Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Michael's Ultimate Shootout  (Read 14239 times)

Rainer SLP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 727
    • RS-Fotografia
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2003, 03:57:40 pm »

The last article of Michael " The Ultimate Shootout " is very interesting but

I remember when we were discussing about the dpi resolution for going to the printer the values which were mentioned were laying around 300dpi.

Now suddenly 255dpi ist enough and 1Ds is better than MF. Hmmmmm, interesting.

I have made trials and found out that even printing with 150dpi is enough so the 1Ds will manage without any problems prints in size of up to 18 x 27" without any problem.

I am still reluctant to get the 1Ds for Landscape due to the missing detail resolution.

Just my thoughts to this.

PD It is just so that I am little bit dissapointed how fast Michael is coming to those results. I always saw how he took some more time for this, but now he is very fast. Sorry  
Logged
Thanks and regards Rainer
 I am here for

Larry

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2003, 08:48:40 pm »

Quote
It struck me that there is a major flaw in the ultimate shootout: at 255 dpi with the 1Ds, that maxes out the resolution of the Epson 2200.
David,

I much enjoy your posts on that plebian news group, RPD.

But I disagree with your statement that the Epson 2200's
resolution is 'maxed out'.

I thoroughly tested my Epson 1270, and I found that details
(the 'fineness' of lines, the saturation of colors in
tiny details) increased all the way up to ~600 ppi, when
examined on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper.  I examined
the prints with a 6x magnifying glass...

I don't pretend to know what algorithyms Epson uses in
it's printer driver... but I know what I saw in dozens
of test prints.

I printed 2240 x 1680 digital images, and drawn bitmaps
containing single-pixel wide features.
Logged

Ray

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2003, 09:15:34 pm »

Michael,
Truly amazing results! Once again, it goes to show you really have to do the tests to get an appreciation of the significance of any quality differences between different systems. Quite often, as I've found myself when testing lenses on my D60, differences that one expects to be there are so trivial they're no worth bothering with.

One thing that does concern me a bit, the enlarged sections you've chosen for comparison have been taken from the very edge of the frame, and the short edge at that. I would not expect with such highly regarded lenses there would be any fall off at the edges, resolution wise, at F8 but I'm a bit worried there might be.

If that detail you've isolated had been in the centre of the frame, would we have perhaps seen greater differences?
Logged

Montelle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2003, 01:21:28 pm »

Michael,
Perhaps I have only a limited understanding of sharpening and accutance and such, but I have a question about the 1Ds test images.  They seem to show more outlining around the high contrast edges than do the 67 images.  This would normally indicate to me that relatively more sharpening has been applied for the 1Ds (higher Radius setting in PS).  

This isn't a criticism, but more of a request for clarification.  Would the 1Ds images have shown as much resolution and detail if lower Radius (and/or Amount) settings had been used?  It's a critical question for me, as in my own work I am bothered by the outlining (or halos).

-Montelle
Logged

samirkharusi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
    • http://www.geocities.com/samirkharusi/
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2003, 02:46:41 am »

Michael, excellent article, as always. I very much like the way you compare prints, which, at the end of the day, is what matters. I was equally surprised when a friend preferred a D30 print to a Hassy-film one (both at 8x10"). My suspicion now is that a "nicer" print has much more to do with smoothness, tonality and gradation, rather than being "tack sharp". When we talk resolution numbers I am also driven to a similar conclusion. Excellent human vision, without a loupe, considers 5 lp/mm or 250 dpi as tack sharp in a hand-held print, or as sharp as it gets - hence all the stuff regarding printer resolution. The same cognoscenti then start talking of Depth of Field. DoF calculations are generally based on a Circle of Confusion of (if I recall correctly) either 0.25 mm (200 dpi) or 0.3 mm (only 150 dpi) in an 8x10" hand-held print. This means that these same people are willing to consider a great deal less than "tack sharp" resolution as "in focus"! Eureka! 250 dpi is at times an overkill, provided things stay smoooooth. No wonder, provided things are not pushed too far, most people would seem to prefer smoothness, tonality, gradation (the digital strong points) over a grainy, even if sharper image from a large negative. There will, of course, always be a print size beyond which the larger negative will win. If we refer to the CoC business one would peg the cross-over point at an enlargement that yields, say, only 150 dpi (for eg portraits) or 200 dpi (for eg very fussy landscapes, group shots, etc) in the print. That translates to the cross-over from a 1Ds to larger negatives/transparencies of any size that even hints at graininess at that enlargement at  18x27" for portraits and 13.5x20" for the extra fussy stuff. Quite in line with your findings. It's the CoC business that confuses things   "Tack sharp" is almost a theoretical concept when it comes to choosing the "nicer" print, IMHO anyway.
Logged
Bored? Peruse my website: [url=http://ww

Dan Sroka

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 597
    • http://www.danielsroka.com
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2003, 02:25:22 pm »

You are right that you don't need an images resolution to be so high all the time. The more the better, from an editing point of view, but for just printing, you can get away with less.

I worked for years in electronic prepress. The way we worked it, optimal file resolution doesn't have to do with the printer's resolution, but with the printer's screening (halftoning) technology. In the offset printing world, you usually print photos at 150 or 200 lines per inch (lpi, or linescreen). Linescreen refers to the density of the screen -- the higher the number, the finer the halftone. The imagesetters creating the film had resolutions of 2,000 or 3,000 or higher -- but this just meant that we could get finer and finer halftone screen.

If you had a perfect image (outputting at 100%, with no crazy contrasts or ramps of color), you could technically get away with its resolution being identical to the linescreen: 150 lpi only needs 150 dpi. But this was a perfect ideal that never really existed! Photos always had to be scaled or rotated, or th colors didn't hit the screens just-so. So we would always up the resolution to handle all the unpredicatable aspects of the real world. The 300 dpi rule of thumb comes from 2x the average linescreen of 150 -- these seemed to work the best, and handled most situations. It also gave you enough detail if you had to remove some dust or tweek the image a bit.

I have no idea what the screening technology of the Epson printers is, so I personally just stick with the 300 dpi as my target. If I can get it, awesome. If I have an image with more, I often downsample it to save storage space. If I have an image with less (as long as it is between 200 and 300), I leave it alone. I'll only upsample if my prints are giving me problems (jaggies, etc.)
Logged

paul

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2003, 07:59:44 pm »

all i really want to know is: why anyone would even bother with any format film, scan(drum or other..) if there are pro-backs out there (kodak pro 16mp and the new sinar 22mp) which should blow the 1Ds (and probably similar pro14n) completely away. yes they are more expensive, but we are at a level (5000-8000 for the cameras, or 100/drum scan) where 10000 for a back would be reasonable (i am talking pro shooters, catalogue can easily run 100+ rolls of 120 a day,so within a month the costs are justified) and there is still the option of shooting film and polaroids, because yes, many clients still want that, quality or not. personally i have always preferred the digital workflow and the control it offers....i would really like to see these latest 11-14mp cameras compared to digital medium format backs. the lens quality alone should make a huge difference in sharpness, crom.abr, detail...that should make 4x5 drum scans look bad! or not?
Logged

Raghu Mani

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2003, 08:41:00 pm »

Quote
I would now like to see Foveon do a full frame sensor. Their design seems the way to go even though the Sigma SD9 has not had great reviews, early days still?
Well, if Michael's sources are correct you may see a Foveon full-frame sensor in about a month  :) ! He reported a rumor that a "major manufacturer" was going to introduce a DSLR with a full-frame 10MP Foeveon sensor at PMA in March.

Raghu
Logged

AJSJones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2003, 09:03:35 pm »

I agree about projection - I've projected some of my 645 images and they are indeed magical (technically speaking, rather than critiquing!) and you can wander up to the screen and keep seeing more detail.  I just loved to get lost in them.  If we take Michael's conclusion to mean that the 1Ds resolution and quality matches the 6x7 in most aspects, we can say that we need a projector with 11 MP to project what's contained in a 6x7 image.  I have an HDTV (Marquee 8500LC) which has 2500x2000 addressable pixels but the best it can actually do is a little below 1600x1200 and still keep the pixels sufficiently distinct to make a reasonable case.  There are some that actually do resolve close to 2500x2000 using 9" CRTs and superduper components &c &c (they are also a pain to colormanage, BTW) and they run around $30-60K and I'm sure in the stratosphere are even better units that likely cost 100s of 000s of $.
Toshiba has just released a rear projection TV (52 inch I believe) that has three DLP chips each of which is a 1920x1080 array (the maximum resolution in the ATSC format)  So we've got about 2 MP each of RGB which might be considered around 4MP when compared to a Bayer array.  This Toshiba unit is listed at $9k and is a bargain compared to other HDTVs.  The HD folks are wondering if/when a front projector with such a 3chip array will be released which would beat the pants off an InFocus or Epson unit, not just for resolution but for photographic images (the other two are for Powerpoint and such and don't do well with HD signals). While I think these units will do wonders for these new digital images, they won't have the detail capability that the big slides will; I do think , however, that they will still have a major wow factor nonetheless, given the quality of some of the best HDTV pictures I've seen.

Things are indeed converging but it will be quite some time before mere mortals could afford projectors that go significantly beyond the resolution of the Toshiba or similar units. Eagerly waiting a professional review of the unit and news of a front projector form.....

Andy
Logged

Doug_Dolde

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2003, 12:23:35 am »

Marshall:

Wasn't that test on the Imaging Resource site?  I saw it as well.   Sure film is film no matter what size.  Surely the shadow detail advantage of the 1Ds would be there up against 4x5.  But again 4x5 would allow even larger prints up to say 40 x 50.  I'd hate to pay for a framing job on a print that large.

Whatever we may say Michaels test is quite an eye opener.
Logged

RD

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2003, 11:33:06 am »

Here is the address for the D100/1Ds/4x5 comparison on outbackphoto.com.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews....ds.html


This is the address for William Castleman's Mamiya 7/D60/1Ds/35mm review. Castleman's website seems to be down today.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/index.htm


And finally, here are some remarks from Jim Collum, who did the 1Ds/4x5 comparison on outbackphoto.com, about medium format.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums....3918312
Logged

Jhaelen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2003, 03:33:46 pm »

Eric,

You have encapsulated my thoughts almost perfectly.

For those of you not aware of the book Chased by The Light, by Jim Brandenburg, I would suggest at least reading a synopsis of the idea and content. For 90 days Jim would only shoot one photograph. No second chances or additional exposures. The results, in my opinion, were breathtaking.

Daniel
Logged

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2003, 10:58:55 pm »

Herein lies the problem with writing about the tests that I do. It's impossible to cover everyhting in an article. I do test shots at various apertures, make prints of the center and edges at each of several apertures, do the test with different lenses, etc etc.

But, there is only so much I can write and so many images that I can reproduce. It seems that no matter what I do there will be someone that says, "if only you'd done such and such, it would be better...". I do what I need to do to satisfy myself that my results are what I need to know. I report enough so that people can understand what it is I'm trying to accomplish. But I obviously can't satisfy everyone's interests and needs. That's why I suggest that people try and do these tests for themselves.

Don't trust what people write or say (including me). Don't trust the "theory" of the experts. Simply trust your own eyes.

Michael

Michael
Logged

Quentin

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2003, 08:59:45 am »

I found looking at the sample imgages from the Kodak Pro Back, a 16mp medium format back, and comparing them to sample images from a better light scan back quite informative.

Both sets of sample images are on the Kodak website, the pro back samples being here:

http://www.kodak.com/global....4&lc=en

and the Betterlight scan back samples (not full size, but with mouseover enlargements) being here:

http://www.kodak.com/global....4&lc=en

I regard the "standard" Betterlight 6000 back (itself the current equivalent of the Dicomed Field Pro scan back that I own) to be roughly equivalent, or slightly better, in terms of resolution to large format drum scanned Velvia.  The Betterlight images are I think clearly superior (not surprisingly) to the 16mp Pro Back plus.  The Betterlight not only generates a larger file in absolute terms, but it is does not suffer the pixel averaging that goes on it a mosaic sensor such as the Pro Back (or 1Ds for that matter).  A mosaic sensor would probably need double the dpi of the scan back to match the scan back's quality - a very large file indeed.

So, what does this prove?  Not a lot, save my personal view that current 16mp backs are not as good yet as scan backs, and we still have a way to go to match 4x5 film.  The limiting factor in film performance is I believe partly scanner resolution and quality.

Quentin
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2003, 07:45:57 pm »

Quote
His research on the Epson 1270 printer shows that for 4000 dpi Provia scanned images, the printer’s “Response above 190 lp/in is mostly aliasing—garbage”. He concludes that there is no reason to send more than 300 dpi to the printer.
Bill,
I think it's always been the advice on this site to set the image resolution at 240ppi or 360ppi, partly because these numbers divide nicely into 720 and 1440. I'm quite prepared to accept any conclusion that Norman Koren draws that anything in excess of 300ppi serves no purpose. If the native resolution of the image is greater than 300ppi (or 360?) then one should downsample to 300ppi. If the native resolution is lower than 240ppi, one should upsample to 240. Upsampling to a higher res than 240 serves no purpose if there's no actual detail there at that resolution. The purpose of the upsampling to that minimum of 240 is to produce a 'smoother' result with no hint of 'jaggies'.

I recently carried out a little experiment printing at Super A3 size a cropped D60 image. Without resampling, the image was 133ppi. Normally I would set the resolution at cropping to 240, but if I'm saving in GF I'll leave it at 133. I was curious as to how the two prints would compare, one at 133ppi and the other upsampled to 240ppi.

Well, big surprise! Without the aid of a loupe, I couldn't tell the difference between them. With the loupe, I could detect a faint line structure in certain parts of the 133ppi print and occasionally jagged edges in other parts which weren't there in the 240ppi print.. I think it would take someone with exceptionally good eyesight to choose between these two prints on technical grounds if they were hanging on a wall side by side.

It seems to me, when one considers all the post processing in Photoshop that one often does, changing levels, selective sharpening, hue, saturation, colour and contrast etc etc., then the choice of ppi for printing (whether it's 150, 180, 200, 240 or 300ppi) is the LEAST significant of all the changes one is likely to make. Having said that, don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating downsampling an image with a native resolution of 300ppi to 150ppi because it doesn't matter.
Logged

Erik M

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2003, 05:07:03 pm »

I would now like to see Foveon do a full frame sensor. Their design seems the way to go even though the Sigma SD9 has not had great reviews, early days still?

Rich,

I have a SD9. The Foveon sensor meets its goal in terms of sharpness and its ability to resolve detail. It's a 3.54MP sensor that captures as much detail as a 6MP sensor. The only thing 'wrong' with the chip is that it works best at ISO 100 and has limited long exposure capability due to noise. The image quality itself has never been questioned. Popular Photography (March) has a review of the camera. Shutterbug as well. You might want to check them out. In the next year or so we'll know if Foveon can increase the size of its sensor. By the way, if you're interested, I can e-mail you some of my SD9 images, if you want to have a look at them in Photoshop. Let me know. Actually, they are all available at www.pbase.com/chromelight

Feel free to download them. No sharpening or post processing was done. They aren't great photos. I was just tesing the camera.
Logged

Marshal

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2003, 08:05:57 pm »

To Doug:

You may be right. It might have been from the Imaging resource site. It was from Rob Galbraith's forum at least that I read about that test. It may have been a link to the IR site that I saw at Rob's site.

To RD:

Thanks for those links again. I remember reading the articles at a couple of those sites. I see a pattern here in the test results.
Logged

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2003, 02:20:05 pm »

All of my evaluations are done on unsharpened images. I sharpen them for web display because otherwise they are too mushy. It's a lot of work to get the USM right for the web and sometimes when the job is done it's too much on one and too little on another. You should take my written descriptions as being more accurate than the small files that I prepare for the web.
Logged

Jan Brittenson

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2003, 09:40:43 pm »

Quote
(i am talking pro shooters, catalogue can easily run 100+ rolls of 120 a day,so within a month the costs are justified) and there is still the option of shooting film and polaroids, because yes, many clients still want that, quality or not. personally i have always preferred the digital workflow and the control it offers....
People who pursue photography as an art might generally want prints of higher quality than your typical catalog.  If all you do is commercial work, who cares?  I'd shoot with a 1Ds for the convenience of a 35mm system.  If the client wanted shots from a 22MP Sinar back, they'd get that -- for a price.  I'd rent one to do the work, and if I ended up renting it often enough I'd lease or buy it.  If they wanted me to dig a hole and paid for it, I'd do that too.  Who cares?  It's a business.
Logged

Doug_Dolde

  • Guest
Michael's Ultimate Shootout
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2003, 11:00:13 pm »

I'd love to test the 1Ds against 4x5 but part of the reason I am even using a 4x5 camera is the price ot the 1Ds.  The 1Ds body alone costs more than my Arca Swiss Metric Field 4x5 and three lenses put together.  I just can't afford one.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up