Phase One's P45 39 megapixel camera back (and P30 and P21, too)
By Ryan Block 
posted Jul 18th 2005 11:50AM
posted Jul 18th 2005 11:50AM
What, your SLR doesn't take 117MB 39 megapixel shots? Are you freaking living in 1998 or something? Get a Phase One
P45 camera back already will you? Or while
you're at it, check out their P30 (that's a 31 megapixel back), or the P21 (a 60FPM back which outputs 54MB files). As
per usual with devices like this, we're not even going to think of asking what the MSRP is before we've prepared the
necessary papers for taking a second loan out on the house. Warning: PDF link.
[Via
PhotographyBlog]
"60 frames per minute of highest image quality captures is a new first, set by the new
innovative Phase One P 21 digital back. 54 MB processed image files will allow
professionals to raise the quality level of all-round fashion, portrait and commercial
advertising shots. "
correction :P
I don't know why, but I want one.
It has something to do with 39 megapixels. We'll need to have a sit down before I can know for sure.
I'll wait five years when these are $800.
But if I had a billion dollars, i'd buy five. And i'd take one and smash it with a hammer and post it on the internet. Because I could.
is 117MB file really necessary, even for professionals? could, let's say 20MB be enough? what the hell, you;ll end up changing 1GB flash card every 7-8 pics... seems rather a waste to me.
Would the image of the smashed one be uncompressed 39 megapixels? It be the only way I'd look at it.
froggy
20megs is nothing. A 6mp DSLR can make a 36meg file in 16bit mode. The camera uses a form of lossless compression so that file on the card doesn't take up 120 megs its more like 30meg.
And yes for some people this amount of resolution is needed, mostly in the commerical product area where you might need to make a billboard 30feet high and you want to keep some detail.
froggy
20megs is nothing. A 6mp DSLR can make a 36meg file in 16bit mode. The camera uses a form of lossless compression so that file on the card doesn't take up 120 megs its more like 30meg.
And yes for some people this amount of resolution is needed, mostly in the commerical product area where you might need to make a billboard 30feet high and you want to keep some detail.
Yep, I've had by eyes on one of these bad boys for a while now...I figure they'll make a decent upgrade from my digital rebel, ya know?
only $30,000 for one P45? hell. I'll take two plz!
The problem I see with these cameras is that after all the expense and trouble you go through to capture these large files on the fly, you'd be better off spending less time dealing with medium or large format film cameras that probably still deliver a far superior picture. Even at 40MP these cameras won't be even close to a large format camera in terms of resolution.
But of course, I'm not a pro photographer. Maybe one of them could shed some light on why these massively expensive cameras would be interesting.
I'm a pro. I'll try.
I work in a studio with a Phase One H2O, and it is great. I also work within the Canon EOS system a lot, which I consider to be hands-down the ruler of all it's 35mm peers.
As much as I love my Canons, the Phase One is absolutely superior. But this superiority has little to do with file size. There are way bigger advantages than just more pixels:
Phase One is TACK SHARP at extreme magnification...the kind of sharpness you just can't get in even the EOS 1D mk. II. Also, under circumstances where other cameras would show annoying "blooming" in the highlights, the Phase One shows detail. Noise in the highlights is somewhat reduced in the Phase One system, but since the Canon has a much wider effective ISO range this isn't a fair comparison. If you stay shooting at ISO 50-100, shoot the Phase One, if you have to shoot a wide ISO range, or in low light, take the Canon. The software for Phase One is pretty great, too.
When Phase One introduced the H25, we kept the "old" H20 rather than upgrading. The resolution increase wasn't enough to justify the upgrade, and we felt there was actually more blooming and less pleasing color in the higher-res. chip.
Whoever mentioned that this camera is for billboard shooters is a bit off base. I've worked on several billboard shoots using the H20, without any resolution problems/complaints from clients. Billboards don't really require as big a file size as you'd think. The Phase One we use is attached to a 4x5 view camera via a sliding aluminum rail which enables you to take up to 3 exposures along the length of the rail and stitch the exposures together in the software. This is often overkill though. If you look at a billboard up close, the screen they use for printing is pretty huge, so the actual resolution isn't that high. Think "Georges Seurat" when you think about billboards.
I can't wait to get my mitts on one of these jewels and try it out. Especially the P series...wireless!
One more thing...RE: Jason's comment:
"The problem I see with these cameras is that after all the expense and trouble you go through to capture these large files on the fly, you'd be better off spending less time dealing with medium or large format film cameras that probably still deliver a far superior picture. Even at 40MP these cameras won't be even close to a large format camera in terms of resolution."
Addressing your specific comment...you are wrong. Sorry.
These cameras are now operating BEYOND the grain structure of traditional film. Meaning, that if you shot an image with one of these, changed backs, and shot the same image in film, you'll have more pixels in the digital shot than you'll have grains on the 120 film....even Velvia, which was my trusted friend for many years.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, what do you DO with traditional film these days? Well, if you want to do anything other than make fine art prints, you are probably going to have to get a scan made.
Scanned film is a SECOND-GENERATION image of the original individual film grains. Digital is a first-generation process all the way to the printing press. Shooting digital, you eliminate the "middle-man," the film scanner, which has a nasty tendency to add noise, and artifacts, change contrast/color balance, ect.
As to you other point of the time spent working on digital vs. film, I can easily say this: as far as workflow is concerned, digital wins HANDS DOWN. No reloading camera backs, waiting 60-90 seconds for each Polaroid while proofing each shot, no trips to the lab, no two-hour wait at the lab for the E6 process, (all the while you are wondering whether the stoned guy you handed the film to is going to screw something up and ruin your career!) no trip back to the studio to edit film on a "trusted" lightbox, no trip BACK to the service bureau to get the scans made...ect. Plus, you are STILL going to look at the scans after you get them back and do all the same stuff you'd do with digital files anyway.
Hope that helps you understand.
im a pro and holy sh!t 39 megapixels?!?!?!?!?! i use only 8. holy crap. my digital back only cost 850$
I'm glad we are finally starting to crack the medium format film barrier. :up::up:
Nothing compared to a scanned 6x7 slide.
Can someone explain to me why it's called a "Camera Back" as opposed to just a "Camera" ?
Am I missing something here ? Aside from the giant resolution is this P45 completely mechanically different to a regular SLR ?
Can someone explain to me why it's called a "Camera Back" as opposed to just a "Camera" ?
Am I missing something here ? Aside from the giant resolution is this P45 completely mechanically different to a regular SLR ?
"Can someone explain to me why it's called a "Camera Back" as opposed to just a "Camera" ?"
Sure.
In many medium format cameras, instead of the film being loaded inside the actual body of the camera like in a 35mm, the film is actually loaded into a separate, self-contained enclosure. This enclosure is light-tight until attached to the back of the camera, and then a small piece of thin metal or plastic called the "dark slide," which protects the film from exposure, is removed.
The reason they make these cameras this way is so you can quickly switch film out without even having to move the camera. If a photographer runs out of film, or wants to switch to a different kind of film, or wants to shoot a Polaroid, all he has to do is change backs, which can be pre-loaded before the shoot, or reloaded by an assistant on the fly. It is much quicker to just change backs, and the camera itself can remain on the tripod, focused and ready-to-go for the next round of shooting. This is especially important when shooting 120 medium format film, which gives you only 15-10 frames per roll, depending on the camera format.
Large format cameras use film in a similar way, but it's more complicated since you can only shoot one sheet of film at a time. In a large format view camera, since you are dealing with individual sheets of film and not a roll, the film is stored in a detachable light tight cases that hold just two sheets of film each, one on each side of the cartridge, each side with a corresponding "dark slide." These cartridges are inserted into the back of the camera, with the corresponding "dark slide" removed for shooting. When you want to shoot the other sheet of film, you reinsert the dark slide you removed, remove the cartridge from the camera, flip it horizontally 180 deg. and reinsert, remove dark slide, ect.
Either way, the important thing is these cameras all have a removable back for the film. Since different brands of cameras use different kinds and sizes of backs, you need an adapter to attach a digital back, but that's really all there is to it. The camera doesn't know it is not shooting to film, and it doesn't care. It shoots the same way.
Joel has pretty much hit the nail on the head - a 39 megapixel camera back effectively gives double the pixel count of of a 6.2 megapixel dSLR and this is level of detail is absolutely necessary for many shooters today that operate in the field of fashion photography, product photography and avertising.
Regarding the need to change CF cards - these camera backs are used tethered (connected by a FireWire or USB2.0 cable) to a laptop or desktop when shooting or, as PhaseOne has announced, wireless G protocols can be used for image transfer. For shifting 117Mb files, G is certainly fast enough, although FireWire is probably the preferred (and more reliable) standard.
The cost of these systems and their relative complexity compared to dSLR's - even the high end models such as the D2x and 1Ds MK II - mean that the shooters that buy them are the ones that already know they will benefit from the increased resolution and image fidelity of such products
I must admit - it's more than a little tempting when you see the specs though: 7216 x 5412 pixels, 12 stop dynamic range and 16bpp RBG capture (thats a 300MB file) - it would be the ultimate studio portrait shooter... IF I could justify the five-figure sum it would cost :)
Thanks for the explanation! Cleared things up completely!
Boyy ohh boy, I will spend the next couple of months without sleep trying to figure, how much any of the 3 new backs are going to be, I can make nothing but guess, but I say the great news may be that the prices of the older p20/p25 will probably drop so anyway all photographers interested will be benefit, except for those who already spend on one and haven't got enough work to pay for'em, lucky us who haven't got one yet, fasten the seat belts because this ride is only beggining...
To say digital rivals film, when all CCD technology cameras must, by their technological shortcomings, display color fringing NOT present in any film, no matter what quality of optic used, is to be a modernist embracing lowering standards of quality now standardized by the "digital lifestyle."
Electronic or software tricks to reduce color fringing in CCD technology must happen at the expense of detail.
CMOS technology generally does not use multi-pixels per data pixel clustering, and bodes well for better, more film-like digital reproduction.
As a practical matter, the small size of the sensors in digital cameras also cause image problems relative to reproduction of tone exactly like film cameras.
35mm film transparencies, on a light table, do NOT look like 6x6cm transparencies, which do NOT look like 4x5 transparencies, and so on as format size increases. It has to do with obvious things like smoothness between areas of tone. The smaller the imaging size, the harsher and less elegant the image must be. Always. This is why the bigger the sensor, the better, and thus more desirable, whatever the price.
HOWEVER, the decreasing standards of quality are a pandemic which will not go away. MP3s are a far cry from a CD which is a far cry from a DVD-A (but we can get a million "free" MP3 songs right now.) "Digital Quality" cable/satellite TV looks horrible, but oh, give us those 497 channels! The HD video future is at 30:1 compression, and oh, my, those artifacts - but look! It's widescreen and sexy, and maybe they'll just use a larger font in the titles...
All that said, I love s-spline scaling and have taken a lot of 6MP digital images up to 24x36 and larger on my big Epson, while my exotic 4x5 Film Enlargers are in the warehouse. But my 4x5 film images, scanned on my drum scanner, even as "second generation," wipes the floor with all the tiny CCD and CMOS cameras out there. I'd echo this with my Hasselblad film images, similarly scanned. The reproduction of tone is simply superior, every time, partially because a high res scan of a big film image needs less sharpening than do all images from all digital cameras.
Without sharpening, many digital camera images are soft! It can be said that no digital camera image is first generation, but SECOND, due to the need for sharpening, and sharpening itself is both image improving AND degrading, simultaneously... but shot well, at least there is no grain...
Put another way, if a human hair comprises 2 or 3 pixels on your digital camera image, and the same hair is 12 pixels in a high resolution film scan, which will fall apart, quality wise, first, upon enlargement? Which has more information? The ability to record and hold detail is yet another issue.
This argument, by the way, goes back to the pre-digital days, when photographers thought 4x5 was good enough, but clients, like liquor companies demanded at least 8x10.
Sorry for the long post... and I didn't even cover the GIGO issues of lenses...
Richard Brown
I didn't read ALL of these comments, but some were rather funny.
First, according to the P45 back's specs, the raw file is 127MB ONLY if the file is an 8 bit file. I don't know why anyone would save a file in 8 bit format for a back with a 12 stop dynamic range. That wastes at least four stops of dynamic range. The 16 bit file is a bit over 240MB.
Second, The specs also state that Phase One has a propritary lossless (unlike the 8 bit JPEG) compression algorithm of just under 50MB. Do the math, flash cards of 8GB are commonly availble, and one of those would store over 160 full resolution pics. Butyou still need a fast computer with lots of RAM to work the files.
Third, anyone who thinks digital backs of this quality and low production quantity will be $800 in five years needs to stop taking all those recreational drugs...
To joel who says,
'what do you DO with traditional film these days? Well, if you want to do anything other than make fine art prints, you are probably going to have to get a scan made.'
i am a fine art photographer and you're right.. a 5x4 inch colour neg printed to C-type by hand produces those rich hues that even Lambda machines go nowhere near. I'm afraid to say though that it's practically impossible to find a lab anymore that will print by hand over 24x20 inches. It's criminal! Perhaps you can find large format hand printers wherever you are in the world, but I'm based in London and I'm forced to have massive drum scans made and make my 50x40 inch plus prints digitally. All the advantages of traditional film so comprehensively listed in Richard Brown's post are immediately out the window. We're in an unsatisfactory half-way house at the minute, not able to realise our full potential while waiting for replacement technology. if you can't beat em, join em, i suppose.
i am currently shooting Linhof 6x12 using Velvia 50. i have no doubt the resolution generated by the P45 back would rival 4x 5 or even 8x10inch film( velvia) but my concern is will the RGB digital capture of the P45 match the rich vibrant colours of Velvia and more importantly the blues and greens of landscape scenes. i shoot golf courses specifically. i have seen the huge scans made by Betterlight scanbacks and with a bit of saturation tweaking and colour work in photoshop, have to say that it compares with Velvia and must admit the resolution, even when comparing Linhof 6x12 velvia ( Schneider lenses) is far superior on the Betterlight scanback.
The only problem with the Betterlight system is that its impractical as you need to be absolutely still - this does not work for me.
i have a Canon EOS 1DMK11 and the colours no where near rival Velvia no matter what work you do in photoshop. Does the RGB instant capture of the Phase One P45 rival that of the Betterlight systems.
its clear for studio work and architectural type work where you are not working with earthy colours, the Phase One is in a league of its own, but the big question is can it handle the earthy colours of landscape like velvia at those critical shooting times???