What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
104 Comments
- Aard88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I bought one of these at PriceRight Camera in Brooklyn, everything was fine till they told me I had to buy the $50,000 accessory package.
- slippers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm going to have to say that the people interested in a 39mp camera don't really care what it LOOKS like.
- xenon901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll bet money someone could get just as good a pic with a disposable. But 39mp is pretty cool
I'll take that bet - topincoupons, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Get 10% off All Digital SLR Cameras at New Egg until 20th November, 2009.
http://digg.com/business_finance/New_Egg_Coupon_Ge ...
Find more coupon codes at
http://www.topincoupons.com/NewEgg.com-discount-co ... - el_jefe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"...4 megapixels is more than enough..."
posted by jackspack (0) at 02:01 PM 1/15/06
Not if you want to print a pciture bigger than 4x5. 8mp can get you a decent print at 8x10 but any bigger and even at 8mp you start to see pixilation. Now for anyone but serious photographers this doesn't matter. But for those us that demand that we have the ability to get 16x20 prints or larger without pixilation from a single image or frame, digital has yet to equal the quality of 35mm file. 39mp is closer. And if you use medium format or large format, nothing beats the quality of film. - waxdart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'll bet money someone could get just as good a pic with a disposable. But 39mp is pretty cool."
A Fool and his money would soon be parted. - maverick3x6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can make prints the size of Rhode Island with that beauty.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"well, i dont plan on taking pictures that can be as big as billboards in times square. no thanks, not for me.
plus its butt-ugly."
It is NOT all about YOU. What a bunch of ***** self absorbed morons Digg attracts... - tMANwi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll stick with my Digital Rebel XT thank you very much.
- nullity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To all the people asking "why do we need 39 megapixels???", I have 3 words for you:
High Resolution Porn. - BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1$40,000?
No thanks. - racerxyz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>> Not if you want to print a pciture bigger than 4x5. 8mp can get you a decent print at 8x10 " ...el_jefe (0)
I disagree. My Canon Digital Rebel 6.1 megapixel does some pretty decent 16x20, actually better than any 35mm film I've ever done. I've done a lot of Hasselblad film work, but from the looks of it, only the most cutting edge (and those with lot$ of $$) are gonna buy this Hassy. Google for the H2 and you'll see some reviews that suggest the Canon and Kodak cameras which do 14 MP do just as good of a job. - VipeNess, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i just bought one and recieved it... its beautiful.
- Julian_Photo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah that thing rocks , 10mp with no hotfilter = sharp as hell
- maverick3x6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you guys need to check out the film/digital hybrid.. Leica is back in the game.
http://digg.com/technology/Leica_-_New_Film_Digital_Hybrid_Camera - Julian_Photo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ok so most of you don't think this camera is pratical at all, and you're right... for a consumer.
As you can tell this isn't designed for your home user thats pretty obvious. This camera is basicly replacing the 25mp versions before it, so when you consider you're getting 39mp now for the price you would pay for 25 less than a year ago, thats not too bad. Plus most of the companies have a trade up price so you can upgrade and not pay $40k for a new back.
As a friend said. When you're shooting the spring ad campagin for audi you better set up to the table with some serious gear, its about a 300,000 dollar job. Thus you can see how buying a 40,000 dollar back isn't quite so bad.
Yes the files are big, what do you exspect. You can either use a CF card (on a 4gig card you will get 80 photos) or use the 80gig hard drive it comes with, or best of all connect it stright to the computer via firewire.
don't mean to put anyone just don't jump up and down saying its nuts when its not made for your kind of photography - Julian_Photo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i beat you on that one too, sorry
http://digg.com/technology/39_MegaPixle_digital_back_coming_to_the_market - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0aren't there gigapixel cameras?
this cant be new technology - Julian_Photo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why wasn't this dugg to 700 when i posted it a few days ago
i don't get how digg works some times - mikae1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Seriously... http://digg.com/technology/39_megapixel_camera
- joevennix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0...so?
- koap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0agreed with Maverick. If you're looking to get into serious print/editorial/commercial work, this is the wave of the future in terms of digital medium-format, which at this point is still very young. Most better photo studios don't even shoot your family and baby portraits on anything less than medium-format cameras these days. Action is a different arena altogether, but I hope that Mamiya can catch up and bring it on. It's all about the digital backs these days anyway.
- eyeballkid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm going to buy it! It'll be perfect for that spy satellite I've been building in my garage.
- Menoats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I want samples of the images the picture quality must be breath taking. For the idiots sayings its ugly shut your mouths its not aimed at you. This is for pros. I'm just going to say it though watch in like 4-5 years they will have a 50 mpx the size of my Canon SD400.
- bluedepth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This camera is impressive, however I can't shake the suspicion that it's really a 13 megapixel sensor that captures red/green/blue and then mixes it digitally into a pseudo-39 megapixel image. Also, this camera is only as fast as ISO 400 - there are vast applications for higher ISO's... even my old Canon 300D can reach ISO 1600 (helps with imaging nocturnal critters) and I think the 20D or 5D can reach ISO 3200. This pretty thing I think is best left to be purchased by companies for the benefit of their photograhers, as a $40k camera for the "regular joe" is securely in the realm of "absurd to own"...
- pritch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0drunknmunky, two points:
1. The gigapixel camera of which you speak (I assume it's the one: http://www.gigapxl.org/ ) is actually a film camera. The only sense in which this is a digital image is that they're scanning the film instead of producing a print from it.
2. It's not a camcorder. It may look like one, but it's actually a medium format camera body. - maverick3x6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Too much argueing... if you don't like the article, don't read it, and don't comment... however if you have knowledgable input to enlighten the rest of us please share it.. I'm sure that is why the comment forms are here, not to flame.
But I thank all the guys on here who know what they are talking about when it comes to cameras and how they work. I'm a serious amatuer photographer and I appreciate articles like this. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ME WANTEE!!
- Joe091, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You guys know professional film cameras for movies can cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, right? There is always a market for ultra high-end anything. The fact that YOU don't need it is irrelevant.
- Heavy_C, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Medium Format digital scanning back have been around for quite a while. As for the price, if you're good enough to need one, you can afford it.
- Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like to point the obvious, and since some people seem to have doubts:
You can never have too many megapixels.
In the worst case, you may end up taking someone's portrait, and being able to see bacterias crawling on their skin.
Alternatively, you could choose to trade some of your overkill resolution for some depth information (there was a digg on that technique, it allowed to adjust the depth of field after the shot was taken.)
Finally, it would finally make the old hollywood cliche true, where out of a simple photograph, a computer "expert" zooms in 2000x to read some tiny detail in the picture.
That alone would make it totally worth it. - TexMachina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Such petty comments, and repeated ad nauseam.
A petapixel camera with an exabyte of memory isn't too big. These improvement provide more resources for the imagination of photographers both professional and amateur. People will undoubtedly come up with applications for these larger resolution cameras that are as of yet unknown. If you demand a list of uses for a new technology before they are known in order justify said technology than you are terribly shortsighted. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If i was doing high end portrait work or landscapes, this would be an amazing camera to own... yah, it's big, so is anything in the medium format... the latest information seems to show that the sensor size determines as much about the quality as the mpixels, so that's why the 6mp Canon DSLRs take better pictures than 8mp sony cameras... personally, i can't deal with the digital rebel, cause it feels so cheap, and i can't stand the "press the button, wait 3 seconds, get your picture" on regular digital cameras... just be saving for a canon 5d i guess...
- Kurisuteru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Why is this posted here?"
Because it's a _hi-tech_ camera, and this is a tech site. It makes tech-interested people like me drool, even though most of us will never afford it. It's tech pr0n.
"What's the point? My Digital Rebel works for me, no-one needs this."
You don't need it, but serious pro photographers have a need for as much resolution they can get. I'd like to see your DR, or even EOS 5D be used for billboards on Times Square... No, you won't take such pictures but, as many have said, it's _not all about you_!
Jeez, many of you are such self-obsessed, egotistical whinos! - complaining about high-tech stuff being reported on a tech site! Digg started out great but the s/n ratio lately makes the Slashdot crowd seem like geniuses compared to most idiots here. - ffarrell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Seriously, if you don't understand don't waste your time thinking about this one. It is not for you. A 40 gig built in hard drive, 39 mp, this is not a consumer product. Please don't show yourself up by pretending you can knock it. Not for you.
- ximinez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"and half of those were a friend visiting who wanted me to take nude shots of her."
Now that's just bragging...
And not posting a link is just teasing... - phatcactus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sqrt(39,000,000)=6244.998; 6244/300=20.813
So it sounds like this thing can make 20x20 in prints at 300dpi. Cool.
The Nikon Coolscan 9000 can scan medium format (6x6cm) film at 4000 DPI. This gives you about an 81 megapixel (!) image, which can make 30x30 in prints at 300dpi.
At about one-tenth the cost
And in 100 times the time.
:D - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0[quote]I'll bet money someone could get just as good a pic with a disposable. But 39mp is pretty cool.[/quote]
LOL. Ok, you're on. How about $40,000? Then I'll be able to buy one of these Hasselblads when I win. - ffarrell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I mean don't you unnerstann? This camera is not for simple idiot peepholes like you and me, is for the real pros. Yeah, those with 20 g spare for a camera.
- pvera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+039MP on a medium format camera is barely usable. Ever seen the size of a medium format frame compared to 35mm?
And yeah, there is a market. Commercial photographers will drool at the sight of a 39MP digital back, regardless of cost. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Do we have a large demographic of professional photographers here at digg?"
Do we have a large demographic of nuclear weapons experts? No, but people still liked the post with the photos capturing the first few microseconds of a detonation.
Don't be an *****. - bubbazanetti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A friend of mine has a couple of Hasselblad cameras, (as well as a nice collection of Nikons...including the new 6MP D200?)
He is already having very hard time getting medium format film for his Hs. Eventually the price of film will be as much as a camera back. (as film gets more expensive and rare, and digital technology gets cheaper.)
As for who cares, I care. I am not in the market but I find the subject extremely interesting...more so than the Rubik's cube one.
You need to see some large Ansel Adams prints, to really appreciate the purpose of a larger than 35mm format camera. - leeopold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cost and profit isn't the issue. They're not planning on mass-producing a million of these. It's a statement: Hasselblad can make a superior quality, medium format digital camera.
Given how technology advances, we may see this reach the consumer level in a few years. The first digital SLR, the Kodak DCS-100, was around $30,000 back in 1991 for 1.3 megapixels of resolution. - deadkenny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Does the world even have 39 Mexapixels???!!!!"
It's not that simple. The pixel quantity here relates to the size of the print. We're talking about cameras here that are used to produce very high detailed poster and billboard adverts. When you realise just how much detail is required to blow up to that size, you start to realise just what a deal 39mp is, and even then it may not be enough.
Most digital cameras are way off the resolution of film, but for 35mm users the typical print sizes means it's not a big issue, but for medium format it's a far greater issue. - xenon901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"xenon901 said ""how many megapixels will we have to reach before the camera can absorb no additional information about the thing it is photographing?"
The amount of information that can be 'absorbed' about an object you are photographing is infinite"
How so? That can't possibly be true. The universe contains a finite about of information so a single "scene" must also have a limited amount of information that can be gathered. At some point, all visual data would be captured. But where is that point?"
OK yeah, technically you are correct, but for all intents and purposes my point still stands. It's really a redundant, academic argument.
As for the rest of you wittering on about how there's no point, there is a point, you just don't understand it.
p.s. we need some kind of quote button on here - triman023, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have the Phaseone P45 at work. A major museum. We will be using it to copy glass plate negatives and photographs, about 30,000 of them. We have several scanning backs that fit on 4x5 cameras, they can go up to 70 megapixels but in a slow scan. The reason for not using film is that it is just too expensive. Our first scanning back was purchased when we found that we would spend $14,000 for film for the project, we got a demo back for $10k.
On this project the savings in labor will pay for the back 3 times over.
As for quality, the image from the P45 beats 4X5 inch film in sharpness and color fidelity. The software will also emulate the look of all the major films. Expensive? Oh yeah, but it's a money machine for the pro. - tw0bit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0About $1000 for every MP, wow
- rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You can make prints the size of Rhode Island with that beauty."
Pff. I'm waiting for one that can make Deleware or Connecticut sized prints. - alphgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There sure is a point to this camera, as plenty of knowledgeable folk have pointed out.
But, surprisingly, there is an upper boundary on how many pixels (or more precisely, how LARGE a pixel) will be useful in a camera. The boundary is determined by the size of the "Airy disk" formed by the light hitting the sensor.
As light passes through a lens (or any other aperture such as a slit, pinhole, window etc), it is diffracted. Diffracted light does not form an infinitely small point but forms a disk - the Airy disk - the size of which can be precisely calculated. It is determined by the wavelength of the light under consideration and the focal ratio of the aperture forming the image. Generally speaking, higher focal ratio (or "slower") lenses form smaller Airy disks and can benefit most from smaller pixels.
A good rule of thumb would be that the limiting pixel size should be no larger than half the diameter of the Airy disk. This will of course vary depending on the highest focal ratio expected to be used with the system. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ooooo
its a camcorder
now thats awsome -
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is