Analog VS High-End-Digital: 80 Mpx, 4x5 Film, Mamiya Macro, IQSmart 2

[UlfKrentz]

snip
but why would somebody use an 80 or 60 mpx back on a view camera? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
snip

May be to have high resolution, camera shift/tilt option and great DOF for closeup work like needed in jewelry?
Come on, there are so many different tasks in photography, great to have all that options.

Cheers, Ulf

[RobertJ]

Nice test, thanks!

I'm hoping that they will rescan the 8x10 images. But I don't think that you would get twice the (linear) resolution from the 8x10 compared to 4x5", if you are using the best technique and lenses on both if stopping down to f/32 on 8x10" and 4x5" at f/11.

Erik, rescanning wouldn't do anything.  I think the right word to use is "reshoot."

[fotometria gr]

May be to have high resolution, camera shift/tilt option and great DOF for closeup work like needed in jewelry?
Come on, there are so many different tasks in photography, great to have all that options.

Cheers, Ulf

Even for that Ulf, 22mpx micro-step (16x) would be much better! As in all still life. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[BobDavid]

Actually I did the same but with MF film in micro-step (16x) mode with my 22mpx back and it did no difference than scanning it (perhaps scanning was better). It must have to do with yours being sheet film, they are really a bagger to scan..., perhaps we are all better if we .....shoot it (bang bang) instead!  Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

16-Step is tricky. I used to have a 16MP back that could do 4-shot and 16-shot. Shooting at near macro or macro in micro-step mode is extraordinarily tricky. I never got good results that way.

[Fine_Art]

The biggest benefit of digital IMO is having the entire process from shot to print controlled by yourself. There is no risk of some pimply faced kid employee taking your roll of 645 for his assignment, sending you a black roll.

[UlfKrentz]

Even for that Ulf, 22mpx micro-step (16x) would be much better! As in all still life. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

I knew you would say that. We prefer a single pop, if we have to compose three lighting situations together (which we often do in still life) we´d need 48 exposures? Pffft. Then we do fashion the next day that gets printed for huge POS that can be done with the same back. If your 528 works well for you that´s great, it just would not fit our (and many others) needs.

Cheers, Ulf

[fotometria gr]

16-Step is tricky. I used to have a 16MP back that could do 4-shot and 16-shot. Shooting at near macro or macro in micro-step mode is extraordinarily tricky. I never got good results that way.

It can be very tricky, what was the camera? There shouldn't be a problem with Hass H, Mamiya 645 with MLU should also be alright, my Contax is a bit trickier but its considered very quite and with some tape in the mirror dumping works fine. LF needs an electronic shutter and a sturdy camera, sinar's P series has been designed to work in multishot with DBs, all modern 6x9s are as well. With older cameras it can be impossible, ...but again to overcome the problem is much less expensive than the cost of an extreme resolution MFDB. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[fotometria gr]

I knew you would say that. We prefer a single pop, if we have to compose three lighting situations together (which we often do in still life) we´d need 48 exposures? Pffft. Then we do fashion the next day that gets printed for huge POS that can be done with the same back. If your 528 works well for you that´s great, it just would not fit our (and many others) needs.

Cheers, Ulf

Surely this doesn't justify the comparison of 4x5 film with the DB, I mean we all agree that the first reason for using digital is the manipulation of the workflow, not the (significant or not) increase in quality. I remind you that my original quote was that I object the meaning of comparing sheet films with DBs and that it would be better to compare it with 120/220. Afterall 4yrs ago, that high digital resolution didn't exist, everybody was still using digital because he could manipulate workflow better. I also have suggested/implemented that sheet film is not really better than 120/220 on LF when latest films are used and that its performance is even better (IQ wise) on a MF camera.
 Please allow me to explain a bit further where I'm getting to... Let's suppose that we have an 8x10 digital sensor of 100mpx and another one of 4x5 size again of 100mpx and yet another one of 2x3 again with 100mpx, if design technology would allow that their pixels would have the same performance characteristics despite their different recording area and if the lens was good enough to cope with all sensors area/analysis, the result would have been (almost) identical (or insignificantly to bother different). Now if latest films have advanced extremely and 120/220 can record all the info transferred from the lens, the result will be identical or insignificantly different from even 8x10 to 120/220 for the same size print (as long as the 120 is above 288dpi). The only advantage of the larger film will be the ability to print as large as to dress a building with the image (with the inevitable loss of print resolution of course). Given the difficulty and errors that sheet film has when scanning and the fact that MF lenses perform (much) better than LF ones, the result should be even better with 120 on MF camera, which in the majority of cases is "apples to apples" with MFDB. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[UlfKrentz]

snip
Let's suppose that we have an 8x10 digital sensor of 100mpx and another one of 4x5 size again of 100mpx and yet another one of 2x3 again with 100mpx, if design technology would allow that their pixels would have the same performance characteristics despite their different recording area and if the lens was good enough to cope with all sensors area/analysis, the result would have been (almost) identical (or insignificantly to bother different).
snip

Not at all, you will have 100mpx in all Images but the DOF will differ significantly. You´ll get complete different images. In case you would try to achieve the same depth of field you will probably run into so much diffraction that you´ll loose resolution as well. Did you ever use an 8x10?

Cheers, Ulf

[fotometria gr]

Not at all, you will have 100mpx in all Images but the DOF will differ significantly. You´ll get complete different images. In case you would try to achieve the same depth of field you will probably run into so much diffraction that you´ll loose resolution as well. Did you ever use an 8x10?

Cheers, Ulf

No, only up to 4x5, you are of course correct on the DOF issue, I did not bring it into the conversation intentionally. I felt of keeping the conversation down to the OP that is digital vs. film the OP doesn't consider the different area between 4x5 and MFDB and thus the different DOF does it? Isn't this another reason that proves that its an apples vs. oranges conversation? By the way I've mentioned earlier that now we are converting our P2 to use Mamiya RZ lenses on it due to the smaller circle and thus much improved performance, so no more 4x5 either for us, only the DB and/or 120/220! In fact it hasn't seen any 4x5 on it for the last 4 years or so... even with the LF lenses. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[BobDavid]

It can be very tricky, what was the camera? There shouldn't be a problem with Hass H, Mamiya 645 with MLU should also be alright, my Contax is a bit trickier but its considered very quite and with some tape in the mirror dumping works fine. LF needs an electronic shutter and a sturdy camera, sinar's P series has been designed to work in multishot with DBs, all modern 6x9s are as well. With older cameras it can be impossible, ...but again to overcome the problem is much less expensive than the cost of an extreme resolution MFDB. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

I mated a Hasselblad Ixpress 384C with a Mamiya AFDI/120 macro combo. That setup worked fine with 4-shot, but 16-shot rarely gave good results. A lot of the issues dealt with ambient  vibrations--a car passing by the studio, the air conditioning coming on, etc. A 16-shot cycle can take a few minutes. It's amazing how many micro vibrations occur over the course of a few minutes. By the way, my studio is on a two foot thick slab of concrete.

[fotometria gr]

I mated a Hasselblad Ixpress 384C with a Mamiya AFDI/120 macro combo. That setup worked fine with 4-shot, but 16-shot rarely gave good results. A lot of the issues dealt with ambient  vibrations--a car passing by the studio, the air conditioning coming on, etc. A 16-shot cycle can take a few minutes. It's amazing how many micro vibrations occur over the course of a few minutes. By the way, my studio is on a two foot thick slab of concrete.

In multishot the pixel moves by 9µm, in microstep by 4.5, although its only half they are both very sensitive, so I guess if the first worked the second should also, at least with a couple more tries. Since you have such a sturdy floor, you must be right that it must have to do with the extra time needed for the 21 shots in total and some echo vibration caused in the meantime. When I do microstep I try not to ...breath and usually the process needs to be repeated, it rarely works right from the start, but it does work at the end. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[UlfKrentz]

snip
When I do microstep I try not to ...breath and usually the process needs to be repeated...
snip

Now you finally made my day...
Sorry, I could not resist.

[fotometria gr]

Now you finally made my day...
Sorry, I could not resist.

[timparkin]

The problem is that the films that are available for 120/220 are also available in 10x8 and 4x5 so the argument doesn't quite work.

Tim

[EricWHiss]

16-Step is tricky. I used to have a 16MP back that could do 4-shot and 16-shot. Shooting at near macro or macro in micro-step mode is extraordinarily tricky. I never got good results that way.

I've shot with the 528c and really have enjoyed the 16 shot mode.  I have used this in galleries downtown San Francisco with wooden floors and in my studio near the train tracks without any real problems.  I have had a few issues with some fluorescent lighting not being consistent enough but really otherwise it hasn't been tricky.   I've even shot 16 shot images with the camera just resting on my desk - not even locked down in a tripod.   I don't see the problems people have reported. Maybe its because I shoot with the Rollei and leaf shutter lenses?   I have the Leaf 80mp back now, but am still convinced the best files I have seen come from the 528c and have plans to buy another 528c for still life and other work. 

Now to address the OT - no idea how these files would compare to 4x5 film as I really haven't shot that much - but my guess is they completely blow 4x5 film away. Multishot files have significantly more DR and better tonality than single shot.

[Wayne Fox]

So what am I missing here?  What is the point of the test?

It's really late and I scanned through this thread pretty quickly but what I see is that a 4000dpi scan of a 4x5 chrome is close to the same as a macro shot of the chrome with an 80mp back. No surprise there ... the limitation is the detail in the 4x5 chrome so both should be quite similar.  The scanner has an advantage because of the limitation of the camera/lens/focus system.   Why would an 8x10 yield anything substantially better than either one of these ... there isn't any more "detail" to capture, since the limitation in detail and sharpness is the original 4x5 chrome. Personally I think the 8x10 would yield pretty much the same results.  May appear a little sharper if you rez it down and the others might loose a little if you rez them up ... as would any other medium. but same size prints from all 3 would be very similar in detail/sharpness with proper post processing.

But I can't see anyway to extrapolate this test out to apply to an shooting real world images ... maybe I'll read this tomorrow and see something I missed?