Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film

[Faintandfuzzy]

@faintandfuzzy

Maybe this was/is because some graceful heart/scanoperator gave up because even after applying several sharpness and unsharp mask runs in various combinations the only "improvement" is that the Velvia becomes grainy like an old 1600 ASA color neg but without matching the resolution of the D3x ? ( just tried it myself with CS5.5 and even a deconvolution sharpening in ImageJ. Whereas the D3x image gained sharpness after applying an unsharp mask without getting much noisier, not to speak of the Leica S2 file- which is from another galaxy )

OK I know: grain is art, lack of detail is intentional and belief ist stronger than facts.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

Then I would suggest learning how to sharpen.  As to grain, it wouldn't even show in a 16x24 or 24x30 print...I know...because I print them all the time from Astia and Velvia.  If you're getting iso 1600 grain from Velvia, it's your workflow issues...not the film. 

Honestly, this has become tiring.  Defending a ridiculously flawed and biased test to the nth degree goes beyond logic. 

[Schewe]

The question the test was trying to ask was not if it was good enough, but if it was better.

No, the original question was a single photographer testing out his new IQ 180 back on both his Phase One camera and his Alpha.

Michael asked the author to also shoot 8x10 so he asked a 2nd photographer to shoot with him.

I do question the 8x10 shot and scans...my 8x10 stuff sure seems higher resolution and with better sharpness & IQ.

I don't question the ability to take well captured IQ 180 captures and make big prints (I've done so, have you) and I don't question the ability to take well scanned, sharp 8x10 film and make big prints.

The question is, how big are you making prints? What media? What printer? How much resolution is sufficient?

I have less than 5K in each of my 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and they work exquisitely. Until they get me a couple of hundred megapixels, I won't be much interested... and I certainly don't want to spend money unless I can charge a client.

There ya go...showing your real point of view...it all comes down to economics/quality/ease of use.

[lenny_eiger]

No, the original question was a single photographer testing out his new IQ 180 back on both his Phase One camera and his Alpha.

If its anecdotal, then it should be labeled as such.

The question is, how big are you making prints? What media? What printer? How much resolution is sufficient?

Interesting question. Sufficient for what? I generally go for 500 dpi at 40 inches, as I am printing in b&w. In fact, I have printed many 20 foot long prints for other artists. I even scanned an 8x10 at 8,000 for a guy who wanted to do a 35 foot image. I have two 54 inch Roland's, one set up with 12 color inks and the other set up with two sets of b&w inks. I start with Cone's inks and reformulate the top end to get the kind of highlights I want. I have six warm tones and another six cool tones and I do a very nice neutral with all 12. I can also split, of course.

I started with the idea that I wanted to see if I could get a tonal range as long as a platinum print. I have done this and more. For many years I have been printing on PhotoRag and am now moving over to handmade Japanese Kozo which is translucent. Light goes thru the image and bounces off the matte and under the right circumstances its downright luminescent. I've been very successful with the quality of the 32x40's but to be honest I'm moving smaller.

Super-critical sharpness isn't that important to me, I'm more interested in DOF. Most important is tonal reproduction. I'm usually after an effect that makes the viewer feel that they are there, in the scene. The more textural information you can feed them, the more likely this is to happen. How much is needed to distinguish that the light on that tree over there is summer light vs winter light? I can't quantify it. I just do the best I can and I celebrate when it works.

And yes, I have tried many digital cameras. Been doing this a while, I have a 645 AFD I'd love to sell, that came with a DCS Pro Back (that I did sell). That was a lot of money when it was new.... and altho' I got a little break, my scanner retails for $40K new. It isn't about the money. Every tool has its purpose. And these things don't match mine. They will one day, I'm sure...

Lenny


Lenny Eiger
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

[Schewe]

Interesting question. Sufficient for what? I generally go for 500 dpi at 40 inches, as I am printing in b&w.

Well...I tend to print out of Lightroom and upsample anything whose native resolution is 360 or about up to 720ppi for output (along with the output sharpening in Lightroom with which I have a "relationship" to)...the P65+ and IQ 180 files often need little upsampling.

If you are printing on non-photo black media, I doubt you need as much resolution. Tonal gradations are a totally separate discussion...only slightly impacted by image resolution.

[/quote]I have a 645 AFD I'd love to sell, that came with a DCS Pro Back (that I did sell). [/quote]

Well, that explains your aversion to digital...and yes, it _IS_ about the money...it's never _NOT_ about the money unless you have a ton of it.

:~)

[Stefan.Steib]

Well maybe we need to go a bit astray to get some more data that enlighten the actual status.
The actual highend in Digital  and Film technology is not driven by Photography(with the sole exception of resolution maybe), maybe that hurts, but is the plain truth.
Innovations today happen at the Film/Video people and thus I would suggest taking a look at this




These are part 1+2 of the 2011 Zacuto.com shootout of highend film/video gear making a real life comparison on best condition controlled setups.
Huge effort taken, probably some of the best pro´s in the business, giving a pretty good impression of where film and digital stand today.

I believe everybody should know this - this is eyeopening !

regards
Stefan

PS.: Epsiode 3 is announced for October 5th now:   

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

The Zacuto programs are interesting and fascinatiing.


On the innovation part, I´d say motion film and photography are two different worlds with things in common.

Best regards
Erik

Well maybe we need to go a bit astray to get some more data that enlighten the actual status.
The actual highend in Digital  and Film technology is not driven by Photography(with the sole exception of resolution maybe), maybe that hurts, but is the plain truth.
Innovations today happen at the Film/Video people and thus I would suggest taking a look at this




These are part 1+2 of the Zacuto.com shootout of highend film/video gear making a real life comparison on best condition controlled setups.
Huge effort taken, probably some of the best pro´s in the business, giving a pretty good impression of where film and digital stand today.

I believe everybody should know this - this is eyeopening !

regards
Stefan

[DaFu]

"These are part 1+2 of the 2011 Zacuto.com shootout"

Thanks very much for posting those links, Stefan. They were fascinating.

Dave

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Video sensors and technology have totally different needs and issues as compared to the still systems being discussed here. I wouldn't use the Zacuto tests to make any sort of judgement on the topic at hand.

On a light note, the sensors of video systems have reached the same sizes as their film counterparts, and it seems the dynamic range is almost there too - yet none has tried to carry that analogy (equivalent size of sensors - a huge deal in the film/video world) to this discussion.

[Stefan.Steib]

You are right Sareesh, not a very broad interest in building 8/10 " sensors.
But something similar has already been done, a tad bigger though....... -in astronomy:
http://www.astro-wise.org/~omegacam/index.shtml

;-))))

Greetings from right now Tarragona Food festival 2011/Spain

Stefan

[Jim Pascoe]

I just wandered into this topic by chance and got hooked (as you do).  Very interesting really but about stuff I have no experience of.  Starts off with some of the Forum's luminaries batting it out as usual - all fairly civilised stuff.  Then from nowhere a few impudent newbies appear putting their opinions forward.  Now I know there is a pecking order on this forum, with of course Mr MR at the top (cos he can always have the last word), and there are the tech geeks who have forgotten more about the theory of digital photography than I have ever learned.  And of course their are some who are just good photographers.  Obviously these categories   can and do overlap.
Anyway, there must always be a suspicion that when someone appears with less than 20 posts they must be a bit suspect, right?  So it has been quite fun to see the Newbies doing good battle with the old big guns, and as the posts carried on I started to feel a little intimidated at my comparisons between DSLR and M43, what with all this big stuff about 8x10 and 80 MP backs and f64 and 500MB files flying about.  Just as I was feeling a little exhausted and needing a lie down, the real Daddy of the forum comes in and carpet bombs the whole show.  Yes you know who I'm talking about, and if you Newbies don't then you better get your tin hats on now!
There are a few 'pains in the arses' in these forums (and I'm not referring to anyone in this particular set of posts), but it is lovely to have such a set of characters contributing to an enjoyable debate, even if sometimes the subject is a little over my head, and great to have such a range of experience both from established posters and the 'Newbies'.

I thought I was a knowledgable photographer, but the longer I spend doing it the more I find to learn.

Jim

[Stefan.Steib]

   Hi Jim

As I have written before, I´m right now in Tarragona / Spain for the Foodphoto festival 2011 and I can tell you that the vast majority of people here try to get the best unsharpness with their
expensive cameras of different sizes (Bokeh). So there are some more things than shere size and sharpness..........

Regards
Stefan

[Jim Pascoe]

  Hi Jim

As I have written before, I´m right now in Tarragona / Spain for the Foodphoto festival 2011 and I can tell you that the vast majority of people here try to get the best unsharpness with their
expensive cameras of different sizes (Bokeh). So there are some more things than shere size and sharpness..........

Regards
Stefan

Stefan

Quite right!  Most of my photography is done hand-held and often at f2, so I appreciate what you are saying.  Still it is an interesting topic though.

Jim

[Stefan.Steib]

Just for completing the Zacuto links- Episode 3 is out now and the finish is surprising (guess the film people will like it !)

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-three

 

Have fun

Stefan

[PierreVandevenne]

Thanks for the link Stefan! Great stuff. The 4:4:4 4:2:2 4:2:0 test in part two has to be the best demo of the topic I have seen.  As far as film is concerned, it looked great on faces, but struck me as yelling "I am old! I am old!" in low light. I didn't realize my perception had changed so much over the last ten years. I wish I could see the Barry Lyndon candle scene on a real cinema screen today.

And if I had a use for it, I'd go for the Phantom Flex :-)

[Stefan.Steib]

Pierre

Barry Lyndon is THE lowlight masterpiece of all times and now I will make an unusual statement that I will not repeat anytime again:

In this film I adore any piece of grain visible.
But this s´got nothing to do with sharpness or resolution. It´s pure art - unreached and unique.

This was made by the masters hand - and Kubrick was a god.

OK......?

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Barry Lyndon is THE lowlight masterpiece of all times and now I will make an unusual statement that I will not repeat anytime again:

In this film I adore any piece of grain visible.
But this s´got nothing to do with sharpness or resolution. It´s pure art - unreached and unique.

This was made by the masters hand - and Kubrick was a god.

+1

[PierreVandevenne]

Agreed, agreed, Don't shoot me please.

[Stefan.Steib]

Pierre

no you are right, I also would like to see how Barry Lyndon would look like today- if Kubrick would do it. Probably more "gothic" and darker as his last films were.

If I´d imagine to see an Arri Alexa used by K. I´d be real curious about the output. Whereas the rolling shutter was about the only flaw the Alexa was showing.

Regards
Stefan

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

To begin with, Dominique Ventzke was kind enough to help me with scanning two of my samples at 6096 PPI on his high end drum scanner. Preliminary results here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=58067.msg472520#msg472520

The results depend much on sharpening.

Dominique also pointed me to this very interesting article examining Mark Zuberg's test: http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/10/the-perils-of-testing/

Best regards
Erik

Pierre

no you are right, I also would like to see how Barry Lyndon would look like today- if Kubrick would do it. Probably more "gothic" and darker as his last films were.

If I´d imagine to see an Arri Alexa used by K. I´d be real curious about the output. Whereas the rolling shutter was about the only flaw the Alexa was showing.

Regards
Stefan

[Stefan.Steib]

Erik

to me all this uproar on the shown results simply clarifies how much confusion is in all this subject right now.
And how difficult it seems to be to achieve the final quality from a scanned film , not to speak of the exact exposure with all settings made for an optimum resolution.
Whereas this also showed that depth of field is an issue and usability is much more on the digital side. (faster , cheaper, easier to make plenty of variations to nail the target....).
It should also be taken into account that the infrastructure for film is dissolving now, many people who rely on this are forced to move digital, even if they do not want to do it.
Many of the still very knowledgeable colleagues are autark, working off their own experiences of many years of usage of film, develloping their own E6 and now scanning to get their work into the actual workflow. But what is the status of the now younger (20-30) creative who is not  in the knowledge and experience to do this ?
So as much many may regret this I think this will all dwindle away into non existance latest in 10-20 years.
And by then digital will probably heave left behind ANY disadvantages on resolution that 8/10 may still have today- so nobody will even  drop one tear about it.
We should not forget that the professional digital photography is only 16/17 years old(Leaf Brick) and already has erased nearly a complete structure that had grown over 150 years of silverhalogenid.

maybe this is not "haptic" or "romantic" or  "artistic" (yes I liked to build up my huge tripod with my 8/10 and take my black cloth and make my show on the set.....;-)
but photographic craftsmanship is not defined by using film.

It´s about the images , nothing else. In this case the way is not the goal.

Greetings from Munich

Stefan