Magazine quality image?
Patrick J. Dierson
I'm looking for a digital camera that will produce images with
enough quality that they can be used for magazine publications. Does
such a technology exist yet & if so who makes it and what's the damage
on the accountants?
Walter Knapp
Patrick J. Dierson wrote:
You will have to go at least as high as the Kodak DCS420 or the Minolta
RD-175. There are also Fuji and Nikon offerings in this quality level
and the Kodak stuff comes with either a Nikon or Canon body. These would
work for smaller quality magazine photos, but for larger photos, the
only portable camera is the Kodak DCS460. The first group can be had for
somewhere in the $6000 to $12000 range. The DCS460 is, I think $27000.
For big bucks, there are a variety of camera backs for medium format and
view cameras. They are all tied by a cable to the computer.
Tim Sheppard
In article <3292F0...@ix.netcom.com>, "Patrick J. Dierson" (Pdie...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>I'm looking for a digital camera that will produce images with
>enough quality that they can be used for magazine publications. Does
>such a technology exist yet & if so who makes it and what's the damage
>on the accountants?
>
Last month a respected UK computer magazine reviewed the quality of
all the digital cameras they could get hold of - about six, including
all the major manufacturers. They specifically compared the quality of
photos with regard to what they could acceptably be used for. There
was only one camera that could come anywhere near the quality needed
by a newstand magazine, and that cost UKP 11,000 (around $16,000).
Can't remember the make, but it was obviously a professional camera
and there are only one or two of those. The camera was a full SLR
system.
========================================================
Tim Sheppard t...@lilliput-p.win-uk.net
Lilliput Press - Publisher of fine books in miniature
========================================================
David Dentry
HI!
Magazine quality is kind of vague. The DCS series can do fine printed small
(especially newspaper quality) but to get full bleed 8.5 x 11 or larger you
need a larger image in megabytes.
We offer camera backs for medium and large format cameras that can take
digital photos up to 140MB. Plenty of resolution for up to poster size. In
comparison, the comercial cameras (Kodak, Fuji, Chinon, etc.) are maybe 1-2
MB. The DCS-420 series from Kodak is about 4MB and the 460 is about 12MB.
Good Luck
-David
In article <3292F0...@ix.netcom.com>, "Patrick J. Dierson"
<Pdie...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I'm looking for a digital camera that will produce images with
> enough quality that they can be used for magazine publications. Does
> such a technology exist yet & if so who makes it and what's the damage
> on the accountants?
--
David Dentry
Support Manager, Phase One U.S. Digital Cameras
den...@phaseone.com
http://www.phaseone.com
888-PhaseOne ext110
Lourens Smak
>I'm looking for a digital camera that will produce images with
>enough quality that they can be used for magazine publications. Does
>such a technology exist yet & if so who makes it and what's the damage
>on the accountants?
You'll need (ideally) at least 8x10inch at 300dpi=
8x300x10x300=2400X3000=7.2Mb for black&white, 7.2Mbx3 = 21.6Mb filesize
for RGB images...
with a little interpolation, the Leaf-back can reach this quality:
<http://www.scitex.com>
or check out what Dicomed has to offer: <http://www.dicomed.com/> Their
scan-back for 4x5" view camera's produces (rgb) files of up to 129Mb (!),
and can be operated with a PowerBook...
regards,
Lourens Smak.
Roy Greason
Hi...
What kind of photography can these backs perform? Perhaps long
exposure tungsten lit studio work, or panoramic landscapes? What
kind of exposures are required and what kind of equivalent film speeds
are involved?
I suspect that the focal plane is scanned line by line, by a tracking
linear CCD.
Just curious - Roy.
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:58:39 -0500, den...@phaseone.com (David
Dentry) wrote:
>
>HI!
>
>Magazine quality is kind of vague. The DCS series can do fine printed small
>(especially newspaper quality) but to get full bleed 8.5 x 11 or larger you
>need a larger image in megabytes.
>
>We offer camera backs for medium and large format cameras that can take
>digital photos up to 140MB. Plenty of resolution for up to poster size. In
>comparison, the comercial cameras (Kodak, Fuji, Chinon, etc.) are maybe 1-2
>MB. The DCS-420 series from Kodak is about 4MB and the 460 is about 12MB.
>
>David Dentry
>Support Manager, Phase One U.S. Digital Cameras
>den...@phaseone.com
>http://www.phaseone.com
>888-PhaseOne ext110
Walter Knapp
Roy Greason wrote:
> What kind of photography can these backs perform? Perhaps long
> exposure tungsten lit studio work, or panoramic landscapes? What
> kind of exposures are required and what kind of equivalent film speeds
> are involved?
>
> I suspect that the focal plane is scanned line by line, by a tracking
> linear CCD.
Yes, indeed, some backs do exactly that. But some others use a CCD
array. Since the backs are tethered, you are more or less right. Studio
is about it unless you want to organize a real expedition. Take a look
at:
http://rainbow.rmii.com/~plugin/DigitalCameraGuide.html
which has a fairly extensive list of backs.
Hugh Kawahara
rgre...@colours.demon.co.uk (Roy Greason) wrote:
>Hi...
>
>What kind of photography can these backs perform? Perhaps long
>exposure tungsten lit studio work, or panoramic landscapes? What
>kind of exposures are required and what kind of equivalent film speeds
>are involved?
>
>I suspect that the focal plane is scanned line by line, by a tracking
>linear CCD.
>
According to Kodak Web site, the DCS-460/465 has 2036x3060 pixel resolution.
It has a CCD array and I don't believe it does any sort of mechanical scanning.
The sensitivity is ISO-80.
So I guess you can take anything that can be taken with ISO-80 film.
Hugh, Free PS plug-ins (Mac) on <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~kawahara/>
David Dentry
Most of the high quality digital camera back on the market are what are
called scanning backs. The use a CCD chip much like flatbed scanners and
copiers. The chip scans across the image during the exposure.
Therin lies the problem. Since the chip (in affect the film) is moving you
must have a still subject and continous light. Our cameras have ISO values
from 400 to 1600 (the sensativity is measured just like with film, but this
does not mean that an ISO 1600 digital camera will have the same poor image
as 1600 film)
Again, different camea systems work in different ways, but with ours you
set the exposure time (for each line of the image) in our software. The
settings and exposure are calulated just like "normal" photography. We
offer exposures from 1/8 to 1/125 sec.
The biggest question about digital cameras should be "What is the
uninterpolated file size?" This is what really determines what you can do
with the end result. The DCS-460 is about 18 MB, the DCS 420 about 4. Most
scanning backs (while limited to still subjects) are much more than this.
We offer raw files up to 140 MB.
Hope this helps, let me know if I can help any more...
-David
In article <57d4uq$g...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, Hugh Kawahara
<kawa...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
--
David Dentry
Support Manager, Phase One U.S. Digital Cameras
den...@phaseone.com
888-PhaseOne ext110
http://www.phaseone.com
Hugh Kawahara
den...@phaseone.com (David Dentry) wrote:
>Most of the high quality digital camera back on the market are what are
>called scanning backs. The use a CCD chip much like flatbed scanners and
>copiers. The chip scans across the image during the exposure.
>
>Therin lies the problem. Since the chip (in affect the film) is moving you
>must have a still subject and continous light. Our cameras have ISO values
>from 400 to 1600 (the sensativity is measured just like with film, but this
>does not mean that an ISO 1600 digital camera will have the same poor image
>as 1600 film)
I was talking about Kodak DCS-460/465. Here's an excerpt from the Kodak site
about KAF-6300 which is the CCD unit of the camera.
*** begining of the quote. I didn't write this (except ^^^). Kodak did. ***
Because its photosites are arranged two-dimensionally, in rows and columns,
the KAF-6300 is known as an area array sensor. The advantage of area array
sensors is that they can capture an image all at once, in a single exposure.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Most digital cameras offering resolutions above four million pixels require
multiple exposures or scanning backs to render a single color image,
a characteristic that limits them to still-life applications in the studio.
Not so with the KAF-6300.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KODAK DIGITAL SCIENCE DCS cameras employing this CCD are well suited to taking
shots of moving or still subjects.
^^^^^^
**** end of the quote ****
>The biggest question about digital cameras should be "What is the
>uninterpolated file size?" This is what really determines what you can do
>with the end result. The DCS-460 is about 18 MB, the DCS 420 about 4. Most
>scanning backs (while limited to still subjects) are much more than this.
>We offer raw files up to 140 MB.
There is no interpolation involved with the DCS-460/465.
(Of course, you can do it to the 18MB file and make it an 180MB file.)
It has 2000x3000 pixels which directly yield 18MB RGB files without any
interpolation (2000 * 3000 * 3 (colors) = 18,000,000).
Michael McGuire
>....bunch of stuff deleted...
: >The biggest question about digital cameras should be "What is the
: >uninterpolated file size?" This is what really determines what you can do
: >with the end result. The DCS-460 is about 18 MB, the DCS 420 about 4. Most
: >scanning backs (while limited to still subjects) are much more than this.
: >We offer raw files up to 140 MB.
: There is no interpolation involved with the DCS-460/465.
: (Of course, you can do it to the 18MB file and make it an 180MB file.)
: It has 2000x3000 pixels which directly yield 18MB RGB files without any
: interpolation (2000 * 3000 * 3 (colors) = 18,000,000).
: Hugh, Free PS plug-ins (Mac) on <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~kawahara/>
There is interpolation with these Kodak cameras because of the way they get
color--with a mosaic filter with red, green and blue patches over the CCD. The
layout is like a checkerboard with all the "blacks" being green filters and
half the "reds" being red filters and half being blue. So if the underlying
CCD is 2k x 3k the red and blue color planes of the image have to be 2x
interpolated and the green plane sqrt(2)x interpolated to get back to the
2k x 3k size. The reason there are 2x as many green filters as red or blue is
that human visual spatial frequency response is greater in the green part of
the spectrum. All the low end digital cameras get their color this way as do
most consumer video cameras. As a result of this, an artifact images from such
cameras all tend to have is rainbows at sharp edges in the images due to
aliasing.
Mike
--
Michael McGuire Hewlett Packard Laboratories
Internet: mcg...@hpl.hp.com P.0. Box 10490 (1501 Page Mill Rd.)
Phone: (415)-857-5491 Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971
***************BE SURE TO DOUBLE CLUTCH WHEN YOU PARADIGM SHIFT.*************
Jeff Burton
In article <57fkuj$9...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> Hugh Kawahara,
kawa...@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>There is no interpolation involved with the DCS-460/465.
>(Of course, you can do it to the 18MB file and make it an 180MB file.)
>It has 2000x3000 pixels which directly yield 18MB RGB files without any
>interpolation (2000 * 3000 * 3 (colors) = 18,000,000).
this isn't really correct. it would be if the DCS was a three chip
camera in which case it WOULD have 3k x 2k pixels for each color
component. in reality, it's a single chip which has a color filter
array applied to it. in other words each itty bitty element in the
array is covered with a Red, Green, or Blue filter. the array on the
DCS cameras looks like this...
GBGBGBGBGBG...
RGRGRGRGRGR...
GBGBGBGBGBG...
..............
..............
so the sampling ratio is 2:1:1 (G:R:B). with the 6 mb chip (3k x 2k),
that gives roughly 3 mb of green pixels, and 1.5 mb of each red and blue.
this raw data needs to be interpolated out to a full 6 mb per component,
making the 18 mb file.
+------------------+------------------------------+------------------+
| Jeff Burton | Photographic Solutions for | Plug-In Systems |
| je...@plugin.com | the Digital Age | Boulder, CO USA |
+------------------+------------------------------+------------------+
| Home Page and Digital Camera Guide http://rainbow.rmi.net/~plugin/ |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Walter Knapp
Michael McGuire wrote:
> There is interpolation with these Kodak cameras because of the way they get
> color--with a mosaic filter with red, green and blue patches over the CCD. The
> layout is like a checkerboard with all the "blacks" being green filters and
> half the "reds" being red filters and half being blue. So if the underlying
> CCD is 2k x 3k the red and blue color planes of the image have to be 2x
> interpolated and the green plane sqrt(2)x interpolated to get back to the
> 2k x 3k size. The reason there are 2x as many green filters as red or blue is
> that human visual spatial frequency response is greater in the green part of
> the spectrum. All the low end digital cameras get their color this way as do
> most consumer video cameras. As a result of this, an artifact images from such
> cameras all tend to have is rainbows at sharp edges in the images due to
> aliasing.
Which is why the Minolta RD-175 produces better color than most. It uses
3 CCD's.
It's image is interpreted as it uses 2 green and 1 red/blue CCD.
Hugh Kawahara
You are right. I thought the CCD was 4k*6k. But not in this case.
Hugh
mi...@hplmmcg.hpl.hp.com (Michael McGuire) wrote:
[snipped]
>: There is no interpolation involved with the DCS-460/465.
>: (Of course, you can do it to the 18MB file and make it an 180MB file.)
>: It has 2000x3000 pixels which directly yield 18MB RGB files without any
>: interpolation (2000 * 3000 * 3 (colors) = 18,000,000).
>
>: Hugh, Free PS plug-ins (Mac) on <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~kawahara/>
>
>There is interpolation with these Kodak cameras because of the way they get
>color--with a mosaic filter with red, green and blue patches over the CCD. The
>layout is like a checkerboard with all the "blacks" being green filters and
>half the "reds" being red filters and half being blue. So if the underlying
>CCD is 2k x 3k the red and blue color planes of the image have to be 2x
>interpolated and the green plane sqrt(2)x interpolated to get back to the
>2k x 3k size. The reason there are 2x as many green filters as red or blue is
>that human visual spatial frequency response is greater in the green part of
>the spectrum. All the low end digital cameras get their color this way as do
>most consumer video cameras. As a result of this, an artifact images from such
>cameras all tend to have is rainbows at sharp edges in the images due to
>aliasing.
>
Michael McGuire
Walter Knapp wrote:
: Michael McGuire wrote:
: > There is interpolation with these Kodak cameras because of the way they get
: > color--with a mosaic filter with red, green and blue patches over the CCD. The
: > layout is like a checkerboard with all the "blacks" being green filters and
: > half the "reds" being red filters and half being blue. So if the underlying
: > CCD is 2k x 3k the red and blue color planes of the image have to be 2x
: > interpolated and the green plane sqrt(2)x interpolated to get back to the
: > 2k x 3k size. The reason there are 2x as many green filters as red or blue is
: > that human visual spatial frequency response is greater in the green part of
: > the spectrum. All the low end digital cameras get their color this way as do
: > most consumer video cameras. As a result of this, an artifact images from such
: > cameras all tend to have is rainbows at sharp edges in the images due to
: > aliasing.
: Which is why the Minolta RD-175 produces better color than most. It uses
: 3 CCD's.
: It's image is interpreted as it uses 2 green and 1 red/blue CCD.
: Walt
: wwk...@mindspring.com
But, because it does have to interpolate the red and blue color planes, you
will get some aliasing. A problem with three chip cameras like the RD-175 is
getting the chips precisely registered. This is the likely reason that the
RD-175 that I got to play with was a bit disappointing with respect to image
sharpness considering its advertised resolution. But that could well vary from
camera to camera since it is a mechanical process getting things aligned in
the manufacturing process. With a single chip camera the mosaic goes down with
the same microlithography techniques used for making the chip so registration
isn't much of a problem.