Brightsceen evaluation question

[ToeInTheWater]

For those who have used both a "Brightscreen" and Acute Matte screen(s)

Would you characterize the Brightscreen imaging especially in terms of the areas of a composition intentionally outside the field of critical focus:

a) more like Hasselblad Acute Matte screen
b) more like Hasselblad Acute Matte 'D' screen
c) somewhat like both
d) not so much like either

I've searched the forums (fori?) and people have spoken about "brightness" but not about some of the other characteristics of the Brightscreen especially about how accurately it displays the entire composition. For the Acute Mattes, the comments tend to be that Hasselblad Acute Matte screen is not as accurate in this way as the 'D', and that the Hasselblad Acute Matte 'D' screen is more accurate than the non-D and approaches the old-style screen in this respect (while being brighter of course).

Can you comment on these aspects of the Brightscreen?

 

[blowupster]

Well I do not test D screen but last month I got a 500C with a "no bright screen at all". My surprise was to admit that with this old style sceen it's easier to focuss and the sharp result with my CFV-39 is better too.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Well I do not test D screen but last month I got a 500C with a "no bright screen at all". My surprise was to admit that with this old style sceen it's easier to focuss and the sharp result with my CFV-39 is better too.

That is my fear as I have seen it said that the Acute Matte is actually harder to use to get focus except in the central aid part (split-screen or whatever). I've also seen it said that the Acute Matte 'D' is better in this respect but it would be lovely to be able to compare them all side by side (I wish!)

 

[polarcircle]

It has been said that the Acu D has higher contrast than the ordinary Acu. I have only the newer Acumatte D and the old style from the 70s (I may have an ordinary Acumatte lying around somewhere but cant find it right now). The old style, non-Acumatte, actually might have been working better in terms of focusing - worked well with long slow lenses. I have a larger problem with long slow lenses for the split than with the old screen. The split always worked well with the old screen. Somewhat less happy now - wthere this is due to poorer eyesight or not. WIll tet but cant do it until march sometime. However, this is my subjective evaluation. Clearly the matte is brigher of course.

That is my fear as I have seen it said that the Acute Matte is actually harder to use to get focus except in the central aid part (split-screen or whatever). I've also seen it said that the Acute Matte 'D' is better in this respect but it would be lovely to be able to compare them all side by side (I wish!)

 

[Oldboy]

Acute Screens Questions con't

Do you mind telling me, what does the "D" stand for in the name Acute Matte D?
I've been working on some of these same issues. Brigher doesn't seem to mean easier to focus but wondering if the "D" is different.

thanks!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Do you mind telling me, what does the "D" stand for in the name Acute Matte D?
I've been working on some of these same issues. Brigher doesn't seem to mean easier to focus but wondering if the "D" is different.
thanks!

I only know what I've read in the various forums and newsgroups.

As it turns out, my original Hasselblad C is evidently not repairable, so I'll take the focus screen out of it (which has served me well in the past) and use it in the replacement body. Save me obsessing about getting a different one. Given that I'm dealing with C not C/M, experimentation is non-trivial.

 

[Fliger747]

The graininess of the old screens does indeed make ground glass focusing easier. I used one of these for many years with the 500 cm and a stovepipe. It did not work as well with the 250 mm Sonar C. The CF version ant the accumat D do not give me the shadow cutoff that I used to get. The brightness is great for viewing the scene but one is pretty dependent on using the central focusing aids (which are good).

Cheers. T