Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

CFV back on SWC - processing time

bladdered

Member
My CFV works exceptionally well on the SWC. However, processing time increases from 1.5 seconds to 15 seconds.

Up until now I've accepted this as the norm, but a couple of multi-exposures causes me to question whether this has to be the case? If I don't change the setting back to 200 Series, that same processing time applies to the 203FE, but obviously that can be easily corrected.

Am I doing something wrong?

For the sake of brightening up this thread here's a recent image from the 203FE. Can't seem to get the same 'quality' with a dslr.

Gary
 

Attachments

  • SusanJustin_0047.jpg
    EXIF
    SusanJustin_0047.jpg
    116.3 KB · Views: 50
  • SusanJustin_0047.jpg
    EXIF
    SusanJustin_0047.jpg
    116.3 KB · Views: 50
Gary

What are your exact settings , when working with the SWC and the CFV .
Did you use the sync cable ?
If I have your settings , I will try by tomorrow with my 905SWC and your settings .
15 seconds to store the image on the CF card seem to be toooooo long .
Is your battery properly loaded ?

Jürgen
 
Gary

What are your exact settings , when working with the SWC and the CFV .
Did you use the sync cable ?
If I have your settings , I will try by tomorrow with my 905SWC and your settings .
15 seconds to store the image on the CF card seem to be toooooo long .
Is your battery properly loaded ?

Jürgen

And, taking a long shot, this is using the same CF card, or at least the same speed CF card?

Wilko
 
Thanks Jurgen.

Battery was freshly charged.

Sandisk Ultra 2 gb recently formatted.

CFV Camera setting SWC

No synch cable

50 Iso

When transferring the CFV to my 203FE, the writing time remains the same until I change the Camera to 200 Series. It then writes 50 iso files in 1.5 secs. With the SWC setting, the images are fine on both the SWC and 203FE.

Leaving the CFV set to 200 Series when used on the SWC, the image whites-out with noise, or whatever.

Regards
 
I have tested the image recording using the 503CW and the 905SWC with the proper settings for the camera in the CFV back .
I am using SAN DISK EXTREME III and SANDISK EXTREME IV cards , both 2GB .
Using the EXTREM III card , the little red indicator flashes 6 times during image recording , for both cameras and flashes 5 times for both cameras when using the EXTREME IV card . Shutter speed shorter than 1/8 sec .

When using a shutter speed of 1 second the little indicator flashes 8 times for image recording for the EXTREME III and 7 times for the EXTREME IV card . Same results for both used cameras .

That means , the EXTREME IV card is slightly faster .

I do not see any logical reason , why the recording time should be longer for a SWC with the proper setting in CFV than for a 500/200 camera with their proper settings in the CFV back .

My CFV was delivered with an EXTREME III card .

I would like to recommend using a faster CF card than the ULTRA II .
That would be an EXTREME III or an EXTREME IV or a LEXAR 300x and then see what the result is .

Jurgen
 
According to Ernst Wildi's HASSELBLAD MANUAL , seventh edition , page 36 bottom , HASSELBAD now recommends SAN DISK EXTREME IV or LEXAR PROFESSIONAL 133x for their digital backs .

So it will be worth a try to use a faster card .

Jurgen
 
According to Ernst Wildi's HASSELBLAD MANUAL , seventh edition , page 36 bottom , HASSELBAD now recommends SAN DISK EXTREME IV or LEXAR PROFESSIONAL 133x for their digital backs .

So it will be worth a try to use a faster card .

Jurgen

Jurgen,

If the 203FE is writing the file in less than 2 seconds, I assume that the card is not the issue.

However, I will test again with an Extreme card and report.

I presume that the SWC 'Camera' setting is the only change needed ?

Gary
 
Jurgen,

If the 203FE is writing the file in less than 2 seconds, I assume that the card is not the issue.

However, I will test again with an Extreme card and report.

I presume that the SWC 'Camera' setting is the only change needed ?

Gary

Short of the file size, maybe the CFV does more processing on the captured image when it is set to SWC mode?

Maybe it is tweaking the image more to compensate for the non-retrofocus wideangle.

Wilko
 
Short of the file size, maybe the CFV does more processing on the captured image when it is set to SWC mode?

Maybe it is tweaking the image more to compensate for the non-retrofocus wideangle.

Wilko

Wilko

NO , that is most likely not the case .
Please read my test results in post #6 . The CFV processing time seems to be (almost) the same for an image taken with the 905SWC (BIOGON) and the 503CW (MACRO PLANAR) .

I am very curious , what the issue will be .

Jurgen
 
It'll be later today before I can shoot some fresh files to upload.

Here's some 3FR files running at 25+mb from the 203 and a fff file from the SWC with its corresponding TIFF file at 95 mb .

Can you confirm that these are normal size for the CFV ?

Gary
 

Attachments

  • Picture 6.jpg
    EXIF
    Picture 6.jpg
    78.8 KB · Views: 151
  • Picture 3.jpg
    EXIF
    Picture 3.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 12
  • Picture 4.jpg
    EXIF
    Picture 4.jpg
    55.5 KB · Views: 141
  • Picture 6.jpg
    EXIF
    Picture 6.jpg
    78.8 KB · Views: 151
  • Picture 3.jpg
    EXIF
    Picture 3.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 12
  • Picture 4.jpg
    EXIF
    Picture 4.jpg
    55.5 KB · Views: 141
Here's some 3FR files running at 25+mb from the 203 and a fff file from the SWC with its corresponding TIFF file at 95 mb .
Can you confirm that these are normal size for the CFV ?
Gary

Hi Gary

Your file sizes look all normal .
I have 3FR files in sizes varying from 22,5 MB up to 36,7 MB .
I believe the size depends on how many details you have in your image .
The more details , the bigger the 3FR file .
(But still it should not take 15 sec. to get the image data onto the CF card)

Now if these files are handled by FLEXCOLOR or PHOCUS they will have a name like (for example) A 0857.fff or B 10253.fff .
These files have a size of 37,4(2) MB .
I have also found some ---.fff files having 40,1MB . These were handled by FLEXCOLOR .
If you then export them as 16 BIT RGB tif (not DNG) they will have 95,3 (95,4) MB .
Image size is 4082x4082 pixel or 34,56 x 34,56 cm .

So the figures you gave are absolutely normal and correct .

Jurgen
 
Well, issue truly identified:

All done using a SanDisk Extreme 4 gb card.

The CFV exposure time in Settings/Camera/Exposure time is clearly controlling the time to write the file, inasmuch as the sensor must be 'live' for the set period.

Mine was set for 16 seconds and when used the red light flashed 36 times on the SWC without sync cord.

When the Settings/Camera/Exposure time on the SWC is set to 1 second it flashes just six times.

This compares to just 6 times with the sync cord.

The 203FE also flashes 6 times. Same as for the Sandisk Ultra card.

When the CFV is set to SWC and used with that setting on the 203FE, it also flashes 36 times.

Any ideas as to why the SWC setting uses the full exposure time and the other combinations don't ?

Thanks for your interest in this.

Gary
 
Hi Gary

Your file sizes look all normal .
I have 3FR files in sizes varying from 22,5 MB up to 36,7 MB .
I believe the size depends on how many details you have in your image .
The more details , the bigger the 3FR file .
(But still it should not take 15 sec. to get the image data onto the CF card)

Jurgen

Hi Jurgen,

You are correct, basically what you are observing is the "compressability" of the data (/image). For entertainment try a test image of an evenly lit grey card. It should produce a truly small 3FR file.

Wilko
 
Gary

I am happy that we have a partial success with the SANDISK EXTREME IV card.
Give me some time and I will test the long exposure issue by tomorrow .
I will test 16 sec. exposure time with the 905SWC and the 203FE .
The only difference I can see that far , are the different shutter types .
What happens with your SWC does not sound logical . We will see by tomorrow if my SWC does the same "stupid" thing .

Jurgen
 
Gary

What just came into my mind .
It might also be that the 203FE/CFV does a stupid thing during long exposure times . Do you get a good exposed image at 16 sec with the 203FE/CFV ? ? ?

Jurgen
 
Gary

What just came into my mind .
It might also be that the 203FE/CFV does a stupid thing during long exposure times . Do you get a good exposed image at 16 sec with the 203FE/CFV ? ? ?

Jurgen

Yes Jurgen, the exposure is fine.

I assume all that is happening is that the CFV is sensitive during that 16 second period and then the back switches itself into a standby mode.

I've been able to multi-expose during the period which was undesirable at the time, but it may prove to be useful in some circumstances.

Look forward to your findings.

Gary
 
Gary

Here are my findings :

Used cameras are 905SWC and 203FE plus CFV DIGITAL BACK .
PRONTOR PROFESSIONAL longtime exposure timer . Set to 16 seconds .

Setting in CFV is SWC and 16 sec . Flashing of the little red indicator starts immediately when shutter opens and flashes 34 x . That corresponds to a recording time of 18-19 seconds . I repeated this test 4 times with the same results . Flashing continues for about 6 x after shutter closed .

Setting in CFV is 200 and 16 sec . Flashing of the little red indicator starts immediately when shutter opens and flashes 29 x. That corresponds to a recording time of 17 - 18 seconds . I repeated this test 4 times as well and got the same results . Flashing continues for about 5 x after shutter closed .

You can see , that for both scenarios , the recording time is longer than the shutter opening time . This is ok , as the CFV is not very fast .

Also , recording with the 203FE is a little faster . This seems to depend on the setting (SWC or 200) in the CFV back .

I hope , this helps .

Regards Jurgen
 
Thanks for your time and effort, Jurgen.

Seems all is in order with my CFV/SWC combination. There are so few controls on these backs, but infrequent use can still cause one to forget what it was set on last time out. :)

Gary
 
Back
Top