Equivalent Phase One Quality To Film With Contax 645 AF

[Steve E]

I use a Contax 645 AF and Fuji Velvia 50 and 100. I live in the Yukon here in Canada. I am constrained to shooting landscapes only in the fall of each year. I have my film processed by a pro establishment and then scan my work with a Epson 4990 flatbed and then use Photoshop on my iMac to pick out the best shots. Many of these are panoramas consisting of two frames. I then send my best of the best to West Coast Imaging in California where the film is Tango Drum scanned at 600 MB per frame and enlarged to approx., depending on the crop to 30 X 40. For the sake of my question 600 MB for one full frame image. Does anyone have an idea which model Phase One Digital Back will give me equivalent quality ( resolution ) to my aforementioned print process? Many thanks for your insight.

[Dan Wells]

I'm getting 6x9 film quality (gallery quality 24x36 prints) out of a D3x, so I'd say that the answer is just about any modern Phase (or Hasselblad) back or, potentially, a 20+ mp DSLR such as the D3x or the Alpha 900.

                                          -Dan

[jing q]

I'm getting 6x9 film quality (gallery quality 24x36 prints) out of a D3x, so I'd say that the answer is just about any modern Phase (or Hasselblad) back or, potentially, a 20+ mp DSLR such as the D3x or the Alpha 900.

                                          -Dan

hrm.
I would take that with a pinch of salt...

[jonstewart]

I think 600Mb is arbitrary and far too high a requirement for a single frame requirement for prints of  the indicated size.

I think that the actual required 16bit tiff filesize for printing at that size is much, much smaller from an MF back, since we're capturing so many more colours (about 6000x more colours, cf 12bit), and therefore have much better data to work with. I would imagine that about 225Mb would be big enough... oh wait, thats what my P45 does!  

600Mb is the size I get from the P45 on the Bicam doing a 3x2 stitch (roughly equivalent to 2.5 frames)

I look forward to anyone posting who's relying on experience and not intuition in this matter :-)

[Steve E]

I think 600Mb is arbitrary and far too high a requirement for a single frame requirement for prints of  the indicated size.

I think that the actual required 16bit tiff filesize for printing at that size is much, much smaller from an MF back, since we're capturing so many more colours (about 6000x more colours, cf 12bit), and therefore have much better data to work with. I would imagine that about 225Mb would be big enough... oh wait, thats what my P45 does!  

600Mb is the size I get from the P45 on the Bicam doing a 3x2 stitch (roughly equivalent to 2.5 frames)

I look forward to anyone posting who's relying on experience and not intuition in this matter :-)

You are giving me the advice I'm looking for jonstewart. I am sorry I did not indicate that the 600 MB is a 16 bit file size. West Coast Imaging can, and somewhat recommends I will be quite satisfied with the results from a 300 MB 8 bit file size but I opted for 16 bit for more data capture as you pointed out. So back to what I need with a Phase One Back. Lets forget the panorama angle to this and my question should be what Phase One Back model do I need to equal the quality I get from Tango Drum scan of one 645 full frame for printing ( Chromira ) up to a 30 X 40 size? Which model for 8 bit and what model for 16 bit quality. To be honest with you I am trying to see what I can afford to get, either refurb or new. Another point, at that 30 X 40 size the image is getting a little soft in my opinion for exhibition quality, but most people with a not so critical eye think the prints are remarkable. I have over the years picked up on the fact that professionals consider 11 X 14 or 16 X 20 the max for a 645 transparency. Again I appreciate your professional opinion, thank you kindly jonstewart.

[jonstewart]

Thanks Steve,
I'm glad you appreciated the input. There are many people on this forum who actually print stuff for hanging, but I'm not one of them.

Hopefully some who do will help out here.

Which back to buy? I would have thought the P45 was good, since it's generally a reasonable price, and good quality and resolution, however, that's my own completely jaundiced opinion    , and there are alternatives. However, since I've not shot with any of them, I'll let other share their experience.

Cheers for now

[MichaelEzra]

In my experience, 6x7 Delta 100 film scanned at 4000 optical dpi on Nikon coolscan 8000 has higher resolution of captured details than 22 megapixel DB.
I can see the difference at 20"x24". However, cleanness of the DB file compared to grainy film scan allows it to be manipulated to fool our perception of resolution. As a result, perceived resolution in print may be made similar, yet 22 megapixels is a long stretch.

I'd say you need at least 31 megapixels to equate 6x7 film. Having reached that resolution, cleanness of digital capture would allow you to make a print that would outperform one from the film. You would still need to interpolate to match scan file size and if it is to your taste, add grain to digital capture.

[evgeny]

I downsize a 50 mega pixels file scanned from 6x4.5 slide film with my Nikon 9000 to 5440 pixels on the wide side, which is equal a 22 mega pixels digital back.

Technically at ISO 40 a digital back show no grain and color shift, while film produces a more alive image with pleasant colors just out of the camera. Technically a digital back with more than 22 megapixels should outperform a 6x4.5 slide film.

[Gary Yeowell]

From my own experience 'just' comparing resolution my Canon 1DS3 and Phase P20 was almost as good as 645 film drum scanned. Scans from my Mamiya 7 (6x7) are much better than either and i think you would require a P45 to start to compare, however i still prefer the look of film to any digital device i've seen, however recently saw some Leica M8 results that really had a nice feel to them which just goes to show megapixels ain't everything!!

Gary.

[jing q]

a 22 mp back should do well enough for 6x4.5cm film.
I use a 33mp back and I find that it's not quite 6x7 quality on my M7 scanned on an imacon, but definitely way above a 6x4.5cm film.

You can't really compare based on the number of megabytes a file takes
For landscape related purposes if you can get a P45 that should work nicely: you get your wide angles plus that medium format look you're used to

[lisa_r]

Steve, you'll probably get an argument 10 miles long about what format is equal to what film. And the conclusion will be: you have to judge for yourself. All that really matters is what they look like to you. I suggest you get some files from the backs, and maybe some of the D3x guys here would give you some files, and you should make prints and have a look for yourself.

For what it's worth, read Micheal's recent articles:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/q...-vs-value.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

[ndevlin]

I'm getting 6x9 film quality (gallery quality 24x36 prints) out of a D3x, so I'd say that the answer is just about any modern Phase (or Hasselblad) back or, potentially, a 20+ mp DSLR such as the D3x or the Alpha 900.

                                          -Dan

Uhm. no.  Give back your 6x9, it doesn't love you.  To get similar results, you will want to be in P45 territory. If you are getting by with velvia, then the 45 is a good choice, becaues you don't need higher ISOs.  Since you are stitching already, I would plan to continue doing so. It's just soooo easy with digital nowadays on landscapes (assuming your computer can handle it).

That said, Senor Libby at Iron Creek does beautiful work with a P30. If you are not a super-wide shooter, then that might be a more economical solution, since those backs are getting pretty cheap.  Check out his work, both on his site and and on Recent Professional work threads in here.

- N.

[JDG]

Here is some food for thought...

If you were to approximate the grain size of film it would come in around 12micron.  A P65+ has the same imaging area as film in a Contax 645, but has 6micron pixels.  So in some ways you could say that is Double the resolution.  The real difference is that we tend to enlarge film a bit bigger because film grain is more pleasing when blown up than pixels are.  So maybe would would necessarily say Double the resolution in real work look and feel.

Ultimately you will probably be happy with a P45+ and a P65+ will likely blow you away with detail.

[vjbelle]

I use a Contax 645 AF and Fuji Velvia 50 and 100. I live in the Yukon here in Canada. I am constrained to shooting landscapes only in the fall of each year. I have my film processed by a pro establishment and then scan my work with a Epson 4990 flatbed and then use Photoshop on my iMac to pick out the best shots. Many of these are panoramas consisting of two frames. I then send my best of the best to West Coast Imaging in California where the film is Tango Drum scanned at 600 MB per frame and enlarged to approx., depending on the crop to 30 X 40. For the sake of my question 600 MB for one full frame image. Does anyone have an idea which model Phase One Digital Back will give me equivalent quality ( resolution ) to my aforementioned print process? Many thanks for your insight.

I shoot with a P45 and print, for hanging, on a Canon 8000.  I am pretty critical and find that at 300 PPI I can print out to 30 inches in the long direction with very high quality.  I get there using Qimage but there are other ways that may or may not be as high quality.  Its important to know the limitations of upsampling.  The P45 shoots native to 24 inches at 300 PPI.  Anything printed larger must be upsampled.  The P65 shoots native to 30 inches at 300 PPI.  Prints larger than 30 inches must be upsampled.  From 24 inches to 30 inches is a 25% increase.  At that size you will have a very nice/crisp printed image.  Printing to 40 inches is a 66% increase in size and, for me, the absolute limit.  Other eyes may see things differently but I am fairly critical.  It was suggested that you obtain some files and print them to get a feel for how the images will look.  I also suggest that you do that so you can see for yourself whether or not the prints meet your goals.

[neil snape]

It seems that you have been doing the best you can with film. West Coast's scans are good quality too so there shouldn't be much farther to look for the ultimate.

That said, the Tango isn't the best scanner around. Aztek and ICG are well above it, and I've seen some great scans off the Screen 8060.
Diffuse grain clumps measured at RMS are not the grain size, but groups of grain or dye areas that decide the look of the film.
I do believe the higher MP count backs can hold up well against film in purity even from the seemingly smaller 22MPx backs. Yet as others said , if you blow this up it is the film grain that masks enlargement better than digital artifacts. I don't know, but I appreciate both for what they are.

Since the price of some high MPx backs are coming down I'd say a 31 MP or more would easily replace film but never replace the look of film.

[Steve E]

Wow, this is my first time posting on this site and I must say I am very impressed with all the replies that have been posted. Great knowledgeable advice and friendly to boot. You have all made my decision making much easier. Just for interest sake I will phone West Coast Imaging and get their opinion and get back to you all. Thanks Steve.

[Ken Doo]

...

That said, Senor Libby at Iron Creek does beautiful work with a P30. If you are not a super-wide shooter, then that might be a more economical solution, since those backs are getting pretty cheap.  Check out his work, both on his site and and on Recent Professional work threads in here.

- N.

FYI, Don doesn't have the P30+ anymore and is now using a Phase P45+ with both the Phase 645AF and Cambo RS.