
I Built Myself a 16x20-Inch Camera in 10 Hours - robin_reala
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/19/i-built-myself-a-16x20-inch-camera-in-10-hours/
======
matthewmcg
There was a retired physicist that refurbished an old aerial reconnaissance
camera and painstakingly built a hybird film/digital workflow that resulted in
claimed resolution equivalent to several gigapixels. I can't find his original
site anywhere, but here's a _Popular Mechanics_ write up of it:

[http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-10/sharpest-
image](http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-10/sharpest-image)

It's too bad because the original site had lots of technical detail and was a
good lesson in understanding resolution limiting factors at each step of the
image chain (e.g. effect of air density changes on sharpness of distant
objects when shooting landscapes).

Update: hooray for archive.org. Check it out here:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20060218113103/http://www.gigapx...](https://web.archive.org/web/20060218113103/http://www.gigapxl.org/)

~~~
newman314
Didn't realize that gigapxl was down.

One can purchase a Gigapan device to try to capture something similar though.
[http://gigapan.com](http://gigapan.com)

------
nickbauman
For the DSLR folks, the 16x20 Ambrotypes he's making are like a ~100+ MP
image. If he had the lens quality and precision focal plane / standard
mounting, he could project this onto a billboard at an unheard-of resolution.

~~~
galago
I shoot large (4x5) and medium format film. I think that the 'resolution' is
complicated by the entire workflow. He's using a very old lens with a very
imprecise camera and imprecise film. The images should probably described as
'smooth' rather than necessarily high resolution. The old lens provides
extraordinary sharpness in the center, but is soft on the edges.

That said, even with 6cmx6cm film negatives I feel like I often cannot really
use the detail available. That is, unless I'm printing very large photos in a
film-only workflow I don't really see all the detail. My scanner seems to be
limited by the ability to keep the film flat rather than the actual scanning
sensor. I don't usually bother scanning higher than 50MP.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I think you need to do wet scanning to really get the detail beyond ~40 MP.

~~~
Finnucane
Wet mounting will only help if the scanner focus can be optimized. I've got a
Epson V750, and _if_ everything is just right, you can get a very good scan,
but still noticeably short of what a drum scan will give you.

When I print my MF or 4x5 images, I don't really worry about 'all the detail',
since as you say, you'd need a pretty big print to really see them. I'm just
happy if they look nice and sharp on the wall.

I have to give mad props to the guys still doing collodion--that is way above
my pay grade, as they say. And I don't want to carry glass plates on my bike.
I try to limit the toxicness of the chemistry I have in the house as much as
can, but I still like doing the lab work--it is satisfying to me in a way that
no digital process is ever going to be.

~~~
stan_rogers
You might be amazed; printing above the industry-standard 300ppi can give you
a picture you can never get close enough too, but even at more reasonable
viewing distances you can tell the difference in acutance. 480 ppi is a good
value for the current crop of Epsons (you'd need a RIP and a lot of farting
around to do better, but you _can_ get up to 720). It's sort of like the
difference between a contact print and an optical print at the same size;
there's no more detail as such at a typical viewing distance, but the edges of
the details you can see are sharper.

As for the scanner, if you don't really need a car, you can always get a
Flextight. (They really are that good, but they really are too expensive
nonetheless.)

~~~
Finnucane
I'm aware of the affect of dpi on the print. Sure, I suppose I could also get
a second-hand drum scanner, too; sometimes you can get them for cheap. A
Flextight is nice but it still a CCD scanner, it is not going to match a PMT.

------
adfm
Large format photography delivers amazing detail. Normally you'll see folks
making their own plates past a certain point, but this DIY 14x32-inch camera
on the Make Magazine site uses large format X-ray film, which you can get for
cheap, since hospitals have been converting to digital equipment:
[http://makezine.com/2011/05/17/gigantic-diy-ultra-large-
form...](http://makezine.com/2011/05/17/gigantic-diy-ultra-large-format-film-
camera/)

------
aphrax
Inspiring me to dust off the darkroom equipment. I even got to love the smell
of Fixer!

------
KaiserPro
Use gloves, If I remember correctly part of the substrate is cadmium bromide.

~~~
detaro
There are a few less-toxic bromides that also work. But definitively something
to keep in mind, some processes use nasty stuff.

------
detaro
related: Here is a video showing how a tintype is prepared (Basically the same
process as his Ambrotypes, but on a metal plate instead of glass)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DneujRTXwic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DneujRTXwic)

------
mikeytown2
Video about a guy who took this to the extreme and made a truck sized camera:
[https://vimeo.com/39578584](https://vimeo.com/39578584) (thumbnail is
slightly nsfw)

------
imaginenore
I've always wanted to do that, but with a flatbed scanner in the back.

