Digital BW, The Print

I'm wondering if anyone is using a medium format back with a Hasselblad 2000
or 200 series camera?  Leaf has told me that their backs only work with the
shutterless 500 series cameras.  I'd really like to experiment with a single
shot back with my Zeiss 110 FE lenses...but alas...no leaf shutter...so I
need to use a 200x series camera...at least with film.  It seems that if the
back was capable as acting as a shutter by powering on and off it shouldn't
matter...but apparently at least the leaf backs require a shutter...still
waiting to hear from Kodak.


Robert

Hi Robert:

I have tried using my Kodak ProBackPlus on my 2000FC - NO  GOOD!!  -  
the IR filter frame just touches the rear shutter curtain. If the filter 
holder were just a tad thinner it might clear

Phil Lindsay

On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 09:24 AM, Robert Morrison wrote:

> I'm wondering if anyone is using a medium format back with a Hasselblad 
> 2000
> or 200 series camera?  Leaf has told me that their backs only work with 
> the
> shutterless 500 series cameras.  I'd really like to experiment with a 
> single
> shot back with my Zeiss 110 FE lenses...but alas...no leaf 
> shutter...so I
> need to use a 200x series camera...at least with film.  It seems that 
> if the
> back was capable as acting as a shutter by powering on and off it 
> shouldn't
> matter...but apparently at least the leaf backs require a 
> shutter...still
> waiting to hear from Kodak.
>
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this 
> same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Phil,

> I have tried using my Kodak ProBackPlus on my 2000FC - NO  GOOD!!  -  
> the IR filter frame just touches the rear shutter curtain. If the filter 
> holder were just a tad thinner it might clear

Take the IR filter off ;-)

Austin

Austin:

Two problems with taking out the IR filter - (1)  focus shift  and (2) 
very weird color. A Tiffen Hot Mirror helps the color a bit.

Phil

On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 07:48 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Phil,
>
>> I have tried using my Kodak ProBackPlus on my 2000FC - NO  GOOD!!  -
>> the IR filter frame just touches the rear shutter curtain. If the 
>> filter
>> holder were just a tad thinner it might clear
>
> Take the IR filter off ;-)
>
> Austin
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this 
> same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Hi Austin:

The IR filter is needed in the optical path for correct focus.  The IR 
function can be partly handled with a Hot Mirror Filter

Phil

On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 07:48 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Phil,
>
>> I have tried using my Kodak ProBackPlus on my 2000FC - NO  GOOD!!  -
>> the IR filter frame just touches the rear shutter curtain. If the 
>> filter
>> holder were just a tad thinner it might clear
>
> Take the IR filter off ;-)
>
> Austin
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this 
> same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Hi Phil,

Well, hum...actually not...the IR filter is to prevent color contamination
of the image data...but none the less, you could use a front mounted IR
filter if you wanted to.  The color data can be corrected as well, but I'm
not sure how well.

Austin

> Hi Austin:
>
> The IR filter is needed in the optical path for correct focus.  The IR
> function can be partly handled with a Hot Mirror Filter
>
> Phil
>
> On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 07:48 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > Phil,
> >
> >> I have tried using my Kodak ProBackPlus on my 2000FC - NO  GOOD!!  -
> >> the IR filter frame just touches the rear shutter curtain. If the
> >> filter
> >> holder were just a tad thinner it might clear
> >
> > Take the IR filter off ;-)
> >
> > Austin

Phil,

Why do you believe there is focus shift?  This isn't the same type of filter
that blocks all but IR, it blocks IR.  If you pass IR, you would have a
focus shift, clearly, but I have not seen a substantial focus shift not
using an IR filter.

As I said in the other post, the color should be able to be corrected to a
great degree, if not entirely...but that's just a guess, and it's worked
fine for me.

Have you tried it without the IR filter?

Austin

>
> Austin:
>
> Two problems with taking out the IR filter - (1)  focus shift  and (2)
> very weird color. A Tiffen Hot Mirror helps the color a bit.
>
> Phil
>
> On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 07:48 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > Phil,
> >
> >> I have tried using my Kodak ProBackPlus on my 2000FC - NO  GOOD!!  -
> >> the IR filter frame just touches the rear shutter curtain. If the
> >> filter
> >> holder were just a tad thinner it might clear
> >
> > Take the IR filter off ;-)
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
> > and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
> > same page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> > keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> > header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> > various resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Even if you could get the clearance, I'm not sure it would work.  The
impression that I got from Leaf was that there was a synchronization problem
between the focal plan shutters and the backs.  They said that if they had
made it work it would have only been usable at the flash sync shutter
speed...which I think is 1/90 of a second with the FE lenses.

Its just incredible to me that someone can't make the top of the line
Hasselblads work with a digital back.  Its like telling me to trade the
Ferrari in for a Ford to put the new Pirrelli's on.

Oh...an analogy...I didn't mean it...honest.

Robert

On 5/29/03 7:43 PM, "Phil Lindsay" <fotophil@...> wrote:

> Hi Robert:
> 
> I have tried using my Kodak ProBackPlus on my 2000FC - NO  GOOD!!  -
> the IR filter frame just touches the rear shutter curtain. If the filter
> holder were just a tad thinner it might clear
> 
> Phil Lindsay
> On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 09:24 AM, Robert Morrison wrote:
> 
>> I'm wondering if anyone is using a medium format back with a Hasselblad
>> 2000
>> or 200 series camera?  Leaf has told me that their backs only work with
>> the
>> shutterless 500 series cameras.  I'd really like to experiment with a
>> single
>> shot back with my Zeiss 110 FE lenses...but alas...no leaf
>> shutter...so I
>> need to use a 200x series camera...at least with film.  It seems that
>> if the
>> back was capable as acting as a shutter by powering on and off it
>> shouldn't
>> matter...but apparently at least the leaf backs require a
>> shutter...still
>> waiting to hear from Kodak.
>> 
>> 
>> Robert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
>> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
>> same page.
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
>> keep them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
>> header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
>> various resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

Hi Robert,

> Even if you could get the clearance, I'm not sure it would work.  The
> impression that I got from Leaf was that there was a
> synchronization problem
> between the focal plan shutters and the backs.  They said that if they had
> made it work it would have only been usable at the flash sync shutter
> speed...which I think is 1/90 of a second with the FE lenses.

Correct.

> Its just incredible to me that someone can't make the top of the line
> Hasselblads work with a digital back.

There are some very critical issues with making this work.  One of them is
synchronizing the shutter with the digital back.  The other is getting the
sensor coplanar with the plane of focus...and with the IR/Anti-alias filter
holder being quite protruding, that is an issue as well...but one that I'm
surprised they did such a poor job at IMO.  These filters are very thin, and
certainly could be made mechanically workable.  I think they just designed
it for the shutterless cameras since that's really all they could make them
work with anyway.

The problem with the focal plane shutters is the shutter isn't open all at
one time!  It's a slit above a certain shutter speed (typically the sync
speed).  It's a big honking shutter to make move that fast without making it
a slit.  Central shutters don't have this issue.

Regards,

Austin

On 5/29/03 9:15 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> The problem with the focal plane shutters is the shutter isn't open all at
> one time!  It's a slit above a certain shutter speed (typically the sync
> speed).  It's a big honking shutter to make move that fast without making it
> a slit.  Central shutters don't have this issue.

Austin,

Couldn't the CCD itself be made to act as the shutter...simply powering up
for a given amount of time?  You could delay the sensor just a touch to get
the mirror out of the way and even have the mirror stay up out of the way
until you release it. Forgive my naivety.

I know you like your Hasselblad 110 f/2...wouldn't you like to be able to
use it with your back?  How about designing us a little back :-)  Oh...I
suppose around 100mp would be nice while you are at it...and for god sake
put a ND filter in front of it...I certainly don't want to waste that bokeh
from the 110 f/2 on a color photo!


Robert

Robert writes:

> Its just incredible to me that someone can't
> make the top of the line Hasselblads work with
> a digital back.

Nowadays there seems to be an assumption that the only important part is the
electronic part, so perhaps it is taken for granted that you'll just buy
whatever type of body works with your digital back.  Given that the back
probably represents almost the entire price of the system, one can see the
reasoning behind this.

> Its like telling me to trade the
> Ferrari in for a Ford to put the new Pirrelli's on.

It's like telling you to trade in the Ferrari for a Ford in order to convert
it to a hovercraft.  The Pirelli tires still work on the Ferrari, but they
aren't nearly as sexy as a hovercraft.

On 5/29/03 11:43 PM, "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:

> Nowadays there seems to be an assumption that the only important part is the
> electronic part, so perhaps it is taken for granted that you'll just buy
> whatever type of body works with your digital back.  Given that the back
> probably represents almost the entire price of the system, one can see the
> reasoning behind this.

I understand this logic for a 35mm SLR user...but the problem is that it
doesn't really work for a Hasselblad user.  The average Hasselblad pro
probably has twice the value of a digital back in lenses and bodies.  Also,
the Hasselblad/Zeiss FE lenses, which require a camera based shutter, are in
many ways superior (faster shutter speeds and greater aperture) to the C
series lenses.  Because of the need for a shutter these lenses do not work
on the 500 series cameras that the backs are being made for.

Besides at this point it is much, much more flexible to shoot film than to
use a 50 ASA digital back...nonetheless I'd like the option.

Robert

Robert writes:

> I understand this logic for a 35mm SLR user...but
> the problem is that it doesn't really work for a
> Hasselblad user.  The average Hasselblad pro
> probably has twice the value of a digital back
> in lenses and bodies.

That's true for 35mm pros, too; but the "solution" seems to be to just
recommend that they buy special, "digital" lenses to replace their
investment in existing lenses.

> Also, the Hasselblad/Zeiss FE lenses, which require
> a camera based shutter, are in many ways superior
> (faster shutter speeds and greater aperture) to the C
> series lenses.

They are inferior in some ways, too.  A focal-plane shutter solves some
problems, but creates others.

Personally, I see very little advantage to digital backs at this point in
time, except for some fairly narrow applications of MF photography.  As you
point out yourself, it's far easier to shoot film, and the results are
superior.

Anthony,

> > Also, the Hasselblad/Zeiss FE lenses, which require
> > a camera based shutter, are in many ways superior
> > (faster shutter speeds and greater aperture) to the C
> > series lenses.
>
> They are inferior in some ways, too.

Name the ways.  The F(E) lenses have closer focus.  The MTF is typically
equal to or superior to the CF(E) counterpart (of which the 110/2 has none),
and they are lighter.

> A focal-plane shutter solves some
> problems, but creates others.

Like what?  You can always use a CF(E) lense on any of the focal plane
shutter bodies.

Austin

Hi Robert,

> Couldn't the CCD itself be made to act as the shutter...

Interline sensors work this way, but not the type of CCD used in these
digital backs.  Interline are the type used in the cheapo digicams and
digital video cameras.  The CCDs used in these backs have to have complete
darkness other than for exposure time.

> I know you like your Hasselblad 110 f/2...wouldn't you like to be able to
> use it with your back?  How about designing us a little back :-)  Oh...I
> suppose around 100mp would be nice while you are at it...and for god sake
> put a ND filter in front of it...I certainly don't want to waste
> that bokeh
> from the 110 f/2 on a color photo!

Believe me, it's been on my white board for many years...  I even went as
far as getting quotes for a 60x60 sensor, since no one makes one, I would
have had to have it custom made.  It's not THAT expensive, but I don't see,
economically, that it makes sense to do.  Some day I may do it...but not in
the next few years.

Austin

On 5/30/03 2:48 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

>> I know you like your Hasselblad 110 f/2...wouldn't you like to be able to
>> use it with your back?  How about designing us a little back :-)  Oh...I
>> suppose around 100mp would be nice while you are at it...and for god sake
>> put a ND filter in front of it...I certainly don't want to waste
>> that bokeh
>> from the 110 f/2 on a color photo!
> 
> Believe me, it's been on my white board for many years...  I even went as
> far as getting quotes for a 60x60 sensor, since no one makes one, I would
> have had to have it custom made.  It's not THAT expensive, but I don't see,
> economically, that it makes sense to do.  Some day I may do it...but not in
> the next few years.
> 
Well, when Austin decides to do it...make two...ok? :-)

Robert

> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

on 5/30/2003 2:33 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 22:12:34 -0700
> From: Robert Morrison <rmorrison@...>
> Subject: Re: MF Digital Backs
> 
> On 5/29/03 9:15 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:
> 
>> The problem with the focal plane shutters is the shutter isn't open all at
>> one time!  It's a slit above a certain shutter speed (typically the sync
>> speed).  It's a big honking shutter to make move that fast without making it
>> a slit.  Central shutters don't have this issue.
> 
> Austin,
> 
> Couldn't the CCD itself be made to act as the shutter...simply powering up
> for a given amount of time?  You could delay the sensor just a touch to get
> the mirror out of the way and even have the mirror stay up out of the way
> until you release it. Forgive my naivety.
> 
> I know you like your Hasselblad 110 f/2...wouldn't you like to be able to
> use it with your back?  How about designing us a little back :-)  Oh...I
> suppose around 100mp would be nice while you are at it...and for god sake
> put a ND filter in front of it...I certainly don't want to waste that bokeh
> from the 110 f/2 on a color photo!
> 
> 
> Robert

 
Robert,

I would say the answer to this might be to build your own simple camera body
that will hold Hasselblad lenses at one end and the digi-back at the other.
You don't need a physical shutter for the digital back, only a flapping
mirror for ground glass viewing.  This is a really doable project if you
really really love these lenses.

If you can live with a darker viewfinder, you can use a partially silvered
mirror and direct 80% of the light to the digi sensor and 20% to the ground
glass. This will allow a fixed mirror, and no mechanical moving parts.
Better yet, make the mirror removable or changeable for when you need better
viewing or more light on the sensor. My favorite idea: make the mirror hand
flappable only. Mirror down: focus and compose. Mirror up: take pictures
without looking through the camera.

This camera body can be built for a few thousand dollars by a good
machinist. Build a few and you'll get the price down fast. There are many
machinists who build custom camera and lens mounts for movie cameras.  Hassy
lenses are already used for some effects shot in vista vision so there are
already drawings and designs for the lens mount that would not have to be
duplicated.

If any of you build this photographic wonder, let me know!

-Bruce

Bruce,

> You don't need a physical shutter for the digital back...

I believe you are mistaken.  You NEED a shutter for the type of CCD that
this would use.  You do not need a shutter for an interline sensor, but
these are very inferior and they are also very small.

Austin

on 5/30/2003 11:47 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 21
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 19:39:14 -0400
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> Subject: RE: Re: MF Digital Backs
> 
> 
> Bruce,
> 
>> You don't need a physical shutter for the digital back...
> 
> I believe you are mistaken.  You NEED a shutter for the type of CCD that
> this would use.  You do not need a shutter for an interline sensor, but
> these are very inferior and they are also very small.
> 
> Austin

Oops! Back to the drawing board.

Thanks Austin, you may have saved someone a lot of money.

Back on topic, if you have any idea how to place a high res crt into a photo
enlarger for silver prints from digital files let me know.

 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr