On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 05:23:29 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 21:16:08 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:11:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

Sony's a7 Series actually are mirrorless cameras, Joe. They look like
a DSLR but they have a high-res video screen in the finder, rather
than a mirror and prism.

But they are full-frame. Both Sony's APS-C sensors, like I have in my
NEX-7, and their full-frame sensors, as in their a7 cameras, are 24
MP. What you get with the full-frame sensor is a bit more dynamic
range, rather than more resolution.

I have a mirror-less camera too, an Olympus OM-D e-M1. Only ~16 Mpix,
but I'm happy. I was more interested in the size and weight of the
camera, and I'm taking snapshots.


What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

The few I've talked to are using 24 MP cameras to replace
medium-format cameras. A 35mm Kodachrome, says Kodak, is somewhere
between 14 MP and 20 MP. It's hard to fix the number because you're
comparing grain and circles of confusion (in the film, not in the
lens) with pixels, and they aren't exactly comparable. So they tell
me. BTW, I asked this question of Ted Gustavson, the film curator at
the museum in Rochester, just a few weeks ago. That's where I got it.
Back in the '90s, Kodak said that a Kodachrome slide was 18 MP.

So, the full-frame digitals fall between 35mm and 2-1/4.


I have some photos of a hot-stamping press that I got from
ThyssenKrupp Steel in Germany. They were shot with a 6x7 Mamiya with a
Leaf Aptus II back. A Leaf Aptus II back costs between $8,000 and
$12,000, depending on the version.

I have read about these. Film is (or was) a whole lot cheaper.


Here are the newer models:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/leaf_aptus.html

They're nice photos, but not that nice. g

Agree. It's still hard to beat an 8x10 Ektachrome.


I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

There are several solutions for 4x5. One is a Sinar back that costs
about as much as I paid for my house (if it's still available; it's
been around for years now),

I remember Sinar. Good camera. Never used one, though.


and another is a step-and-repeat back from
one of the aftermarket people that uses a regular camera, overlapping
steps, and blending in Photoshop. I've never seen or tried one but
I've heard they sell for less than $200. 'Don't know for sure.

I'd be suspicious of any solution that involved so much stitching of
little images. The eye is very good at detecting deviations from
reality.

How much worse could it be than a bloody fisheye lens? g


I've been trying to correct a photo I took of a vertical mill with a
wide angle lens and tool little space, using Dxo Optics with ViewPoint.
It almost works - I can straighten things out, but it still looks odd.
I guess that the amount of correction needed is too extreme.

Yeah, AFAIK, there is no real "un-FishEye" software for correction,
and normal wide-angle lenses don't really distort. Reshoot with real
lens and merge the 2 photos. Panorama software is quick, simple, and
distortion-free.


IMO, a 24 MP camera with top-notch lenses is more than I'd need for
anything.

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.

They shoot...wait for it...film.

_That_ old stuff?
Some time back I read about some software in Nasa Tech Briefs that was
used to fix distorted images. It worked very well. So I bet if you
serached the magazine you could find it. I don't remember if it was
developed by NASA or if it was available to the general public for
free. You should check.
Eric