ok, camera nuts...

[accwai]

On 6/24/2019 at 12:29 AM, gmgraves said:

Kind of a silly Q. A camera is merely a box to hold and transport film. Hasselblads were nicely made two-and-a-quarter format camera, but other than that, the quality of the photographs depends on four major qualities: (1) the flatness and registration of the film plane. (2) the quality of the lens optics. (3) the accuracy of the shutter and and aperture, and (4) the accuracy of focus. [...] Mamiya made several two-and-a-quarter format camera styles. The excellent twin-lens system called the C33/330, (I once had one with all the lenses, but foolishly sold it) and there was the single lens format Mamiya 645 system (two-and-a-quarter X one-and-seven-eighths) As well as a two-and-a-quarter X two-and-three-quarter SLR. [...]

 

Some guy named John Davies uses Mamiya Press extensively. So how does that fit in the quality hierarchy?

 

15 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

[...] an 8X10 'normal lens is 250mm and the cameras big, rare and expensive [...]

 

Hmm... 250mm centered on 8x10 has about 64° angle of view. 50mm on a 135 frame is like 47°. So the 250mm would be more like a semi-wide. And worse, garden variety large format normal lens design covers about 70°. Using that for semi-wide could be problematic in a lot situations right? So one either go to a true wide angle, which is big and expensive, or a super normal design that can cover to about 80°. But I would imagine the latter would be extremely rare. I'm no expert like you guys but wouldn't 360mm be closer to normal lens for real use? And it's possible to save some weight with process lenses if one's willing to accept an f/9 aperture correct?

 

15 hours ago, gmgraves said:

[...] But I understand that a company called “LargeSense” makes a self-contained 8x10 camera, but it only has a resolution of 3888X3072 pixels (!?) with one enormous 9X11 inch, 32-bit sensor (probably a composite sensor). Unfortunately, the camera is monochrome only, [...]

 

So what is the real life use case for this?

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, accwai said:

Hmm... 250mm centered on 8x10 has about 64° angle of view. 50mm on a 135 frame is like 47°. So the 250mm would be more like a semi-wide. And worse, garden variety large format normal lens design covers about 70°. Using that for semi-wide could be problematic in a lot situations right? So one either go to a true wide angle, which is big and expensive, or a super normal design that can cover to about 80°. But I would imagine the latter would be extremely rare. I'm no expert like you guys but wouldn't 360mm be closer to normal lens for real use? And it's possible to save some weight with process lenses if one's willing to accept an f/9 aperture correct?

 

There are a bazillion view camera lenses. The size of the image circle allowing for tilt/shift determines the appropriateness of a lens for a format eg 4x5 or 8x10. Schneider has been around forever. Super-Angulon designs have IIRC 90deg coverage and I’ve seen out to >110 degrees. These need not be big and bulky — the retrofocus wides are huge in comparison. But yes 300-360mm considered normal for 8x10 with roughly 50 degrees circle (more or less)

 

Regarding size of ultra wide angle lenses the Goerz Hypergon ! https://www.cameraquest.com/hyper.htm — today’s 35mm lenses are gigantic in comparison

[Ralf11]

There are a lot of parallels between cameras and HiFi sound...

 

both are distance sensory systems & use a fair degree of neural processing, require amplification...

 

both technologies have undergone a rapid change, approximating a step function, from digital techniques

 

both tend to be hobbies but both have a pro component

 

 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

There are a lot of parallels between cameras and HiFi sound...

 

both are distance sensory systems & use a fair degree of neural processing, require amplification...

 

both technologies have undergone a rapid change, approximating a step function, from digital techniques

 

both tend to be hobbies but both have a pro component

 

 

 

Yes in many ways. No question that the artistic properties of lenses / films / chemistry  / papers is subjective and individual choices and passions are entirely understandable!

 

 yet I’ve never heard of anyone using esoteric power supplies on their enlargers, or special cables to connect their cameras and computers or insisting on linear power for their photoshop/Lightroom workstations etc. 

 

I’ve never heard of a photographer who feels the brand of disc drives in their network storage affects their image quality or gasp is ever concerned with their brand of Ethernet cables!

 

 

[Ralf11]

True, but what about all the talk I see about micro-contrast?

 

It never seems to be described, much less defined...  is it crazy talk?

 

But I won't argue against your point, as that's the only possible example I can think of.

[jabbr]

18 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

True, but what about all the talk I see about micro-contrast?

 

It never seems to be described, much less defined...  is it crazy talk?

 

But I won't argue against your point, as that's the only possible example I can think of.

 

Roughly equivalent to the “clarity” slider in Lightroom — DXO has more fine grained manipulations. 

 

Also never heard of a photographer insisting that something evident evident in a photograph couldn’t be measured. 

[jabbr]

On 6/24/2019 at 4:34 PM, gmgraves said:

But I understand that a company called “LargeSense” makes a self-contained 8x10 camera, but it only has a resolution of 3888X3072 pixels (!?) with one enormous 9X11 inch, 32-bit sensor (probably a composite sensor). Unfortunately, the camera is monochrome only, but it has a facility to allow multi-exposure color pictures using filters (there’s an old saying: “Everything old becomes new again” - shades of three strip Technicolor!). The LargeSense LS911 is very expensive; I wonder if the model number is a clue that this camera at US$105,000 is about what an entry-level Porsche 911 would cost?

 

Very expensive. Of note digital radiography plates have similar pixel counts (roughly 170 pixels/inch) and so not super enticing.

 

I see here is a Fotodiox adapter for the Fuji GTX -> 4x5 which allows stitching (landscapes and stills) and this is an interesting option with the GTX 100 (megapixel) camera which is $9,999 ... hmmm ... let's see, do I need that more or less than a 100 Gbe Ethernet switch 😂😂😂

[Ralf11]

OTOH, I often see photographers insisting that measurements are not important...

 

 

[gmgraves]

32 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

OTOH, I often see photographers insisting that measurements are not important...

 

 

Hmmm, do these photographers insist that certain camera straps result in better looking pictures? If not, then I wouldn’t worry about photographers becoming as neurotic as some audiophiles. 

[jabbr]

30 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

OTOH, I often see photographers insisting that measurements are not important...

 

 

Perhaps because the camera makes the measurement for them ... of course art is art but there was always a huge amount of engineering behind a Polaroid point & shoot etc. I don’t see the same amount of pseudo science so-called directional cables — can you imagine someone cryopreserving their Nikkor? Only if on an expedition to the summit of Everest 😝

 

No question that for artistic effects an old lens may be better than something super sharp — that’s perfectly fine — that’s art not pseudo science 

 

[lucretius]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

— can you imagine someone cryopreserving their Nikkor? Only if on an expedition to the summit of Everest

 

I do remember putting my camera and lens in a sealed bag before heading out in the cold. ☺️

[Ralf11]

Sure, but was the sealed bag Master Quality Authenticated?

[charlesphoto]

Eyes and ears are different in their sensitivities - but we all know that, don't we? That said, I've always wondered what a better cable or some conditioning might bring to a monitor such as my NEC PA27, which is the only place I see cleaner power possibly having an impact (as some report with their AV setups). Otherwise the engineering is pretty locked in with my scanner, printer etc. Of course EE's for cameras spend a lot off time dealing with power - but on a micro level compared to a stereo amplifier. Power creates heat, heat creates noise, and that is the noise that creeps in as digital hash at higher iso's. 

[Ralf11]

34 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

Eyes and ears are different in their sensitivities - but we all know that, don't we? ...

 

 

No, I don't know that.

 

First, is the issue of how different sensory modalities can even be compared.

 

Second, one valid answer is that one could compare how close they come (how close they have evolved) to a perfect sensor that is limited only by physics, no matter how constructed.

 

The human ear is so close that it is noise limited (by air molecules bouncing off the ear drum - according to some older research).

 

The human eye is also very close to a perfect quantum device (IIRC, I posted a cite to Albert Rose's book above or in another thread).  He considered film cameras, video cameras and the vertebrate eye, comparing them all as only a Bell labs research scientist could do.

 

So, this means they are quite close in sensitivity, using evolution to a limit of the physical universe as a metric.

[yamamoto2002]

I think this is the future of photography... And it is Leica!

 

 

[Ralf11]

looks like a trickle-down from the radar systems that archaeologists use for mapping ancient buildings

[gmgraves]

On 6/27/2019 at 9:15 AM, Ralf11 said:

 

 

No, I don't know that.

 

First, is the issue of how different sensory modalities can even be compared.

 

Second, one valid answer is that one could compare how close they come (how close they have evolved) to a perfect sensor that is limited only by physics, no matter how constructed.

 

The human ear is so close that it is noise limited (by air molecules bouncing off the ear drum - according to some older research).

 

The human eye is also very close to a perfect quantum device (IIRC, I posted a cite to Albert Rose's book above or in another thread).  He considered film cameras, video cameras and the vertebrate eye, comparing them all as only a Bell labs research scientist could do.

 

So, this means they are quite close in sensitivity, using evolution to a limit of the physical universe as a metric.

Hearing and listening are two separate, though related, things. In hearing, people's frequency response differs according to age, sex, and environment. For example, a 12-year-old girl can likely hear 22kHz and perhaps a bit higher. OTOH, a 60 year old man (or perhaps a 30 year old who has been exposed to high SPLs such as a boiler factory at work, or too many live rock concerts) may have frequency extension only to 14kHz or even less. But this doesn't really alter most people's ability to hear and appreciate music. But trained listeners (such as "golden-eared" audiophiles) have trained his/her listening acumen to notice things in a musical presentation, that most ordinary listeners would not notice (nor care about, for that matter). 

Sight is different. Advancing age, of course, changes ones sight as well as one's hearing. The difference is that eyeglasses can correct many age-related sight problems such as near-sightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, close focusing, etc., and compound glasses can correct several of these things at once. However, there are no prosthetic devices such as hearing aids that can bring back one's lost high-frequency response, and the hearing aids that are available can only bring back some of one's failing ability to hear everyday sounds such as speech. From what people using hearing aids tell me, even the best, most expensive hearing aids have lousy frequency response and make music sound terrible. 

[Ralf11]

ok, what about rhodopsin cycle time as a f(age)??

 

sure - they are different

[accwai]

On 7/12/2019 at 9:01 AM, yamamoto2002 said:

I think this is the future of photography... [...]

 

So what exactly is the use case for photography in the future?

 

19 hours ago, gmgraves said:

[...] From what people using hearing aids tell me, even the best, most expensive hearing aids have lousy frequency response and make music sound terrible. 

 

Wow, most radically expensive hearing aid(s) Never auditioned one of those before. What's the make and model? Anyway, I thought higher end hearing aids have programmable frequency response and selectable modes. Does the audiologist that did the fitting know what they're doing? Of course, I'm no expert so I'm probably totally out of it.

[Ralf11]

Here is part of the future:

 

https://www.dpreview.com/news/7397648568/harvard-researchers-create-mini-polarization-camera-that-shows-how-shrimp-see-the-world

 

 

[yamamoto2002]

7 hours ago, accwai said:

 

So what exactly is the use case for photography in the future?

 

You can choose camera position, camera direction, lens focal length (field of view), focus and depth of field after taking the picture!

[rando]

I would have thought renting satellite time the most accurate answer.  Then again I pursue different views than most on this site.  🌌

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, accwai said:

 

So what exactly is the use case for photography in the future?

 

 

Wow, most radically expensive hearing aid(s) Never auditioned one of those before. What's the make and model? Anyway, I thought higher end hearing aids have programmable frequency response and selectable modes. Does the audiologist that did the fitting know what they're doing? Of course, I'm no expert so I'm probably totally out of it.

I wouldn’t know. A buddy of mine wears two. He says that they cost US$7000 EACH!  He also complains about how terrible music sounds with them all the time. He says that he has never heard a hearing aid that sounded any better than “music on hold” on a telephone. I don’t wear one myself, so all of this is just hearsay, but it’s hearsay from everyone I have ever known who has worn a hearing aid. If there is a good sounding hearing aid that allows one to enjoy music, I’ve never heard of it.

[marce]

Creating a picture is art, making music is art, listening to a stereo is not art its listening to a stereo...😀

[John Dyson]

B+W photography has another (to me, interesting) facet...  Picking the correct developer/process for the specific image.  Developers had a HUGE impact on the image.  Some developers/film combinations were really great for detail, some for texture, some could even do a subtle (or not-so-subtle) edge enhancement, and even compress the contrast to the extreme.  There was a bit of a tone gradiation vs detail tension in film material, and the developers could tweak that tension (or totally blow it away.)   There were even developers that could do an almost 'agc' on the exposure level -- almost compensating slightly for over/under exposure.  When just doing 'pictures', I'd use something like 'Diafine' or mix my own equivalent.  If the high contrast side of the developer (Usually hydroquinone or catechol) were dilute, then there would be an edge enhancement or 'agc' effect.  Used properly, catechol (basically hydroquinone with an 'H' in a different place) would be very helpful for mitigating over-exposure.  Pure phenidone in a moderately low pH solution could change a fine grain, super contrast film into a good, almost normal contrast range, high detail film.

(Very seldom used D76 or a normal-contrast phenidone equivalent -- but it did have it's place.)

(Vitamin-C even makes a moderately useful, non-toxic high contrast developer, would be used in combo with phenidone.)

 

There was A LOT to B+W photography -- of course, color had it's own set of controls/variables...

I loved it back then.

 

John