Re: Dicomed (Betterlight) Field Pro Scanning Back For Sale
David Nebenzahl
spake thus:
> Hi!
> I am having an auction on Dicomed (Betterlight) Field Pro 4x5 Scanning
> Back on Ebay. It provides instant digital solution for large format
> users, at a small fraction of a new Betterlight cost. Interested buyers
> can take a look at the following link. Thanks.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Dicomed-Betterlight-Field-Pro-Digital-Scanning-Back_W0QQitemZ7577107993QQcategoryZ31388QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Leaving aside the inappropriateness of this posting here for a moment,
does anyone know if this is a scanning back or not? The guy says
"instant", but that may be part of his eBay hype. (Item description says
it's 6000 x 7520 pixels, which by my calculations is about 45 megapixels.
--
The only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington
is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition.
no_name
> Somebody or something calling themselves "airport...@yahoo.com"
> spake thus:
>
>> Hi!
>> I am having an auction on Dicomed (Betterlight) Field Pro 4x5 Scanning
>> Back on Ebay. It provides instant digital solution for large format
>> users, at a small fraction of a new Betterlight cost. Interested buyers
>> can take a look at the following link. Thanks.
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/Dicomed-Betterlight-Field-Pro-Digital-Scanning-Back_W0QQitemZ7577107993QQcategoryZ31388QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>>
>
>
> Leaving aside the inappropriateness of this posting here for a moment,
> does anyone know if this is a scanning back or not? The guy says
> "instant", but that may be part of his eBay hype. (Item description says
> it's 6000 x 7520 pixels, which by my calculations is about 45 megapixels.
>
>
Other than the link says "Field-Pro-Digital-SCANNING-Back" & the
description on ebay says "capture an image measuring up to 6000 by 7520
pixels (129MB) in a SINGLE PASS"
airportsleeper
thought i have deleted the thread, and repost it on the marketplace.
For those who are not familiar with scanning back, please refer to
www.betterlight.com. It has provided a comprehensive FAQ for new users,
and a comparison between the former Dicomed and current new Betterlight
series.
I have mentioned 'instant' in the last post, as users will have
feedback on site. Hence, skipping the time used for film processing.
Hope i have made myself clear. Thanks.
Tom Phillips
Yeah, you've made it clear that you don't know
what you're talking about regarding either digital
or film...
Tom Phillips
David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> Somebody or something calling themselves "airport...@yahoo.com"
> spake thus:
>
> > Hi!
> > I am having an auction on Dicomed (Betterlight) Field Pro 4x5 Scanning
> > Back on Ebay. It provides instant digital solution for large format
> > users, at a small fraction of a new Betterlight cost. Interested buyers
> > can take a look at the following link. Thanks.
> >
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/Dicomed-Betterlight-Field-Pro-Digital-Scanning-Back_W0QQitemZ7577107993QQcategoryZ31388QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>
> Leaving aside the inappropriateness of this posting here for a moment,
> does anyone know if this is a scanning back or not? The guy says
> "instant", but that may be part of his eBay hype. (Item description says
> it's 6000 x 7520 pixels, which by my calculations is about 45 megapixels.
Better Light uses Kodak Trilinear sensors. Meaning it's
a scan back (i.e., one pass focal plane) requiring probably
about a minute for capture.
Typically the resolution listed is the maximum interpolated
resolution, not actual pixels.
babelfish
Dicomed back. It's far more advanced and faster then the Dicomed, and while
a minute scan is possible, the scans can take as long as ten or even twenty
minutes for a high quality scan at a reasonable f stop.
Tom Phillips
babelfish wrote:
>
> I use a Betterlight scan back which is the newer updated version of the
> Dicomed back. It's far more advanced and faster then the Dicomed, and while
> a minute scan is possible, the scans can take as long as ten or even twenty
> minutes for a high quality scan at a reasonable f stop.
Better Light's web site seems light on technical
details, so thanks for that info.
rafe b
wrote:
>Better Light uses Kodak Trilinear sensors. Meaning it's
>a scan back (i.e., one pass focal plane) requiring probably
>about a minute for capture.
>
>Typically the resolution listed is the maximum interpolated
>resolution, not actual pixels.
35 MB would be real resolution, not interpolated.
And that's for an obsolete model.
In their current lineup (for example) there's a model
that gives 6000 x 8000 native pixels That's 48 Mpixels,
non-interpolated, for a mere $9495.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
babelfish
The Betterlight Super 8k model I have scans at 8,000 x 10,000 pixels without
interpolation (up to 12,000 x 15,000 with interpolation). That's 76 MP of
real resolution, and I'd like more. For large artwork, I'm still forced to
shoot 8x10 film and drum scan it.
john c
rafe b
wrote:
>Hi Rafe,
>The Betterlight Super 8k model I have scans at 8,000 x 10,000 pixels without
>interpolation (up to 12,000 x 15,000 with interpolation). That's 76 MP of
>real resolution, and I'd like more. For large artwork, I'm still forced to
>shoot 8x10 film and drum scan it.
>
>john c
John, have you ever taken it outdoors and taken
a landscape photo with it? (a la Steve Johnson.)
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
G- Blank
rafe b <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
Aren't you the same guy that complains how difficult
carrying all that gear is working with LF-to begin with?
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
greg_____photo(dot)com
rafe b
<Stub...@notgonnagive.com> wrote:
>In article <crpmr1le3tjchdfnu...@4ax.com>,
> rafe b <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:14:04 GMT, "babelfish" <babel...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Rafe,
>> >The Betterlight Super 8k model I have scans at 8,000 x 10,000 pixels without
>> >interpolation (up to 12,000 x 15,000 with interpolation). That's 76 MP of
>> >real resolution, and I'd like more. For large artwork, I'm still forced to
>> >shoot 8x10 film and drum scan it.
>> >
>> >john c
>>
>>
>> John, have you ever taken it outdoors and taken
>> a landscape photo with it? (a la Steve Johnson.)
>>
>>
>> rafe b
>> www.terrapinphoto.com
>
>
>Aren't you the same guy that complains how difficult
>carrying all that gear is working with LF-to begin with?
Yep, that's me. But with a scanning back I could forget
about all those film holders... and the loading of the
film, sending it to the lab, scanning it, spotting it, etc.
In any case, my interest is mostly academic for now, as
these things are still too pricey for me.
I've seen a bit of what Steve Johnson can do with this
technology, and am impressed. For sure, it's a lot of
schlepping.
(I'm also aware that the back's scan area is
considerably smaller than 4x5.")
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
G- Blank
rafe b <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
> Yep, that's me. But with a scanning back I could forget
> about all those film holders... and the loading of the
> film, sending it to the lab, scanning it, spotting it, etc.
Ah your wanting to do color!!!? Almost a completely worthless
attempt :-) Labs are becoming the big issue, finding competent
ones that is.
Seriously though if you do it right you will never have to
Spot it,...... but Your the guy that scans everything anyway so you
should be use to spotting in PS.
> In any case, my interest is mostly academic for now, as
> these things are still too pricey for me.
>
> I've seen a bit of what Steve Johnson can do with this
> technology, and am impressed. For sure, it's a lot of
> schlepping.
I am no more impressed with his work than my own.
Increasingly I grow bored of color scenics of all shapes so I don't look
at as many as I once did- partly because the places in print are all the
same. I was given a calendar at christmas time
it has color LF scenic photos, I am very troubled by the inside
reproductions very garish. Not sure its the fault of the photographer
or not but I can easily see were it could be either he or the
printer-publication company.....but its his name on it not mine.
The strange thing I find, is lots of times the teaser exterior cover
images are rather nice-maybe its all that garish color does not
hit you when you see them small.
>
> (I'm also aware that the back's scan area is
> considerably smaller than 4x5.")
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
--
rafe b
<Stub...@notgonnagive.com> wrote:
>Ah your wanting to do color!!!? Almost a completely worthless
>attempt :-) Labs are becoming the big issue, finding competent
>ones that is.
In my case, there's a decent lab one town over
from me that will process a sheet of 4x5 C41 film
for around $2.50. I just sent them a new box of
eight sheets yesterday... exposed in spring of 2005.
Hope they're OK, but I'll soon know.
They sat unprocessed all that time because
I was at an impasse with my Microtek scanner.
>Seriously though if you do it right you will never have to
>Spot it,...... but Your the guy that scans everything anyway so you
>should be use to spotting in PS.
Yes, that's what I meant, of course.
With MF, I do very little spotting as the dICE
on the Nikon does an excellent job of it.
>I am no more impressed with his work than my own.
>
>Increasingly I grow bored of color scenics of all shapes so I don't look
>at as many as I once did- partly because the places in print are all the
>same. I was given a calendar at christmas time
>it has color LF scenic photos, I am very troubled by the inside
>reproductions very garish. Not sure its the fault of the photographer
>or not but I can easily see were it could be either he or the
>printer-publication company.....but its his name on it not mine.
Lots of folks are into super-saturated color,
witness M. Fatali and the enfatuation with
"the Velvia look." Not my style and never was.
Me, I appreciate some subtlety here and there.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
G- Blank
rafe b <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
> Lots of folks are into super-saturated color,
> witness M. Fatali and the enfatuation with
> "the Velvia look." Not my style and never was.
>
> Me, I appreciate some subtlety here and there.
Me too but in the same sentence I have seen
very nice subtle Velvia work. Sometimes Works nicely on
evenly lit overcast days. Just like Ektachrome 64-did
and E100VS.
Tom Phillips
Cheaper to by a used Sinar with 4-5 nice lenses...
Typically what they list as maximum resolution
is the interpolated resolution (i.e., 100+ MB.)
Tom Phillips
Would logically seem it's the reproductions, i.e.,
the quality therein...
> Lots of folks are into super-saturated color,
> witness M. Fatali and the enfatuation with
> "the Velvia look." Not my style and never was.
Won't get even saturated color processing images
digitally, let alone super saturated, since the
more the digital image is processed toward output
the smaller the color gamut becomes. That's a fact.
I'll take RGB color film any day and an optical color
print, which offers as close to the full range of color
gamut as seen in nature as photographic mediums can get.
Tom Phillips
rafe b wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:31:22 -0500, G- Blank
> <Stub...@notgonnagive.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <crpmr1le3tjchdfnu...@4ax.com>,
> > rafe b <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:14:04 GMT, "babelfish" <babel...@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi Rafe,
> >> >The Betterlight Super 8k model I have scans at 8,000 x 10,000 pixels without
> >> >interpolation (up to 12,000 x 15,000 with interpolation). That's 76 MP of
> >> >real resolution, and I'd like more. For large artwork, I'm still forced to
> >> >shoot 8x10 film and drum scan it.
> >> >
> >> >john c
> >>
> >>
> >> John, have you ever taken it outdoors and taken
> >> a landscape photo with it? (a la Steve Johnson.)
> >>
> >>
> >> rafe b
> >> www.terrapinphoto.com
> >
> >
> >Aren't you the same guy that complains how difficult
> >carrying all that gear is working with LF-to begin with?
>
> Yep, that's me. But with a scanning back I could forget
> about all those film holders... and the loading of the
> film, sending it to the lab, scanning it, spotting it, etc.
Yeah, just have to remember the hard drive, lap top, cables,
battery packs, plus endless back ups not to mention endless
equipment and software upgrades. And for all that all you
get is a file, no actual photograph...
OTOH in real photography what equipment worked 100 years ago
still works today (minus upgrades, back ups, and batteries.)
BTW, guess you never heard of ready loads?
One has to wonder if you hate LF photography so much why
you're here...
babelfish
the last day off from work was the day I saw you over a year ago, remember?
Second, I'd have to invest in the battery option, laptop with scsi, etc.
Third, I'd rather just pack the 8x10 Deardorff if I were really serious
about it. It's lighter and easier in the field.
john
"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:crpmr1le3tjchdfnu...@4ax.com...
rafe b
wrote:
>Cheaper to by a used Sinar with 4-5 nice lenses...
>
>Typically what they list as maximum resolution
>is the interpolated resolution (i.e., 100+ MB.)
Cheap, it's not. Well outta my league.
But what's with the "typical", Tom?
The specs are right there at the BetterLight web site
for all to see. They're hard specs. Native pixels.
Anyone with $10K to burn who can't bother to get
the proper specs... gets no sympathy from me.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Tom Phillips
rafe b wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:47:22 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Cheaper to by a used Sinar with 4-5 nice lenses...
> >
> >Typically what they list as maximum resolution
> >is the interpolated resolution (i.e., 100+ MB.)
>
> Cheap, it's not. Well outta my league.
it would seem so...
> But what's with the "typical", Tom?
Typical means (which I'd think would be obvious
and I guess I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't
understand common vernacular...) the hype typically
stressed over real info. Better Light is better
than most, but still hypes capabilities. Example,
the Super 8 specs say
• Eighteen resolution settings up to 12000 x 15990 (549 MB RGB)
• Capture 549 MB color images in as little as 200 seconds
I.e., they hype the interpolated capabilities.
Get it? Another common hype is ISO. Speeds
(as in comparable w/film speeds) don't really
apply to digital scans. Higher ISO settings are
simply images scanned at less than nominal image
quality. There's no true "speed" change or difference.
It's misleading technical hype...
> The specs are right there at the BetterLight web site
> for all to see. They're hard specs. Native pixels.
Duh...
babelfish
correct Tom. 549 MB is interpolated resolution in the short dimension since
it's an 8,000 pixel sensor, but 15990 is more real since this has to do with
the spacing of samples as the scanner is moving. The net result is better
than upsampling in Photoshop. Also, 200 seconds is a stretch for a 549MB
file unless you're wide open in full sun. You do get a wide and useful
selection of line time speeds and iso settings, but the fastest settings are
less than optimal since noise is amplified along with the signal. For low
light capture, you'd be miles ahead with film.
Having said all that, the Betterlight is as good as it gets for digital
backs. They're actually pretty modest compared to the competition - they
blow them out of the water in a side by side comparison, but you wouldn't
expect so from the marketing hype. There's a reason why most museums use
them for archiving their collections.
john c
"Tom Phillips"
> Typical means (which I'd think would be obvious
> and I guess I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't
> understand common vernacular...) the hype typically
> stressed over real info. Better Light is better
> than most, but still hypes capabilities. Example,
> the Super 8 specs say
>
> . Eighteen resolution settings up to 12000 x 15990 (549 MB RGB)
> . Capture 549 MB color images in as little as 200 seconds
Tom Phillips
babelfish wrote:
>
> As an owner of a Super 8k, I feel qualified to comment. You're absolutely
> correct Tom. 549 MB is interpolated resolution in the short dimension since
> it's an 8,000 pixel sensor, but 15990 is more real since this has to do with
> the spacing of samples as the scanner is moving. The net result is better
> than upsampling in Photoshop. Also, 200 seconds is a stretch for a 549MB
> file unless you're wide open in full sun. You do get a wide and useful
> selection of line time speeds and iso settings, but the fastest settings are
> less than optimal since noise is amplified along with the signal. For low
> light capture, you'd be miles ahead with film.
Can't disagree. Though I tend to prefer Ektachrome
tungsten for long exposures; 200s is nothing in low
light. But almost anything is better than PS upsampling...
> Having said all that, the Betterlight is as good as it gets for digital
> backs. They're actually pretty modest compared to the competition - they
> blow them out of the water in a side by side comparison, but you wouldn't
> expect so from the marketing hype. There's a reason why most museums use
> them for archiving their collections.
>
> john c
I agree Better Lights are preeminent for digital
archiving (if there is such a thing.) Plus trilinear
scans are true RGB, not mosaic interpolated color (as
most 1-shot digitals -- i .e., sampling is much more
realistic, though still not continuous as is film.)
Problem is even the GOV hasn't yet figured out how to
permanently archive digital files.
But if I chose to shoot digital scans professionally,
I'd use either Better Light or Sinar depending on the
application. Still, film is far cheaper and by far and
away more permanent.