|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
"Rafe B." wrote: > At 06:36 PM 6/28/99 -0700, David Spellman wrote: > > > > > The digital scanbacks are exactly the same as a flatbed-type scanner, > featuring > >a moving CCD array bar that makes a total exposure from a series of > "strips." The > >only difference is that the optical system is that of the camera itself. > > Not entirely true, David. I made this > same statement a few weeks ago on rec.photo, > and was corrected by a sales/marketing person > from SinarBron. > > He pointed out that their Leaf Volare, for > example (rather extreme example, perhaps) > uses a 6 MPixel CCD area array (2K x 3K > pixels) having an area of 24 x 36 mm. That's why I specifically mentioned SCANBACKS in that sentence, rather than array-type backs, and why I mentioned array-type backs in a following sentence. My statement was/is absolutely correct. The Leaf Volare is, as you note, is an array-type back that uses the Phillips chip. In Sinar's implementation, however, the system is a three-shot back, requiring red, green and blue filtration in succession to make a single shot. In other implementations, the chip is a full-color single-shot capture back (and can be used on location with a battery pack) that fits on the back of a Hasselblad. I'd be interested in seeing comparisions between a file from the Canon scanner of scanned film, a digital file from the Phillips-chip back and the original subject matter for color accuracy, dynamic range and detail rendition. > The CCD array is made by Philips Semiconductor, > and I even found the data sheet for it on > Philip's web site. (Afraid to ask the cost!) > > I wonder if it's the same array that's used > on the Kodak DCS-560/620? It is not. The Kodak array chip is smaller, and made by Kodak. The Phillips chip, despite the fact that its taking area is exactly the same size as a 35mm negative, is overall too large to fit into the Nikon and Canon bodies Kodak is using for these camera systems. > However, you wouldn't be able to use it for > anything other than studio or still-life work. That would also be incorrect. The Dicomed back we have, while certainly requiring a computer, produces a file larger (48 MB at 24-bit color) than that mentioned by the original poster (who produced, I believe, a file of about 20 MB) with better color fidelity and resolution than 35mm film scanned through a $700 Canon film scanner. The back is a single-shot capture back and will fit on either a 4x5 camera or on a Hasselblad, and we've already done shots involving people, on location. Other backs, including the new Phillips chip back from Phase and one currently in beta from Sierra-Dicomed, have more than enough capability to be used on location in action situations. david -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users