hasselblad Tue, 26 Sep 2000 Volume 1 : Number 1000 In this issue: upcoming strict regs on silver pollution... Re: Hasselblad - Digital Re: followup Re: new Kodak 16 megapixel back for 'blad OT: digital&film (was Kodak 16 megapixel back) Re: dead medium walking Re: OT: digital&film (was Kodak 16 megapixel back) Re: digital&film (was Kodak 16 megapixel back) Re: OT: digital&film (was Kodak 16 megapixel back) Re: dead medium walking Re: The creative possibilities... Re: dead medium walking hassy swc non t* vs new 903 Re: hassy swc non t* vs new 903 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 04:24:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Monaghan To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: upcoming strict regs on silver pollution... Re: Hasselblad - Digital Message-ID: see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/film.html#epa on EPA plans to treat silver as a "heavy metal" contaminant, encouraging switch to inkjet prints rather than silver based papers and phaseout of slides of E6 or kodachrome varieties due to high costs of advanced silver recovery units for anti-pollution requirements of the EPA etc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:51:23 -0400 From: "Klaus Knuth" To: Subject: Re: followup Re: new Kodak 16 megapixel back for 'blad Message-ID: <001b01c026ef$50696ea0$dedb163f@kknuth> Mark wrote: > I didn't. But I do talk to the guys he gets his cameras from (digital & > film). So what is Lucas complaining about? Klaus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:40:51 -0400 From: "Cousineau , Bernard" To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: OT: digital&film (was Kodak 16 megapixel back) Message-ID: <4FAFDCF60A23D21197A500A0C9CFE33604EE640B@EMAIL> > Mark wrote: > > > I didn't. But I do talk to the guys he gets his cameras > from (digital & > > film). > > So what is Lucas complaining about? > > Klaus If I may... Basically, George Lucas's much-publicized plan to shoot the next Star Wars franchise on high-definition video has to do with his side-business in digital cinema projection. At this point in time, a few different companies are trying to get their high-def digital projectors accepted in the marketplace, and Lucas (in cooperation with Sony, I think) is one of them. The prize everyone is after is to become the picture equivalent of what Dolby has done for sound in theatres. There is much resistance from theatre owners on this front, mainly because this will mean a huge increase in capital investment for them. A digital projector will probably cost $100,000+ and have a life expectancy of a few years, whereas a film projector costs less than a fifth of this and can be used for decades. The specific problems that Lucas is reportedly having with his Sony-supplied high-def video camera have to do with the lack of flexibility of the system. It can not shoot at higher or lower frame rates, which is definitely a crutch for an action film (no running away from a ball of flames in slo-mo...). It has problems with high-contrast lighting, which shouldn't be a problem in a high-budget show. Worst of all, it doesn't look nearly as good as film. This was thought not to be a big problem, given that most of the footage in this particular film will be fiddled-with in post-production, but it always helps to start with the highest quality original. Regular 35mm motion productions often shoot scenes that will be digitally-manipulated in Vistavision, which is 8 perforations long (like 35mm still) so that they will not look out of place when cut with straight footage (4 perf, but really only 3 perforations high). The tradeoff that Lucas is facing is whether to shoot on film to get higher quality, or on digital to get the bragging rights and publicity. If his film ends-up being a flop, or if it is perceived as having low-quality effects, it would definitely hurt his chances of dominating the digital projection market, which is the much bigger prize. Bernard ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:44:47 -0400 From: "Wayne Wirs" To: Subject: Re: dead medium walking Message-ID: <000101c026ff$2af6b0a0$0101a8c0@ww1> It doesn't make any sense to me that film will ever be obsolete for professional photographers. The simple fact is that you can always get a larger digital image from scanning film with a desktop or drum scanner than you can with a digital back. The better the technology gets for the digital back, the better it will get for the scanners. Until they develop a CCD that can capture more information than film can (all you engineers could give us some feedback on that one), the film/scanner method will always result in a "better" digital image. The way I see it, comparing digital backs to film is like comparing 35mm to 6cm: it all boils down to convenience vs quality. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:57:39 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: OT: digital&film (was Kodak 16 megapixel back) Message-ID: <39CF75F3.1F7DE9EB@rabiner.cncoffice.com> "Cousineau , Bernard" wrote: > > The tradeoff that Lucas is facing is whether to shoot on film to get higher > quality, or on digital to get the bragging rights and publicity. If his film > ends-up being a flop, or if it is perceived as having low-quality effects, > it would definitely hurt his chances of dominating the digital projection > market, which is the much bigger prize. > > Bernard > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The last Star Wars which came out looked like a blow up from super 8; make that regular 8. An extreme difference from the 70mm we expect from George. When a year later i saw it again on my 36" Sony TV it looked a lot better then it had looked on the big screen! Just what was foisted upon the movie going audience by George I don't know but he owes me 7 bucks as far as I am concerned and his credibility with me is minimal. Mark William Rabiner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:16:27 -0500 From: "Mark Rutledge" To: Subject: Re: digital&film (was Kodak 16 megapixel back) Message-ID: <007d01c0270b$f5a30900$03a7cbd8@niki> Bernard wrote >If I may... >Basically, George Lucas's much-publicized plan to shoot the next Star Wars That pretty much sums up what I've heard, but in a much more detailed and in depth way.Thanks Bernard. Mark Rutledge ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:19:59 -0500 From: "Mark Rutledge" To: , Subject: Re: OT: digital&film (was Kodak 16 megapixel back) Message-ID: <008301c0270c$73ad4540$03a7cbd8@niki> > The last Star Wars which came out looked like a blow up from super 8; > make that regular 8. > An extreme difference from the 70mm we expect from George. > When a year later i saw it again on my 36" Sony TV it looked a lot better then > it had looked on the big screen! > > Just what was foisted upon the movie going audience by George I don't know but > he owes me 7 bucks as far as I am concerned and his credibility with me is minimal. > Mark William Rabiner > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I agree. A disappointment cinematographically, especially with all the hype over the digital effects. Mark Rutledge ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:05:41 +0200 From: Ragnar Hansen To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: dead medium walking Message-ID: <39CC9C95.1D63B45E@powertech.no> I have been told that the military has 4x5 " CCD backs with a pixel size of 4 my. If you say that you need two pixels to resolve one pair of lines, then you can say that this CCD would resolve 125 lp/mm. That is right on the heels of the best standard films. Ragnar Hansen Wayne Wirs wrote: > Until they develop a CCD that > can capture more information than film can (all you engineers could give us > some feedback on that one), the film/scanner method will always result in a > "better" digital image. The way I see it, comparing digital backs to film is > like comparing 35mm to 6cm: it all boils down to convenience vs quality. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:53:12 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: The creative possibilities... Message-ID: <001601c02719$9131ce80$7bc8f1c3@qnu99> RICH wrote: > When I specified "the creative possibilities of this medium" I meant the > creative possibilities of photo-chemical technology. > > I believe that many people who use a camera will soon eschew the older > technology for the newer digital medium primarily for its lower cost and > high convenience factor. It will not be long before one will be hard > pressed to developing and printing done at all. Just TRY and get your 8mm > movie film developed today... just try and get 8mm movie film! > > While the general consumer will leave photo-chemical processes behind, the > fine-art photographer will spend the extra money and take the extra time to > continue to work in it. I have always felt that one of the great appeals of > the photo-chemical process is its serendipitous nature. Super 8 film was displaced as a consumer product by another consumer product, video. Professional, chemical, film is still alive as it ever was. It has been replaced by electronic media, digital even, only when it's intended to be used in another electronic medium: television. And so will professional silver based photography live on for a long time to come. No worry. Apropos consumer products: a report by the WDR (a german television station) i saw today told that in the consumer market, though digital cameras are up in sales, sales of 35 mm silver based film, and prints, are on the rise as ever: there's no noticeable effect of any 'digital revolution'. And their best advice to consumers still was to use film: it's better, and if you want prints, cheaper by far. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:02:50 EDT From: BobR38@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: dead medium walking Message-ID: <59.113a204.2700ed4a@aol.com> I am actually quite surprised at how quickly many folks are embracing digital format when it is still at its infancy and still needs much more "work" to perfect. Hey, stick to film while they come up with an affordable, realistic, and workable solution with digital. And even when they do, film is still a nice medium to work with....that's why got you into photography right? Bob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:06:22 -0600 From: Patrick San Agustin To: Subject: hassy swc non t* vs new 903 Message-ID: Has anybody compared the quality of pictures from an old swc non T* biogon kit to the newer ones. I could get a non t* for about $2000 while buying a new biogon 903 would cost about $5000? Similar used 903's are going for at least $3500 with about $4000 for a good kit. Is it worth the extra price? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:40:00 -0700 From: Mattei To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: hassy swc non t* vs new 903 Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000925184000.007a9920@popped.cts.com> Patrick: Somewhere, I read the difference as being a bit better performance from coated, newer generation optics when dealing with flare & near-oblique lighting situations. The questions begs to be asked: With some very careful composing, wouldn't most situations be fine with an older Biogon? I've got an older black-barrel SWC from the year just the M modification. With the shade in place and the occasional use of a foamcore board or my body for shading I've really had no problems over the years. I would have been using the shading board in these situations with another optic anyway, I think. The whole price thing is not a linear one anyway. Over the years labor costs have risen greatly. The asking price for a new SWC is in line, relatively, with older prices- if not actually less. Your price is alright - go for it! At 19:06 9/25/2000 -0600, you wrote: >Has anybody compared the quality of pictures from an old swc non T* biogon >kit to the newer ones. I could get a non t* for about $2000 while buying a >new biogon 903 would cost about $5000? Similar used 903's are going for at >least $3500 with about $4000 for a good kit. > >Is it worth the extra price? > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. > >To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad >Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm >Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html > > ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #1000 ************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html