| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 7:15:15 PM
Some years ago I had this Idea.
Why not a Low cost and capable panoramic 120?
Here it is:
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/f21b.JPG
|
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Mar 08 2009 : 12:18:23 PM
To Allain
You that frequently claims about Russian Language, see....
http://www.novacon.com.br/aprendarusso.htm
http://www.novacon.com.br/lomonosov.htm
Merci!
LP
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Mar 08 2009 : 12:08:11 PM
Vlad
Unhappily I lost the original magazine issue which was published the matter.But I have the original English text I sent to them ,Unfortunatedly I do not know where!
Since I posted the matter I remember you asked for a better text and since then I counld not fid it. Await.. everything coud happen under the Sun!
Regards
LP |
| Vlad |
Posted - Mar 06 2009 : 10:20:19 AM
Luiz, do you still have high resolution scans you can send me? I can run them through OCR and translate via google.
Vlad. |
| mermoz37 |
Posted - Mar 06 2009 : 10:10:37 AM
the most interesting will be a translation here , no ?
 |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Mar 06 2009 : 09:33:15 AM
An interesting device was developed and built.
A Daguerreotype back for Lubitel and Rolleis.
I sent the article to sovietkoe foto who published it:
See:
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=39&ParentID=4&ContentID=997&Item=Daguerreotype+of+our+days
regards
LP |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Mar 06 2009 : 09:25:45 AM
In 1989 for the commemoration of the 150th Photography year, various colleagues were reunited to develop studying Daguerreotypes, So we obtained various daguerreotypes of the City of Rio de Janeiro, and specially we tried to reproduce the First Photography in America Just after the announcment of the Photography in France! This Photo was obtained in November of 1839 by the French Priest Auguste Comte who pictured D. Pedro I entering the Paço Imperial.
The picture was taken from the second floor of the Luxury Hotel Pharoux, near the Palace. Today every thing is preserved but the Hotel was completely retrofit and transformend in the City Deputies Chamber exact in the same place.
From our various experiences, A developing way for Daguerreotypes is really interesting.
Exposed plates can be developed under an yellow filter simply under the Sun! No chemicals at all . further we need only the fixing bath and destilled water rinsing!
Best Regards.
LP |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Mar 04 2009 : 11:12:35 AM
You are right Luiz ... discussion between film and digital won't end until one is forgotten! Like, no one discusses anymore tintypes verses ambrotypes!
So, now the challenge will be to make a 120 Daguerreotype Panoramic Camera, however with new technology which will include, no harmful chemicals, instant exposure possible, strong indestructible surface when done, full exact colors, able to make a negative (or file) for enlargement, and .... the camera should be pocket-sized!
Can someone do it soon?
And... I forgot to add ... must be of Russian manufacture!
Regards, Bill
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Mar 04 2009 : 06:46:39 AM
Now Bill said the most important point! Daguerreotypes -The mother of the Photograpy! The discussion about Film or Digital resolution, will never come to an end. First, film is a moecular based picture image, Digital is a chrystal based image. According tho the chemical composition of the used components, one or other could be greater or smaller but really both have a minimum fesable possible size thar assintotically goes to the same level.
Daguerreotype pictures go to the atomic size, much smaller than the shortest light wave dimension giving some around Terapixel definition.
Daguerreotype is really unsurpassable! Once in conversation with my Physics professor, a daguerrotype picture has a built-in information
of colour and parallax being an "integral- picture" en the exact means of the word.
Something like the man invented the decisive space shuttle before the primitive plane.
Regards
LP |
| Spacetop |
Posted - Mar 03 2009 : 10:19:42 PM
oh I'm definitely not against digital - I'm shooting my Nikon D80 and Canon G10 95% of the time! I'm just saying if I ever need a HUGE high-quality file, I whip out my Salyut-S and then scan the 6x6 film on a pro-scanner  . Still cheaper than owning of those Hasselblad 6x6 digital backs has a 32Megapixel version for $30,000!
Sorry logged in under my test account. didn't even realize it.
Vlad. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Mar 03 2009 : 8:23:44 PM
Vlad,
I'm sure folks will always use film ... however ... the future of high resolution photography will be in digital technologies that will far surpass even the highest resolution film technologies. Of course the technology will be expensive at first and film will be cheaper (and the film contingent will always say it isn't so). To this day, film has not surpassed the resolution of the best daguerreotypes, which was a grainless process. I'm not sure why folk get so hung up on defending specific technologies just because it is what they use or like. All of them are good for whatever purposes and results the photographer is going for as long as good knowledge is used and the limitations and best qualities of the processes are known.
Check this site out for "Gigapixel Extreme Panoramic Technology" ... check out the examples and how they do it. Maybe not accessible to all of us, but higher res than current film technologies for panoramas!
http://www.xrez.com/gallery/xRez_gallery.html
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Mar 03 2009 : 4:59:50 PM
Bill, I've been scanning 6x6 at 32Megapixels with great results! Files are huge but the image is superb, no loss of quality on pixel level. I am sure I can go higher too, but the scanner I used in the photo studio of my relative had this as a limit.. the film was Kodak Portra 200 ISO. I mean I can see people still using film for super-high res purposes especially 120... |
| Vlad |
Posted - Mar 03 2009 : 4:57:07 PM
 That's quite a modification!  |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Mar 03 2009 : 4:36:13 PM
Aidas
It seems, that Luiz's idea was already realized successfuly
------------------------------------------------------------
Aidas ! You are surprising! Your box is greater than Pandora Box!
Congratulations!!!!!
LP
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 10:05:40 PM
quote:
>The worse film has an equivalence to 17.8Megapixeil in 35mm size.
Hi Luiz,
There is a very interesting and fairly objective article about digital verses film at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
Here is one thing they say about 35mm film and its estimated resolution:
"Estimates of the resolution of a photograph taken with a 35 mm film camera vary. It is possible for more resolution to be recorded if, for example, a finer grain film and/or developer are used or less resolution to be recorded with poor quality optics or low light levels. The digital megapixel equivalent of film is highly variable and roughly depends on film speed. Slow, fine-grained 35 mm B&W films with speeds of ISO 50 to 100 have estimated megapixel equivalents of 20 to 30 megapixels. Color films (both negative and slide types) are estimated between 8 and 12 megapixels. This would place film cameras (as of 2008) well over most point and shoot digital cameras. However, different films with the same ISO speeds can have different linear resolutions, so a direct comparison to digital is not easy. Resolution for 35mm film drops drastically with higher ISO ratings, particularly above ISO 400."
Also, I must say, I don't prefer any one method of photography over any other. I think all cameras and processes are valid and have their uses. To me, all photography is the greatest miracle of image making!
Regards, Bill
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 9:19:03 PM
Some notes for Bill and Allain
>The worse film has an equivalence to 17.8Megapixeil in 35mm size.
Films with resolution up to 1000 lines per mm( for Mikrofilming) attains Giga pixel level.
>Of course the rotating lens, although giving some perspective distortion is a more natural looking and uniform in the top lines also exposes in a shorter time giving an image next to the reallity.
>Images on digital seems to look sharp because its mosaic contrast nature. About that Zeiss Ikon has shown an interesting article when they lauched its Zeiss/Cosina M camera. You can enlarge digital up to a certain point and it looks sharper(from a distance) When the blow up reaches a level the situation becoes reverse.
>Industar 50 is a fantastic lens! covers the 120 format. I have done this test against the Tessar 50 from Werra that fails in the borders.
Even better is the Industar 61 from FED that gives better eveness illumination.
>About Panoramic cameras on 120, today there are atleast three chinese cameras in production the most known is propably the Seagull Panflex!
LP
|
| AidasCams |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 01:49:03 AM
Hi,
it seems, that Luiz's idea was already realized successfuly ...
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/521617941.jpg
Best Regards,
Aidas
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Mar 01 2009 : 1:48:48 PM
Luiz and Alain,
I was not really trying to say that digital is better than film or film is better than digital for panoramas. Of course each has it's advantages and disadvantages ... and as well, one should use whatever is closest to ones heart for pleasure or which ever is better technically for a given purpose.
Really, I was more trying to say that I don't think that KMZ or any other Russian company will be trying, anymore, to make better or larger panoramic film cameras anymore, since it is so easy to do high quality work with digital cameras.
As we can see, only a few Horizon 205PCs are sold each year, however there are many more panoramas made than before now that digital photography and digital panoramic software has become so prevalent. In fact, I can even take several photographs and stitch them together right on my Apple I-Phone using an application for it (however I-Phone camera is only 2 megapixels, so quality is low).
Yes it is true that 15 megapixels equals just 5 megapixels, but sometime I would like to know how many megapixels equal ASA 100 color film. Are there 15 million grains of three colors in a 35mm frame? Often I use a 10 megapixel digital camera and when I blow prints up to 11" x 14" they seem to have less "grain" (pixels) than when I blow up a 35mm frame of ASA 100 color film to the same size.
As far as "directly and at once" ... almost always ... including panoramas ... digital is quicker and easier to use, in my opinion, than film ... including for panoramas. Also you have more control over the process and once you have a finished image it can be saved and reproduced again even easier than film.
As far as lens distortion goes ... if you use the correct lens on a digital camera there will be no more distortion (and sometimes less) than with a panoramic camera with rotating lens. In truth there is distortion in both cameras, but different in each.
Regards, Bill
|
| mermoz37 |
Posted - Mar 01 2009 : 09:07:07 AM
hummmmm...AFAIK, photo stich give not at all the same geometric picture as a rotate lense (see opticals rules) |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Mar 01 2009 : 07:07:05 AM
Bill
Only a question:
Why use Photoshop when you can do these pictures directly, and at once?
Believe in me: 15 Mega pixels equals 5 Mega points to define picture.
Remember you have the thee colours!
Regards
LP
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 8:36:56 PM
Very nice Luiz ... for 1990 it would be a great idea and a pleasure to have. But these days, with 15 megapixels and stitching software for photoshop, it is not as necessary to have a camera like this (or for that matter the Horizon 205 PC) to make a fine panoramic photograph of the highest quality.
Of course I know that many will not like my comments and will always think that non-digital - film cameras will always be better !
Regards, Bill
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 7:21:47 PM
Here the original page from 1990
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/crfc02.jpg
|
