October 31, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Guys - to keep this thread readable (which is worthwhile as there is good info in here) can we keep the quoting of previous messages to the required minimum to make your points.

 

Alex

[craig 0]

That's a step in the right direction. I specifically stated that the mf is a good mid-macro shooter and is in not way an excellent choice for super-macro shots. I also said at least I can crop and get a good image to print. That being said, why would you say that I need to back it up with good sound technical information.

No need to be condescending, Troy. Yes, you admitted that the H3D was not good for anything beyond basic macro but that was after continued efforts on my part to point out that it was so. The macro information in this thread I've had to find entirely by myself while overcoming an incorrect lens ID from you.

 

Regarding the "good sound technical information" I've asked for, that was specifically in regards to you challenging my claim that cropping to achieve macro destroyed the advantage of the larger sensor. That is a simple truism, yet you take exception to that without offering any argument.

 

You throw in these words, adjectives and comments that are misleading people to think that I am saying something that I am not. You are putting me in a bad light.

While you may not be responsible for all the boasting in this thread, you've claimed multiple times that your H3D was capable of 5'x8' prints and you made other claims of superior performance. On the other hand, when you took issue with things I said, you inaccurately paraphrased me in order to argue against me. I don't see where you have room to complain.

 

If you are so interested in good sound technical information, then why are you reluctant to illustrate your points to give as a reference?

...

So why speculate with continued tech talk again and again w/o any illustrations. Does that sound fair to you or will you give another excuse?

No and I don't offer excuses. For someone who complains of being unjustly attacked, you sure can be insulting, Troy.

 

I am not speculating with tech talk---cropping reduces IQ on any camera under all circumstances. Your request that I post images is nothing more than an attempt to redirect the conversation. There is no image that I could post that would add to this discussion, but there are plenty that could take the pressure off of you.

 

You do u/w photography right? How many images do you throw away and honestly keep? If you take 100 do you keep 10, 15, 20 or maybe 5?

How is this relevant to the H3D? How is this relevant to cropping?

 

A lot of the super macro images taken on the 35mm format are out of focus and edge detail are slightly blurred. They look awesome in 2x3 or 4x6 or even 5x7. But very few are actually in focus and have sharp definative lines on the subject.

Nonsense. Your inability to shoot high magnifications does not mean that no one here can.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Troy, I was referring to RIP's for photo printers, not inkjet printers.

 

Also, if my memory is correct, you're running a Mac; and if so, ColorByte's Imageprint driver is choking on Leopard.

 

Hello Dan,

 

Good to see you still at it.

The Imageprint rip software prints full 16bit .

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Craig, looking at the end-to-end "system" of lens, CCD, and software, Troy can easily crop out 60% of the pixels and still have as many to play with as in the 16 million in a 1DsII image... and still have a better image because of better software.

 

You shoot Canon CCD-RAW: Which software do you use for your conversion? Canon? CaptureOne? ACR? If you use ACR, do you correct for chromatic aberrations, vignetting, & barrel/pincushion distortion?

 

Troy's software is already configured with lens data to clean up any CA, as part of the "system" he has. Granted, DxO Optics Pro now does this too; but I would still have to see the results.

 

(more...)

 

(cut)

Regarding the "good sound technical information" I've asked for, that was specifically in regards to you challenging my claim that cropping to achieve macro destroyed the advantage of the larger sensor. That is a simple truism, yet you take exception to that without offering any argument.

 

While you may not be responsible for all the boasting in this thread, you've claimed multiple times that your H3D was capable of 5'x8' prints and you made other claims of superior performance. On the other hand, when you took issue with things I said, you inaccurately paraphrased me in order to argue against me. I don't see where you have room to complain.

(cut)

I am not speculating with tech talk---cropping reduces IQ on any camera under all circumstances.

(balance cut)

 

Also, the number of pixels a camera can deliver is overrated, when it comes to digital photo prints (as opposed to inkjet).

 

The reason is as close as your CRT monitor: You get a "blending" of the pixels into a smooth photo reproduction; and because of this blending that takes place when the laser or LED hits the photo paper, you do not need a 1:1 pixel mapping, i.e. you don't need 254 ppi (for Durst Epsilon & Lambda), 300 ppi (for LightJet & ZBE Chromira), or 320 ppi (for Fuji Frontier) to produce a smooth image. These are all $90k-$150k photo printers that are used in commercial labs; and they all have RIP's (raster image processors) that resample and adjust the data accordingly.

 

Getting back to the number of pixels being overrated, the question that begs to be asked is Just how big will be the largest print you need?

 

Closely related is If I make a mural size print, can I trade off any quality since the viewing distance will be greater?

 

--------------

 

Now, getting back to Troy's Hassy and it producing quality large prints, his shooting style for macro will be different than your 1DsII: Whereas you want to "fill the frame" he can simply "zoom by cropping," having the ability to lop off 60% of the pixels and still have the same number as your Canon has.

 

[Granted, Troy would not be able to stop down as much -- Probably no more than f/16 -- if he intends to zoom by cropping without starting to see diffraction artifacts, as you correctly pointed out previously, since the circle of confusion would be smaller. That being said, the because he would then only be using a portion of the lens coverage real estate (off axis distance), this is balanced by greater corner sharpness due to cropping out the areas where the MTF curves fall off.]

 

...And, if you like telephoto compression of the scene, you get more of that with medium format due to the longer focal lengths for the larger CCD/film area for MF. But, that is a topic for another day, as it's almost midnight.

 

Cheers!

Dan

Edited November 1, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[Troy Aitken 0]

Good morning Dan,

 

I use a pc.

 

Troy

[craig 0]

Craig, looking at the end-to-end "system" of lens, CCD, and software, Troy can easily crop out 60% of the pixels and still have as many to play with as in the 16 million in a 1DsII image... and still have a better image because of better software.

You'll have to prove that, Dan. The number is about 57%, and I'm not going to take your word that Troy's software is better or that his residual image is better. One thing that is inarguable is that, once Troy crops out 60% of his pixels, his enlargement capability is similar to a 1Ds2.

 

You shoot Canon CCD-RAW: Which software do you use for your conversion? Canon? CaptureOne? ACR? If you use ACR, do you correct for chromatic aberrations, vignetting, & barrel/pincushion distortion?

No, I don't shoot Canon, Dan, but I have in the past. Yes, I do correct for CA and vignetting and I do so manually so that the port is considered. Barrel/pincushion is not important enough underwater to be concerned with. I have corrected for that before using PS plugins, however.

 

Troy's software is already configured with lens data to clean up any CA, as part of the "system" he has. Granted, DxO Optics Pro now does this too; but I would still have to see the results.

No, it isn't, because Troy's software doesn't know about the ports which introduce far more aberrations than his lenses do.

 

Also, the number of pixels a camera can deliver is overrated, when it comes to digital photo prints (as opposed to inkjet).

Tell that to the one's here boasting of 5'x8' print capability!

 

Closely related is If I make a mural size print, can I trade off any quality since the viewing distance will be greater?

Yes, and that tradeoff can be made for 35mm solutions as well.

 

All this is irrelevant, Dan, as your points typically are. There is a difference between an H3D and a 1Ds2 or 1Ds3. It is the relative difference that is important here. I've noticed no one has dared take on my assertion that a 1Ds2 is capable of 3'x5' prints if the H3D can do 5'x8'. Why the constant double standards?

 

Now, getting back to Troy's Hassy and it producing quality large prints, his shooting style for macro will be different than your 1DsII: Whereas you want to "fill the frame" he can simply "zoom by cropping," having the ability to lop off 60% of the pixels and still have the same number as your Canon has.

Not if he wants to preserve his IQ and print size advantages he can't. Furthermore, cropping in the manner you suggest gets Troy about a 35mm frame width. A 1Ds2 can easily do better than that (it starts out there with every lens!) and the difference is quite valuable.

 

[Granted, Troy would not be able to stop down as much -- Probably no more than f/16 -- if he intends to zoom by cropping without starting to see diffraction artifacts, as you correctly pointed out previously, since the circle of confusion would be smaller. That being said, the because he would then only be using a portion of the lens coverage real estate (off axis distance), this is balanced by greater corner sharpness due to cropping out the areas where the MTF curves fall off.]

Yes, Dan, Troy would in essence be converting his MF rig into a 35mm one without any IQ benefits, without any print size benefits, without any high ISO benefits, and with only a 120mm macro lens option that offers only f/4 for focus and no 1.4x teleconverter. Sounds like a loser to me. You are always so eager to discard all the benefits of MF when arguing that macro isn't so bad, then turn around and extoll the virtues of MF image quality ignoring the fact that you've discarded it.

 

...And, if you like telephoto compression of the scene, you get more of that with medium format due to the longer focal lengths for the larger CCD/film area for MF. But, that is a topic for another day, as it's almost midnight.

No you don't, Dan. The 120mm has a 70mm equivalent perspective by Troy's own data. My regular macro lens offers 180mm and I use it currently on a DX crop. 35mm can easily provide 300mm or even 400mm of macro perspective while maintaining excellent quality. You are totally wrong on this one.

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello everyone,

 

Here is an extreme crop of the Juvy Flamingo tongue. Come to think of it I believe I was 1ft. away, not 5" as I thought. I hope to post some more at the extreme end of my mid-macro set up. I just want to illustrate here the edge detail and so on. I was wondering if anyone could post an image that shows the edge detail using the 35mm format whilst getting closer to a critter of equal size. The Juvy Flamingo Tongue was 4-7mm. By getting the full frame closer to a critter with a 35mm format what quality loss or gain is acheived when going to print to at least 16x20.

 

Thanks,

Troy

 

Original file

[loftus 42]

Looks very 'clean' to me. It sure would be nice for purposes of this discussion, if you could hook up with a 35mm format shooter, and shoot similar images with each rig. Maybe Steve Frink will read this and invite you over to the keys for a 'shootout'. I'll even come down and bring my piddly D200. In fact I will probably see him at DEMA when I head over there tomorrow, and suggest it.

Seriously though I think such direct comparisons are feasible, just takes the right people hooking up.

Edited November 1, 2007 by loftus

[Troy Aitken 0]

Here is a wide angle sample

 

H3D with 28mm lens. Shot at 400iso f8 1/125 at 85ft deep.

1-Original

2-cropped left to right

3-cropped at extreme right right

 

The bottom of the frame was again inches away from me.

 

Troy

 

2# image

 

#3 image

[loftus 42]

OK, so here we appear to see some softness in the corners, not unlike other rigs

[Troy Aitken 0]

Stich on diver. On the original image file I can see in detail every stich as well as seeing the texture w/o looking pixelated or digital.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Loftus,

 

Yes, I agree and by continuing to post images in the real world experiences, we can judge objectively. Now, was this caused by being out of focus by using f.8? If you look closely, the diver is about 2ft further from the far left and right of the image. As you go from center to edge the coral walls were increasingly closer to the port on both sides. I think that contributed to it. However, there has to be some distortion going on. I don't think it's perfect, but man I can live with whatever it is because it isn't much at all.

 

As far as ergonomics go, everything is at my fingertips with big knobs to turn with no obstruction at all. Now with 10mm super wide angle 35mm set ups, do you get more distortion than what you see here? And if there is none at all, with what you see in mine can there not be a bigger print created?

 

Troy

Edited November 1, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[loftus 42]

I tried to find something fairly similar. Here are a couple of uncropped photos taken in your neck of the woods with a D200 and 12-24mm lens at the 24 end. This lens is not one of our better lenses underwater in my opinion.

BTW, do you know Nick Fenley, he thinks he knows you.

Hello Loftus,

 

Yes, I agree and by continuing to post images in the real world experiences, we can judge objectively. Now, was this caused by being out of focus by using f.8. If you look closely the diver is about 2ft further from the far left and right of the image. As you go from center to edge the coral walls were increasingly closer to the port on both sides. I think that contributed to it. However, there has to be some distortion going on, I don't think it's perfect but man I can live with whatever it because it isn't much at all.

 

As far as ergonomics go, everything is at my fingertips with big nobs to turn with no obstruction at all. Now with 10mm super wide angle 35mm set ups do you get more distortion than what you see here. And if there is none at all, with what you see in mine can there not be a bigger print created?

 

Troy

Edited November 1, 2007 by loftus

[Troy Aitken 0]

Awesome Loftus,

 

Finally someone is posting at least something to get some comparisons going. Do you have any images that have subject right to the end on both sides of the frame? And also can you do the two same crops I did keeping the file over 400kb?

 

Nice shots Loftus, I think my 28mm is like your 22mm. When you see these 2 images at 100% on your monitor, are they sharp where the coral is or do the colors become a little smudged that can be hidden in an 8x10 and revealed as a little smudged printed, say to 24x30?

 

Also what were your settings? Usually the staff photographers shoot around f8 at these depths.

Is Nick one of the staff photographers at Stuart Cove's Dive from Austrialia?

 

Please post those samples Loftus, I would really appreciate it.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[loftus 42]

These are shot at f4 and f5.6 respectively ISO 100, probably with the strobes at about 1/4 power. I do not consider them to be great shots, I only post them to demonstrate what I mean by the loss of edge sharpness with the 12-24 behind a dome with +2 diopter, similar to what I see on your reef shot.

The resolution of your rig is obviously streets ahead of the D200, in the center of the frame particularly.

I'll look around for some other images and post if I think they have something to demonstrate that's on topic.

Nick used to work for Stuart Cove in '94 - he's from the UK though folks often think he's from Australia.

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Loftus,

 

This is exactly the type of posting I can really enjoy. I firmly believe as others post their own illustrations, along with their own personal experience, then others can join in with tech talk that relates rather than getting too deep with tech talk, being void of the same. Don't worry about posting "compelling" shots, it's not what this thread has been about or at least why I started it. A compelling shot that happened to be taken by either format would be great but these shots don't happen every day. I desire to learn what my rig is capable of and possibly measure it by others who have had hands on experience with 35mm. To say what either format can and can't do simply by white spec papers simply will lead to tension. We all have already seen this and now we are in the right direction. Thank you Loftus.

 

I don't remember him or at least I can"t see him in my mind's eye.

 

Regards,

Troy.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[Dan Schwartz 0]

You'll have to prove that, Dan. The number is about 57%, and I'm not going to take your word that Troy's software is better or that his residual image is better. One thing that is inarguable is that, once Troy crops out 60% of his pixels, his enlargement capability is similar to a 1Ds2.

 

That is exactly what I said!

 

Not if he wants to preserve his IQ and print size advantages he can't. Furthermore, cropping in the manner you suggest gets Troy about a 35mm frame width. A 1Ds2 can easily do better than that (it starts out there with every lens!) and the difference is quite valuable.

 

Yes, Dan, Troy would in essence be converting his MF rig into a 35mm one without any IQ benefits, without any print size benefits, without any high ISO benefits, and with only a 120mm macro lens option that offers only f/4 for focus and no 1.4x teleconverter. Sounds like a loser to me. You are always so eager to discard all the benefits of MF when arguing that macro isn't so bad, then turn around and extoll the virtues of MF image quality ignoring the fact that you've discarded it.

 

Once you get to a 1:1 pixel ratio in the RIP, i.e. each pixel in the camera image being mapped to a single pixel on the C-print, any additional data is pretty well moot. Remember me writing, (a)lso, the number of pixels a camera can deliver is overrated, when it comes to digital photo prints (as opposed to inkjet).?

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Troy, the shot at the top of page 8 (with the two crops), shot at ISO 400, is very quiet. I would be interested to see the results at (an equivalent) ISO = 800 when you upgrade the firmware.

 

Also, why only f/8? Could you get another stop of power out of your strobes and stop down to f/11?

 

Lastly -- And you'll have to check with the software engineers at Hasselblad on this -- you'll probably have to correct for distortions in Flexcolor or Phocus caused by the port/lens pair you use. There may -- And I underline may -- be either advanced options for corrections for other than H-series lenses; or perhaps there's an internal version they can supply you that has this capability.

 

[i don't have the name at my fingertips, but there is an open-source program for panorama stitching that also can be used for correcting lens aberrations. It is command-line based; but there are also several GUI front ends for it. I'll have to dig it up and post it, as I believe it could be helpful to all if it can be configured for correcting for any optical path -- Including a given lens-port combo.]

 

Here is a wide angle sample

 

H3D with 28mm lens. Shot at 400iso f8 1/125 at 85ft deep.

1-Original

2-cropped left to right

3-cropped at extreme right right

 

The bottom of the frame was again inches away from me.