! GIG view camera - take a look

[Chuck (CA)]

Dead Link Removed

 

[Jorge]

Dead Link Removed

One more troll....you never take a break, do you? Resolution is a combination of the lens and film or in the case of your post (which BTW is old news) the digital back or whatever they are using. If I had a vacumm back in my 12x20 I could get files that are 2 gigs and just as sharp. There is nothing new here....move on.

 

[Troy Ammons]

Thats been around for a while and from what i have read of people that have seen the prints, the consensus is they are amazing in resolution and blah in composition, but then again its a heavy beast. They pass out magnifying glasses at the exhibits

I am still not 100% convinced its that much better than a top film, camera, lens and scan from anything else, like maybe 2 stitched 8x10 scans.

I personally have done a 3000 dpi scan of an 8x10 that was very sharp, but the file is so big its almost unworkable. Stitching 2 together would even worse, but if you did you could end up with 1360 mp. Printing at 240 dpi you could print at 96" H x 240" L.

Of course there is no printer that big and no computer fast enough that I could afford to stitch an image that big.

There was another guy, an artist that did it first about a year or two before these guys. Everything custom, vacuum back, special lens, aerial film etc. His famous shot was of a mountain range.

http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/R1-press-nytimes1.html

 

[jovo]

" ! GIG view camera - take a look"

On a computer monitor, the best example you've got might as well have been taken with a Minox...(if you know what that is )....so.....on this site...our pixels are bigger, better, and more important than yours are...so there...bwahahahahahahah.........

 

[kjsphoto]

I don’t know about you guys but almost all digital images I look at look exactly the same from camera to camera. All smooth and no depth. They just don’t have character like enlarged film does.

Also with my 6x17 I can scan at high res on a drum and get a 1gig file, which is just about impossible to work on.

I am happy with my enlarger, paper and the end product.

Let them keep to theirs and we keep to ours.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I much prefer Stephen Johnson's work or the guy who is doing the Better Light shots in Cambodia. Simply using an old aerial camera and scanning the hell out of it isn't very interesting. Plus their photos are trite and boring.

 

[John_Brewer]

Yawn

 

[laz]

Never saw this before. Took me a while at the website before I realized the site wasn't a joke; but of course it is a joke

 

[Andy K]

I'm curious. How long does it take to scan the scene and how does it deal with moving clouds etc? Not that I want one, I just don't see how something that has to scan such a large area can do it in the same time as a 1/125 exposure onto film.

 

[Christopher Colley]

I'm curious. How long does it take to scan the scene and how does it deal with moving clouds etc? Not that I want one, I just don't see how something that has to scan such a large area can do it in the same time as a 1/125 exposure onto film.

it is a film camera that uses large color film which is scanned and then printed digitally...

 

[Bob F.]

They don't Andy - the camera uses film which is then scanned.

No, I have no idea why this is such a big deal either... It's just an excellent marketing exercise as far as I can see.


Cheers, Bob.

 

[noseoil]

Looks like someone took a milk crate, 35mm camera, a lens, a LF body and a hood and came up with a "new" idea. Personally I think it is a "cute" idea which is trendy and spendy all at the same time. Sounds like it is a scan of LF film and a digital print. Am I missing something here, aside from the non-standard format, or is this new and revolutionary in some manner? tim