Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lio | Hacker News Reader

There's not much discussion about high ISO noise. I'd be interested to know how such a high pixel density affects that. If they could keep that desesity on a medium format sized sensor it would really be amazing and would really give large format 8x10 film a run for its money.

Hasselblad offer a 100MP 53 x 40mm sensor which they can then use to capture pseudo 400MP images. That's based on a multishot system where they can move the sensor by, I think, half a pixel by shaking the sensor. Only good for things like landscapes that don't move but still amazing.

(Also, off topic but I'm pretty sure the watch used there is an Omega Speedmaster Professional.

I'm not sure if impressed or ashamed that I can recognise it from its unbranded movement.)

View on HN

Pentax has sensor shift in its current sub $1000 APS-C bodies (K70 and KP) and the full frame K-1. The shifting moves the sensor one pixel to allow four samples under the Bayer filter (red, blue, two greens). The cameras also ship without an anti-aliasing filter. Instead moire is removed by shifting the sensor one pixel to simulate the effect of a low pass filter. Of course, these cameras are rounding error on the price of the Hasselblad (before even thinking about lenses).

> Only good for things like landscapes that don't move but still amazing.

And also very good for high resolution document imaging, such as 300 DPI newspaper shots.

Here is a blurb about that sensor:

https://www.hasselblad.com/press/press-releases/hasselblad-i...

You're right about the watch, if you look at the bridge in the enlarged picture you can still make out the blurred letters.

What's the advantage over a scanner? Speed?

That and less handling, very important in the case of fragile documents.

https://picturae.com/en/

Very interesting company, and from what I know one of the first in the world to take delivery of that sensor.

You can image non-flat things

A flatbed scanner, anyway, spreads its resolution over its whole plate area. So if you want to scan something smaller than that full-size, you're getting a fraction of its resolution.

Want to flatbed scan a 2" tintype or even a 4x6 photo? You'd probably be better off using a camera instead, as you can fill the cameras imaging sensor with the subject. You can also control the lighting conditions better with a camera setup, so you don't get the obligatory flatbed scanner reflections.

That is not really how it works. Yes, a camera has a fixed array of dots and to extract the maximum amount of information from that sensor, you have to maximize the number of pixels covered by your image.

A scanner essentially just moves a single pixel over the source material. The resolution is limited not by how much of the flatbed you cover, but by how small that single pixel is and how precisely it can be moved. (And even the size of the sensor is fungible, if you can move it precisely you can oversample.)

Scanners have their downsides, no doubt, but raw resolution is their upside. The downside is the time it takes for a scanner to make an image -- that is why we carry around ultra-expensive silicon wafers for photography, and not a single light-sensitive element that moves around under the lens's image circle.

I think hat the parent is saying is that you can adjust the lens of the camera to have the subject better fit the whole frame. For a scanner you’d need a specific adaptor and there aren’t so many readily available.

The biggest advantage is being able to image things that aren't flat. It would be extremely useful for digitizing natural history collections (like the beetle in the article). Unfortunately, natural history museums, at least the smaller ones, like the one I am affiliated with, probably don't have the funding for a super high end camera like this and instead have to to get creative with flatbed scanners and light boxes in the mere $10,000 range. It's a shame, because the resolution and depth of field of the Hasselblad would be absolutely killer for, for example, herbarium specimens (pressed plants).

Oh, it definitely is a Speedy Pro - I believe (it is quite a few years since I last looked at this in detail) we’re looking at a c.861; my display back (c.1863) Speedmaster is very similar, but I believe there are a couple of minor differences (in addition to the added decoration, given the display back, turning the 861/1861 into an 863/1863) - so, my guess is 861, a somewhat modified Lemania, if memory serves.)

It does indeed appear to be an .861, likely circa 1969 given its serial number.

Sensor shifting is implemented in several camera bodies these days. Olympus has been doing it for a few years.

This has been a great tool for Micro 4/3 sensors to beat their sensor size constraints for higher-res imaging.

There have been rumors for a while of an Olympus implementation of this system that works fast enough for some moving subjects as well, which would be huge if true - you could do this handheld instead of a tripod.

This article mentions a way to manually do it without the need for stabilizing hardware: https://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-practical-guide-to-creati...

> It also has a nice side effect of putting less demand on the glass

I don't follow. How does a higher resolution capture -- however it's accomplished -- not demand more from the glass?

The Hasselblad sensor shift is amazing for photographing art or still life (i.e. cars etc) - I'm sure you can imagine how excellent this is for commercial photography.

Only for a smaller niche of commercial photography - the one that sells large fine art prints. You don't really need high resolution for billboards or posters - they are viewed from large distances. Magazines are not printed with that great quality. Even high quality photo books are more than fine with 20-30 megapixel shots.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com