5 ms·

For the DSLR folks, the 16x20 Ambrotypes he's making are like a ~100+ MP image. If he had the lens quality and precision focal plane / standard mounting, he cou

For the DSLR folks, the 16x20 Ambrotypes he's making are like a ~100+ MP image. If he had the lens quality and precision focal plane / standard mounting, he could project this onto a billboard at an unheard-of resolution.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago
You can get 80 megapixel digital backs for Hasselblad cameras, where you actually get insane lens quality and a uber precise focal plane, so the resolution is not unheard-of. But the Ambrotype technique is really really cool.
- 467568985476 11y ago
  Indeed, and other digital medium format cameras such as the Phase One are in the 100MP range. Of course, they're impractical for a lot of reasons - the $55k price alone puts them out of reach for most hobbyists.
  - hengheng 11y ago
    Canon's 5Ds has been viewed as a game changer especially among aerial photographers. these guys used to convert six-seater planes and equip them with a catapult that pushes the camera back to get rid of motion blur during exposure time. In that industry, purchase price of these cameras wasn't really significant. Now that canon is pushing 50-160 MP on 36x24, digital medium format starts crumbling, and the idea of a "surveying plane" dies along with it. Drones lack the coverage, but the combination of unmanned flight and camera prices that dropped an order of magnitude creates a textbook disruption.
    - KaiserPro 11y ago
      5d? for aerial still? not really, for filming, yes. I was there when it exploded onto the advertising stage. But for stills not really. It was an alright camera, but there were more sensitive cameras even from canon. The nikon d700 was easier to use, and I think it was faster with better optical res (I could be wrong on the last bit) For high end surveying the 5d sucked because it has rolling shutter(and no finegrained speed control), so you couldn't use it in film mode to get 3d imagery. (RED suffers from this as well, along with being blind to colour, and having a rabid fanbase.) But then there was a trade off, one time resolution vs speed of acquisition. Film for large plate photography has better dynamic range even now. But it is slower and depending on the stock has less optical resolution. Most survey planes are all digital. For the kind of thing that's required its just not practical to have 3 miles of 70mm film. For peering out the side of a helicopter, just choose any high end dSLR, unless you want night shots, then you can't really use a digital medium format.
      - JackC 11y ago
        I think hengheng is talking about the 50-megapixel 5DS, released in June 2015: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr
        abakker 11y ago
        I have the 5DsR, which is the same as the 5Ds but with an anti-aliasing cancellation filter. I can confirm that at the pixel density on this camera, it is VERY challenging to get perfectly sharp photos if your shutter speeds drop too low. Pixel-level blur is a real problem on these cameras. Conversely, on medium format, you have a little bit more leeway for tripod shake as the individual pixels are larger. I have no experience with analog photography, So I'm not sure whether these same considerations are present.
    - WatchDog 11y ago
      Why use a plane and catapult instead of just using a helicopter?
      - NickNameNick 11y ago
        probably because helicopters cost more than $10/minute to operate (r-22's were nz$5/minute more than 10 years ago), and they vibrate a lot.
galago 11y ago
I shoot large (4x5) and medium format film. I think that the 'resolution' is complicated by the entire workflow. He's using a very old lens with a very imprecise camera and imprecise film. The images should probably described as 'smooth' rather than necessarily high resolution. The old lens provides extraordinary sharpness in the center, but is soft on the edges. That said, even with 6cmx6cm film negatives I feel like I often cannot really use the detail available. That is, unless I'm printing very large photos in a film-only workflow I don't really see all the detail. My scanner seems to be limited by the ability to keep the film flat rather than the actual scanning sensor. I don't usually bother scanning higher than 50MP.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  I think you need to do wet scanning to really get the detail beyond ~40 MP.
  - Finnucane 11y ago
    Wet mounting will only help if the scanner focus can be optimized. I've got a Epson V750, and _if_ everything is just right, you can get a very good scan, but still noticeably short of what a drum scan will give you. When I print my MF or 4x5 images, I don't really worry about 'all the detail', since as you say, you'd need a pretty big print to really see them. I'm just happy if they look nice and sharp on the wall. I have to give mad props to the guys still doing collodion--that is way above my pay grade, as they say. And I don't want to carry glass plates on my bike. I try to limit the toxicness of the chemistry I have in the house as much as can, but I still like doing the lab work--it is satisfying to me in a way that no digital process is ever going to be.
    - bigiain 11y ago
      I particularly like the photo of the chemicals (including one in a bottle marked by hand with "XXX"), which includes a bottle of whiskey...
    - stan_rogers 11y ago
KaiserPro 11y ago
Depending on many things, possibly yes. However it depends on the solution, process, timing, temperature and skill of the operator. Wet plate looks amazing, because the depth of field is much smaller, and the colours that the process is sensitive to is very tight. (I think its blue/UV but I could be wrong. I also suspect its very dependent on the process.) Decent 35mm film is 8 mp (in movies at least) 70mm (IMAX) is about 32 mp (the 80mm panavision on hateful 8 is possibly more, depending on the film stock) so scaling that up, nievely you can see its possibly much much more. But, modern film is light years removed from wet plate.
- spott 11y ago
  >because the depth of field is much smaller, Why? It isn't immediately obvious to me why the FILM would have an effect on the depth of field.
  - KaiserPro 11y ago
    Oh no, film its self doesn't, sorry. Depth of field is a function of the sensor size, the size of the aperture and focal length. Film tends to have bigger image area, which means longer focal length, which gives shallower depth of field. (the bigger the film, the more resolution you have also) This image sorta explains it: http://blog.berniesumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/dof-model-5.gif http://blog.berniesumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/do... and http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/illustration-how-aperture-works-2.gif http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/illustration-how-aperture-works-2... Because large CMOS/CCD sensors are expensive most digital sensors are smaller than film. most dSLRs are APS-C sized, which is notable smaller than 35mm or "full frame" which is again smaller than medium format or 120mm those digital cameras are still notably expensive ($45k+) and less sensitive compared to film. 35mm DSLRs destroy their film counterparts now. Especially the nikon d800/600 and the canon equivalents.
    - kakali 11y ago
      I believe depth of field is only a function of aperture size and not focal length.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago

You can get 80 megapixel digital backs for Hasselblad cameras, where you actually get insane lens quality and a uber precise focal plane, so the resolution is not unheard-of. But the Ambrotype technique is really really cool.

467568985476 11y ago
Indeed, and other digital medium format cameras such as the Phase One are in the 100MP range. Of course, they're impractical for a lot of reasons - the $55k price alone puts them out of reach for most hobbyists.
- hengheng 11y ago
  Canon's 5Ds has been viewed as a game changer especially among aerial photographers. these guys used to convert six-seater planes and equip them with a catapult that pushes the camera back to get rid of motion blur during exposure time. In that industry, purchase price of these cameras wasn't really significant. Now that canon is pushing 50-160 MP on 36x24, digital medium format starts crumbling, and the idea of a "surveying plane" dies along with it. Drones lack the coverage, but the combination of unmanned flight and camera prices that dropped an order of magnitude creates a textbook disruption.
  - KaiserPro 11y ago
    5d? for aerial still? not really, for filming, yes. I was there when it exploded onto the advertising stage. But for stills not really. It was an alright camera, but there were more sensitive cameras even from canon. The nikon d700 was easier to use, and I think it was faster with better optical res (I could be wrong on the last bit) For high end surveying the 5d sucked because it has rolling shutter(and no finegrained speed control), so you couldn't use it in film mode to get 3d imagery. (RED suffers from this as well, along with being blind to colour, and having a rabid fanbase.) But then there was a trade off, one time resolution vs speed of acquisition. Film for large plate photography has better dynamic range even now. But it is slower and depending on the stock has less optical resolution. Most survey planes are all digital. For the kind of thing that's required its just not practical to have 3 miles of 70mm film. For peering out the side of a helicopter, just choose any high end dSLR, unless you want night shots, then you can't really use a digital medium format.
    - JackC 11y ago
      I think hengheng is talking about the 50-megapixel 5DS, released in June 2015: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr
      - abakker 11y ago
        I have the 5DsR, which is the same as the 5Ds but with an anti-aliasing cancellation filter. I can confirm that at the pixel density on this camera, it is VERY challenging to get perfectly sharp photos if your shutter speeds drop too low. Pixel-level blur is a real problem on these cameras. Conversely, on medium format, you have a little bit more leeway for tripod shake as the individual pixels are larger. I have no experience with analog photography, So I'm not sure whether these same considerations are present.
  - WatchDog 11y ago
    Why use a plane and catapult instead of just using a helicopter?
    - NickNameNick 11y ago
      probably because helicopters cost more than $10/minute to operate (r-22's were nz$5/minute more than 10 years ago), and they vibrate a lot.

galago 11y ago

I shoot large (4x5) and medium format film. I think that the 'resolution' is complicated by the entire workflow. He's using a very old lens with a very imprecise camera and imprecise film. The images should probably described as 'smooth' rather than necessarily high resolution. The old lens provides extraordinary sharpness in the center, but is soft on the edges. That said, even with 6cmx6cm film negatives I feel like I often cannot really use the detail available. That is, unless I'm printing very large photos in a film-only workflow I don't really see all the detail. My scanner seems to be limited by the ability to keep the film flat rather than the actual scanning sensor. I don't usually bother scanning higher than 50MP.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago
I think you need to do wet scanning to really get the detail beyond ~40 MP.
- Finnucane 11y ago
  Wet mounting will only help if the scanner focus can be optimized. I've got a Epson V750, and _if_ everything is just right, you can get a very good scan, but still noticeably short of what a drum scan will give you. When I print my MF or 4x5 images, I don't really worry about 'all the detail', since as you say, you'd need a pretty big print to really see them. I'm just happy if they look nice and sharp on the wall. I have to give mad props to the guys still doing collodion--that is way above my pay grade, as they say. And I don't want to carry glass plates on my bike. I try to limit the toxicness of the chemistry I have in the house as much as can, but I still like doing the lab work--it is satisfying to me in a way that no digital process is ever going to be.
  - bigiain 11y ago
    I particularly like the photo of the chemicals (including one in a bottle marked by hand with "XXX"), which includes a bottle of whiskey...
  - stan_rogers 11y ago

KaiserPro 11y ago

Depending on many things, possibly yes. However it depends on the solution, process, timing, temperature and skill of the operator. Wet plate looks amazing, because the depth of field is much smaller, and the colours that the process is sensitive to is very tight. (I think its blue/UV but I could be wrong. I also suspect its very dependent on the process.) Decent 35mm film is 8 mp (in movies at least) 70mm (IMAX) is about 32 mp (the 80mm panavision on hateful 8 is possibly more, depending on the film stock) so scaling that up, nievely you can see its possibly much much more. But, modern film is light years removed from wet plate.

spott 11y ago
>because the depth of field is much smaller, Why? It isn't immediately obvious to me why the FILM would have an effect on the depth of field.
- KaiserPro 11y ago
  Oh no, film its self doesn't, sorry. Depth of field is a function of the sensor size, the size of the aperture and focal length. Film tends to have bigger image area, which means longer focal length, which gives shallower depth of field. (the bigger the film, the more resolution you have also) This image sorta explains it: http://blog.berniesumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/dof-model-5.gif http://blog.berniesumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/do... and http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/illustration-how-aperture-works-2.gif http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/illustration-how-aperture-works-2... Because large CMOS/CCD sensors are expensive most digital sensors are smaller than film. most dSLRs are APS-C sized, which is notable smaller than 35mm or "full frame" which is again smaller than medium format or 120mm those digital cameras are still notably expensive ($45k+) and less sensitive compared to film. 35mm DSLRs destroy their film counterparts now. Especially the nikon d800/600 and the canon equivalents.
  - kakali 11y ago
    I believe depth of field is only a function of aperture size and not focal length.