Comments on: Seitz scanning camera offers 160 megapixels

Seitz Phototechnik's mammoth 6x17 Digital can take photos with uberhigh resolution at an uberhigh price. Bonus: you can cancel your gym membership.

[fazalmajid]

The film equivalent costs $2000

That's the price for a used Fuji G617 or a new Fotoman 617. Scanned, the film yields a 250 megapixel image.

[edrodgers]

Okay, but...

The only problem is that there is a disconnect between the negative and the scan. You can scan at any resolution you want to produce as big a file as you want. It's analog. Your 250 megapixels is arbitrary, and has nothing to do with the source resolution.

I stood recently in a camera shop drooling over a Mamiya 645, pristine condition, motor drive, premium back and finder. 80mm lens. $550.

I still didn't buy it. And a week has gone by and it's still sitting there. Most pros don't want film anymore.

Anyway.. Go buy your film camera.. Who is stopping you? I know what stopped me.

[Galaxy5]

More like 4x5 resolution...

Before I begin, fazal shoul realize one thing: megapixels is not a
measure of information - simply the total number of pixels in an
image. I can use Photoshop to create a 300 megapixel image of
a 5 megapixel original - both files contain exactly the same
information.

Several years ago, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer tested Bill's
Heidelberg Tango with fine-grained films to find out the point
at which scanned film gives diminishing returns. It turns out that
depending on the lens, 2500-3000dpi was about where you ran
out of detail on film and were simply adding more pixels to the
same information.

At 2500dpi, my scanned 4x5 film is about 300MB - or roughly
what this camera produces from its sensor. I'm not arguing the
superiority (lugging around a 4x5 kit will give you a hernia as
quick as this camera will) of film or digital - they're both
suitable tools in certain circumstances - but to be a film pariah
is unproductive. Both formats have a place - and digital is
increasingly capable.

For landscape work, I still prefer the chemical palette and
batter-less simplicity of working with a view camera and film -
but when it comes time to print, I vastly prefer working with a
scanned digital file.

[Galaxy5]

Interesting development - we've arrived at Large Format resolution

Before I begin, fazal should realize one thing: megapixels is not
a
measure of information - simply the total number of pixels in an
image. I can use Photoshop to create a 300 megapixel image of
a 5 megapixel original - both files contain exactly the same
information.

Several years ago, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer tested Bill's
Heidelberg Tango with fine-grained films to find out the point
at which scanned film gives diminishing returns. It turns out that
depending on the lens, 2500-3000dpi was about where you ran
out of detail on film and were simply adding more pixels to the
same information.

At 2500dpi, my scanned 4x5 film is about 300MB - or roughly
what this camera produces from its sensor. I'm not arguing the
superiority (lugging around a 4x5 kit will give you a hernia as
quick as this camera will) of film or digital - they're both
suitable tools in certain circumstances - but to be a film pariah
is unproductive. Both formats have a place - and digital is
increasingly capable.

For landscape work, I still prefer the chemical palette and
batter-less simplicity of working with a view camera and film -
but when it comes time to print, I vastly prefer working with a
scanned digital file.

[Galaxy5]

One other thing...

This camera uses a scanning back. Unfortunately, that makes it ill-
suited to any subject that moves.

For the studio market, this could be a great tool, but I'm not sure
which studios are really going to need more than 20 megapixels,
even with still shots.

[Travis Ernst]

High Res pro's

If it's studio work they tend to use the Hasselblad line. Those
produce a resolution between 22MP on the H3D-22; 31MP on
the H3D-31; and 39 on the H3D-39.

On the 22 it is film compatible with the option of the film
magazine for those that take it.

I agree the problem with the unit shown in the article is the time
it takes for the image to be captured. If you are taking stills of
non moving in studios it will be fine. So at that price, why not
go with a name that trusted.