If you're looking for the magic ingredient responsible for any differences between 16 x 24 prints captured with the various 50/60/80 megapixel backs then perhaps you're looking for the wrong thing?
Not at all. I am just curious about the whole thing. Why would anyone want spend $40,000 on a piece of equipment that by Michael's reckoning only matters very slightly for images printed larger than 24x16. My suggestion of selling my house to buy one was a bit of irony. I am actually quite happy with what I can do with my full frame 35mm equipment. I have owned a Hasselblad MFD system which I liked a lot but just didn't use enough. Some of my favourite photographs have been taken with compact cameras or relatively inexpensive DSLR's. What do they say - "the best camera is the one you have with you"? My MF equipment was usually in my office or studio. My M9 is always with me now. :)
I am actually quite happy with what I can do with my full frame 35mm equipment. I have owned a Hasselblad MFD system which I liked a lot but just didn't use enough. Some of my favourite photographs have been taken with compact cameras or relatively inexpensive DSLR's. What do they say - "the best camera is the one you have with you"? My MF equipment was usually in my office or studio. My M9 is always with me now. :)
……….My suggestion is that if this is of real world interest to you so that you can make a purchase decision, (rather than simply curiosity), visit dealers, borrow the gear, and do your own tests. That's the only way for it to make sense…………
Michael
... Here's a supplementary question. If I was shown two prints made at 24 x 16 one taken on a $10k camera and one using this back would the difference be so great that I would henceforth be completely unhappy with anything produced on my $10k camera? If the answer was yes I might well, at that point, start crying quietly or start saving to buy one. ;)
Colour Discrimination is a good phrase. I've been searching for a way of describing what we see.
How do you quantify happiness? It seems only you can answer this question because nobody else knows what makes you happy (or unhappy).
... My more serious point was that I really do not believe that for 99% of situations expenditure on this scale on a piece of photographic equipment is either warranted or justifiable in any real world (sorry Michael) situation.
Re. "almost liquid colours" - if there is something special about the colour rendering of MFDBs vs. DSLRs, then the underlying reason which I would pull out of Doug's imaging chain/list is "Bayer RGBG color filters". While DSLRs [like my 5DII] murder MFDBs [like my DCS645M] on luminance sensitivity (ISO), their colour discrimination may be poorer due to stronger spectral overlaps in their Bayer matrix filters. DxOMark correlation tests have proven that these excessive overlaps exist, although they also vary between DSLR models. See e.g. DxOMark analysis (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/Canon-500D-T1i-vs.-Nikon-D5000/Color-blindness-sensor-quality).If narrower bandwidth color filters are something distinguishing common MFDBs from DSLRs, I think that is very interesting.
It is also thus with film. Velvia's famous colours (and slow ISO) arise from narrow-peaked, little-overlapping colour layer responses. Fast film, like the Agfa 1000RS I used a lot of, has lower saturation and discrimination because one way for manufacturers to boost speed is to have broad-peaked, highly overlapping colour layer responses. Broad peaks mean higher overall q.e. (but similar colour hues tend to "block up"), and with overlapping colour layer responses, if a photon of a given wavelength is not absorbed in its primary or expected layer, there is a greater chance of it being absorbed in another layer in the stack, also increasing q.e.
Ray
If I was shown two prints made at 24 x 16 one taken on a $10k camera and one using this back would the difference be so great that I would henceforth be completely unhappy with anything produced on my $10k camera? If the answer was yes I might well, at that point, start crying quietly or start saving to buy one. ;)
Then there's a very small group of fine art photographers who sell large nature/landscape prints though their own or other galleries. These folks in the past would have used (and many still do) 4X5" and 8X10" cameras, because that's what allows them to make large prints that consequently allows them to charge big bucks. Take Peter Lick for example. He shoots with a P65+. On a less grandiose scale there's Charlie Cramer, in my opinion a better photographer, though not as successful as Peter commercially. He also shoots with a P65+.
Then there's a very small group of fine art photographers who sell large nature/landscape prints though their own or other galleries. These folks in the past would have used (and many still do) 4X5" and 8X10" cameras, because that's what allows them to make large prints that consequently allows them to charge big bucks. Take Peter Lick for example. He shoots with a P65+. On a less grandiose scale there's Charlie Cramer, in my opinion a better photographer, though not as successful as Peter commercially. He also shoots with a P65+.
Michael
I don't have an Aptus back available for comparison.
In any event, I think it would be a tedious and difficult job finding the differences between these two. Kind of like comparing a Mercedes E Series with a BMW 5 series. No one would be happy in the end regardless of the outcome.
The main purchasers of MF backs are working pros doing commercial work, architecture, fashion etc.
for his Miami and Las Vegas gallery locations than he did on his 65+. Just as a point of perspective.
If you were to pick the top 10 photographers that you think fall into that group, many now shoot with a MFDB, but how many shoot with a technical camera? Any?
Then there's a very small group of fine art photographers who sell large nature/landscape prints though their own or other galleries. These folks in the past would have used (and many still do) 4X5" and 8X10" cameras, because that's what allows them to make large prints that consequently allows them to charge big bucks. Take Peter Lick for example. He shoots with a P65+. On a less grandiose scale there's Charlie Cramer, in my opinion a better photographer, though not as successful as Peter commercially. He also shoots with a P65+.
I obviously don't know everyone. But of the ones I know, most now have switched to MFDBs. This includes, as I've already mentioned, Peter Lik, Charlie Cramer, Alain Briot, Bill Atkinson. Mark Dubovoy, and Tim Wolcott. All make a part of their living from selling fine art prints and all have work in either their own or major independent galleries and museums in the US or abroad.
Your point is?
Michael
They potentially are very far behind their competition and as we have heard a lot these days, resolution does matter even in small prints. There is no reason whatsoever to think that 80 mp is the end of things. I prefer by far to go with 300 or 400 megapixels.
I would argue that today people looking at the highest possible image quality cannot ignore stitching, whatever the base camera used (DSLR or MFDB).
When the scene allows it, and many do, I would personally not understand the claim of a photographer about his high image quality standards if he doesn't use stitching whenever possible.
I do understand that many people don't want to bother with stitching, but those photographers should stop claiming they are at the forefront of image quality, even if they use the latest MFDB.
They potentially are very far behind their competition and as we have heard a lot these days, resolution does matter even in small prints. There is no reason whatsoever to think that 80 mp is the end of things. I prefer by far to go with 300 or 400 megapixels.To make things simple:
I would argue that today people looking at the highest possible image quality cannot ignore stitching, whatever the base camera used (DSLR or MFDB).
When the scene allows it, and many do,
I use multishot backs for static scenes and repro, but I think you are vastly overestimating the percentage of work that can be stitched or captured with multishot for most photographers. Probably for those that shoot scenes that can be stitched, a scan back is a good idea too and a lot less money with higher DR. Maybe most of your work is done with stitches, and for you its working fine but I think you go too far to suggest that people who consider these new backs have missed considering that technique. I see that statement as both myopic and arrogant.
Finally!! megapixels earn their place in voodoo land alongside silver cables for audiophiles..I dont think that it can be dismissed as easily as expensive audiophile cables can. Making images is a creative/art process, meaning that anything is "legal", meaning that it is difficult to characterize a camera behaviour in such a way that the visibility of an increase in resolution can be dismissed as a blanket statement.
Making images is a creative/art process, meaning that anything is "legal",
-h
I'm not saying that some gigantic megapixel back doesn't serve a purpose, though I'd be really surprised if any buyer of photography at any level can really discern the difference between 40 and 80 megapixels.i think that one of the sources of confusion is that most people dont see the point in separating resolution from an unknown number of other variables. Comparing a 2011 80 MP camera to a 200* 30 MP camera may well give significant visual differences, but it is really hard to know if the MP count is significant.
Finally!! megapixels earn their place in voodoo land alongside silver cables for audiophiles..
There is no scientific evidence to show any difference between a normal el cheapo (shielded) copper cable linking your amp to speaker ...
It strikes me, from the limited amount of testing that I have done with my own MF DB versus prints made from DSLR cameras with a much lesser megapixel count, that -
If we have two prints at say 16x20 from two MF DBs, one say 40MP and the other 80MP printed at the same resolution say 360 ppi of the same subject and framing using the same lens at the same distance -
Then both pictures as prints have the same number of pixels in each dimension.
Therefore the apparent quality of the 80 MP image will be greatly dependent on the software downsampling algorithm, and we could expect different subjective responses to the two prints depending the printing application in use.
It is most unlikely that any image quality advantage seen from the 80MP back could be attributed to its having more megapixels, because the printing process has thrown lots of them away and the two prints are exactly the same in this regard. So the 80MP cannot be resolving more detail in the print, for example.
There is scientific evidence with regard to the higher conductivity of certain types of Oxygen-free copper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-free_copper). However, also scientifically demonstrated, the difference on the signal frequencies compared with common oxigen free labled copper wire is so small, that the effect is negligeable. The effects compared with no-oxigen free labled copper wire depends on the wire in question. Cable length of course amplifies the effects.I took the original poster as meaning implicitly scientific evidence of audible benefits of audiophile cables. In this context it is probably less interesting that two line level cables may measure differently in the MHz range, or that two digital images show there to be measurable differences in their chrominance. What IS interesting is that people are selling and buying cables costing the same as a used car without there (to my knowledge) ever having been published peer-reviewed, relevant research indicating that this has any influence whatsoever on what the listener actually hears (fondness bias excluded).
So, there is scientific evidence, and there is a difference (albeit extremely small between oxigen free varieties).
If connectors are used, the quality of the connectors (and the shielding) can also impact the sound quality.
You are forgetting that with denser sensor sampling, the combined resolution of a lens and sensor array is improved (as can be seen in its MTF curve). So the image we start with (before resampling) has a higher resolution. In addition it will have lower aliasing tendency (which in turn allows more sharpening), but that's an other issue.
But surely one will only see this higher resolution and lower aliasing if all the pixels are present?If you are downsampling using anything but insane methods, all of the source pixels will affect the output - "throwing away pixels" is not an accurate description.
Or are you saying that this is like audio, where if you record at 96 and then downsample to 48, you get a better result than recording at 48?Is it? Audibly? Or is it just common/good practice to capture the possibly "once-in-a-lifetime" content using converters at their higheste advertised resolution?
John
If you are downsampling using anything but insane methods, all of the source pixels will affect the output - "throwing away pixels" is not an accurate description. The downsampling method could be worse or better than switching to a lower resolution sampling grid in the first place, but I believe that it will usually be better.
As long as this discussion is ranging, can we consider the "1% of the time" when you need a high quality back. That's always been a curious statement. I agree with it, but 1% of what? Is it of the 500 shots that the CaNikon shooter might take in a day? Or 1% of the scenes you see - how many scenes do you see in a day? Do you see differently with different gear?
Aha. I don't understand the technicalities of downsampling, but if this is true for images, perhaps it might be true for audio as well. Both are in the digital domain, after all.It is certainly true for audio, perhaps a little less so for photography.
So, perhaps the implication might be that for a given print size the more megapixels you start with the better, because even though downsampled it will look better than a lower megapixel back at native resolution? It's a bit hard to see that this could be true - after all, imagine an image composed of a grid array just 10x8 pixels. Would a 50MP image downsampled to that look better in some way? It's interesting, isn't it - how can we find out?I believe that the 50MP would/could look a lot "better" when resampled to 10x8 pixels than a native 10x8 pixel sensor would on its own. Given, of course, that we did not have to worry about noise, dynamic range, storage cost/time, and all of those real-world hassles.
Pixels aside, what I ultimately find most interesting with the IQ180 and Aptus/Afi-II 12 is the advancements that appear to be in image quality; there is finer gradation of color tones, broader dynamic range, improved color palette etc.
I think you missed my question. I agree with you that many, if not most, of the photographers on any short list of fine art landscape photographers for whom ultimate image quality is the end all/be all now use medium format backs, yet none of them, as far as I know, use technical cameras and lenses. This is true despite the fact that, at least in terms of theoretical resolution, as opposed to real world, what can you achieve in the field, sharpness, technical cameras and lenses are superior to medium format cameras and lenses. Why do you think that is? I read that you recently purchased an Alpa STC to use with a back. I will be curious to hear your views on whether you feel that the Alpa enhances or detracts from your ability to make compelling images.
Finally!! megapixels earn their place in voodoo land alongside silver cables for audiophiles..
There is no scientific evidence to show any difference between a normal el cheapo (shielded) copper cable linking your amp to speaker - but those with "golden ears" can really hear the difference between cables.. btw - if you can't 'hear' the difference you (obviously) don't have a 'golden ear'...
now a new one in photography land...something 'special' about 80 megapixel 11x8 prints versus prints from ordinary lesser megapixel backs..if you can't see the difference ..you (obviously) don't have the 'golden eyes'...
:D
next move is blind ABX testing of teh phenomenon - and we have photogrphicaudiophilia ...yee haaa!
I agree that the comment you are referring to was not constructive.Some Facts About Printing High Resolution Image Files
Assuming that we are talking about the concrete and visible rather than the theoretical, there is indeed a lot to be gained by starting with higher resolution when printing, and this has nothing to do with what we call downsampling.
Printers don't output a one-to-one image, they use dithering. The dithering algorithms, whether in the printer's firmware or in a RIP, are very sophisticated. They produce a decent image with very low input resolution (as low as 180ppi), and the latest printers can take advantage of as much as 720ppi original files, and use the data effectively.
What this means is that a 40-50-60-80MP back is doing more than simply giving you more megapixels for big prints and cropping. It's also is of considerable value when making small prints.
Since I got back from Utah I've made some 24X36" prints from my IQ180 files and am very pleased with them. I have also made some 11X17" prints and am even more pleased, because they really do shine.
That's why the silver audio cable comment was rude, gratuitous, and know-nothing. This issue has nothing to do with "golden eyed" perception and everything to do with the simple realities of contemporary printer driver dithering.
Michael
That's why the silver audio cable comment was rude, gratuitous, and know-nothing. This issue has nothing to do with "golden eyed" perception and everything to do with the simple realities of contemporary printer driver dithering.
I use multishot backs for static scenes and repro, but I think you are vastly overestimating the percentage of work that can be stitched or captured with multishot for most photographers. Probably for those that shoot scenes that can be stitched, a scan back is a good idea too and a lot less money with higher DR. Maybe most of your work is done with stitches, and for you its working fine but I think you go too far to suggest that people who consider these new backs have missed considering that technique. I see that statement as both myopic and arrogant.
It strikes me, from the limited amount of testing that I have done with my own MF DB versus prints made from DSLR cameras with a much lesser megapixel count, that -
If we have two prints at say 16x20 from two MF DBs, one say 40MP and the other 80MP printed at the same resolution say 360 ppi of the same subject and framing using the same lens at the same distance -
Then both pictures as prints have the same number of pixels in each dimension.
If we arrange the image size so that the 40MP back is printing at or close to its native resolution (no upsampling or downsampling) there will be no loss of quality.
But the 80MP back will be downsampling to fit the image to the paper and will be losing its quality potential, as pixels are being discarded.
Therefore the apparent quality of the 80 MP image will be greatly dependent on the software downsampling algorithm, and we could expect different subjective responses to the two prints depending the printing application in use.
It is most unlikely that any image quality advantage seen from the 80MP back could be attributed to its having more megapixels, because the printing process has thrown lots of them away and the two prints are exactly the same in this regard. So the 80MP cannot be resolving more detail in the print, for example.
If there is a difference, it will surely be due to other factors, such as the manufacturer of the sensor, Bayer array design, photosite design and density, ADCs, and the firmware. All of these could contribute to smoother, more subtle colour reproduction, for example. An interesting test would be to repeat the printing exercise in monochrome, using a straight grayscale conversion, and see if there is still a detectable difference then. If not, then it is the colour handling that is the key, not zillions of pixels.
I certainly don’t dispute that Michael and others are seeing a difference in same-size small prints, but to me it seems unlikely that this has much to do with megapixel count, if the 80MP is being downsampled. As soon as the 40MP has to be upsampled, though, for large prints, then of course the 80MP should run away with the victory.
John
Printing from LR to my Epson R2400, I can send a 10x8 print from my 39MP back at either 360 or 720 ppi, and the printer at highestt output settings can deal with either without further resampling. But the difference between the prints is remarkably hard to see with the naked eye, even as close as you can focus. It is, however, clearly visible with an 8x loupe. In parctice, I would not be able to tell between the two at normal viewing distance, which makes me wonder about what it is that Michael is seeing in his prints.
Most likely placebo effect.
...While it is true that very few people can hear the difference between amplifiers or preamplifiers with equivalent specs, it has been shown that experienced listeners can discriminate. They can even distinguish (better than chance) one make/model of amplifier from another.Do you have references on this? I skim through some papers on such topics, but have never seen any supporting your claims.
Simple specs such as MP and SNR do not fully predict our responses.Agreed
In creating a market for subtly improved equipment one places initial samples in the hands of highly experienced individuals who can be relied upon to see the benefit right away. They will reassure the rest of us that there is something to be gained there, once we train ourselves (and our clients) to see it. Isn't it wonderful that we never stop learning?That would be the positive view. The negative would be that cynical sales-people use the gifted few to push their equipment, knowing that we less gifted tend to believe that "if only we make one more purchase", we will be able to make art like this or that person.
Well, I was not implying that at all. Michael has so much experience with a huge variety of cameras, DBs and printers that I respect his judgement.Professional medical doctors and professional musicians are prone to the placebo effect. Not because they lack experience or sound judgement, but because all humans are prone to these things. If you _really_ want to know if a wine is different from another, then you need to do some blind testing now matter how experienced you are. Luckily, most of us seldomly really need to know, because life goes on even if we are wrong.
Do you have references on this? I skim through some papers on such topics, but have never seen any supporting your claims.AgreedThat would be the positive view. The negative would be that cynical sales-people use the gifted few to push their equipment, knowing that we less gifted tend to believe that "if only we make one more purchase", we will be able to make art like this or that person.
Perhaps both the positive and the negative view can be partially right.
-h
Do you have references on this? I skim through some papers on such topics, but have never seen any supporting your claims.Differences in microphone preamplifiers are dramatic in tone and color. As a recording engineer, the differences are stark. Differences in power amplifiers are apparent too. A box full of TL072 opamps in a certain topology have a warm sound that is kind of smeary in phase, producing an appealing warm sound, though not antiseptically clean. Think "British sound" as in Trident and Toft desks; think OK Computer. These things are not subtle. But all this is worlds away from the snake oil that gets sold in the form of pyramids, green magic markers, and rare-earth interconnects. Some people just have money to throw away on fantasies. Recording engineers don't have that kind of money.
-h
Printing from LR to my Epson R2400, I can send a 10x8 print from my 39MP back at either 360 or 720 ppi, and the printer at highest output settings can deal with either without further resampling. But the difference between the prints is remarkably hard to see with the naked eye, even as close as you can focus. It is, however, clearly visible with an 8x loupe. In practice, I would not be able to tell between the two at normal viewing distance, which makes me wonder about what it is that Michael is seeing in his prints.
John
Obviously you've never seen an 8X10" contact print. Obviously you've never seen an 11X17" print from an 80 Megapixel back. If you had you wouldn't be quite so snide in your comments.
It's easy to poke fun at things that we are not familiar with, isn't it?
Michael
There are those who spend their lives listening to the sound system rather than the music. There are those who spend their lives looking at image qualities rather than images.
Count me as another landscape photographer (going on 36 years as a pro) who uses a tech camera - my Phase camera system has been gathering dust ever since I took delivery of an Alpa with those wonderful German lenses. It has not really slowed me down, and in some cases I can shoot faster than with the Phase camera.
...Differences in power amplifiers are apparent too. ...These things are not subtle.They are subtle enough that it is very hard to distinguish in a proper blind-test where level differences and differences in frequency response are taken care of, and where one use statistics to analyze results.
But all this is worlds away from the snake oil that gets sold in the form of pyramids, green magic markers, and rare-earth interconnects. Some people just have money to throw away on fantasies. Recording engineers don't have that kind of money.That is good to hear.
I take that as a "no"?Do you have references on this? I skim through some papers on such topics, but have never seen any supporting your claims.Some years ago (about 20) one of the audio publications got together a sample of equipment reviewers and another of unsophisticated listeners.
The methodology was sloppy (single blind, a,b,c comparisons I think) but better than it might have been.I have never heard of a,b,c tests. Do you mean ABX?
The reviewers - but not the listeners - were able to detect particular makes of amplifier by their sonic characteristics. Not every time but the effect was significant.Significant as in "chance would have been 50% right, they got 51% right"? Or significant as in "the achieved results would have occured by chance alone in 5% or 1% of the cases"?
This was a learned skill but not a difficult one. I could do the same at one point. Sorry, but I can't remember where this was published. The only reason I mention it is as an example of how our perceptual skills can sometimes outstrip our ability to define quality parameters. There is a place for pbservation as opposed to controlled studies.I dont understand what you are saying here. I think that to really find out how the world works, one has to use great care when studying it. Testing human response to audiophile cables or image quality is really hard because we tend to think that stuff sounds/looks different when it really is not, tend to prefer "favourite" brands and technology etc.
There is nothing cynical about marketing using what the Japanese call "opinion leaders". It works, and nothing is being hidden. We are free to ignore any expert who lacks a history that ties in with our own experiences. In audio, I tend to do that because I just can't seem to replicate many of the expert observations - hearing quality differences between cables for example. I am better off ignoring the pundits. In photography, in contrast, I have learned to see more than I used to and many of the things I see correspond to what experienced MF users observe. OK, so I choose to pay attention.If those "opinion leaders" get free stash, money, publicity or something in return for their endorsement, while leading the public to believe that they are not, then I call it cynical. I think that all marketing is to some degree cynical, as it (usually) is about misleading buyers from taking informed, rational choices.
I take that as a "no"?I have never heard of a,b,c tests. Do you mean ABX?
Hard to remember but I do not believe they used ABX. I think it was just "Here are three amps. Which one is Audio Research?"
Significant as in "chance would have been 50% right, they got 51% right"? Or significant as in "the achieved results would have occured by chance alone in 5% or 1% of the cases"?
Again, don't remember and I don't think they reported p values. The results were fairly gross - e.g. 90% on some units. This is easy to do. Various makes have different sounds because they use different circuit topologies. Yes it gets much harder to discriminate when you equalize but it is not just a matter of frequency response. Really, none of this is relevant in a photography forum.
I think that to really find out how the world works, one has to use great care when studying it.
Absolutely, but let's respect the observational abilities of some people. Surveys can tell us a lot without attibuting causality, and a subjective review is a type of survey.
Testing human response to audiophile cables or image quality is really hard because we tend to think that stuff sounds/looks different when it really is not, tend to prefer "favourite" brands and technology etc.
Agreed. I would love to see psychophysical data regarding the discriminating power of the measurements we have available (e.g. SNR). Would make a great thesis for someone. However, most experienced photographers could care less. They know what they are looking for.
I do agree that one can learn to appreciate qualities (to some degree) that one may not see in the first place, and that "experts" may be able to teach you this.
Glad that we agree on the main point. Note that I do not suggest that experts teach us how to see these qualities. They just tell us they are there. We learn to see them on our own.
let's compare two A2 prints, one with a IQ 180 and one with a fuji X100 (or any good 35mm) ... nobody will ever see any difference
There are those who spend their lives listening to the sound system rather than the music. There are those who spend their lives looking at image qualities rather than images.
let's compare two A2 prints, one with a IQ 180 and one with a fuji X100 (or any good 35mm) ... nobody will ever see any difference
well said!Since this subforum is entitled "equipment and techniques", I am not surprised to find posts about equipment here...
Possibly, or probably for most non-photographers, but, and it is a big but, is the difference worth something in excess of $40,000 (excluding the cost of the camera body and lenses) and furthermore would the client pay for it?First one should establish that there is a perceivable difference, under what circumstances people are able to perceive it, and if it is a positive or negative. Then one could try to estimate what it is worth, but that is likely to be extremely individual, as some people have more money than others, or prioritize differently.
First one should establish that there is a perceivable difference, under what circumstances people are able to perceive it, and if it is a positive or negative. Then one could try to estimate what it is worth, but that is likely to be extremely individual, as some people have more money than others, or prioritize differently.
What if the client is irrational, demanding 200 MP files even if he cannot perceive a difference from 30 MP ones?
-h
Really? Ya think so?if you are happy with it
Looks like you have obliterated the entire medium format industry in a single sentence.
Nice.
Michael
Possibly, or probably for most non-photographerseven for photographers
but of course A2 will be the same with a Nikon D3X and a IQ 180
even for photographers
But of course! Why would I doubt the evidence of my own eyes and experience over your clearly superior knowledge?I remember very well your half-kidding review : G10 / P45+ prints --> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
I simply have to accept that I have been living with an illusion. I'll sell my IQ80 first chance that I can find a sucker ( err customer) to take it off my hands.
Michael
Guy,
Sorry my friend but you and I and the tens of thousands of pros around that world that are shooting with MF backs have to accept that fact that we are delusional. A D3x ( maybe even just an X100) is all we really need.
No one can see the difference between an 80MP MF back and a 24MP Nikon. Not anyone, not nohow. The Emperor is truly naked.I said A2 dont change my words please
I remember very well your half-kidding review : G10 / P45+ prints --> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
But, where the rubber meets the road (or more to the point where the ink hits the paper), in medium sized prints it's been almost impossible for experienced photographers who I've shown these comparison prints to to tell the difference. Scary.
I have not a superior knowledge just a P45 and a 5D mark II and an Epson 3880 and I prefer the P45
Guy,
Sorry my friend but you and I and the tens of thousands of pros around that world that are shooting with MF backs have to accept that fact that we are delusional. A D3x ( maybe even just an X100) is all we really need.
No one can see the difference between an 80MP MF back and a 24MP Nikon. Not anyone, not nohow. The Emperor is truly naked.
Michael
let's compare two A2 prints, one with a IQ 180 and one with a fuji X100 (or any good 35mm) ... nobody will ever see any difference
I always go back to one of Lloyd Chambers' tests. He shot the label of a soup can with a D3 and a D3x, then downsampled the D3x output to 12MP and compared 100% crops. The text was smooth and rounded on the downsampled D3x capture, and fragmented on the native 12MP D3 capture. This reflects high-frequency detail that was -- more or less -- lost in the native 12MP D3 capture.
The choice of tools to make photographs, like most choices in life, comes down to weighing the plusses and minuses for you and your way of working. I have to assume that the reason why the very top fine art landscape photographers do not use tech cameras is that, for them, the the negatives in terms of making the best images outweigh the positives. These are individuals who come from a large format film background, so I am sure the issues of speed/convenience and the cost of a tech camera are simply not relevant. OTOH, the lack of an optical viewfinder (or useful groundglass) allowing for precise composition is, IMO, a significant issue when you shoot a tech camera untethered. A key part of composing an image is making effective use of the full canvas captured by the sensor. Another issue is the difficulty of achieving accurate focusing with a tech camera. Finally, related to the first issue but still distinct is being able to see through the lens, so you have a real time sense of the perspective of the image as captured by the lens. The wide or longer the lens, the bigger the deal this is, because it is quite difficult to really "see" the same way that a wide lens like a 24HR "sees" the world. (I know I cannot.) It will be interesting to see whether the IQ series of backs helps to overcome these disadvantages. Michael R. is using an IQ180 with his new Alpa.
One thing you get from a high pixel-count camera, as others around here know well, is an increase in detail retained after downsampling. A native 12MP capture is a very different thing from a 24.5 (or 40 or 60 or 80) MP capture /downsampled/ to 12MP. There is a level of fine detail up near the Nyquist limit for 12MP sampling that is retained after downsampling a high MP capture, that simply doesn't exist in the native 12MP capture.I dont understand this line of reasoning. A 12 MP camera is going to have some spatial resolution, and a 80 MP camera is going to have some spatial resolution. Both will have less resolution than a hypothetical Nyquist-only limited 12/80 MP camera, so what? What matters is the real, observed spatial resolution.
I dont understand this line of reasoning. A 12 MP camera is going to have some spatial resolution, and a 80 MP camera is going to have some spatial resolution. Both will have less resolution than a hypothetical Nyquist-only limited 12/80 MP camera, so what? What matters is the real, observed spatial resolution.
let's compare two A2 prints, one with a IQ 180 and one with a fuji X100 (or any good 35mm) ... nobody will ever see any difference
You are kidding...... Right?? :ofor A2 prints and Nikon D3x vs IQ 180 ? no not at all
I apologize, but I can't make sense out of this question as stated. I don't know what "hypothetical Nyquist-only limited 12/80 MP camera" means.I was talking about this statement:
[PS - I see now you edited this reply while I was posting mine, but I still can't understand the question.]
One thing you get from a high pixel-count camera, as others around here know well, is an increase in detail retained after downsampling. A native 12MP capture is a very different thing from a 24.5 (or 40 or 60 or 80) MP capture /downsampled/ to 12MP. There is a level of fine detail up near the Nyquist limit for 12MP sampling that is retained after downsampling a high MP capture, that simply doesn't exist in the native 12MP capture.Everything else equal, a 80 MP camera could/should record more details than a 12 MP camera. Given that you are not limited by optics, camera movement, etc. Are you saying anything else than the statement "80 > 12"? If so, what is it that you are saying?
There are those who spend their lives listening to the sound system rather than the music. There are those who spend their lives looking at image qualities rather than images.
I was talking about this statement:Everything else equal, a 80 MP camera could/should record more details than a 12 MP camera. Given that you are not limited by optics, camera movement, etc. Are you saying anything else than the statement "80 > 12"? If so, what is it that you are saying?
I'm saying that if you take an 80MP capture /and downsample it to 12MP/, that there will be a level of detail preserved that is not reflected in a native 12MP capture. We're comparing two 12MP images in this case - one derived from downsampling, and the other not. So I am not just saying that 80 > 12 here.But the "12MP" number is entirely arbitrary. You dont have a fixed-pitch 12 MP display or printer? The reason is that a 12 MP camera does not have the resolution of a hypothetical mental model of a "12 MP" camera that we have in our heads but that have never been physically realized. Once you are able to get rid of that model of how a 12 MP camera should have looked, and rather focus on how it actually works, then you are able to focus on what matters.
The extra level of detail will be high frequency information appearing near the Nyquist frequency of the 12MP capture. The loss is occurring around where the slope of the AA filter on the 12MP camera kicks in. The "more or less" that I referred to involves the extent to which detail in the native 12MP capture might be reconstructed using, for example, deconvolution.
[...] The important thing (?) is how stuff really end up looking on screen or on paper. A 80 MP camera could ideally have more details when rendered to some final format than a 12 MP camera. That is all that counts, is it not? The reason why it can, is that 80 > 12. [...]
I know Michael. I guess the bigger is better is just not cutting it. Seriously folks I agree here since we both have shot these a lot already along with Mark and Jack we are just not that freaking nuts. There is a nice difference in this 180 back that i think the 4 of us can completely agree is very special in LOOK.
[...]
I wonder if you can see much or any difference with a d3x shot with a good lens or the 80mp back- with always - a good lens.
for A2 prints and Nikon D3x vs IQ 180 ? no not at all
but YOU know it by your own I guess
As a matter of fact I don't know for an IQ 180..... I don't have mine yet. But.... I do know for a P45 vs D3x at A2 and there is a discernible visual difference. Maybe you should try all of this out for yourself.....As I said before I can compare myself P45 & H1 vs 5d mark II vs 1Ds Mark III, I prefer MF but for other reasons than mega pixels
( about HIFI- I noticed that even with my bad ears i can often hear the difference especially between cheap and expensive loudspeakers- you do not have to be an expert ear)This has been documented in peer-reviewed papers as well, so it is not disputed.
I can't tell if you are disagreeing with me or not. It is more complicated than 80 > 12 as I indicated.That complication is usually irrelevant as I indicated. If you like, I can say that 72 > 9.5. Every problem should be described as detailed as needed, but not more than needed.
Everyone is different, including clients. Actually for every client that marvels over the detail in a stitch or the fact we can capture a nose hair from a block away, there is another subset of clients that believe over sharp, over detailed images look artificial and digital, so once again, everyone is different.
I am intrigued at the assumptions in this thread that seeing a difference with the newer high resolution backs must be some form placebo effect or snake oil.I think that many have a desire for good testing methology that better answers: 1)Is there a perceivable difference and 2)What is the probable cause of that difference.
If we look at this just from a mathematical view, an A2 print (16.5" x 23.4") at 360 ppi requires just over 50M pixels. This would suggest that 80M pixels is wasted at this print size. However the A2, 360 ppi, print actually requires 50M pixels red , 50M pixels blue and 50M pixels green.I think that equating pixels or megapixels at the camera sensor, within photoshop and at the printer output is bound to cause headaches. Luminance lp/mm or lp/ph is probably better.
With a bayer pattern of 1 row RGRGRG.. and the next GBGBGB.... etc this means that even with an 80M pixel sensor then captured resolution for the green channel is 40 M pixels the Red is 20M pixels and the Blue 20 M Pixels. Any "resolution" above that, with a single shot sensor and a bayer pattern, is down to software and interpolation. Why then should we be surprised that a difference can be seen with the higher resolution sensor. At A2 360dpi, 80M of bayer pattern pixels is still not enough to resolve each colour without interpolation.Any resampling is going to be carried out using interpolation, and as long as the camera pixel grid does not match the minimum dot distance for your printer, you are going to have resampling now matter what you do. I dont see the evil in doing interpolation, the question is what the end-to-end spatial resolution is for luminance and chrominance, and how that looks for a given scene, viewer, print size, vieweing distance etc.
My idea for choosing a camera is the subject- what i want to achieve/show- in the endresult.
For some pictures 1 mega pixel is enough for others i might need 100 megapixel.
Sometimes 1 megapixel is even better.
1. Is there any proof that 360 ppi is really needed?
2. Is there any proof that current printers actually have a brick-wall response all the way up to 360 ppi for each color channel separately?
Lately the word in advertising and editorial, is "real". If you can show me a photographer that isn't presented with a creative brief every two weeks with the words "real" "approachable" "natural", "spontaneous" then it's probably just Karl Lagerfeld.
I hate to say it but flash rarely looks natural compared to mixing daylight and hmi's. Slow hold that position photography isn't spontaneous and running back and forth to the digital tech station to check focus on a backlit scene is just another few minutes per shot that can be used elsewhere.
BC
I don't change still cameras quickly because I don't' have clients asking for any different file sizes, though with motion the 4k buzz is now taking over and that has become a request.
Do you mean that RED is really becoming the "obliged" standart in commercial for clients and we can/should be preapared to through away the current 2k "Canons-and-Panas" in the garbage?
I was expected something like that happening but not so fast and reading your lines it seems that it's there now.
I don't change still cameras quickly because I don't' have clients asking for any different file sizes, though with motion the 4k buzz is now taking over and that has become a request.
With a bayer pattern of 1 row RGRGRG.. and the next GBGBGB.... etc this means that even with an 80M pixel sensor then captured resolution for the green channel is 40 M pixels the Red is 20M pixels and the Blue 20 M Pixels. Any "resolution" above that, with a single shot sensor and a bayer pattern, is down to software and interpolation. Why then should we be surprised that a difference can be seen with the higher resolution sensor. At A2 360dpi, 80M of bayer pattern pixels is still not enough to resolve each colour without interpolation.
I have to declare that I have not seen prints from the new sensor and that the above is theortical. However it does lead me to trust those that have seen a difference in prints and suggests a reason why such a difference may be visible. It also suggests why comparisons with a 24 MP sensor (6Mp Red, 6Mp Blue and 12MP Green) may be futile.
I am happy to be corrected if my assumptions above are incorrect.
Dave
No, I didn't mean to imply that about 4k footage. I just meant that mentioning RED and 4k from either my or the client's side is the only camera or format I've seen mentioned in years.Thank you for this precision James,
Now still digital capture is usually just takent for granted that most professional cameras from 22mp on will comfortably do the job.
(and before any medium format guys get their panties in a wad, that doesn't mean you shouldn't or wouldn't use something larger).
The RED is interesting to me because it shoots raw and has a thick file, less interesting to me because it takes more multiple steps in workflow.
But I guess if I have a point, for any image maker that works for commerce it should be understood that medium format still cameras don't just compete against each other or Canon and Nikon.
They compete for all professional spending dollars, like computer systems, the RED, continuous lighting, etc. etc. etc. and all this stuff is not cheap.
Even a 5d/7d outfitted properly can get into 10 grand without glass, so what was once our business of owning a few formats of still cameras and some lights has now moved on to broader but more expensive territory to compete.
IMO
BC
OT, but I'm curious: who is requesting 4k, and are they actually displayed at 4k? Nobody has 4k TVs or projectors in the real world, and we're at least 5 years away from appreciable market penetration even in the bleeding edge home cinema crowd. Video displays playing ads in stores, bars, restaurants, etc. are invariably consumer TVs.
I'm sure there are special applications at sports venues and conventions and some corporate events - is that the intended audience?
With stills the world has flip flopped and sending out the file sizes we do the only request I ever have now is make it smaller!
(in fact it was a strategy of me to be able to play with it...) it kind of looked at me nervous: "don't talk to me about those devices, I want a clean set, if nobody cares anymore" (refering to clients).
By the way, all the campaigns shooted with ..........
Things have changed.
I'm sure your boss would be happy if he could go out on the day and have the exact usability with his blad that he does with other less expensive cameras.Correct James.
In fact I'm sure your boss would be happy if it was back to the world where 350 line screens was the only number we really thought about and a day of shooting still images for commerce was a day of shooting still images, maybe a few set ups, maybe a few more for yourself, with no mention of make it horizontal and vertical, make it wide and tight, make it in still and motion, make it fast and btw, deliver it in the morning.
The world has changed and early on when I invested in digital backs, I was damn sure going to use them for about everything. I almost beat myself silly shooting the world's fastest man with a Leaf, one of the world's fastest women with a Phase. I did the thing of quick, let me get to the computer so I can check focus, or hold it, I'm at 1/30th so . . . ok . . . hold it, don't move, click, now move and yea that's beautiful, hold that . . . click.
In some ways I'd love to not to know the difference between a cross transition vs. a push, what codec means and why I should debayer at half or full.
So, I understand your boss, I somewhat understand you and fortunately or unfortunately (depending on where you sit) I've come to understand some of the world.
I also understand that if I don't get the list that's sitting in everyone's Iphone completed, if I don't make it look natural, if I don't shoot it so the people that hire me bosses go wow, then the resolution of the camera means nothing.
Clean set? I want a clean brain.
IMO
BC
Paradoxically, I think we are more prepared now than years before and even if it all looks like a mess, ..........snip..............
So yes, I understand you perfectly when talking about Avid, you don't want to add more complications and a new learning process and stays with a solution that you and your team already mastered. We have enough to mess with testings etc...
Cheers.
Yeah, it's a little crazy.So do I !!
But you know what? I love it! I love the Red. I love dollies and jibs and sliders and Kinos. I love composing not for a perfect singular image but imagining a scene where the camera is tracking left to right, a chair that fills the frame rotates to reveal another chair in the distance and as I rack focus to bring that chair into sharpness a beautiful woman enters from the left with perfect body language... and the clients release a collective sigh as it all comes together.
Ahh... that's good shit.
Yeah, I don't know where I'm at anymore. I love my Arca. The P65+ makes beautiful images, but motion is sooo seductive. Screw depth of field, give me Cookes wide open and an actress that melts you to the core.
Heh... I remember when I was an architectural photographer. I have no idea what I am anymore and I love that.
CB
OMG, there are 40 to 50 LaCie Rugged in there...
I just have one LaCie.
And oh, my IKEA chair is the very same model as yours;)
1. Is there any proof that 360 ppi is really needed?
2. Is there any proof that current printers actually have a brick-wall response all the way up to 360 ppi for each color channel separately?
As printer have only one or a few output "bits" (either spit a drop of ink, or dont), they all (to my knowledge) use heavy dithering to give the appearance of 8-bit or even 16-bit gradations. This means that even if the distance between any two drops of ink is minute, the real spatial detail level is more limited.
-h
My reference to printing at 360 dpi came from tests with my own printer and it's driver (An Epson 3800 set to Superfine photo 2880 x 1440 dpi). A test pattern of vertical lines; horizontal lines and a checkerboard - each 1 pixel wide is reproduced perfectly at 360 ppi but suffers from artifacts at 359ppi or less or at 361ppi or more. (Sending 720 ppi does not reproduce correctly either).Thank you for your reply. I like arguments based on empiry!
If the pixels can be reproduced on paper, as per the above test, then they are potentially visible when looking at the image (depending on viewing distance). They therefore can have an impact on perceived image quality, that is why I picked 360 ppi. Other printers/drivers may produce different results.
Dave
My reference to printing at 360 dpi came from tests with my own printer and it's driver (An Epson 3800 set to Superfine photo 2880 x 1440 dpi). A test pattern of vertical lines; horizontal lines and a checkerboard - each 1 pixel wide is reproduced perfectly at 360 ppi but suffers from artifacts at 359ppi or less or at 361ppi or more. (Sending 720 ppi does not reproduce correctly either).
How did you conclude that 360dpi prints was reproduced perfect? Using your eyesight closeup, a scanner, a camera using macro lense? Is it safe to conclude that the clean, apparently unaliased image that resulted was the result of an end-to-end 1:1 pipeline, or could it be that you were actually viewing an aliased image that happened to give you clean patterns similar to the input (at e.g. an integer multiplum lower frequency)?
For this test, it was possible to generate content tailormade for the printer input resolution, where pixel-to-pixel difference is 100%. For realistic scenarios, one will grab a e.g. 20 megapixel image from camera, and decide on some physical print size (e.g. A3). Then content would have to be resampled at least once, meaning that bar-code patterns will loose some acuity.
I agree that your test seem to indicate that there is that for your setup some gain in choosing 360dpi as output format. Whether your images can use that gain, and whether any given human can perceive it at any given print size/distance is open for debate.
-h
That sounds suspect. Could it be that resampling was used to reach the 359 / 361 PPI? If so how was the resampling done?
Cheers,
Bart
I agree - to get through the end to end chain of camera to my printer, with no resampling (which with the exception of some specific integer sizes, will always introduce some impact on the image, and for an A2 print would require a 50MP sensor that samples each colour at each pixel site. My original point was that even the 80M sensors that exist today are not capable of doing that due to the use of the bayer pattern.As long as one is allowing any print size, there will always be a threshold where at one side the printer is "out-resolving" the camera, and at the other side the camera is outresolving the printer. The larger your prints, the greater the chance that your printer is capable of reproducing details that your camera cannot capture.
In the real world, it is rare that we do produce images that are not scaled (or have not used specific integers for up-scaling). However the thinking behind my original comment was that there is printable data from the 80Mp sensors that is not being captured in smaller sensors, and even with the 80Mp sensor we have not yet reached the point where we are capturing more data than is printable at A2, even on my old printer. I totally agree that it remains debatable what can be seen in printed images from normal viewing distances - but not having had the good fortune to see images from these sensors directly I was only able to hypothesise on why those who have used the sensors might be seeing a real difference.
Dave
Hi Bart
I was careful not to resample when I resized the image from 360ppi to 359/358/361/362 and 720 ppi for testing. This was confirmed with no impact on screen only the reported image dimensions changing. Then I just sent each image to the printer driver.
It looks like my driver (Epson) is doing some internal resampling at resolutions other than 360 dpi
For the 359 and 361 ppi tests - the artifacts were visible with the naked eye at 8-10 feet - they appeared as a repeating pattern of dark / light lines. It would seem that the printer driver is doing some resampling.
Hi Bart
I tried the test images from your link and found the following :
To get the driver to accept 720 ppi I needed to set the "Finest Detail" setting in the driver. It would then accept and correctly print the 720 ppi tests. I had not checked this previously as Epson recommended it for graphics only.
Eric Chan's website describes the Epson driver and describes that with "Finest detail" unchecked everything sent to the driver is resampled to 360 ppi and with it checked, it is resampled to 720 dpi. This explains my findings at 359ppi and 361 dpi.
So is the difference between 360 ppi and 720 PPI visible ?
In test prints with 1 pixel wide lines and more especially lines that are just off vertical then a difference between 720ppi and 360 ppi is clearly visible to the naked eye (or in my case with my glasses on). However in real photographs I struggled to see a difference between 360 ppi and 720 ppi even with a magnifying glass.
To work toward an A2 print end to end at 720 ppi would require image capture at 200Mp (preferably with 3 colours directly captured at each pixel) - a year or two away I think :)
I believe that it is fair to assume that people tend to view A3 sized prints at a greater distance than A4 sized prints. This tendency may not be enough to compensate for the change in print size (i.e. lp/ph may be more important in large images than in small ones).
The human visual system is often said to be limited to 1 minute of arc (angular subtended), and we have a limited ability to focus very near to some object. I believe that this can be used to set a hard limit on how much real resolution is of use for 20/20 vision people not using magnifyers.
I think it is wise to separate between camera sensels, image file pixels, and printer dpi. There is no 1:1 correspondence (a 4000x4000 sensel camera will never produce a file with usable information right up to the theoretical limit, a 4800x1200 dpi printer cannot print a 4800x1200 pixel image in a square inch at full spatial/tonal resolution).
Further, the Human Visual System is probably more about acuity than actual detials. As long as an image is sharpened in a pleasing manner, and the printer/display has a pixel/ink shape, size and density that does not detract, we may be able to get by with lower resolution cameras.
-h