Looking for resource to buy laser drilled pinholes in the EU
-
A
- Thread starter rince
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Rodenstock Grandagon 58mm f/5.6 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Leica UVa filter, E41 (for Summicron, Leitz code 13205/XOOYL)
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale Leica Focusing magnifier 5x right angle for Visoflex I (Leitz code PAMOO/16488, 1940-1961)
- Started by Manual Camera
-
Want to Buy Alpa and Exakta lenses
- Started by Karl K
Forum statistics
Here you go. Silverprint in London have three sizes.
http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Pinhole-Plates/products/766/
http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Pinhole-Plates/products/766/
For a mere10 Euros Paul Kozafrom the University in Munich Germany will shot you any sizepinhole-shop@web.de
Thank you Ralph, exactly what I was looking for !
Thank you. I saw those, but those don't seem to be laser drilled, or did I misunderstand the description ? I thought those were acid etched and those can not be ordered in custom sizes I guess.
Thank you, but those seem to be acid etched pinholes and no laser drilled ones. I am looking specifically for laser drilled pinholes and I might need a custom size too. But thank you for linking this resource. They have other interesting items as well.
On Amazon Germany you can get laser drilled pinholes they are called Lochblende http://www.amazon.de/Lochblende-0-1...TF8&qid=1411848504&sr=8-3&keywords=lochblende.
skinkphoto
on ebay. skink-pinhole he-german- is using special technique.dont know which one. better than laser?
on ebay. skink-pinhole he-german- is using special technique.dont know which one. better than laser?
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 635
- Format
- Medium Format
Just received a couple of double etched pinholes from http://www.pinholesolutions.co.uk/
Under the microscope they look really good and smooth £15 each, just to add to the thread.
I was using a set gifted which looked really rough under the 'scope but they worked. What was surprising, to me as a newbie in this branch, was the large visible difference in result using both just to test quickly on an M8. They don't play as nicely as with film I have found but it allows a quick and dirty test with feedback. Neither result is better it depends on what you want. This is a crop of 10% of the frame.
0.2mm LHS 0.3mm RHS
Under the microscope they look really good and smooth £15 each, just to add to the thread.
I was using a set gifted which looked really rough under the 'scope but they worked. What was surprising, to me as a newbie in this branch, was the large visible difference in result using both just to test quickly on an M8. They don't play as nicely as with film I have found but it allows a quick and dirty test with feedback. Neither result is better it depends on what you want. This is a crop of 10% of the frame.
0.2mm LHS 0.3mm RHS
Dennis, google for Paul Kowa at Munich University.If you can't find him PM or email merlambrec@ymail.com and I look up his email in the meantime. I ordered pinholes from him several times;they were in expensive and perfect.
Dennis, google for Paul Kowa at Munich University.If you can't find him PM or email merlambrec@ymail.com and I look up his email in the meantime. I ordered pinholes from him several times;they were in expensive and perfect.
Thank you Ralph,
I will send Paul an email to get some pinholes for the 11x16 I am building at the moment. Thank you!
Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
Chris, in your two examples, if the focal length was optimum for the 0.2mm pinhole and the same focal length was used for the 0.3mm, the increased blur is more likely due to the oversized pinhole than to everything else. Some "experts" who rely on others' claims without bothering to do extensive experimenting themselves might say that pinhole diameter is not critical. Not so. When the diameter departs from optimum by 20% or even 10%, the loss in on-axis sharpness is noticeable. When the diameter is 50% larger than optimum, the blur is doubled. I have no experience with etched or laser drilled pinholes, but doubt that they offer any advantage over pinholes properly made by traditional methods.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 635
- Format
- Medium Format
Jim, Indeed that was my conclusion, that size matters !!
The various formulae for calculating the optimum appear to rely on a purely mathematical terms, but reach differing coclusions. Is there any source for a systematic experimental exploration or is the definition of sharpness too hard to pin (sorry) down?
In my case I would like to explore a series diverging by say 0.02mm around the 0.2mm whilst realising that optimising for 35mm film is not optimising at all really.
The pinhole world appears to revel in a rough and ready approach which is at once refreshing but unsettling for those of us raised on double blind crossover trials.
The various formulae for calculating the optimum appear to rely on a purely mathematical terms, but reach differing coclusions. Is there any source for a systematic experimental exploration or is the definition of sharpness too hard to pin (sorry) down?
In my case I would like to explore a series diverging by say 0.02mm around the 0.2mm whilst realising that optimising for 35mm film is not optimising at all really.
The pinhole world appears to revel in a rough and ready approach which is at once refreshing but unsettling for those of us raised on double blind crossover trials.
Some pinhole formulas were derived with purely mathematical considerations. This appears to be what Lord Rayliegh used for his often cited recommendations. I use www.pinhole.cz/en/pinholedesigner with a user constant of 1.4 for the desired on-axis sharpness determined by photographing resolution test charts (probably not the best method). Others might prefer a slightly different user constant, depending on personal taste. Pinhole Designer's default constant of 1.9 is too large, although increasing the constant does improve sharpness towards the edges of the image. Larger pinholes are easier to make and measure than tiny ones. This makes testing easier with a longer focal length. I've used seven feet of black plastic tubing on a 35mm camera for fast and convenient testing of on-axis performance.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 635
- Format
- Medium Format
That was one reason for buying a ready made known size, when I make my own I can examine under the scope and compare, unfortunately I don't have a measuring graticule eyepiece.
Comparisons of the on-axis performance with various pinholes is a good start in selecting one for use or for further testing.
One way of measuring a pinhole diameter is to scan it at fairly high resolution, and count the pixels across its diameter. Be careful not to overexpose too much; this might change the apparent diameter. Another way is to mount it in the film holder of an enlarger and measure the image when it is enlarged by a known ratio.
One way of measuring a pinhole diameter is to scan it at fairly high resolution, and count the pixels across its diameter. Be careful not to overexpose too much; this might change the apparent diameter. Another way is to mount it in the film holder of an enlarger and measure the image when it is enlarged by a known ratio.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 635
- Format
- Medium Format
| 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:  |