4 Giga Pixel Analog Camera

Discussion in 'Camera Building, Repairs & Modification' started by donbga, Feb 9, 2005.

  1. donbga

    donbga Member

    Messages:
    2,084
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Shooter:
    Large Format Pan
  2. SchwinnParamount

    SchwinnParamount Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,255
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Ok so this guy's claim to fame is that he makes BIG pictures. Wow, since bigger IS better, he must be the best photographer on the planet
     
  3. JLMoore3

    JLMoore3 Member

    Messages:
    114
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Okay-

    Being the gadget freak that I'm known to be...

    I GOTTA GET ME ONE OF THESE!

    Sure, it's just bigger pictures... but it sounds like fun to tinker with. I haven't the faintest idea how to use one of these, but what a great toy!


    Side note- my wife just looked over my shoulder & announced:

    "Don't even THINK about it!"

    Damn.
     
  4. Graeme Hird

    Graeme Hird Member

    Messages:
    696
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Location:
    Fremantle, W
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    How come we keep seeing this technician's work? Can't we just ignore him?

    It seems that every few months someone "discovers" this web site, gets amazed by the banality of his work and posts a link on every LF forum in the world.

    I gotta speak to his marketing agent ...... or get a gimmick.
     
  5. donbga

    donbga Member

    Messages:
    2,084
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Shooter:
    Large Format Pan
    All photographers have a gimmick.

    Don Bryant
     
  6. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Oh NO!!! not this again!!
     
  7. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,942
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    This one I think is actually different from the guy in the news a few months ago. That was Clifford Ross. This is Graham Flint.
     
  8. mark

    mark Member

    Messages:
    5,264
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Yeah he is different. DOing the same thing, proving that he probably has more money than most and producing hohum really freakin big pictures. A bigger heavier camera makes you a better lover....um..photographer right?
     
  9. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,942
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Most people just don't realize what you can do with a big piece of film, all other improvements aside (and I would not regard building a LF camera with no movements as an "improvement"). This came up on another list (not particularly photographic) that I follow, and I posted this in response--

    If you are curious as to what you get with an ordinary 8x10" neg scanned
    on an ordinary 1000 dpi flatbed scanner (an old Agfa Duoscan), I have one
    on my photo site at 4 different resolutions at:

    http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/imviaduct.htm

    No nuclear reactor or spy plane parts involved. Just an 8x10" Gowland
    PocketView (an ultralight monorail camera), a conventional filmholder, a
    50-year-old single-coated lens, and T-Max 100 not particularly processed
    for fine grain. A few off-the-shelf refinements like a modern lens, a
    somewhat sturdier camera like a Sinar, maybe a Sinar high-end filmholder
    (has better flatness than a standard holder), and a drum scan, and it
    would be hard to tell the difference from a Flint/Ross type camera.
     
  10. roteague

    roteague Member

    Messages:
    6,671
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Kaneohe, Haw
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
  11. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    would aerial film have far more resolution than standard film?
    The one kodak has listed sayd 400 lp/mm

    PS. Kewl picture, but scanned at 1,000 dpi it gives 16 Mpix. Saccning at 4,000 dpi would give 64 Mpix (or 256)?
     
  12. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,942
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Rob--the car on the left? Yeah, that's actually a tire repair place on that corner.

    Titrisol--At 1000 ppi, you get a 16 MB jpeg level 8 file, not 16 Mpix. 8000x10000 pixels=80 Mpix. At 4000 ppi you would get 1.28 Gpix.
     
  13. roteague

    roteague Member

    Messages:
    6,671
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Kaneohe, Haw
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I wonder how it would look on a Tango drum scanner at 10,000 dpi!!!!
     
  14. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,942
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    On the West Coast Imaging site they give the impression that there's not much to be gained by going beyond 5000 ppi.
     
  15. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Your XL image is just 3721 x 4556 Pixels (16.95 MPixels), what resolution did you use or what size of film you used.
    I'm assuming 10in on the long side? so you used 460 DPI (give or take a few)
    Or did you just scan a 3.2x4.5 in section?

    PS.. just noticed.... Half the resolution DUH!


     
  16. Terry Hayden

    Terry Hayden Member

    Messages:
    69
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    big honkin camera

    It is an interesting approach.

    I use 9x9 images everyday at work.

    The quoted 4,000 dpi film is probably pan-x. It is still available from
    Kodak as aerial roll film.

    Their color emulsions don't have that much resolution, so it is probably
    hyperbole.

    The scanner that they quoted using is an excellent photogrammetric device. However, it doesnt handle the density range of negatives as well as drum/graphic arts scanners do.

    The correlation to a good 8x10 neg is on point, except that this is a 9x18 image that he is using. For strong horizontal compositions it is pretty nice.

    Interesting shtick - but unfortunately it is notoriety based on a unique bit of hardware rather than talent/taste.