4 Giga Pixel Analog Camera

Black Maple

A
Black Maple

  • 2
  • 1
  • 147
spillway

A
spillway

  • Tel
  • May 26, 2022
  • 0
  • 0
  • 96
Passing place

A
Passing place

  • 2
  • 3
  • 117
Red Brick School-1

A
Red Brick School-1

  • 1
  • 0
  • 108
Cocktails

A
Cocktails

  • 0
  • 3
  • 128

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
177,255
Messages
2,431,183
Members
94,155
Latest member
brianatkinsphoto
Recent bookmarks
0

SchwinnParamount

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,691
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
 

JLMoore3

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
118
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.
 

Graeme Hird

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
689
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.
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,829
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.
 

mark

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Messages
5,686
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?
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,829
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.
 

roteague

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
6,644
Location
Kaneohe, Haw
Shooter
4x5 Format

titrisol

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
1,778
Location
RDU / UIO
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)?
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,829
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.
 

roteague

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
6,644
Location
Kaneohe, Haw
Shooter
4x5 Format
David A. Goldfarb said:
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.

I wonder how it would look on a Tango drum scanner at 10,000 dpi!!!!
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,829
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.
 

titrisol

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
1,778
Location
RDU / UIO
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!


David A. Goldfarb said:
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.
 

Terry Hayden

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
69
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.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford Photo ADOX Freestyle Photographic Photo Warehouse Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom