Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Fine_Art on September 22, 2011, 06:30:37 pm
-
Sorry, not buying it. It's well known you have to scan at over 4000 dpi to get the most out of fine grained films like Velvia or Ektar. Why do a test now with discontinued films? Especially scanned at 745dpi? Nonsense.
Since the author is a biologist he needs to look at the film under his microscope to see the real detail. I have. I also use a 12x telescope eyepiece to inspect details in slides.
Roger Clark estimated 35mm slide film (velvia) overall image quality at comparable to 16MP.
"digital megapixel equivalent (35 mm film) = 10 * (lpm1.6 / 80 lpm)2 (eqn 1)
digital megapixel equivalent (6x4.5 cm film) = 31 * (lpm1.6 / 80 lpm)2 (eqn 2)
digital megapixel equivalent (4x5 film) = 150 * (lpm1.6 / 80 lpm)2 (eqn 3)
digital megapixel equivalent (8x10 film) = 600 * (lpm1.6 / 80 lpm)2 (eqn 4) "
That puts 8x10 at about 800MP
http://clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.1/index.html (http://clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.1/index.html)
http://clarkvision.com/articles/scandetail/index.html#testarea3 (http://clarkvision.com/articles/scandetail/index.html#testarea3)
Personally I scan at 4000dpi. I know people with the old Minolta 5400 scanner get better quality than me. I also find Noise Ninja (or any other noise software) incredibly good at removing film grain! For that reason I expect a 35mm slide to be about 20-22MP digital equivalent. What is lost in some image detail is gained in full RGB capture at every point.
Showing fuzzy 745dpi scans does nobody any good.
-
Here is a simple test almost everyone can do with their DSLR. Get out your best macro lens to stitch together 4 or 6 shots as required for your best slide film. You may need to reverse a wide angle lens to pick up the grain. Make the grain cover a few pixels. Run your noise software. Sharpen. Downrez to where the image looks clear at 100%. How many MP do you have? That is over an area 840 sq. mm. An 8x10" is 204x254mm = 51816 sq mm.
For me based on 22MP for the slide, that is over 1300MP for an 8X10".
-
Actually, I have seen film under a microscope, not just the eyepiece, and there is no useful image. Sorry.
Thank you for taking the time to do the math, but you have one little problem--the images that were posted do not support your hypothesis. It is hard to argue with results. Could the film have gotten a higher result, yes at wider apertures. But in this test, and it is valid, the DoF was to be set at similar levels.
I think you might be a little confused by the results. These are at 100%. In no way is that a realistic viewing distance. Your perception of the actual image would be very different. While the different processes would add different qualities, both images will appear very detailed.
As a long time proponent of film photography, I really cannot agree with your inflated resolving powers for film nor your equations for calculating them. I don't know who Roger Clark is, but his site does say that the outcomes of this test are quite expected. He seems to think digital cameras resolve better than film. Which also seems to suggest that the math you got from him is also wrong. Perhaps it is time for him to update his website.
-
Don't forget that the constraint on image quality when shooting 8x10 film might not be the film, but the ability to focus accurately enough to resolve all of what the large sheet is capable of. The calculations above certainly don't take that into account.
This was a real-world format comparison, not a film resolution test.
Dave
-
Here is a simple test almost everyone can do with their DSLR. Get out your best macro lens to stitch together 4 or 6 shots as required for your best slide film. You may need to reverse a wide angle lens to pick up the grain. Make the grain cover a few pixels. Run your noise software. Sharpen. Downrez to where the image looks clear at 100%. How many MP do you have? That is over an area 840 sq. mm. An 8x10" is 204x254mm = 51816 sq mm.
For me based on 22MP for the slide, that is over 1300MP for an 8X10".
Actually, that is not a test for resolution. Grain are not pixels. You can image more grain than the grain can resolve. Yes, you can make 4000dpi scans of film, but that does not mean the film is resolving that. Nor can you simply extrapolate up to get 8x10 resolving power. Large format camera don't work at the same resolving power as their smaller format cousins.
-
There were numerous threads like this, some accompanying the release of a new back, some pop up randomly in time.. and they all end up with the same conclusion:
despite all the calculations and estimations of mp count of a 8x10, xxxxx digital back is resolving significantly worse than your 8x10, should the 8x10 be exposed properly, focused correctly and you were lucky enough to have the film flat enough, which is not obvious and always is a problem with this format.
xxxxx stands for your digiback model name, whatever it is and will be for probably next few years.
-
Actually, that is not a test for resolution. Grain are not pixels. You can image more grain than the grain can resolve. Yes, you can make 4000dpi scans of film, but that does not mean the film is resolving that. Nor can you simply extrapolate up to get 8x10 resolving power. Large format camera don't work at the same resolving power as their smaller format cousins.
So your lens doesnt resolve to the color film?
If you do a 3000dpi scan vs a 4000 dpi scan you can clearly get more detail from a good slide film. Countless people have done it.
By choosing 745 dpi you are saying the max resolution of the film is the equivalent of 1027x704 for a 35mm slide. Anyone who has seen a slide projected knows the detail is an order of magnitude greater that a small PC screen.
If you know you became diffraction limited in this test such that your system could only resolve 745 lines per inch, it is hardly a useful test.
-
Hows about this:
at 750dpi you are 6000x7500. Divided by 1024 that is 43.9MP
You couldn't possibly have proven film can't match 80MP by scanning at 44MP!
The scan resolution was a mistake. Just rescan it.
-
So your lens doesnt resolve to the color film?
If you do a 3000dpi scan vs a 4000 dpi scan you can clearly get more detail from a good slide film. Countless people have done it.
I have done it too. The final resolving power would go up as the systemic resolving power is going up. But that is not saying the film is actually resolving that nor that a camera sensor with the same pixel density would be getting the same result, it would be doing better.
By choosing 745 dpi you are saying the max resolution of the film is the equivalent of 1027x704 for a 35mm slide. Anyone who has seen a slide projected knows the detail is an order of magnitude greater that a small PC screen.
And how can you determine resolving power of a system by simply looking at a projected image? None of this actually contradicts the results of the test. There is not much of a difference in pixel resolution, but the IQ180 image is clearly ahead. I see nothing in the scans to suggest the film has not already passed its limit.
If you know you became diffraction limited in this test such that your system could only resolve 745 lines per inch, it is hardly a useful test.
You are welcome to make your own tests and post them. However, you have said nothing nor posted anything to support your argument. I see nothing in the test that suggest that the film would produce a better result under those conditions--it is a valid statement. If what you are saying is true, then a direct comparison of a digital and film image will reveal that. I have scanned a lot of 35mm and medium format film with a 4000dpi Nikon film scanner. From what I have seen, there really is no doubt that on simply the technical issue of resolving power that digital sensors are doing better.
If you have evidence that gives a different result, I think everyone here would like to see it.
-
Hows about this:
at 750dpi you are 6000x7500. Divided by 1024 that is 43.9MP
You couldn't possibly have proven film can't match 80MP by scanning at 44MP!
The scan resolution was a mistake. Just rescan it.
Since I shoot with a 40MP camera, the film is soft even at that resolution. But it might be easier for you to show us examples.
-
Forget the pixels and peeping - make a analog print from the 8x10 and one from the IQ180 and then ask normal people to pick which they like best.
-
Hi
If a good scan is soft than it will also be soft if resolution is doubled. I presume that authors finds that lens softness is clearly visible at the scan resolution used, and interpret it quite correctly that the scan is limited by the imaging system of camera.
It is quite possible that more performance could be wrangled out of the 8x10", the question is how? It seems from the experience Jack Flesher reported that focusing is highly critical and film flatness and positioning are real issues.
Best regards
Erik
Since I shoot with a 40MP camera, the film is soft even at that resolution. But it might be easier for you to show us examples.
-
Since I shoot with a 40MP camera, the film is soft even at that resolution. But it might be easier for you to show us examples.
Fair enough. I don't shoot 8x10, I can provide slides or 645. That is a huge amount of data to upload so it would be easier to have people test their own systems. How's about a piece of Velvia backlit, with a tape measure on top? People can see the mm markings then extrapolate for the area.
Yes Eric, I understand that in this test there might be softness. The issue for me was the color film showed no sign of grain. I took that to be it is not near its max resolution. The B/W clearly did so i agree it's maxed out.
If you review the articles by R. Clark, who is an expert (bio at the site) as well as a very good photographer, you can see he has drum scanned 4x5 Velvia already. His comparisons show digital has superior contrast in the details. Digital also shows some fake detail. On the flip side film has the color accuracy of 4 colors at every point. That gives a realism to the images.
I think there is no question 24mp DSLRs from the big 3 are beyond the best 135 film in everything but color. I will completely agree with anything that scales that up based on area. I cannot agree about 8x10 vs 80MP given an 8x10 is basically a gigapixel camera. To beat that in digital you need a scanning back or massive stitching.
-
Hi
The internet can show images as precise as some worn out newspaper paper - therefore I would like to add this link:
http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html
Markus
-
Hi
The internet can show images as precise as some worn out newspaper paper - therefore I would like to add this link:
http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html
Markus
Thank you Markus for the link. I hope this will help this thread come to an end:-) (it probably won't but thanks for trying!)
Yair
-
Thank you Markus for the link. I hope this will help this thread come to an end:-) (it probably won't but thanks for trying!)
Yair
+1
I agree :)
-
I looked at the first test image and that instantly made my mind up which was better.... :o
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/MR15/Image_002.jpg)
-
I have read many comparisons between film and digital, and it always seems to end the same way, whether it's a 16MP DSLR v 35mm film or an IQ180 v 8x10 film: someone posts samples of scanned film versus digital and the digital is more detailed and noise-free. Usually the film buffs defend it by saying that the scanner was to blame or the image wasn't focused properly or the film wasn't flat, etc, but this seems to happen every time.
-
I think there is no question 24mp DSLRs from the big 3 are beyond the best 135 film in everything but color. I will completely agree with anything that scales that up based on area. I cannot agree about 8x10 vs 80MP given an 8x10 is basically a gigapixel camera. To beat that in digital you need a scanning back or massive stitching.
It is not about 8x10 might transalte to a gigapixel, it about the quality of pixels in the first place.
I use 5x4 and have just received an IQ160, whilst I agree the colour of velevia/provia is great, the quailty of the file from the IQ160 is way better than 5x4. with the added advantage of better detail in the shadow and highlights for PP, I can always add that velvia magic in PP if needed. It is not all about mega pixels, a canon 5D with 20MP will beat 35mm drum scnned even if it 100 mp.
-
True.
I also don't understand the real meaning of doing such a test. I simply remember the numerous (very) large prints I have seen from 8x10", up to 4 x 3 m, and I as well remember the resolution/sharpness I could see with my eyes in front of it. Being it flatness of the film, unprecise focus, not adjusted camera, stability of the camera or other vibrations, etc ..., this "softness" was always there, at close observation of these prints.
Something which I certainly did not see with digital sensors of the current generation and the best lenses used novadays with these digital sensors.
Thierry
... etc, but this seems to happen every time.
-
I have not yet read any of the previous posts as I was busy writing this post. Apologies if some have already addressed the points I make here.
This is a commentary on the recent article by Markus Zuber, published on Luminous Landscape. If you haven’t read it yet : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml
Markus Zuber’s article raises a number of issues, both technical and philosophical.
One of the challenges is raising these comparisons is the question of whether one is talking about one as a replacement for the other or simply using one as a benchmark to measure the other against. Markus doesn’t make his approach clear, but most times I have witnessed or participated in this discussion, the underlying implication is one of “Is X good enough to replace Y”.
I’d suggest that there is another approach that can add a different perspective to the discussion. Asking the question “What are the capabilities of X and what new opportunities/methods does is offer for image making”. One of the problems with the approach of comparing something new with the older thing you have been using is that it focuses your attention on an implied assumption that what you were doing was the “right way”. It’s sometimes helpful to ignore the tried and true and look for new possibilities. For me, the arrival of my IQ180 a few months back has been a revelation.
Live focus is a huge asset on the IQ series backs. It is particularly valuable when using longer lenses with tech cameras. I mostly use it when shooting interiors with ultra-wides and when using a close foreground element to lead the eye from in my landscapes. I do not understand why anyone would even attempt to use a groundglass to focus an ALPA if you are shooting on a MFDB. For one thing, the image is too small and the groundglass image too coarse to make meaningful judgements. Forget about seeing anything of value outside the centre of image with wider lenses. Even if you do manage to make meaningful focus settings on the groundglass, it is very hard to ensure that your sensor is in the same plane as your groundglass. With and ALPA, the shimming of backs gives you precision to the 100ths of a millimetre, one of this systems major strengths. You risk losing that precision using a GG to focus. As someone who once did more than 90% of his professional work on a view camera, I understand the comfort of relying on the method you have used with great success in the past. However, the precision required by tech cams and MFDB renders GG focusing obsolete. {Of course, if you are shooting film on your ALPA, the n a GG is valuable but not infallible}. Before I shot with my IQ180, I would guestimate or laser the distance, then rely on the accuracy of ALPA’s HPF rings to give me a strike rate on focus approaching 100% with both my P45+ and P65+. For me, the IQ back on my Alpa is the best workflow I have ever had on an tech cam, as far as focus is concerned. Lets not forget that GG focussing meand exposing your sensor to a lot more risk from impact damage and dust ingress….
Marks statement “ Knowing well that the AF does not really serve well at least with the 55” has me wondering if his generalization means I’ve missed out on some commonly known wisdom. I happen to own the 55, 80 and 110 Schneiders and they focus spot-on in AF. I have a few friends who have no focus problems with their 55’s in AF mode.
These tests clearly demonstrate what many have known for some time – that the “legendary” status of 8x10 as the image quality champion is just that – a legend. The need to shoot at f32 or smaller has always meant that diffraction significantly degrades image quality. Other problems common to large format sheet film such as the lack of film flatness (resulting in the film plane not being in the same place as your groundglass) further compound the problem. The tonality and creaminess often attributed to 8x10 are really a lack of true resolution masked by the fact that many 8x10 images were printed at relatively modest magnification. I make prints from my P65+, Aptus 12 and my IQ180 at sizes exceeding 1.5meters that a print from an 8x10 image simply cannot come close to matching for absolute resolution and edge-to-edge sharpness. The fact that I can achieve this extraordinary outcome with a package as small as an Alpa STC with an IQ180 and a couple of lenses of the extraordinary quality available from Rodenstock, Schneider, Alpa etc is the truly exciting thing about being a photographer in this day and age. The 8x10 is the champ argument simply does not stand up and has not for some time. Your test prove this yet again.
A word of caution about diffraction. MF tech cam lenses of recent design are optimised for use at much larger apertures than conventional wisdom suggests. This is compounded by pixel-level diffraction increasing as pixel sizes get smaller. My 23HR digaron for example, is noticeably softer at f16 than at f8 on my IQ180. The difference was not as obvious on my P65+ which has slightly larger pixels. However, this lens is so good, I am happy shooting at f5.6, provided I can focus accurately.
“The film could easily reveal more details, if they would be projected to it’s surface”. Actually, this is one of the Achilles heels of film, especially colour emulsions. Because film is made by layering several layers of emulsion, each sensitive to different wavelengths of light, on top of each other, light striking the top surface us progressively scattered or diffused as it penetrates the emulsion stack to reach the lower layers. As such, the image on the lower emulsion layer is more diffused (less resolution and contrast) than at the surface. The corrollory of this is that with digital sensors, there is a flat plane and therefore a lot to be gained by precise placement of focus. Hence Alpa’s shimming of backs is of even greater significance with digital backs. The sensor, if properly placed, can utilize the resolution delivered by the lens, where film could not maximize this.
“Film could easily reveal more details”. How? As you’ve already demonstrated, an IQ180 (and by logical extension, the Aptus12) on a tech cam such as an Alpa can outresolve 8x10 film. Add to this the fact that the IQ180 has not one but several more stops more dynamic range than film (The Kodak and Fuji tranny films I used to use had 6.3 stops range in normal E6 processing) as well.
IQ 180 files record and reveal much, much more detail than any colour or monochromatic film I have ever used.
“As we have seen with all Phase One backs, it is very important to get as much to the right as possible (I assume Markus means on the histogram). Underexposed images suffer from noise and bad colours”. Hmmm…. I’m curious, does this mean there is a manufacturer out there with a back for which this is not true?(I want one!!) I’ve owned or shot with backs from Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad, Kodak, Sinar, Canon and Nikon and this is true for all of them. It’s fair to say that all current MF backs are much more tolerant of exposure error than any colour emulsion made. Ever push-processed a colour film more than a stop? You get grainy shadows (read: Noise) and massive colour shifts. In fact not just linear colour shifts but significant colour crossovers. The IQ180 in particular, easily outperforms film in this regard, and all other backs with the possible exception of its stable-mate, the Aptus 12.
I own both, so I’m speaking from first-hand experience. I’m not sure what Markus’s point is in the context of a comparison between 8x10 film and the IQ180. Yes, if you underexpose significantly with this back, you get noise and colour shifts, but in my view, much less than if you underexposed film the same amount.
I fail to understand how the screen in the IQ displays an image from a 110mm lens any differently from a 28mm. It’s displaying the same proportion of both images at whatever percentage of magnification you’ve chosen. It’s value as a focus checking device seems to me to be identical whatever lens I attach.
On the subject of the IQ180’s performance as a B&W device, it is astounding. I shot a lot of large format monochrome in my film days and am well versed with advanced zone system and processing/printing techniques. I have also shot extensively with the Phase One Achromatic back. For panchromatic use (I have not tested IR or UV applications), the IQ180 is simply the best B&W device I have ever shot with. It has much more dynamic range than film, higher resolution than 8x10 film (as Markus has shown us) and with precise use of advanced post-processing techniques, capable of delivering a richness of tone and detail I’ve never seen before.
The kicker for me is that we now have a back which, combined with our camera of choice (I use mine on Alpa STC, Phase 645DF and Fuji GX680 platforms) is able to realistically deliver quality that exceeds 8x10 on a number of levels, is much more portable, user friendly and incredibly versatile. It has already altered the way I work in a number of ways and opened up imagemaking possibilities I had not imagined possible even a couple of years ago.
A big thank you to Markus for taking the time not only to run these tests, but also for taking the time to document and share it with us all.
With respect,
-
On the subject of the IQ180’s performance as a B&W device, it is astounding. I shot a lot of large format monochrome in my film days and am well versed with advanced zone system and processing/printing techniques. I have also shot extensively with the Phase One Achromatic back. For panchromatic use (I have not tested IR or UV applications), the IQ180 is simply the best B&W device I have ever shot with. It has much more dynamic range than film, higher resolution than 8x10 film (as Markus has shown us) and with precise use of advanced post-processing techniques, capable of delivering a richness of tone and detail I’ve never seen before.
I have tested IR (not UV) on a P21 IR, P45+ IR, and Ahromatic Plus and will be testing a Leaf Aptus IR back next month.
Having shot medium format and large format (never 8x10) IR films from Macophot, Kodak, and Ilford I have absolutely zero desire to ever shoot IR film again. You want to talk about the benefits of modern digital photography? Learning to expose IR film (when visible light and IR light are only loosely correlated in changing light situations) is part education, part zen, and part luck. Learning to focus IR film for a specific lens is at best a game of translating any IR mark which is on the lens and adjusting for the band of IR light you are filtering for, and at worst a crap shoot - stopping down to CYA.
The post-processing flexibility is also enormously useful (to my needs/desires) since (to me) IR imagery lends itself to more liberal/aggressive/ethereal styling since it is already a recording based on light which is not visible.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8) (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/06/30/nelandscape/")
-
... I simply remember the numerous (very) large prints I have seen from 8x10", up to 4 x 3 m, and I as well remember the resolution/sharpness I could see with my eyes in front of it... this "softness" was always there, at close observation of these prints...
As someone who saw huge prints from 8x10 (by Michael Fatali), I remember many words coming to my mind (and staying there, as the print quality left me speechless)... but one word was never there: "softness".
-
As someone who saw huge prints from 8x10 (by Michael Fatali), I remember many words coming to my mind (and staying there, as the print quality left me speechless)... but one word was never there: "softness".
A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. No more is that true.
-
As somebody who does shoot 8x10, I have a couple of thoughts:
1) Whatever the math and/or technical analysis says, quite frankly there is something about the look, the contrast, the tonality of a large print made from an 8x10 negative that I personally haven't seen in other formats. That's my impression, your mileage may and will vary.
2) The flip side of the coin here is this: how many of you have actually hauled an 8x10 into the field? After spending a week in hospital for hernia repair a few years ago, you wanna know something - even if every "expert" in the world came out and said 8x10 was better than anything else on the planet, it's gotta be pretty darned major or important for me to haul that big beast out.
I'm completely serious about that point. I think it's almost moot to argue optics, pixels, microscope, grain, diffraction - whatever - unless you ground yourself first the real world applicaiton of how often do you haul around a big camera like that. Maybe the question should be along the lines, for a given situation or location, what is the biggest camera you can take with you, and in that case, does or will it make a difference.
If not, hey, I seen guys do 20x24 contact prints if you really want to push the envelope...
:)
-
1) Whatever the math and/or technical analysis says, quite frankly there is something about the look, the contrast, the tonality of a large print made from an 8x10 negative that I personally haven't seen in other formats. That's my impression, your mileage may and will vary.
+1
Process matters.
-
As somebody who does shoot 8x10, I have a couple of thoughts:
1) Whatever the math and/or technical analysis says, quite frankly there is something about the look, the contrast, the tonality of a large print made from an 8x10 negative that I personally haven't seen in other formats. That's my impression, your mileage may and will vary.
2) The flip side of the coin here is this: how many of you have actually hauled an 8x10 into the field? After spending a week in hospital for hernia repair a few years ago, you wanna know something - even if every "expert" in the world came out and said 8x10 was better than anything else on the planet, it's gotta be pretty darned major or important for me to haul that big beast out.
I'm completely serious about that point. I think it's almost moot to argue optics, pixels, microscope, grain, diffraction - whatever - unless you ground yourself first the real world applicaiton of how often do you haul around a big camera like that. Maybe the question should be along the lines, for a given situation or location, what is the biggest camera you can take with you, and in that case, does or will it make a difference.
If not, hey, I seen guys do 20x24 contact prints if you really want to push the envelope...
:)
Fair points. Let's agree to disagree on the first one. I will concede that I do like my images crisp and crunchy, so as much as I've shot 8x10, I'm not a big fan and never will be.
Your second point is a total winner. I've lugged my 5x4 up hill and down dale many a time. I shot in the field with a pair of Sinar Zoom backs for many years on both a Sinar P and later on a Horseman LX. I was never pig headed enough to take the 8x10 out in the field. With the Iq180/Alpa combo, we are talking about a camera capable of meeting or exceeding the quality of an 8x10 but which you can comfortably hold in one hand.
That is pure gold.
-
Yup, digital has more detail and film has more character. What would you like to say today?
-
Well,
Regarding the tonalities, with digital you can create whatever tonality you want. It's just to learn using curves. And no, I didn't say it is easy! With the photochemical process you are also working with curves, depending on film and paper manufacturer, developer and your processing.
I was scanning negative film recently, and found the colors interesting. I could probably reproduce them in LR but it may take some effort. There is a guy making film presets using spectrometer on real film and calculating adjustment for LR. I sort of left film behind me, so I'm not really interested.
Best regards
Erik
Fair points. Let's agree to disagree on the first one. I will concede that I do like my images crisp and crunchy, so as much as I've shot 8x10, I'm not a big fan and never will be.
Your second point is a total winner. I've lugged my 5x4 up hill and down dale many a time. I shot in the field with a pair of Sinar Zoom backs for many years on both a Sinar P and later on a Horseman LX. I was never pig headed enough to take the 8x10 out in the field. With the Iq180/Alpa combo, we are talking about a camera capable of meeting or exceeding the quality of an 8x10 but which you can comfortably hold in one hand.
That is pure gold.
-
In the update to the article the author has increased the quality of the color film in some way to show the hint of grain. Thanks, I appreciate it, It does look like this setup was maxed out. I would still increase the res, run NN, run deconvolution sharpening. The image seems scanned with a flatbed not a drum scanner. The telltale sign is the gaussian blur type softness which is from the two sides of a piece of plain glass very close to the focus plain. My flatbed has the same effect.
I will still provide a velvia sample on the weekend.
-
Hello Fine Art,
I’m curious to what you are trying to prove here?
Cheers
Simon
-
A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. No more is that true.
So you are saying Fatali's work is now soft?
-
I also don't understand the real meaning of doing such a test. I simply remember the numerous (very) large prints I have seen from 8x10", up to 4 x 3 m, and I as well remember the resolution/sharpness I could see with my eyes in front of it. Being it flatness of the film, unprecise focus, not adjusted camera, stability of the camera or other vibrations, etc ..., this "softness" was always there, at close observation of these prints.
Something which I certainly did not see with digital sensors of the current generation and the best lenses used novadays with these digital sensors.
Thierry
Thiery,
at 3x4m you'll probably note some sort of softness on any non-stitched capture format on close inspection. Or are you trying to say a perfectly focused 80 MP can be magnified to 3x4m and still be tack sharp when viewed up close?
Here is a repost from an older thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=48241.msg402977#msg402977) where I posted an 8x10" sample showing some of the formats potential:
(http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_120ppi.jpg)
This has been my first 8x10" capture. Even though I like the image itself there are a few problems that make it unusable, the bellows shading only being the most obvious. Every step up in format opens new pitfalls to pay attention to.
The lens was a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S 240mm at f/16 on Fuji Pro 160S for a little over six minutes exposure time. In fact I scanned this image at 4500 ppi (1.5 GP and 10 GB file size). Back then I was still trying to find the right master file size for my 8x10" images. I even scanned a central chunk of that film at 6000 ppi. At that resolution the full image would be 2.65 gigapixel in a massive 17 GB file. Are there any RIPs that could handle such a file?
I prepared crops at different resolutions to give you an idea on how much pixel density you need to store detail at various contrasts. The crops were sharpened and saved as quality 12 jpegs. From there you can draw your own conclusions.
6000 ppi - 2.65 GP (http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_6000ppi_crop_s.jpg)
4500 ppi - 1.50 GP (http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_4500ppi_crop_s.jpg) (this is a 100% crop from the master file)
2400 ppi - 400 MP (http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_2400ppi_crop_s.jpg) (downsized from the 4500 ppi scan)
1440 ppi - 150 MP (http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_1440ppi_crop_s.jpg) (downsized from the 4500 ppi scan)
I didn't bother to spot the file. Spotting a multi-GB file is a laborious and time consuming process.
I wonder how a perfectly focused IQ180 file would take the upscaling into these large format dimensions.
On the aperture choice:
You have to keep the size of the format in perspective. f/32 is a common working aperture on 8x10". Yes, there might be some slight gain in resolution at the center of the image at f/16 or f/22, and if you want to fully exploit the format's potential these apertures are usable with some modern LF lens designs. But the risk of sacrificing some areas of the shot due to a slightly misaligned standard or issues with film flatness may lead you to play it safe and stop down to f/32 or f/45. And even f/64 is not so bad with such a large format. The effect is similar to what f/14 does to an 80 MP back.
-Dominique
-
Hello Fine Art,
I’m curious to what you are trying to prove here?
Cheers
Simon
My point is not to claim film is superior.
If the test was about how easily you can get an 80MP image done via two methods (workflow) there would be no issue. Even assuming I'm right that 8x10 film has much higher resolution, the 80MP back could do 4 stitched shots in the same amount of workflow time.
The issue is the test made a claim with resolution crops as proof. The test seems to be about resolution when presented this way. I do not think it is a fair test of films potential at this size.
-
Thiery,
at 3x4m you'll probably note some sort of softness on any non-stitched capture format on close inspection. Or are you trying to say a perfectly focused 80 MP can be magnified to 3x4m and still be tack sharp when viewed up close?
Here is a repost from an older thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=48241.msg402977#msg402977) where I posted an 8x10" sample showing some of the formats potential:
(http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_120ppi.jpg)
This has been my first 8x10" capture. Even though I like the image itself there are a few problems that make it unusable, the bellows shading only being the most obvious. Every step up in format opens new pitfalls to pay attention to.
The lens was a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S 240mm at f/16 on Fuji Pro 160S for a little over six minutes exposure time. In fact I scanned this image at 4500 ppi (1.5 GP and 10 GB file size). Back then I was still trying to find the right master file size for my 8x10" images. I even scanned a central chunk of that film at 6000 ppi. At that resolution the full image would be 2.65 gigapixel in a massive 17 GB file. Are there any RIPs that could handle such a file?
I prepared crops at different resolutions to give you an idea on how much pixel density you need to store detail at various contrasts. The crops were sharpened and saved as quality 12 jpegs. From there you can draw your own conclusions.
6000 ppi - 2.65 GP (http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_6000ppi_crop_s.jpg)
4500 ppi - 1.50 GP (http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_4500ppi_crop_s.jpg) (this is a 100% crop from the master file)
2400 ppi - 400 MP (http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_2400ppi_crop_s.jpg) (downsized from the 4500 ppi scan)
1440 ppi - 150 MP (http://www.high-end-scans.de/img/bilder/web/DV091221_01_1440ppi_crop_s.jpg) (downsized from the 4500 ppi scan)
I didn't bother to spot the file. Spotting a multi-GB file is a laborious and time consuming process.
I wonder how a perfectly focused IQ180 file would take the upscaling into these large format dimensions.
On the aperture choice:
You have to keep the size of the format in perspective. f/32 is a common working aperture on 8x10". Yes, there might be some slight gain in resolution at the center of the image at f/16 or f/22, and if you want to fully exploit the format's potential these apertures are usable with some modern LF lens designs. But the risk of sacrificing some areas of the shot due to a slightly misaligned standard or issues with film flatness may lead you to play it safe and stop down to f/32 or f/45. And even f/64 is not so bad with such a large format. The effect is similar to what f/14 does to an 80 MP back.
-Dominique
Ok, now run your own noise routine on the 4500dpi sample. Then sharpen, preferably with a deconvolution. Anyone can see 4500dpi is a reasonable scan density for a fine film.
-
In the update to the article the author has increased the quality of the color film in some way to show the hint of grain. Thanks, I appreciate it, It does look like this setup was maxed out. I would still increase the res, run NN, run deconvolution sharpening. The image seems scanned with a flatbed not a drum scanner. The telltale sign is the gaussian blur type softness which is from the two sides of a piece of plain glass very close to the focus plain. My flatbed has the same effect.
Rubbish, the Dainippon is a high end drum scanner costing over $100,000 when new!
See http://www.kitmondo.com/viewlisting.aspx?lid=373290&prodName=Dainippon_Screen-SG-608-MKII
That doesn't mean the operator was worthy of using it though. ::)
-
But in this test, and it is valid, the DoF was to be set at similar levels.
Except it wasn't. f/32 on 8x10 won't give you the same DOF as f/16 in 645.
For example -
8x10 w/240mm lens @ f/32 focusing on a point 10 feet away - DOF 11 feet
645 w/60mm lens @ f/16 focusing on a point 10 feet away - DOF 23 feet
You can play around with this here - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html
Also, try scanning film at 700 spi and 4000 spi, there is a very noticeably difference. Don't believe me? Look at Tim's example here - http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=780374&postcount=6
-
A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. No more is that true.
I think you misunderstood Slobodan's quote, he didn't claim that film is sharper but only that is far from soft! IMO sharpness/noise are far from the first aspect I consider to judge a good print, DR is though.... I will agree with most people in this thread that resolution-wise and noise-wise film has been surpassed, I would also say that there is no point of using positive anymore, but with negative film, there is some irreplaceable extra highlight DR that digital is still missing! Besides that, there are many modern pictures that I would prefer with less detail or with a little more noise.... and I don't mean what can added digitally in PP... In my view resolution/noise is not a panacea for a good print, I guess it all depends on the subject, who for example loves J.Koudelka's or C.Bresson's pictures because of their resolution/noise characteristics? OTOH with film you can always print (much) larger than digital's 72dpi. I do believe that digital will catch up with the remaining film advantages, but judgement day hasn't arrived yet.... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Thank you SCHWARZZEIT for posting those crops of the 8x10. Those are MUCH sharper than Mr. Zuber's crops from his test, and your crops are from scans that are much LARGER.
Look, I'm 100% digital. I have no reason to say that 8x10 film is better than digital...
But is it me, or are the crops from Mr. Zuber's test just completely soft? It's like NOTHING is in focus. Film isn't THAT bad, is it? Bad test, IMO.
Let's shoot a portrait or something. Don't even make it a comparison against digital.
Let's do a test to see if you can actually get something to look sharp on 8x10" film.
Screw those wide shots with small apertures where you just hope that something is in focus. Shoot SOMETHING. Shoot an isolated object on 8x10, make "only" a 100MP scan, and lets see if anything is ACTUALLY IN F*CKING FOCUS!
-
Dominique,
Yes, that's what I am saying, nothing more, but nothing less either.
Far from me the thoughts that such a 8x10" (with perfect focus, flatness of the film, alignment of the standards, critical f-stop, etc ...) enlargement is not up to the task, in the contrary, it is another world as compared to even 4x5".
As for digital, yes, I have seen such enlargements, taken with 2, 3 or 4 stitched 33 MP sensor files, with digital HR lenses, which didn't have more "softness" at close inspection, in the contrary.
What I am trying to say, without any "racism" or "animosity" against film (or 8x10" in this instance) is what Bryan said so well in his post:
"... the “legendary” status of 8x10 as the image quality champion is just that – a legend" (see the arguments given by Bryan in his post).
Thierry
Thiery,
at 3x4m you'll probably note some sort of softness on any non-stitched capture format on close inspection...
Dominique
-
Hi,
I have no doubt that 8x10" film can "outperform" any digital back today under ideal conditions. But ideal conditions may be hard to achieve. Alpa and other companies try very hard to build cameras that help achieve ideal conditions on MFDBs.
There are only two ways to compare two imaging systems. Either test them under well defined lab conditions or shot the exactly same scenario at the same time with both equipments. The second way is much more error prone.
In the current test it seems at least to me that correct focus has not been achieved on 8x10" at some stage of the image pipeline. The author confirms that the film does not contain more detail. Quite possible that more detail could be extracted by sharpening a higher resolution scan. We don't know until it had been tried.
In smaller formats image quality is really going downhill when stopping down beyond f/16. At f/22 something like 75% of the resolution is lost. One mm movement of the focusing plane would cause a defocus disc of 31 microns. I don't know about film flatness, lens alignment, film to groundglass alignment and so on in 8x10" cameras but all those points need to be zeroed out for ideal results, all the time, because you cannot zoom in the film to actual pixels to check focus in the field.
Diffraction is law of physics so if the effects of diffraction cannot be observed it essentially indicates that the system is lacking resolution to begin with.
This series shows the effects of diffraction, unfortunately only from f/4 - f/16. The tests were done using studio flash and the flash had a 5 step range.
Left column is lens aberration and diffraction. Moving to right we have increasing amount of defocus. Topright image is sharp according to normal DoF scales. This test was done using an APS-C camera, but diffraction would be the same whatever system would be used.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1
Best regards
Erik
Dominique,
Yes, that's what I am saying, nothing more, but nothing less either.
Far from me the thoughts that such a 8x10" (with perfect focus, flatness of the film, alignment of the standards, critical f-stop, etc ...) enlargement is not up to the task, in the contrary, it is another world as compared to even 4x5".
As for digital, yes, I have seen such enlargements, taken with 2, 3 or 4 stitched 33 MP sensor files, with digital HR lenses, which didn't have more "softness" at close inspection, in the contrary.
What I am trying to say, without any "racism" or "animosity" against film (or 8x10" in this instance) is what Bryan said so well in his post:
"... the “legendary” status of 8x10 as the image quality champion is just that – a legend" (see the arguments given by Bryan in his post).
Thierry
-
Dominique,
Yes, that's what I am saying, nothing more, but nothing less either.
Far from me the thoughts that such a 8x10" (with perfect focus, flatness of the film, alignment of the standards, critical f-stop, etc ...) enlargement is not up to the task, in the contrary, it is another world as compared to even 4x5".
As for digital, yes, I have seen such enlargements, taken with 2, 3 or 4 stitched 33 MP sensor files, with digital HR lenses, which didn't have more "softness" at close inspection, in the contrary.
What I am trying to say, without any "racism" or "animosity" against film (or 8x10" in this instance) is what Bryan said so well in his post:
"... the “legendary” status of 8x10 as the image quality champion is just that – a legend" (see the arguments given by Bryan in his post).
Thierry
+1
Without a doubt this is true. 8x10 its quality is a legend. Of course, everyone respects that takes pictures 8x10. I do it for pleasure. When it comes to quality, I think that this word is quite capacious. For an artist, other factors also determine the quality of his mind. (Grain, depth of field - something that can not be no substitute) For a commercial photographer, are the other factors - the image smoothness and sharpness. In this regard, 8x10 has long ago been in the back and should be reconciled.
-
Hi
It is not surprising to me that there are a lot of comments and emotions coming upon this article.
First of all it was not my goal to see which system does a better job! Both systems have their qualities and there has been a lot written here which I would not like to add once again. However I have a problem if I hear that digital should be used for commercial jobs only and analogue for personal/art work. The reason for art should not be how it was made but how it looks and what it tells you.
In our workshops I quite often get the feeling that people do not know how to manage their digital files because they have too many possibilities. Interestingly the image is already there - in the contrary to a scan from a negative - but this seems to be more embarrassing for "seeing" the final image in your mind as if everything is still open.
As we all know, people tend to get over sharpen and over saturate digital images - possibly because they can get a crispness now they did not have with film. However the contrary is possible: you can get the same smoothness as you have had with film when working on digital files - but he process is delicate. I am sure you agree that it is easier to loose detail than getting details out of nothing...
If you prepare and print your own images, you have a huge amount of possibilities. If you print your images on uncoated or self coated rag paper there is a lot of smoothness you can bring in. Or try printing with carbon pigment inks on glossy or rag paper - and you will get stunning results if the files are good. However out of the box digital has a clean look - and black and white is even more difficult.
I do not want to enter in these topics much deeper but just want to mention that we will rescan the negatives and see if there is more to be seen within them - and the results will be made public again.
I reply to this post because there are some issues/open questions I would like to make clear. Anyhow: first I wanted to publish an article on my experience with IQ180 but Michael asked me to include a comparison with 8x10"...
Focussing:
I have stopped using AF with wide angles and long tele lenses since it is never as precise as using live view. This is probably due to the fact that you never really know where the focus spot is for the DF camera - or you might want to choose a different one in the foreground. It does not work - as I have experienced tilting down the camera, use AF lock and swing up again for your shot - don't ask my why but for me it does not work. With the 55 mm AF is ok at distances between 3 and 10 m. If you have an image as we took for the comparison or even with a horizon at infinity you can be quite sure that the objects far away will not be in focus. This has been confirmed by a colleague of mine using the 55 mm on the DF camera with the IQ180 in the Swiss alps.
Focussing a tele lens for me is easier because you have less elements in your image. Look through a DF's finder with a 28 or 40 mm and you think that everything is sharp. Click on the AF button and the camera does something. You will see if the image is sharp when you check the image thereafter. I have tried using a 3x magnifier by Brightscreen but it did not help with wideangles. It helps with the 250 mm SA however.
On the Alpa I have shimmed it to infinity for the 28 mm - and use live view now for all lenses since even the new screen is too coarse for checking sharpness precise enough.
As for checking focus on the IQ screen of course you are at pixel level with 100 % - however it is the same as focussing in the viewfinder: less elements in a 110 mm shot with clearer details (e.g. details within leaves).
Sharpness does - unfortunately - not only have to do with focussing only. It also has to do with vibration. And this is a huge handycap with the DF camera. The shutter allows me to use the 250 mm lens at shutter speeds of 1/200 and shorter. Others have seen the same with the 300 mm Mamiya lens or even with the 150 mm Phase/Mamiya lens. Even the 55 mm leafshutter lens suffers vibration at longer exposure time (1/30 and longer). No need to say that I am using mirror up with a delay of 4 secs!
This all becomes visible with higher resolution. There was a big jump from the P45 to the P65+ - and now again to the IQ180.
The reason for using f16 on the 55 mm and the 110 lens was to get the same visible (!) depth of field as we had with f32 on film. We are not talking about numbers here. I did all shots with f-stops from f5.6 to f22 - and chose the "right" ones on my computer. There is of course more absolute sharpness in f8 or f11 - with the 55 mm f14 sometimes is still quite good - bit this f-stop does not exist on the Schneider lens.
As for film resolution: if you would use a technical film with a high resolution lens - there could be quite a lot more information than what we see here - but this is hypothetical for field use. And I am talking about the field/everyday use!
As for the dynamic range, colors and noise - exposure to the right - I am talking about the correct exposure when compared to a DSLR. Good DSLRs RAW files (whatever that is ;)) taken with a CMOS are IMHO easier to handle when underexposed. Or to say it in other words: I see more troubles opening shadows and recovering colors with the IQ180 or the P65+ than with a 5D Mk II.
However at ISO35 with good exposure the dynamic range of a IQ180 is huge and the noise is virtually not existing. I apply no noise reduction at all in Capture One. Quite often, mainly with fog, it makes sense using the "linear response" since "film gradation" closes shadows too much.
So another 5 cents from me - I am glad if at least some of you appreciate my article ;)
Markus
I have not yet read any of the previous posts as I was busy writing this post. Apologies if some have already addressed the points I make here.
This is a commentary on the recent article by Markus Zuber, published on Luminous Landscape. If you haven’t read it yet : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml
Marks statement “ Knowing well that the AF does not really serve well at least with the 55” has me wondering if his generalization means I’ve missed out on some commonly known wisdom. I happen to own the 55, 80 and 110 Schneiders and they focus spot-on in AF. I have a few friends who have no focus problems with their 55’s in AF mode.
A word of caution about diffraction. MF tech cam lenses of recent design are optimised for use at much larger apertures than conventional wisdom suggests. This is compounded by pixel-level diffraction increasing as pixel sizes get smaller. My 23HR digaron for example, is noticeably softer at f16 than at f8 on my IQ180. The difference was not as obvious on my P65+ which has slightly larger pixels. However, this lens is so good, I am happy shooting at f5.6, provided I can focus accurately.
“The film could easily reveal more details, if they would be projected to it’s surface”.
“Film could easily reveal more details”.
“As we have seen with all Phase One backs, it is very important to get as much to the right as possible (I assume Markus means on the histogram). Underexposed images suffer from noise and bad colours”.
I fail to understand how the screen in the IQ displays an image from a 110mm lens any differently from a 28mm. It’s displaying the same proportion of both images at whatever percentage of magnification you’ve chosen. It’s value as a focus checking device seems to me to be identical whatever lens I attach.
A big thank you to Markus for taking the time not only to run these tests, but also for taking the time to document and share it with us all.
With respect,
-
Thanks Markus for your time doing this and the related article.
Thierry
Hi
It is not surprising to me that there are a lot of comments and emotions coming upon this article.
Markus
-
+1
Erik
Thanks Markus for your time doing this and the related article.
Thierry
-
as somebody who regularly shot with 10x8 there is only one test i need to do.
load sheet of 10x8 as fast as possible > shoot picture > remove sheet of 10x8 film and place in front of computer screen > ask client if he likes the shot?
is client happy?
yes: keep shooting on your superfast portable 10x8 camera.
No: use a DB/dslr and keep happy clients.
these theoretical/mathmatical comparisons are only useful for measurebators not photographers. if you are unsure of the suitability of a piece of kit you don't ask a scientist/mathematician or the person who sells or makes the equipment you ask somebody who makes a living from using it.
-
First of all it was not my goal to see which system does a better job!
I thought this was the premise of your article - "But until last week I was always asking myself where the quality level would be if compared to a drum scanned 8x10 inch film..". That sounds an aweful lot like a system comparison.
I do not want to enter in these topics much deeper but just want to mention that we will rescan the negatives and see if there is more to be seen within them - and the results will be made public again.
That isn't going to fix any focusing issues. You state that you chose f/stops to match apparent DOF, but unless your focus point was really far away (you don't state in your test) it's not possible that DOF was similar. Maybe you saw it that way, but it wasn't.
Personally, I have no emotional ties to film. I'd prefer to shoot digital if I could get the same prints at a similar/reasonable cost, but for now I shoot 4x5 for landscape because it's cheap, although if I could justify the cost I may still wait a bit for the technology (live view etc) to mature another generation or two. However, I do have an emotional response to bad tests.
I'm a product manager by profession, a lot of what I do involves testing multiple iterations of products and measuring outcomes to inform product decisions. If something is measurable, you always measure it, and you run your tests multiple times before drawing conclusions. Granted, there's usually millions of dollars behind these products so the possible costs of a bad test are much higher then some grumblings on a forum. However, there's more to it then just that.
You're publishing on a site that receives a lot of traffic and is likely a source of "pro" level information for a lot of readers, many who may just be getting into this hobby. Do you think the level of testing provided is really reflective of what you want to show to someone that may be considering shooting either of these systems? What if the result of your test is a decrease in new entrants to large format photography, simply because they viewed a flawed test on this site?
-
as somebody who regularly shot with 10x8 there is only one test i need to do.
load sheet of 10x8 as fast as possible > shoot picture > remove sheet of 10x8 film and place in front of computer screen > ask client if he likes the shot?
is client happy?
yes: keep shooting on your superfast portable 10x8 camera.
No: use a DB/dslr and keep happy clients.
these theoretical/mathmatical comparisons are only useful for measurebators not photographers. if you are unsure of the suitability of a piece of kit you don't ask a scientist/mathematician or the person who sells or makes the equipment you ask somebody who makes a living from using it.
Do you charge the same for film or digital? Regards Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
-
I picked an old slide that shows the fine lines of mortar between brick. I don't mind loading this one on the net.
This has had noise ninja applied. It has not been sharpened with a deconvolution. the full frame cropped shot is 1000 pixels across from 35mm The closeup of the bricks with 2 heads moving by, shows detail and proves it wasn't another shot with a longer lens. Its clear its a very small section of the 35 millimeters.
Feel free to run you own sharpening or whatever on it. I think this, along with the independent samples provided by another member on page 2, show a fine film should be scanned at over 4000 pixels per inch equivalent. That puts an 8x10 at over 300 megapixels.
Of course digital is much easier to work with. Like the article author, I would easily prefer to use an 80MP back over 8x10. Let's just represent film as a perfectly useable, cheaper method of getting very large shots.
-
Hi,
I absolutely agree that film is a very economical way of achiving large images, especially if the equipment is already at hand. I guess that assembling an 8x10" equipment from scratch is not exactly cheap either.
Digital has on the other hand taken prices to new levels.
One point I would make is that all scans I have seen from film are quite soft. This applies to your samples and also to mine and all others. That may be good, it's simply oversampling. But transitions in a slide scanned with high resolution never go over a single pair of pixels.
The enclosed images are taken from a 67 Ektar 100 exposure scanned at 3200 PPI, and significantly sharpened. In my view its pretty similar at the pixel level to your scans. The image is at actual pixels, the original image is about 8100 pixels heigh. The other image is shot with a fullframe 135 DSLR with 24.6MP. The DSLR image was uprezzed to the same size as the scanned image. Funny enough the actual crops are pretty close to the file sizes in the 8x10 test.
One area I'm confused about is the absolute lack of resolution in the red flower on the Ektar image. I had a very similar scan of Velvia [img http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/stories/bild%2044.png /img]
I presume that this may be caused by chromatic aberration in the lens Pentax 67 90/2.8 at f/8 (Velvia shot) f/11 (Ektar shot) or may be characteristic of film.
Best regards
Erik
I picked an old slide that shows the fine lines of mortar between brick. I don't mind loading this one on the net.
This has had noise ninja applied. It has not been sharpened with a deconvolution. the full frame cropped shot is 1000 pixels across from 35mm The closeup of the bricks with 2 heads moving by, shows detail and proves it wasn't another shot with a longer lens. Its clear its a very small section of the 35 millimeters.
Feel free to run you own sharpening or whatever on it. I think this, along with the independent samples provided by another member on page 2, show a fine film should be scanned at over 4000 pixels per inch equivalent. That puts an 8x10 at over 300 megapixels.
Of course digital is much easier to work with. Like the article author, I would easily prefer to use an 80MP back over 8x10. Let's just represent film as a perfectly useable, cheaper method of getting very large shots.
-
Hi Eric,
The red flower problem is from the scanning, not the film. Lets say you have a Dmax 3.8 scanner. It's DR is beyond slides which is why you went to negatives for the more compressed, extended DR. Makes sense. The problem for the scanner is that over 20 stops DR or whatever your negatives are, is way too much for the scanner. Minor differences in tone which would be easily spread out on slides are hard for it to tell apart. The whole flower shows up as a handful of tones. A proper film for matching scanner capability would be between existing slide and negatives.
You can deconvolve film softness quite well. I didn't do it in the samples because I'm on a new computer and I'm waiting for a new version of my software to arrive via mail. The old pc is unstable so i am not using it until i put in a new power supply.
Of course you are right that digital capture pixels look crisper. Its the nature of the pixel blocks. Film looks more organic, more lifelike somehow. Digital can look clinical.
-
Hi,
Thanks for advice, but I don't think that solves the problem. But I'm going to try to check out the Ektar image by other means.
I have seen the same problem on Velvia and on Ektar, also I looked at the Velvia scan with 15X loupe and also with microphotography of the slide. I have not checked the negative film to the same extent, but I'm quite confident that at least the Velvia lacks the details in the actual image. In the Ektar scans I exposed to avoid clipping and had full histogram.
I have done pretty serious work on the Velvia tests, trying to verify everything by other means: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
The Ektar tests are intended as a complement to the above tests.
Hi Eric,
The red flower problem is from the scanning, not the film. Lets say you have a Dmax 3.8 scanner. It's DR is beyond slides which is why you went to negatives for the more compressed, extended DR. Makes sense. The problem for the scanner is that over 20 stops DR or whatever your negatives are, is way too much for the scanner. Minor differences in tone which would be easily spread out on slides are hard for it to tell apart. The whole flower shows up as a handful of tones. A proper film for matching scanner capability would be between existing slide and negatives.
You can deconvolve film softness quite well. I didn't do it in the samples because I'm on a new computer and I'm waiting for a new version of my software to arrive via mail. The old pc is unstable so i am not using it until i put in a new power supply.
Of course you are right that digital capture pixels look crisper. Its the nature of the pixel blocks. Film looks more organic, more lifelike somehow. Digital can look clinical.
-
Hi Eric,
The red flower problem is from the scanning, not the film. Lets say you have a Dmax 3.8 scanner. It's DR is beyond slides which is why you went to negatives for the more compressed, extended DR. Makes sense. The problem for the scanner is that over 20 stops DR or whatever your negatives are, is way too much for the scanner.
I beg to differ on that. The dynamic range that the scannner has to cover is the density range of the film, not the scene that's caught on film. It is true that the scene tonality is much more compressed on negative film than on slide film, due to the inherent contrast differences.
Without seeing the histogram of the Raw scan data (before gamma adjustment), it is not possible to draw conclusions about clipped (flower) colors. It can also be caused by a mismatched color profile. I use Vuescan to drive my scanners, and it allows to optimize the per channel exposure, which is especially beneficial for color negative film which requires an exact compensation for the mask.
Film looks more organic, more lifelike somehow.
I've never seen a sky or other smooth surfaces with graininess in real life when I look at them though...
Digital can look clinical.
But it doesn't have to. One can use a tonecurve with a roll-off at the highlights, and even add grain.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think this, along with the independent samples provided by another member on page 2, show a fine film should be scanned at over 4000 pixels per inch equivalent. That puts an 8x10 at over 300 megapixels.
I disagree. The information per-pixel is very low. If you had scanned at half the samples per inch, you would not have lost any real image information. In fact it's still slightly soft, and equivalent to 'only' 75 megapixels now.
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/dsc07747nn.jpg)
Compare with a test shot I took using the 80MP Leaf Aptus II 12.
Full frame:
(http://moskvamodels.com/images/L_000077-1.jpg)
100% crop:
(http://moskvamodels.com/images/L_000077.jpg)
-
hehe, so besides the scanning question, ( may scan that on a drum or imacon, ).. and besides the size quesiton and workflow of making the imge..
I would have wanted to see the face of the guy who just payed the price of a house, for two 8X10 inch useless 10 mpx digibacks.. :p :p when he reads that article :) :p :p ... yeah yeah i made this to make pola's and then shoot on 8X10 :p hehe yeah right, may be test an IQ first :p :p hehe
-
hehe, so besides the scanning question, ( may scan that on a drum or imacon, ).. and besides the size quesiton and workflow of making the imge..
I would have wanted to see the face of the guy who just payed the price of a house, for two 8X10 inch useless 10 mpx digibacks.. :p :p when he reads that article :) :p :p ... yeah yeah i made this to make pola's and then shoot on 8X10 :p hehe yeah right, may be test an IQ first :p :p hehe
Useless? You seem to be missing the point of polaroids; IQ is not high up on the list of desired features.
-
Hi Eric,
The red flower problem is from the scanning, not the film. Lets say you have a Dmax 3.8 scanner. It's DR is beyond slides which is why you went to negatives for the more compressed, extended DR. Makes sense. The problem for the scanner is that over 20 stops DR or whatever your negatives are, is way too much for the scanner. Minor differences in tone which would be easily spread out on slides are hard for it to tell apart. The whole flower shows up as a handful of tones. A proper film for matching scanner capability would be between existing slide and negatives.
You can deconvolve film softness quite well. I didn't do it in the samples because I'm on a new computer and I'm waiting for a new version of my software to arrive via mail. The old pc is unstable so i am not using it until i put in a new power supply.
Of course you are right that digital capture pixels look crisper. Its the nature of the pixel blocks. Film looks more organic, more lifelike somehow. Digital can look clinical.
+++1. Just to add that with some scanners the scanning is done on a raw file, the export however, is done using the scanners software Raw to ...whatever convertion. IMO, its best not to try and process the image while on the raw file, but export the file with as much processing latitude as possible as a TIFF and create the final image on PS using a fully calibrated monitor. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. A scanner's D-max is its most important factor, scanners with less than 4.5 D-max should not be considered reliable for any serious comparison with digital. OTOH no serious scanning can be considered at less than 4000dpi and 8x multiscan!
-
Digital please. Anyday.
I used to shoot 5x4 and 10x8. I've been shooting with a P65+ for a while now and although I haven't done a side by side comparison, years of shooting 5x4 and 10x8 have given me enough of a personal understanding that the P65+ is at least on par and really I believe better. The very reason why I haven't done a side by side comparison is I could tell in the first instance how much better it was.
I don't miss it in the slightest, even the nostalgia has passed. Only thing I miss is playing around in the darkroom, there was a certain magic in that which i really do miss. Oh and Polaroid - purely for the aesthetic, colour and contrast.
The quality, the mobility, the ease of use, the work flow, it's not even in the same ball park. Quality aside, which is easily better, I don't miss those days of heading to the lab, all the waiting about, the expense of production, laborious capture, missing the moment, getting bad bad scans despite the ridiculous cost, processing the scans ie spotting dust. No thanks, you can keep it.
Also for the simple fact that I have my own procedures with digital and that means I have my own look unique to me. I can shoot tethered, I can move about internationally with some small bag, the speed of turn around. The final nail in the coffin is I can do with digital what ever I like. If I want polaroid-esque colours and contrast then I can do it. If I want stark realism then I can do it. Please, there's no comparison on any level.
If people (and their assistants) want to lug around that old gear and take pictures which are inferior (somehow this is arguable apparently) or lets just agree to disagree and say comparable then i really commend them. For what I'm not sure. But I think it's great if you are happy using what ever you use that makes you happy. If it's your process and it makes you take better pictures than keep on keeping on. It's your hobby and passion then definitely keep it up. If you just prefer the look of it then great, definitely keep it up. But personally I'm glad I'm shooting with the gear I am and there's no way I'd ever go back unless I want to dust off my olde Petzvals.
-
I think we all have a better understanding of pros and cons of each system form this discussion, I know I do from some of these contributions.
Great site!
-
I've never seen a sky or other smooth surfaces with graininess in real life when I look at them though...
But it doesn't have to. One can use a tonecurve with a roll-off at the highlights, and even add grain.
Cheers,
Bart
Agree.
I didn't mean when pixel-peeping, I meant when looking at the whole image.
-
Only thing I miss is playing around in the darkroom, there was a certain magic in that which i really do miss.
That's what Photoshop is for...vastly more power (and less stink) than the chem darkroom. I honestly don't miss that at all (nor the spotting of prints–which while I was good at, hated!
-
That's what Photoshop is for...vastly more power (and less stink) than the chem darkroom. I honestly don't miss that at all (nor the spotting of prints–which while I was good at, hated!
There is nothing stopping you from doing so with your films, although I shoot both DB and film (only negative and no more LF on my P2, its only digital there or 6x9 film), I haven't used my enlarger at all from 2005 onwards. I even scanned and reprocessed digitally most of my old work and will continue to do so until I will finish.... But I don't feel that I will abandon film in the near future, IMO "photography is all about DR" and there are situations that even modern digital falls short there, then there is my Roundshot 220vr and of course the huge prints that are occasionally needed with MF since my back is "only" 22mpx (88 only with "microstep"). Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I disagree. The information per-pixel is very low. If you had scanned at half the samples per inch, you would not have lost any real image information. In fact it's still slightly soft, and equivalent to 'only' 75 megapixels now.
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/dsc07747nn.jpg)
Compare with a test shot I took using the 80MP Leaf Aptus II 12.
Full frame:
(http://moskvamodels.com/images/L_000077-1.jpg)
100% crop:
(http://moskvamodels.com/images/L_000077.jpg)
Here is the window sharpened with deconvolution. Its 200 pixels from the edge of the brick to the right side of the black stripe. Its also 0.049 of the image width. So that is the level of detail at 4079 pixels per inch equivalent. x8x10/1024= 318MP
-
Interesting discussion. If one did not think resolution or technical quality of the image was important, one would not invest in digital medium format or use 8x10 film when there's fine 135 DSLRs. So I'm all for this pixel peeping :-).
-
Forget the pixels and peeping - make a analog print from the 8x10 and one from the IQ180 and then ask normal people to pick which they like best.
Analog print will not be of much use, it will be better if film is scanned and plotted, the image will have to be converted to digital for any professional use. In such a comparison the answer will vary, it will be in favor of digital if its slide, but for negative, even if the film is 120 or 220, It will depend on A. The highlight DR of the chosen scene, B. How contrasty the scene is. C. The lowlight info that is included on the scene and how deep that goes.
Generally somebody will prefer film for its highlights and digital for its lowlights/noise, resolution will be in favor of digital (not by as much as is quoted elsewhere in this threat) but "feeling" might be towards film. The scanning must be at least 4000dpi and the scanner one of more than 4.5 D-MAX in "multiscan" mode (more than 8x scanning), mind you that with a 6x4,5 negative on a Nikon 9000ed in 16x mode, this will mean more than half an hour of scanning, but if the scene is such, it may well worth it! Clearly the quality of scanner/scanning and the quality of the lens chosen for the scene plays a major part. I believe that there is a lot of extreme opinions on this threat (from both sides), that can mislead people -especially newcomers- in wrong conclusions and this is very dangerous! I guess that there is still some place for film (and not only for 8x10, but for 35mm as well), but this is narrowing with tech advancement (as it should) until digital will dispose it completely. My hatch is that I would give it another decade for digital to be able to overcome all its advantages and thus replace it completely. Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
-
The beat goes on...
Let me ruffle some feathers too.
With more than 25 odd years of scanning on high end Hell, Crosfield drum and Scitex flat bed scanners behind me I can honestly and safely say that I have never come across a sharp and chromatic aberration free 4X5, 5X7 or 8X10 inch transparency!!! I would say that 6X6 and 6X7 cm or any other variation on 120 or 220 film outshone their bigger sheet film cousins by far and when one mounted those in oil there was nothing to touch them.
In my opinion the only reason those larger sheets were called for was to spoil the art directors. They could flash them around on light boxes and held up to windows in the days when the advertising industry was sloshing around unashamedly in loads of cash. Without the need for 10x loupes these guys with their very inflated egos were very quick to complain when they saw the proof in final size with all the defects previously mentioned. Then and only then would they run to grab the magnifiers to have a closer look.
Quite often as these big originals had been every where else before turning up to be reproduced, they had by then run a gauntlet of scratches and liquid type marks, stains and of course finger prints and kinks (when a trannie has a kink one will have a heck of a time if mounting in oil to get rid of the air bubbles that gather at the kink) leaving the separated films having to be retouched and yes you guessed at whose expense. Cloning today is a piece of cake then you had four sheets of film to deal with.
I am glad as an amateur that I don't have to visit labs to get my films processed.
I live about 25 km from the city and any where round here when I go to look for some 120 roll film the shop keepers look at me like I just arrived from another planet. If I wanted to have negs or trannies processed I could hand them in locally and wait a week for them to return, I could get them processed the same day but that would be a round trip of 50 km and would have to hang around the city till they would be ready.
I don't live in the highlands of Afghanistan I am here in the capital of Europe...
So I admire anyone who wants the pleasure to lug their large format gear through vales and dales to get their images and then go through all the hassles of bringing them to fruition, it certainly can't be because of better image quality. Enjoy ;D
-
ced,
That is on par with my observations for about the same time of dealing with film and large format.
Let's add to this that the used LF lenses with 4x5" up to 8x10" were not necessarily the most performing optics as compared to MF or SF lenses. Large ICs to cover the format and to offer in addition the necessary movements those LF cameras were built for induce some disadvantages. And that's what LF cameras AND LF lenses were built for, to allow movements like H / V shifts, tilts and swings, to re-frame, to correct perspectives, to adjust sharpness planes. Consequently also the LF film formats have been developed for this purpose, to allow better viewing when doing these movements and adjusting sharpness planes.
Moreover, the (un)flatness of the film can go up to a few mm from center to the edge with 8x10" and up to 1 mm with 4x5", due to the mechanical film-holders and the size of the film, but also due sometimes to films being taken out of the fridge and loaded without waiting for it to be at ambient temperature.
How often did I also meet photographers with LF cameras which had either never or at the best been re-adjusted for parallelism 5 years back or more, or with the standards loose on the rail, or worn out shutters producing vibrations, etc ...
These factors more than often add up.
Again, I do not want to criticize film and LF, I have worked with them successfully and with great fun, and most professional photographers have been (and still are) able to produce wonderful sharp and stunning images by using these LF mediums. So I won't spit in the soup, I have lived with and from it, but let's face the reality.
Thierry
With more than 25 odd years of scanning on high end Hell, Crosfield drum and Scitex flat bed scanners behind me I can honestly and safely say that I have never come across a sharp and chromatic aberration free 4X5, 5X7 or 8X10 inch transparency!!! I would say that 6X6 and 6X7 cm or any other variation on 120 or 220 film outshone their bigger sheet film cousins by far and when one mounted those in oil there was nothing to touch them.
-
ced,
That is on par with my observations for about the same time of dealing with film and large format.
Let's add to this that the used LF lenses with 4x5" up to 8x10" were not necessarily the most performing optics as compared to MF or SF lenses. Large ICs to cover the format and to offer in addition the necessary movements those LF cameras were built for induce some disadvantages. And that's what LF cameras AND LF lenses were built for, to allow movements like H / V shifts, tilts and swings, to re-frame, to correct perspectives, to adjust sharpness planes. Consequently also the LF film formats have been developed for this purpose, to allow better viewing when doing these movements and adjusting sharpness planes.
Moreover, the (un)flatness of the film can go up to a few mm from center to the edge with 8x10" and up to 1 mm with 4x5", due to the mechanical film-holders and the size of the film, but also due sometimes to films being taken out of the fridge and loaded without waiting for it to be at ambient temperature.
How often did I also meet photographers with LF cameras which had either never or at the best been re-adjusted for parallelism 5 years back or more, or with the standards loose on the rail, or worn out shutters producing vibrations, etc ...
These factors more than often add up.
Again, I do not want to criticize film and LF, I have worked with them successfully and with great fun, and most professional photographers have been (and still are) able to produce wonderful sharp and stunning images by using these LF mediums. So I won't spit in the soup, I have lived with and from it, but let's face the reality.
Thierry
Shall we all agree then that LF film photography is useless (like I implemented and the continued quoter CED said?) and that the use of LF cameras is only sensible with MFDBs and perhaps some 120 or 220 film in 6x7 till 6x12? Am I right that sold all my LF lenses and now aim for Mamiya RZ lenses on my P2 (with a sinar auto aperture shutter of course), that have smaller circle and superb resolution for my MFDB? Is the movement capabilities the only benefits that have been left for a view camera? Should anybody that would seek such a camera today look for nothing more than a 2x3? To all the above my answer would be YES, to ...shoot film, ....i've quoted my opinion earlier. Let's have some more discussion in a new base then, ....thanks CED for your quote (and TH for your supplement)! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
This, and the size of the film, which to some extend compensates the "average" (as compared to MF and SF lenses) lens quality with less enlargement for the same final print.
Thierry
... Is the movement capabilities the only benefits that have been left for a view camera? ... Theodoros
-
Hi,
everything you write about the problems with LF is true. LF especially 8x10 is a hassle. Around 2001 I sold all my film equipment. 35mm, MF and LF and continued digitally.
But for a portrait project I started 3 or 4 years ago I wanted to try/use 8x10 and b&w film (lenses: Sironar 300 / ApoRonar 360mm / Fujinon W360 / Sinaron 360). To find out whether this is the right thing to to I compared my initial tests it with digital cameras 5DMkII/50L/85L and Hasselblad/100mm (to find f-stops with comparable dof and eye-sharpness, I prefered the look of the canon, the images looked more "LF" than with the Hasselblad). Because I still was not sure whether 8x10 is worth the extra work I shot the first 40 portraits parallel with the 5D Mark II and the 50L/85L (I mounted the 8x10 and the canon side by side and pressed the shutters parallel). I even filmed the sessions with the 5D.
I scanned the negatives and printed them with Epson printers (4000/9880/9890) and on chemical baryta papers in sizes between 8x10 and 16x20. I did the same with the 5D files. I also added the 8x10 film border to the digital files to mimic the film appearance.
My result: 8x10 inch is worth the extra work. Everyone who sees the images likes the 8x10 versions better (I did a lot of blind comparisons, asked people or myself to sort the images in two stacks). For me that was a strange experience. Especially because I do only 2-4 sheets per person and some more digital captures. I have no "real" explanation for it. Today I have approximately 70 portraits on 8x10 inch an every time I do the next I ask myself is 8x10 necessary? The 5D is so much lighter and easier to use. But the result asks for the extra effort.
Best,
Johannes
Yes, that´s what I was wondering about when reading this thread. Trying to maximise the DOF in 8x10 and compare it to a "small" digital MF size, where should this lead to? Max DOF is exactly where 8x10 has its greatest downsides. It´s the shallow DOF where 8x10 shines, where it is more than a legend. We´ve also made the same experience with a portrait, we did not even use film, only went with polaroid. The final image was printed reduced to 6x7cm in size and even in this small size it had something very special, anything between strength and softness, hard to explain.
Haven´t used 8x10 for several years now, but everything is still here and I´m actually very tempted to get it back to work once more...
Cheers, Ulf
-
I think that these are two completely different worlds. What else comes to us when we use 8x10, and what else we want to achieve by using the DB. I think the scanning and printing large-format printer for 8x10 is sacrilege. Contact Sheet is the essence of 8x10. It is about the unique atmosphere of these pictures. That's my 2 cents.
Best regards,
DF
-
Shall we all agree then that LF film photography is useless (like I implemented and the continued quoter CED said?) and that the use of LF cameras is only sensible with MFDBs and perhaps some 120 or 220 film in 6x7 till 6x12?
That's absurd, a position probably the entire membership of the thriving largeformatphotography.info forum would disagree with.
It's funny how it seems to be only the (purely) digital guys who even care about analog vs. digital discussion. It's so 2006.
-
The contention continues to be make it easier on yourself, throw money at it. The break even point demands a lot of volume. Years ago when I got my Mamiyas, RB67 for studio, 645 super with finder, they were $400 each at Adorama. I admit i don't use them much due to the convenience of the DSLRs. When I do need the big shot, it does not cost much.
E-6 (Slides and Transparencies)
2 Hours Normal Process
135-36 unmounted $8.00
135-24 unmounted $7.00
135-36 mounted $10.50
135-24 mounted $9.00
120 format $7.50
220 format $14.00
4x5 format $3.00
5x7 format $7.00
8x10 format $10.50
Mounting only $5.50
It takes a lot of those plus film cost to come up to the >$50,000 for the latest digital backs. Long before you will have broken even the back will be a toy compared to the latest that is being hawked. For most people 4 or 9 shots with a 645 will deliver the big gallery print. Bringing in money rather than sending it to the bank for your MFDB loan.
-
That's exactly the point where many make the mistake. Use the equipment you have invested in, if the quality of the images produced by the DB and the lenses has been up to the task at the beginning of your investment it continues to be many years after. LF photographers were investing in a LF camera, and did not "upgrade" for decades, sometimes for a lifetime. I know that the product cycles are not longer comparable but still, am believing that a nice "old" 22 MPx sensor, may be a multi-shot version does still produce 99% of the needed or requested quality.
Thierry
... Long before you will have broken even the back will be a toy compared to the latest that is being hawked ...
-
That's exactly the point where many make the mistake. Use the equipment you have invested in, if the quality of the images produced by the DB and the lenses has been up to the task at the beginning of your investment it continues to be many years after. LF photographers were investing in a LF camera, and did not "upgrade" for decades, sometimes for a lifetime. I know that the product cycles are not longer comparable but still, am believing that a nice "old" 22 MPx sensor, may be a multi-shot version does still produce 99% of the needed or requested quality.
That's of course how it is in theory, but I'm always surprised by how even many pros seem to be convinced by "SHINY!" new camera or back, and drop five figures on a marginal upgrade every few years. 22MP was plenty five years ago, then it was 65, now 80. WITH LIVE VIEW. MUST HAVE NAO.
I'm sure there's some (perceived or real) need to stay relevant at the high end pros with MFDBs work in, but I'm sure there's also some lack of understanding of ROI which I've talked about in another thread, and pure geekery.
In fairness, "upgrading" an analog camera is as easy as changing to a new film emulsion. Then again, new game-changing films came around only once every decade or so.
-
Hi,
That is one side of it.
Another side:
I bought a Pentax 67, 45/4, 90/2.8, 165/2.8, 300/4 and an 1.4x extender for perhaps 4k$. Than I needed a slide projector and bought a Götschman 67 for 3 kUSD. Than I wanted to scan so I got a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi for another three grand and finally upgraded to a Scan Multi Pro for another three grand. Now most of it collects dust, as I went digital in 2004. But yes, do you happen to have what you need, large format would be economical.
Best regards
Erik
The contention continues to be make it easier on yourself, throw money at it. The break even point demands a lot of volume. Years ago when I got my Mamiyas, RB67 for studio, 645 super with finder, they were $400 each at Adorama. I admit i don't use them much due to the convenience of the DSLRs. When I do need the big shot, it does not cost much.
E-6 (Slides and Transparencies)
2 Hours Normal Process
135-36 unmounted $8.00
135-24 unmounted $7.00
135-36 mounted $10.50
135-24 mounted $9.00
120 format $7.50
220 format $14.00
4x5 format $3.00
5x7 format $7.00
8x10 format $10.50
Mounting only $5.50
It takes a lot of those plus film cost to come up to the >$50,000 for the latest digital backs. Long before you will have broken even the back will be a toy compared to the latest that is being hawked. For most people 4 or 9 shots with a 645 will deliver the big gallery print. Bringing in money rather than sending it to the bank for your MFDB loan.
-
That's exactly the point where many make the mistake. Use the equipment you have invested in, if the quality of the images produced by the DB and the lenses has been up to the task at the beginning of your investment it continues to be many years after. LF photographers were investing in a LF camera, and did not "upgrade" for decades, sometimes for a lifetime. I know that the product cycles are not longer comparable but still, am believing that a nice "old" 22 MPx sensor, may be a multi-shot version does still produce 99% of the needed or requested quality.
Thierry
You almost made my portrait here, but I have to disagree in using multishot or microstep where things can't be absolutely still (by all means do so if they are still). If I was to seek more resolution or DR than my 528c when things move, I would use negative film on my Contax645 and if there was a need for movements...., then the DB or 120 film would jump on the P2 (although I admit I would try to cheat first and keep the Contax as much as possible). In my view the product cycles are shorter only as far as digital is concerned, thats why I am totally against the insane policy of some MFDB manufacturers to "close" their systems and vanish the older but very capable digital equipment from the S/H market whenever they get a trade! I wonder how they can't see that their policy is suicidal and they also kill smaller companies like Alpa or Silvestri that only try to keep the legend alive. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
It takes a lot of those plus film cost to come up to the >$50,000 for the latest digital backs.
The $10 processing fee doesn't tell the whole story. By the time you've shot 1000 frames, you've spent $12K in film, $10K in processing, and if you drum scan just 1 shot in 20, then that's another $10K. A total of $32K, and with nothing to resell at the end. That's $32 per frame (average) and 95% of the film is still unscanned.
My Leaf Aptus II 12 was 'only' $32K. I could take 10,000 frames with it over a year, then resell it for a $10K loss. That's 10,000 photos for $10K, or $1 each. And all are digitized (we only scanned a small proportion of the film shots in the comparison. And I haven't even mentioned all the time and money spent on trips to and from film dealer, lab, scanner, etc). Even if you took the same low volume of photos, it would only be $10 per frame.
Very few types of commercial photography could be carried out with so few exposures per year, making this comparison moot for all except for a few landscape or fine art guys.
The break even point according to the above method would be 313 frames a year (i.e. 313 frames of 8x10 film costs about same as 1 year depreciation of 80MP back, almost unlimited shots, based on above figures). And an extra bonus for digital - the depreciation slows down, making the shots even cheaper the longer you keep the back. The film costs stay the same.
-
The $10 processing fee doesn't tell the whole story. By the time you've shot 1000 frames, you've spent $12K in film, $10K in processing, and if you drum scan just 1 shot in 20, then that's another $10K. A total of $32K, and with nothing to resell at the end. That's $32 per frame (average) and 95% of the film is still unscanned.
My Leaf Aptus II 12 was 'only' $32K. I could take 10,000 frames with it over a year, then resell it for a $10K loss. That's 10,000 photos for $10K, or $1 each. And all are digitized (we only scanned a small proportion of the film shots in the comparison. And I haven't even mentioned all the time and money spent on trips to and from film dealer, lab, scanner, etc). Even if you took the same low volume of photos, it would only be $10 per frame.
Very few types of commercial photography could be carried out with so few exposures per year, making this comparison moot for all except for a few landscape or fine art guys.
The break even point according to the above method would be 313 frames a year (i.e. 313 frames of 8x10 film costs about same as 1 year depreciation of 10MP back, almost unlimited shots).
OK Graham, but do you need its 80mpx for each one of the 10000 shots? How did you cope up to now with your 22mpx sinarback? I mean that if the 80mpx are needed only for 100 out of the 10000 shots, then perhaps you could cope with the 22mpx and 10 rolls of 120 film annually! At least that is what I am doing and I do have the true color of the multishot or 88mpx with microstep when I reproduce copies of Byzantine Ikons for the church! All that with only a fraction of 32k!! Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
-
Exactly, agreed.
I would say luckily for the DB and some DSLR MF camera manufacturers. Somehow, I have the feeling that DBs and cameras built/stuffed with sensors, electronics, automatisms, etc ... have less (emotional) value in our minds (and I count myself in), than a good old LF view or tech camera. "RIO" has indeed less a place here than "shiny" and "staying relevant". It is clear that this has become much more important than the economics of the equation, for many. It is in no way a negative critic, just an observation.
Thierry
That's of course how it is in theory, but I'm always surprised by how even many pros seem to be convinced by "SHINY!" new camera or back, and drop five figures on a marginal upgrade every few years. 22MP was plenty five years ago, then it was 65, now 80. WITH LIVE VIEW. MUST HAVE NAO.
I'm sure there's some (perceived or real) need to stay relevant at the high end pros with MFDBs work in, but I'm sure there's also some lack of understanding of ROI which I've talked about in another thread, and pure geekery.
In fairness, "upgrading" an analog camera is as easy as changing to a new film emulsion. Then again, new game-changing films came around only once every decade or so.
-
Hi,
In my view, live view is one the most important developments. LV means that the sensor image is used for viewing and focusing. LV makes pin point focusing possible. AF doesn't do, ground glass focusing doesn't probably either. Using a shimmed Alpa with a laser rangefinder would do it at long range, but perhaps less well for close up work. Anyway, the Alpa is an impressive design.
Now, I understand that LV on MFDB is in it's infancy, but the basic technology solves the problem of achieving correct focus.
Best regards
Erik
Exactly, agreed.
I would say luckily for the DB and some DSLR MF camera manufacturers. Somehow, I have the feeling that DBs and cameras built/stuffed with sensors, electronics, automatisms, etc ... have less (emotional) value in our minds (and I count myself in), than a good old LF view or tech camera. "RIO" has indeed less a place here than "shiny" and "staying relevant". It is clear that this has become much more important than the economics of the equation, for many. It is in no way a negative critic, just an observation.
Thierry
-
OK Graham, but do you need its 80mpx for each one of the 10000 shots? How did you cope up to now with your 22mpx sinarback? I mean that if the 80mpx are needed only for 100 out of the 10000 shots, then perhaps you could cope with the 22mpx and 10 rolls of 120 film annually! At least that is what I am doing and I do have the true color of the multishot or 88mpx with microstep when I reproduce copies of Byzantine Ikons for the church! All that with only a fraction of 32k!! Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
We were comparing 8x10 film and 80MP digital here. It gets rather complicated to introduce specific subject types (e.g those suitable for multishot) and the reality is that digital is far more practical, faster and more flexible than 8x10 so some would say that a resolution comparison is meaningless from the start.
-
Theodoros,
I was just "throwing" the multi-shot purposely in the equation of quality: 22 MPx with true-colour or even microstep (16 shot) with a final resolution of 88 MPx was already at the quality level of at least 4x5" film, if not more, and this more than 10 years ago.
I am of course well aware that it is limited to stills.
Thierry
... You almost made my portrait here, but I have to disagree in using multishot or microstep where things can't be absolutely still ... Theodoros.
-
Exactly, agreed.
I would say luckily for the DB and some DSLR MF camera manufacturers. Somehow, I have the feeling that DBs and cameras built/stuffed with sensors, electronics, automatisms, etc ... have less (emotional) value in our minds (and I count myself in), than a good old LF view or tech camera. "RIO" has indeed less a place here than "shiny" and "staying relevant". It is clear that this has become much more important than the economics of the equation, for many. It is in no way a negative critic, just an observation.
Thierry
Your observation may be right, in my view what differentiates a photographer than a "photographer" is that the first "solves the equation" while the second "equates the solution", if I am right, perhaps economics becomes even more important. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
It definitively is, making sliding adapters completely obsolete (especially now when it needs such a precise tool to cope with the high resolution of the current backs).
Thierry
...
In my view, live view is one the most important developments...
Erik
-
The $10 processing fee doesn't tell the whole story. By the time you've shot 1000 frames, you've spent $12K in film, $10K in processing, and if you drum scan just 1 shot in 20, then that's another $10K. A total of $32K, and with nothing to resell at the end. That's $32 per frame (average) and 95% of the film is still unscanned.
My Leaf Aptus II 12 was 'only' $32K. I could take 10,000 frames with it over a year, then resell it for a $10K loss. That's 10,000 photos for $10K, or $1 each. And all are digitized (we only scanned a small proportion of the film shots in the comparison. And I haven't even mentioned all the time and money spent on trips to and from film dealer, lab, scanner, etc). Even if you took the same low volume of photos, it would only be $10 per frame.
Very few types of commercial photography could be carried out with so few exposures per year, making this comparison moot for all except for a few landscape or fine art guys.
The break even point according to the above method would be 313 frames a year (i.e. 313 frames of 8x10 film costs about same as 1 year depreciation of 80MP back, almost unlimited shots, based on above figures). And an extra bonus for digital - the depreciation slows down, making the shots even cheaper the longer you keep the back. The film costs stay the same.
10,000 frames is easy when you have no real additional cost per frame. When you shoot film you don't think that way. You think is this shot worth $50 to me? If you are out in the field you take 1 or 2 rolls per good day. If you are a photojournalist or someone that is paid for a volume of product shots it's totally different. They can justify a MFDB.
Typically when you see the real shot you know it. This is the one. Taking many practice shots of average things is not producing anything people would consider buying. In other words gear, of whatever kind is a cost, not an asset. The actual photos, if they are good are the only asset. The goal is to generate assets at minimal cost. I'm an amateur. I do this for enjoyment. If I was a pro I would stay in business because i create revenue streams not liability streams.
Michael can justify all his gear purchases because his opinion in reviews here generates lots of site traffic. He could also do fine photography with a basic camera. It would still sell as prints.
-
We were comparing 8x10 film and 80MP digital here. It gets rather complicated to introduce specific subject types (e.g those suitable for multishot) and the reality is that digital is far more practical, faster and more flexible than 8x10 so some would say that a resolution comparison is meaningless from the start.
My question was for how many of the 10000 shots you need the 80mpx Graham, I know what we where comparing in the OP. ;) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
Mitchell is a working pro. He has customers paying for his work. So his situation is different from a "fine art photographer", it is reasonable for a fine art photographer to shoot film, but less so for a pro. With digital you can check exposure and focus immediately.
Michael Reichmann (whom I think you refer to) was shooting digital on MF optical bench camera, but he went for using his IQ180 on Alpa and Phase One. I guess using the Linhof in the field was a bit to much hassle.
Finally, what I have seen from my testing, I cannot get better results from 67 than from 24 MP digital. Admittedly this is based on pixel peeping, not on real prints. But if pixels are better on screen they will also be better in print. The observation is also based on the equipment I have and the way I'm using it.
I see a single advantage with film, and that is that it handles extreme overexposures better, because it has different saturation characteristics from digital sensors. Film has also a special color and tonality. I'm pretty sure that can be reproduced using curves. But if you like "film colors" you may be more happy with film. Digital is by default more "accurate" and sensor response is essentially linear. So there is little color shift with exposure. As a site note, a processed image will not be linear, an S-curve is normally added in processing. Lightroom and Capture One do this by default.
The enclosed file shows Imatest evaluations of a 41 step Stouffer wedge (havíng a scene range of 4.1, 13.5 stops) it was shot on a simple light table, uneven illumination probably causes the knee on the digital image. Obviously the film image is affected by both film and scanner characteristics.
Best regards
Erik
10,000 frames is easy when you have no real additional cost per frame. When you shoot film you don't think that way. You think is this shot worth $50 to me? If you are out in the field you take 1 or 2 rolls per good day. If you are a photojournalist or someone that is paid for a volume of product shots it's totally different. They can justify a MFDB.
Typically when you see the real shot you know it. This is the one. Taking many practice shots of average things is not producing anything people would consider buying. In other words gear, of whatever kind is a cost, not an asset. The actual photos, if they are good are the only asset. The goal is to generate assets at minimal cost. I'm an amateur. I do this for enjoyment. If I was a pro I would stay in business because i create revenue streams not liability streams.
Michael can justify all his gear purchases because his opinion in reviews here generates lots of site traffic. He could also do fine photography with a basic camera. It would still sell as prints.
-
The $10 processing fee doesn't tell the whole story.
Don't forget the quality of the processing and scanning. All the good pro labs in my area have either shut down or their quality has dropped noticeably (which pretty much suggests that they will also be shutting down in the near to medium future). Even though I only shoot film once every few months for kicks, I am getting more and more frustrated with labs consistently screwing up my film.
I am a very late entrant to digital capture. I used to shoot 4x5 but after taking delivery of my IQ180 I would never go back to film for commercial work. The only thing I miss is the DoF characteristics of the larger formats compared to 645.
These film/digital comparisons ultimately serve no purpose. Just shoot what you want to shoot, how you want shoot it, using what you want to shoot it with. I'm as curious as the next guy about some of this stuff, but the level of angst on this matter is misguided and very distracting to the production of actual work (if you allow it to be).
-
My question was for how many of the 10000 shots you need the 80mpx Graham, I know what we where comparing in the OP. ;) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Imagine it was a single project that required only 1 frame which was very carefully selected out of the 10K frames. If the output required an 80MP input then ALL 10K frame will have to be shot at 80MP...
I'm exaggerating of course but if your average fashion session takes 15 frames per shot and you have 10 shots/ day, 3 days/ week then you're looking at easily > 10K frames/ year and it's a helluva lot easier and more flexible than LF film...
-
I've shot 8x10 and drum scanned it on a Howtek D4500 and on various flatbeds, and before that shot 4x5 and medium format film again scanned with drum and Imacon scanners. The biggest problem with film is consistency. Film bends and curls in the magazine / film holder, often by very small amounts but enough to cause problems with precise focus and eveness accross the film plane. Worse, the effect varies from shot to shot. The larger the format, usually the worse the problem. With high end digital capture these issues have been eliminated.
Then we have film grain to contend with along with all the issues of processing, film storage, colour casts, etc. Finally, when we have the shot we want on the film medium we have chosen, what do we usually do? We digitise it by scanning, meaning we end up with a digital file by an indirect route and in the process we have introduced another set of variables such as scanner quality, fim flatness (again! - even drum scanners are not perfect), dynamic range etc.
Quite apart from eliminating these issues, digital capture allows us precisely to align multiple digital shots for HDR, stitching, etc. which, if not impossible with film, is certainly a lot harder to achieve than with digital.
All this renders these tests of little more than academic interest. Film has niche appeal, but even if 8x10 film holds a theoretical edge in resolution over the latest high rez backs, it has so many other downsides the sacrifices are simply not worth the effort.
-
Imagine it was a single project that required only 1 frame which was very carefully selected out of the 10K frames. If the output required an 80MP input then ALL 10K frame will have to be shot at 80MP...
I'm exaggerating of course but if your average fashion session takes 15 frames per shot and you have 10 shots/ day, 3 days/ week then you're looking at easily > 10K frames/ year and it's a helluva lot easier and more flexible than LF film...
So, since fashion requires 10000 shots of .....80mpx, ??? there was no fashion photography 4 years ago and even more so 7 years ago... and Graham wasn't a fashion photographer last year that he shot at 22mpx, nor 90% of the fashion photographers that are doing their shooting with a 21-24.5mpx DSLRs are fashion photographers! ??? Thank you for explaining that to me.... I just came from ....outer space! ;) My opinion is clearly that such a (marvelous) toy will never pay back its money, it is not needed for more than 1% (may be not needed at all) of the shooting of any fashion or studio photographer and that for the (hypothetical) 1%, film would do! Its great equipment for landscapes however and even more so if there is a dual camera camera strategy (MF + view or tech) with a common back for both, there the extra resolution may be needed for perhaps .....20% of the shots, that is if and only if you manage to have the right contacts that pay enough (if you don't there is always film and stitching)! For stills and fine art, there is nothing like 4X or 16x shooting and for everything else..... :-X! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Does anybody remember the story of the tower of Babel from the bible? I wonder why communication is falling lower and even lower by the day.... :'(
-
Most of the younger assistants I work with, shoot film for some if not all of their personal work.
I've seen this more in the last few years than previous years and it's anybody's guess why.
Maybe it's to experience something they've never had like "waiting" to see a processed image, maybe they're tired (like a lot of us) of spending way too much time on the computer to make something digital look analog.
I don't know, though I do find it interesting.
Our neighbors teenager goes to the most exclusive middle school on the west side of L.A. and is taking a photography course.
They require the students to shoot and process film and the students are stoked because they've never done it. They think film is fascinating.
Once again, this isn't scientific polling, just something I've noticed lately.
Slightly off topic, I've also noticed more people i work with are using their pads, vs. their computers. Everybody has a computer, but the computer seems to be a device we work on, where a pad is something we use for information and to view content to enjoy.
Kind of a different mindset.
film
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/film.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
So, since fashion requires 10000 shots of .....80mpx, ??? there was no fashion photography 4 years ago and even more so 7 years ago... and Graham wasn't a fashion photographer last year that he shot at 22mpx, nor 90% of the fashion photographers that are doing their shooting with a 21-24.5mpx DSLRs are fashion photographers! ???
Of course not every project needs 80MP. In fact I chose this back in the end because I wanted a 645-sized sensor, not the 80MP, and this is the only option currently available for the Hy6. I would have actually preferred the 60MP 645 sensor which you see in the IQ160 because of the faster frame rate, but that sensor is not available on my platform. And my dream sensor would probably be a 40MP 645 sized sensor, but that doesn't exist.
Now that I have it, it's nice to know that I won't be limited by file size if a client decides to print an image on a shop wall, for example, or crop well into an image, or if I ever want to make a large print of something. And I'm looking forward to seeing how 60" wide prints will look. The last time I had an exhibition years ago, most of my shots were from the 5D mkI and didn't stand up that well at that size.
-
Film has niche appeal, but even if 8x10 film holds a theoretical edge in resolution over the latest high rez backs, it has so many other downsides the sacrifices are simply not worth the effort.
It seems to me that the debate as a whole went to a very general ground. The "film people" in the thread talk about the film quality as an abstract fact (abstract from the commercial realities of today) and the "digital people" analyze the film from the perspective of a large or medium commercial studio professional.
IMO from a commercial view, film (and specially large format) is indeed a niche product and should be treated as such.
If you think about a low volume and very high quality workflow, large format film still stands it ground and in a low volume scenario, all the downsides and sacrifices you mention really are not such a big deal.
I'm thinking about landscapes and portraiture work for example. For instance, I do landscapes, often in long, several days high mountain treks and shot around 500 4x5 negs and slides during the last year. As much as would like to improve my productivity, it's simply not possible mainly due to the light and weather conditions I consider valid for my landscape photography. I own an FF digital camera and the curious thing is that I still can work the same amount of scenes per hour as with 4x5. Very low volume. Under these conditions, I consider film to be the right choice because:
1). The entering fee is pretty low (about what it costs to buy a 5d2 camera)
2). Large prints (even scanned in a low end flatbed scanner) run circles around my 5d2. For larger prints a drumscanner can be used if desired.
3). The 10-15k that separate my setup from a nice MFDB can easily buy me several thousands processed frames. I'd need at least 8-10 years of treks and travels to work through so many material.
4). The 3rd or the 4th landscape sold covered the whole equipment purchase
I could sell all the film and 35mm digital stuff and buy a 645D for example but can't find a reason for doing so, it's anti economical.
And I guess that could be the case of many landscape photographers, from the lower levels up to the top pros. For fashion, studio, advertising, interiors, etc, digital is hard to beat and it is great to see so many new and wonderful cameras in the market.
-
PLEASE STOP COMPARING !
It really does not make sense to compare film with digital
they are 2 completely different media
and in the case you really want to compare
it does not make sense to SCAN film
you loose so much of the negative's potential
COMPARE PRINTS
in this case I would suggest to compare an optical print from the 8x10, contact, or enlarged on FB paper, manual tray processed
and your digital file printed out as good as possible
Then compare what you see
and you will see, they differ so much, it is a matter of taste,
what do you like most ???
-
So, since fashion requires 10000 shots of .....80mpx, ??? there was no fashion photography 4 years ago and even more so 7 years ago... and Graham wasn't a fashion photographer last year that he shot at 22mpx, nor 90% of the fashion photographers that are doing their shooting with a 21-24.5mpx DSLRs are fashion photographers! ??? Thank you for explaining that to me.... I just came from ....outer space! ;) My opinion is clearly that such a (marvelous) toy will never pay back its money, it is not needed for more than 1% (may be not needed at all) of the shooting of any fashion or studio photographer and that for the (hypothetical) 1%, film would do! Its great equipment for landscapes however and even more so if there is a dual camera camera strategy (MF + view or tech) with a common back for both, there the extra resolution may be needed for perhaps .....20% of the shots, that is if and only if you manage to have the right contacts that pay enough (if you don't there is always film and stitching)! For stills and fine art, there is nothing like 4X or 16x shooting and for everything else..... :-X! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Does anybody remember the story of the tower of Babel from the bible? I wonder why communication is falling lower and even lower by the day.... :'(
Please read my post again as you seem to ignore (by choice?) the words "Imagine" and "exaggerating"...
For some photographers a high-end camera is a "toy" and for some it's a tool...a very capable tool that when wisely utilised into their business, can pay for itself in a fairly short period of time
Basically if your business model and client requirements make such an investment justifiable, then you will have a tool that is likely to cover all your bases...you can produce any output size with it regardless of the subject...as you pointed out already, you cannot shoot a person (at least not a live one) with a multi-shot camera but you can shoot a 640X480p 72dpi thumbnail for web with an 80MP camera...the same camera that will reproduce an old A1-sized manuscript at a native 400dpi resolution in 1.5 seconds...
We're drifting off topic but...anyway...
Yair
-
Of course not every project needs 80MP. In fact I chose this back in the end because I wanted a 645-sized sensor, not the 80MP, and this is the only option currently available for the Hy6. I would have actually preferred the 60MP 645 sensor which you see in the IQ160 because of the faster frame rate, but that sensor is not available on my platform. And my dream sensor would probably be a 40MP 645 sized sensor, but that doesn't exist.
Now that I have it, it's nice to know that I won't be limited by file size if a client decides to print an image on a shop wall, for example, or crop well into an image, or if I ever want to make a large print of something. And I'm looking forward to seeing how 60" wide prints will look. The last time I had an exhibition years ago, most of my shots were from the 5D mkI and didn't stand up that well at that size.
Thanks for the quote Graham, I needed this to prove to some less experienced quoters that they shouldn't approach new and ultra expensive equipment like some kind of a panacea that people can't live with anymore! In fact, I feel that if Dalsa would produce a new version of their traditional 33mpx sensor at full size, thus bringing the res up to what you state and if a manufacturer would make a multishot version of it (sinar does that already on the current sensor), this could be the one and only back I could ever need! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Please read my post again as you seem to ignore (by choice?) the words "Imagine" and "exaggerating"...
For some photographers a high-end camera is a "toy" and for some it's a tool...a very capable tool that when wisely utilised into their business, can pay for itself in a fairly short period of time
Basically if your business model and client requirements make such an investment justifiable, then you will have a tool that is likely to cover all your bases...you can produce any output size with it regardless of the subject...as you pointed out already, you cannot shoot a person (at least not a live one) with a multi-shot camera but you can shoot a 640X480p 72dpi thumbnail for web with an 80MP camera...the same camera that will reproduce an old A1-sized manuscript at a native 400dpi resolution in 1.5 seconds...
We're drifting off topic but...anyway...
Yair
Obviously you do agree with my quote Yair, you shouldn't take it personally, a statement on a thread is for everybody to read, Graham's reply, along with our discussion has (I believe), put an end to our little but very useful parenthesis on the OP. Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
-
Our neighbors teenager goes to the most exclusive middle school on the west side of L.A. and is taking a photography course.
They require the students to shoot and process film and the students are stoked because they've never done it. They think film is fascinating.
Once again, this isn't scientific polling, just something I've noticed lately.
-snip-
Three years ago at a local camera store I saw a man trying to sell or trade in his used Nikon F3. the store simply was not interested in it at all. Three weeks ago when I picked up one of those 8mm fisheyes, I was talking to the clerk at the camera store, saying " I hear this won't cover 35mm?"
The clerk brightened up and asked me what film bodies I have. So I told her I had three Nikon film bodies, and she said "Hey, we're looking for good used film bodies if you want to sell them, especailly Nikon." When I asked why Nikon and not other brands, she explained it had to do with the backward compatability of many Nikon lenses.
Anyhow, like you said above, this isn't scientific polling either, but something I've noticed recently too.
On the the endless 8x10 vs whatever digital debate - there is *one* business reason to use a large format film camera over digital - public perception. When you photograph somebody using a 4x5 for exmaple, they often perk right up, thinking this is "something special" - it's gonna be an extra good picutre because of the camera used. :)
Hey, don't get me wrong, I love my D7000, but sometimes in poltics and business, perception plays out over reality. Still for the other 99% of the real world and commercial work, I think - large volume of work, gotta get the work done and have it all ready and proofed 5 minutes ago - yep, digital. At least for me, it seems digital is the business end of thngs, film is the artistic stuff that I like to do on my won't but ever won't sell
:)
joe
-
The enclosed file shows Imatest evaluations of a 41 step Stouffer wedge (havíng a scene range of 4.1, 13.5 stops) it was shot on a simple light table, uneven illumination probably causes the knee on the digital image. Obviously the film image is affected by both film and scanner characteristics.
My own experience with Imatest and the Stouffer wedge indicate that the knee to which you refer is largely due to veiling flare. As you know, it is very important to mask off the surrounding area of the light table, but flare can still arise from the brighter steps of the image. One can test for uniformity of illumination by taking a control image without the wedge in place and measure the luminance of regions where the steps are located. If necessary, one can calibrate and apply a correction factor. Iliah Borg had some good pointers on exposing a step wedge, but I can't remember the link, but his point was that it is a difficult thing to do properly.
Another way to deal with flare is to take several images at different exposures and then splice them together as is done in the Dynamic Range (http://www.imatest.com/docs/dynamic.html) module if Imatest. The shadow images have less flare. I haven't tried this method as it appears not to be included in my copy of Imatest Studio--it may be only in the Master version.
Regards,
Bill
-
-snip-
Three years ago at a local camera store I saw a man trying to sell or trade in his used Nikon F3. the store simply was not interested in it at all. Three weeks ago when I picked up one of those 8mm fisheyes, I was talking to the clerk at the camera store, saying " I hear this won't cover 35mm?"
The clerk brightened up and asked me what film bodies I have. So I told her I had three Nikon film bodies, and she said "Hey, we're looking for good used film bodies if you want to sell them, especailly Nikon." When I asked why Nikon and not other brands, she explained it had to do with the backward compatability of many Nikon lenses.
Anyhow, like you said above, this isn't scientific polling either, but something I've noticed recently too.
On the the endless 8x10 vs whatever digital debate - there is *one* business reason to use a large format film camera over digital - public perception. When you photograph somebody using a 4x5 for exmaple, they often perk right up, thinking this is "something special" - it's gonna be an extra good picutre because of the camera used. :)
Hey, don't get me wrong, I love my D7000, but sometimes in poltics and business, perception plays out over reality. Still for the other 99% of the real world and commercial work, I think - large volume of work, gotta get the work done and have it all ready and proofed 5 minutes ago - yep, digital. At least for me, it seems digital is the business end of thngs, film is the artistic stuff that I like to do on my won't but ever won't sell
:)
joe
A major advantage of film is that its a superb media to teach photography. There is no serious school of photography that doesn't teach "film photography" to their students. Film has proven to be a very good method for mature photographers as well to expand their knowledge. I do teach advanced photography and 90% of my teaching is based on film, I feel that digital is only a modern method to speed things up and store them efficiently, in reality with digital we do nothing more than shoot negs (raw), polaroids(jpeg) or slides(tiffs), develop them (we only digitally replaced chemicals), and replace enlarger printing techniques or filteration with digital equivalents. I believe that the difference of an experienced (with film) photographer in technique and approach as well as his ability to find solutions and master lighting is evident to a third knowledgeable eye compared to some newcomers that ignored or surpassed film techniques as useless! In fact I have recently met many of those newcomers confessing the previous truth and re-approaching photography trying to catch up. All the above of course has nothing to do with superiority or not of the media, it only is an observation of mine (and others) that now use 95% digital in all aspects of my photography! Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
-
Bill,
Thanks for the info. In the context the "knee" does not matter, as I wanted to illustrate the difference between film and sensor, and the setup was the same for both.
Best regards
Erik
My own experience with Imatest and the Stouffer wedge indicate that the knee to which you refer is largely due to veiling flare. As you know, it is very important to mask off the surrounding area of the light table, but flare can still arise from the brighter steps of the image. One can test for uniformity of illumination by taking a control image without the wedge in place and measure the luminance of regions where the steps are located. If necessary, one can calibrate and apply a correction factor. Iliah Borg had some good pointers on exposing a step wedge, but I can't remember the link, but his point was that it is a difficult thing to do properly.
Another way to deal with flare is to take several images at different exposures and then splice them together as is done in the Dynamic Range (http://www.imatest.com/docs/dynamic.html) module if Imatest. The shadow images have less flare. I haven't tried this method as it appears not to be included in my copy of Imatest Studio--it may be only in the Master version.
Regards,
Bill
-
It's pretty obvious that most working pro's went to digital for reasons other than resolution. Today's fast pace wouldn't support film, and the advantages of shooting tethered to a screen for all to see are just two reasons, but the incremental costs are lower too. I mean if for some reason this comparison showed that 8x10 film was far superior, how many of you would drop your MFDB or DSLR and go shoot 8x10 from now on? Any comparison over resolution or detail just seems silly to me since it probably wouldn't change much. But I do see compelling reasons to shoot film - for fine art, for the feel, for the fun.
-
It's pretty obvious that most working pro's went to digital for reasons other than resolution. Today's fast pace wouldn't support film, and the advantages of shooting tethered to a screen for all to see are just two reasons, but the incremental costs are lower too. I mean if for some reason this comparison showed that 8x10 film was far superior, how many of you would drop your MFDB or DSLR and go shoot 8x10 from now on? Any comparison over resolution or detail just seems silly to me since it probably wouldn't change much. But I do see compelling reasons to shoot film - for fine art, for the feel, for the fun.
+1
Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
-
OK,
But do you really need to shoot 8x10" or 4x5" painful enough?
Best regards
Erik
+1
Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
-
So other than resolution, what exactly does a 180 digi back have in picture quality over a 10x8?
I can't think it's much cheaper, smaller and easier to carry, quicker is about all I can think of. Will it have the colour range of the new colour neg films or the DR? I doubt it.
It's been obvious for some time that digital records sharp edges better than film, I doubt you need the biggest back to show more whiskers on the models face compared with any size sheet of film. But is that all there is to it regarding picture quality.
I have been shooting the odd roll of film these last few months for my library, I still shoot loads more digital. I send low res out of a requested subject on both without comment, I'm getting a disproportionate number of film sales to digital (Canon 1DsmkIII) considering I send lots more digital in a selection with only one or two film scans. Make of that what you will.
Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
-
Iliah Borg had some good pointers on exposing a step wedge, but I can't remember the link, but his point was that it is a difficult thing to do properly.
May have been this one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=27735568
-
OK,
But do you really need to shoot 8x10" or 4x5" painful enough?
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik, I have already stated earlier that I don't use sheet film anymore, only up to 120/220, even on my P2! I also stated that I now only use negative for the circumstances only that the DR of the DB can't cope or when I need more resolution for enlargements that my DB can provide me. I also prefer to use my Contax than my P2 and sometimes even "cheat" on LF to keep the Contax if I can get away with movements in PP. I find that the 120/220 images when scanned (up to 160mpx for 6x12) are superb (even if they are 60mpx 6x4.5), I never tried to compare them with MFDB because I don't care! (superb is good enough anyway)! (Highlight) DR is IMO the most important aspect in photography and thus my prime target when I shoot. Analysis (which is different to resolution) is a fourth of fifth factor when I judge a print. Since for me A PHOTOGRAPH is only the printed image and not any image on a monitor, I print and then judge if the impact or message would access the receiver (good photograph) or not (poor photograph). 8) I do find LF (sheet film) painful and even useless if you want. As it has been stated before by others, sheet film is a bagger to scan and the results are often (always IMO) worst than 120/220 because of the area and the linearity problem that this causes on all scanners. Mind you that I've never shot 8x10 (only up to 4x5) and this is painful enough! IMO LF belongs to pre-war ages where film quality was so bad... that only the size of it could save the photographer. I am a late 70s/early 80s photographer where film was much better, it was at those days that photographers started to use 120/220 on their LF cameras because they wanted to keep their movements capability and its at those days that "flexbodys" started to appear, now, 30some years later, we want to re-event the wheel, IMV there is no room for it! Film is only up to 120/220 and this until (not in the near future) digital (which is still in its "stone age") will overcome its remaining disadvantages. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I'm in the same boat here, I've switched to 4x5 for landscape because I can print much larger then possible with my 5d from well scanned files, and my volume of work doesn't justify the investment at current prices. Each medium obviously has it's benefits, but one benefit of film I haven't seen mentioned much is the ability to change the "sensor" to suit differing scene contrast.
With a DSLR I've found that when adjusting an image to bring up the contrast levels enough in a really flat scene (say less then 5 stops), I have a really hard time getting color images to keep looking realistic - maybe the additional bits of MFDBs would help here. However, once I switched to film I found I could just shoot slides in these situations and wind up with files that are much easier to work with. This could be a great feature in digital - the ability to change the dynamic range of the sensor for a given situation, with the contrast curve contracting but keeping the high and low end points the same vertical distance apart.
If you think about a low volume and very high quality workflow, large format film still stands it ground and in a low volume scenario, all the downsides and sacrifices you mention really are not such a big deal.
I'm thinking about landscapes and portraiture work for example. For instance, I do landscapes, often in long, several days high mountain treks and shot around 500 4x5 negs and slides during the last year. As much as would like to improve my productivity, it's simply not possible mainly due to the light and weather conditions I consider valid for my landscape photography. I own an FF digital camera and the curious thing is that I still can work the same amount of scenes per hour as with 4x5. Very low volume. Under these conditions, I consider film to be the right choice because:
1). The entering fee is pretty low (about what it costs to buy a 5d2 camera)
2). Large prints (even scanned in a low end flatbed scanner) run circles around my 5d2. For larger prints a drumscanner can be used if desired.
3). The 10-15k that separate my setup from a nice MFDB can easily buy me several thousands processed frames. I'd need at least 8-10 years of treks and travels to work through so many material.
4). The 3rd or the 4th landscape sold covered the whole equipment purchase
I could sell all the film and 35mm digital stuff and buy a 645D for example but can't find a reason for doing so, it's anti economical.
-
With a DSLR I've found that when adjusting an image to bring up the contrast levels enough in a really flat scene (say less then 5 stops), I have a really hard time getting color images to keep looking realistic - maybe the additional bits of MFDBs would help here.
The 5D's bit depth may be the limiting factor. Those who have compared 5D and Leica DMR files (16 bits/pixel) have found that the DMR files are far more tolarant of this processing than the 5D files are.
-
Since most of the positive film replies on this thread come from low volume or casual enthusiasts, it's obvious why there is a film bias in these replies and it makes sense.
Think about it. How many plug ins, software suites, inkjet paper is designed to give a "digital look" to an image? Now how many promise a film look?
So like it or not, a dozen years into heavy digital acceptance, photographers are still emulating film looks on their digital capture.
Then again, if I did not shoot for commerce, I would also shoot film and not because of "superior image quality" or ease, just because there is such a wide range of used medium format cameras on the marketplace for pennies on the dollar and like most people, I and the rest of our studio is into computer overload, especially since we've moved a great deal of our business to motion imagery.
Early on digital did very well for my business as it opened up new revenue and artistic streams of offering concept to final press ready delivery. It also kept us in front of the client longer, which as most business people know, the more your imbedded with your client, the more work comes your way.
Today it's different. Now we shoot 2 or 3 times the volume we ever did with film and the most obvious aspect of digital is how long imagery stays in the pipeline. Nobody asks for 1 year use, it's now 2, 3, or 4 years. Same with talent because with digital it's common for 6 months after shooting a project, the client/agency has requests to move subject A behind subject b, swap a head, move a prop, even outline the subjects into a totally different scene. 6 months later the requests come again.
With film, that very rarely happened. I guess one reason is film was less accessible, harder to judge if a subject A would look good behind subject B and post production costs were much higher today than in the past. For the cost of scanning, matching, swapping and retouching film based images, along with reliscencing talent and the photographer's use made it cheaper to just design a new concept and shoot something fresh.
Digital changed all of that, at least in the world of commerce. After all how long do you see campaigns running? I see them go in and out of the media for years and I don't think a week goes by where we don't get one of these requests.
Digital also changed the way we work on set. Never with film did a client sit in front of a polaroid and talk about it for an hour, or even dream of seeing every frame in 27" wide glory. Never with film capture did a client become so "involved" with a shoot that their committee direction was somewhat overwhelming.
Today the photographer needs a strong personality to keep the project on track and into an interesting style, given the amount of "suggestions" we all receive from a client.
Looking forward and back I would have done things a little different. To begin with, I never would have progressed in still cameras past the original 1ds1. That camera today continues to shoot a file that is probably more "film like", than the $100,000's of dollars of cameras I have bought subsequent to their 1ds1.
I know this will drive the mucho megapixel photographers on this forum crazy but when it comes to large prints everybody thinks a large print looks good. In fact early on when shooting a 6 or 11 mpx camera, if a client had a question about the quality I'd just pull a couple of 40" prints and send them out.
At this size everyone would go wow and never question digital again. In fact looking back at the original 1ds1, our workflow was twice as fast as today, our expenses less, our turnaround faster and our knowledge of the file more intimate.
When I think of how easy our workflow was, vs. how complicated it became with processing every frame for web galleries, working with expensive systems that produced moire and color cast, I kind of laugh at myself for spending so much time and money to get a result that nobody was asking for.
Like everyone I got caught up in bigger is better and the thing I noticed that people started talking about sharpness and lack of grain, instead of the artistic values of the photograph.
If I had to classify the last decade of digital I'd call it the decade of over sharpness.
(At least that is my experience).
So, as we've moved to motion imagery we've learned our lesson and those past still experiences are the reason I bought a second RED One, instead of a new Epic. We might eventually go to an Epic or a motion camera with a smaller form factor, but it won't be for "ultimate image quality" because today the RED Ones' (much like my original 1ds') shoots a file that is equal to our beyond anything a client is asking for.
Personally, I believe the level of digital capture has hit a plateau and new cameras may make your happy, (after all everyone loves new stuff), but today I see more and more clients concerned with the photographer's concept, the beauty, the reality, the style of the image much more than they value the actual detail or sharpness.
I've found the best solution is the most proven, the one that works, produces the look I'm after and the system I'm most familiar with.
IMO
BC
-
So other than resolution, what exactly does a 180 digi back have in picture quality over a 10x8?
I can't think it's much cheaper, smaller and easier to carry, quicker is about all I can think of.
It is a lot smaller and lighter, as the LL article photo illustrates, especially if you have to carry 100 sheets of 8x10 as well as the camera:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/MR15/Image_002.jpg)
Apart from that you have all the usual benefits of digital: opportunity to review files instantly for focus, DOF, motion blur, etc, and change settings if required, opportunity to exposure bracket for as much DR as you want (still scenes only), ability to shoot in all sorts of light without worrying about colour balance, much faster frame rate than 8x10, more accurate colour, EXIF, etc
-
8x10 film has 4x the area of 4x5 film. Is it therefore suggested that a 20mp back or dslr is the equal of 4x5 film? Just a thought.
-
8x10 film has 4x the area of 4x5 film. Is it therefore suggested that a 20mp back or dslr is the equal of 4x5 film? Just a thought.
An 80 mpx back isn't either...., I think (I'm not sure really) that the article mentioned on the OP was assuming that IQ 180 is better (?) than any other DB and then that 8x10 is better than any other analog (?) ....and then it turned to ....analog vs. digital (sic) comparison.... and then the scanning problems came into play.... and then many (me as well) suggested that may be 120/220 is better than sheet because its easier and more linear to scan and then................ AH! the OP was about somebody scanned 8x10 in a crappy way and tried to compare it with the IQ 180! ........I think what he did was ......to lower the resolution of the scanner so that the final image will have the same digital size as an 80mpx DB! ......he obviously thought that this is an ....equal approach to compare things!
Jesus..., I have confused myself!! ::) I am a fun of 22mpx backs, the few times I want more resolution I shoot 6x4.5, this is 60mpx and IS COMPARABLE to 22mpx DB, NOT 4x5 but only tiny 6x4.5!!! Are we all nuts? Thanks for the bright statement Quentin. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
In the 2006 great 2006 shootout it was essentially found that P45 performed on par with 4x5. No doubt, 8x10 film is four times the area of 4x5" but it is not necessary the case that four times the area gives four times the information. To begin with, MTF is essentially inverseley pproportional to aperture. Once a lens is diffraction limited, resolution will be cut in half when doubling f-number. Let's assume that a Rodenstock Digitar HR lens is used on digital back. This lens will perform best at aperture f/5.6, or possibly even f/4. Let's assume that an 4x5" camera is used at f/11. Even with a perfect lens, at f/11 resolution of the lens will be half of the Digitar at 5.6. Or MTF, for a given size of small detail will be double. Stopping down to f/22 would again cut resolution in half.
Another factor is that the folks replacing 8x10" by digital assert exact focusing, either by shimming the back to lens, within 0.01 mm and using it with a laser rangefinder, or using "live view" and thereby asserting correct focus at the pixel level. The final point is that digital images will sharpen better than film images because they are essentially noise less.
With film there is the issue of film flatness. Suction backs obviously help, but probably nothing the normal user has in the field. But as film plane is not exactly predictible, focus bracketing is not really possible. In addition, you will need to wait for the film to be developed before focusing can be evaluated.
Sharpness and resolution is not the same. Sharpness is edge contrast for fine detail, while resolution is the limit where edge contrast drops under a certain limit. My experience is that 6x7 film scanned at 3200 PPI probably outresolves 24MP, but the images is much more noisy.Once you look at the image, sharpness dependes much on sharpening. I will repeat the test with 6000 PPI drum scans.
The test perhaps fails to show that 8oMP digital will match and surpass 8x10", but it shows that it is easy fail to match 80MP digital with 8x10". It also shows that Alpa lenses on Alpa with "live view" focusing outperform the same back on a MF SLR with the same 80MP back.
Best regards
Erik
8x10 film has 4x the area of 4x5 film. Is it therefore suggested that a 20mp back or dslr is the equal of 4x5 film? Just a thought.
-
(I'm not sure really)
Say that again.
Rinse and repeat.
-
Say that again.
Rinse and repeat.
Was only trying to be sarcastic, perhaps my English didn't help.... :) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Was only trying to be sarcastic, perhaps my English didn't help.... :) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Stop trying to be sarcastic ... try being quiet.
-
I'm jumping into this thread well after it has become tired and worn out. But for me, the article's testing methodology seemed designed to make the 8x10 fail. I have no dog in this fight one way or the other, since I shoot both film and digital avidly. I owned a P45 back for about two years as well, and am very familiar with the pros and cons of MFD backs. I also have an Aztek HR8000 film scanner, and I can tell you that with good technique and good lenses, there is no way that the IQ180 will out-resolve a properly scanned 8x10 piece of film that has been thoughtfully exposed and processed. Heck, I have seen the results of 8000 dpi scans of 35mm Adox document film shot with Leica lenses that blow away the 39megapixel backs. And that is from a 35mm film area!
But as someone pointed out earlier, digital backs are very, very, very good and very, very convenient and fast. The time needed to expose, develop and properly scan a piece of sheet film is exponentially greater than what is required with a good MF back. But there are certain qualities and attributes of film such as dynamic range and its ability to 'fail gracefully' as the highlights get really bright that digital still cannot supply.
For me, it is great that we have so many excellent options now. Whether one is quote*BETTER is really beside the point. Just use what gives you the results you want and allows you to work in the way you want.
-
Hi,
I don't think the test has been designed to make 8x10 fail. Problem is that testing is error prone. The authors probably had some kind of problem on 8x10", or the scanning was bad. They are going to rescan the film images as far as I know.
Best regards
Erik
I'm jumping into this thread well after it has become tired and worn out. But for me, the article's testing methodology seemed designed to make the 8x10 fail. I have no dog in this fight one way or the other, since I shoot both film and digital avidly. I owned a P45 back for about two years as well, and am very familiar with the pros and cons of MFD backs. I also have an Aztek HR8000 film scanner, and I can tell you that with good technique and good lenses, there is no way that the IQ180 will out-resolve a properly scanned 8x10 piece of film that has been thoughtfully exposed and processed. Heck, I have seen the results of 8000 dpi scans of 35mm Adox document film shot with Leica lenses that blow away the 39megapixel backs. And that is from a 35mm film area!
But as someone pointed out earlier, digital backs are very, very, very good and very, very convenient and fast. The time needed to expose, develop and properly scan a piece of sheet film is exponentially greater than what is required with a good MF back. But there are certain qualities and attributes of film such as dynamic range and its ability to 'fail gracefully' as the highlights get really bright that digital still cannot supply.
For me, it is great that we have so many excellent options now. Whether one is quote*BETTER is really beside the point. Just use what gives you the results you want and allows you to work in the way you want.
-
.... Are we all nuts? Thanks for the bright statement Quentin. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Well I'm nuts, so its a start ;D Just ask my wife!
-
Well I'm nuts, so its a start ;D Just ask my wife!
Perhaps Quentin it would have been a good idea if you had expand your quote to include the comparison of 35mm film with a ...2mpx file. ::) That would have proved your point better, wouldn't it? ;D Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Stop trying to be sarcastic ... try being quiet.
I prefer sarcastic... if you prefer quiet ...do it! QED
-
I'm jumping into this thread well after it has become tired and worn out. But for me, the article's testing methodology seemed designed to make the 8x10 fail. I have no dog in this fight one way or the other, since I shoot both film and digital avidly. I owned a P45 back for about two years as well, and am very familiar with the pros and cons of MFD backs. I also have an Aztek HR8000 film scanner, and I can tell you that with good technique and good lenses, there is no way that the IQ180 will out-resolve a properly scanned 8x10 piece of film that has been thoughtfully exposed and processed. Heck, I have seen the results of 8000 dpi scans of 35mm Adox document film shot with Leica lenses that blow away the 39megapixel backs. And that is from a 35mm film area!
Then please do share, because I would love to see a 35mm film shot that 'blows away' a 39MP back. I'll believe it when i see it ;)
-
A different issue, but the article shows some interesting things.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html
Best regards
Erik
Then please do share, because I would love to see a 35mm film shot that 'blows away' a 39MP back. I'll believe it when i see it ;)
-
Then please do share, because I would love to see a 35mm film shot that 'blows away' a 39MP back. I'll believe it when i see it ;)
I'm not sure if it blows away a 39 mpix sensor, but it is scanned 6x6 and done with a Nikon 9000, so I guess you could expect better results. Also the author stated that the digital backs are not worth it in terms of image quality, but that statement is few years old :)
I'm not sure about humongous panoramas, they are probably stitched, but nevertheless- they are scanned film, not DB work.
-
A different issue, but the article shows some interesting things.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html
Not in my opinion. It's yet another (yawn) film v digital test using black and white film against a colour digital camera to try and make a point. The M8 is only 10MP, so the test is rather out of date now but I suspect it would still keep up with a regular colour film, had he used one. Even back then he could have used the Leica lens on a Canon 1Ds MkII, and that would have been full frame too so the focal distance would have remained constant.
-
I'm not sure if it blows away a 39 mpix sensor, but it is scanned 6x6 and done with a Nikon 9000, so I guess you could expect better results. Also the author stated that the digital backs are not worth it in terms of image quality, but that statement is few years old :)
I'm not sure about humongous panoramas, they are probably stitched, but nevertheless- they are scanned film, not DB work.
Not sure what's you're talking about here. Clayh claimed he'd seen a 35mm film shot which blows away 39MP backs.
-
I didn't dare to ask for it, out of fear that I will anyway never see it. But since you are asking, I join you.
The more we are asking for it, the bigger the chance to see it. May be.
;)
Thierry
Then please do share, because I would love to see a 35mm film shot that 'blows away' a 39MP back. I'll believe it when i see it ;)
-
I didn't dare to ask for it, out of fear that I will anyway never see it. But since you are asking, I join you.
The more we are asking for it, the bigger the chance to see it. May be.
;)
Thierry
Clayh was referring to document film. I´m willing to believe it may have higher resolution in its special application.
Cheers, Ulf
-
Not sure what's you're talking about here. Clayh claimed he'd seen a 35mm film shot which blows away 39MP backs.
You're right. I should've been reading more carefully, that was a tough week for me. But let's just say I wanted to state that 6x6 scanned can top a 39 mpix back :)
On the sidenote- I heard that the 8x10 film used in tests is going to be scanned again? But to really settle this, I guess someone should arrange a meeting of two proficient photogs in respective formats and make them squeeze everything from their cameras. And yes, of course this would not prove anything :) It's a meaningless battle I guess?
-
I didn't dare to ask for it, out of fear that I will anyway never see it. But since you are asking, I join you.
The more we are asking for it, the bigger the chance to see it. May be.
;)
Thierry
Surely good quality negative film still surpasses in highlight DR any digital image, but this is only when highlight DR is needed and if highlight contrast is extreme, but in terms of resolution, noise or analysis, ...it can't even come close to a 22mpx back, not a 39 one! When ever I compared 35mm film with my D700, the resolution and noise is in favor of the digital (not by much, but it is), I may prefer the analog image sometimes, but this is when highlight DR comes into play, or if I want to print 40% larger than D700. Almost the same happens with my Contax and my 528c DB, but here resolution is already superb with film, so the difference is less obvious. OTOH the highlight DR of the back is much better than the D700 (but again lesser than film). But 35mm film against a DB.... I also have to see that to believe it. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I'm not sure if it blows away a 39 mpix sensor, but it is scanned 6x6 and done with a Nikon 9000, so I guess you could expect better results. Also the author stated that the digital backs are not worth it in terms of image quality, but that statement is few years old :)
I'm not sure about humongous panoramas, they are probably stitched, but nevertheless- they are scanned film, not DB work.
Some of the images on my site are film scanned at 16x with Nikon 9000, I scan there 35mm and 120/220 from Contax 645 & Roundshot 220vr, I'm a DR junkie and I love film but there is a big difference to compare same image areas (where film simply looses in resolution and noise but somebody may prefer it for other reasons) and to even dare to suggest that a 35mmNeg can be compared with a P45 or any DB aged less than 6 years, DBs are so much superior than DSLRs (especially in DR and highlight latitude) that nobody can take the quoter seriously. No matter what the film or scanner is... Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
-
Perhaps Quentin it would have been a good idea if you had expand your quote to include the comparison of 35mm film with a ...2mpx file. ::) That would have proved your point better, wouldn't it? ;D Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
You are right.
I have always thought that a 6mp file was close to typical 35mm film quality. I say typical, not Tech Pan scanned at 8000ppi on a drum scanner.
Scale that up to 4x5, and we are talking about roughly 60mp, which I happen to think is about right (years ago I think I posted somewhere on this forum that you would need about that to match 4x5). With four times the film area, that would mean 240mp is needed for 8x10 film equivalence (OK, knock a bit off for bigger issues with film flatness, but it is still more than double 80mp).
Of course everything I have just typed above is pure nonesense, because words like "typical", "equivalence" "quality" etc are so subjective, dependent upon use, and are only one small part of the entirte imaging story, meaning (of course) this entire thread is a hopeless waste of time ;D
By the way, I am more than happy with my 50mp Hassy H4D-50 which has so many actual advantages over film of any size I really don't want to go there.... If someone thinks 80mp matches 8x10 film, or 4x5 film, then they are "right" and "wrong" at the same time.
-
No, no, no. This is hopelessly balanced. You need to take this PERSONALLY. Then you should invent a model that has nothing to do with reality and use that to PROVE your point. It is much better if you don't back it up with evidence. Then you poke holes in the counter argument to create doubt. You can always WIN if you never lose.
Gee, I wonder if you could ever run a country this way...
You are right.
I have always thought that a 6mp file was close to typical 35mm film quality. I say typical, not Tech Pan scanned at 8000ppi on a drum scanner.
Scale that up to 4x5, and we are talking about roughly 60mp, which I happen to think is about right (years ago I think I posted somewhere on this forum that you would need about that to match 4x5). With four times the film area, that would mean 240mp is needed for 8x10 film equivalence (OK, knock a bit off for bigger issues with film flatness, but it is still more than double 80mp).
Of course everything I have just typed above is pure nonesense, because words like "typical", "equivalence" "quality" etc are so subjective, dependent upon use, and are only one small part of the entirte imaging story, meaning (of course) this entire thread is a hopeless waste of time ;D
By the way, I am more than happy with my 50mp Hassy H4D-50 which has so many actual advantages over film of any size I really don't want to go there.... If someone thinks 80mp matches 8x10 film, or 4x5 film, then they are "right" and "wrong" at the same time.
-
Hi,
I'd say its hard to judge. I don't think it's correct to presume that 8x10" has four times the information of 4x5" as lenses are different, film flatness and alignment to ground glass also are issues. On the other hand some MFDB users are going the other direction. Putting the best lenses on carefully calibrated cameras.
One of the observations in the original test was that the Alpa equipment outperformed the Phase One equipment.
I used to say that it's not only the camera. What is in front (subject), under (tripod) and behind (the photographer) the camera matters a lot!
Best regards
Erik
You are right.
I have always thought that a 6mp file was close to typical 35mm film quality. I say typical, not Tech Pan scanned at 8000ppi on a drum scanner.
Scale that up to 4x5, and we are talking about roughly 60mp, which I happen to think is about right (years ago I think I posted somewhere on this forum that you would need about that to match 4x5). With four times the film area, that would mean 240mp is needed for 8x10 film equivalence (OK, knock a bit off for bigger issues with film flatness, but it is still more than double 80mp).
Of course everything I have just typed above is pure nonesense, because words like "typical", "equivalence" "quality" etc are so subjective, dependent upon use, and are only one small part of the entirte imaging story, meaning (of course) this entire thread is a hopeless waste of time ;D
By the way, I am more than happy with my 50mp Hassy H4D-50 which has so many actual advantages over film of any size I really don't want to go there.... If someone thinks 80mp matches 8x10 film, or 4x5 film, then they are "right" and "wrong" at the same time.
-
You are right.
I have always thought that a 6mp file was close to typical 35mm film quality. I say typical, not Tech Pan scanned at 8000ppi on a drum scanner.
Scale that up to 4x5, and we are talking about roughly 60mp, which I happen to think is about right (years ago I think I posted somewhere on this forum that you would need about that to match 4x5). With four times the film area, that would mean 240mp is needed for 8x10 film equivalence (OK, knock a bit off for bigger issues with film flatness, but it is still more than double 80mp).
Of course everything I have just typed above is pure nonesense, because words like "typical", "equivalence" "quality" etc are so subjective, dependent upon use, and are only one small part of the entirte imaging story, meaning (of course) this entire thread is a hopeless waste of time ;D
By the way, I am more than happy with my 50mp Hassy H4D-50 which has so many actual advantages over film of any size I really don't want to go there.... If someone thinks 80mp matches 8x10 film, or 4x5 film, then they are "right" and "wrong" at the same time.
I'm more than happy with my 22mpx! I only feel that "newcomers" should know that there is still some benefit left in film that sometimes it can be irreplaceable, .....being irreplaceable for certain aspects (for now), it makes it both a media that shouldn't be abandoned yet, as well as a great "school" for anyone that persumed he (or she) could do photography by abandoning ...roots! Thanks again for the quote Quentin, ...I wish your first one would be earlier in the thread. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I'm more than happy with my 22mpx! I only feel that "newcomers" should know that there is still some benefit left in film that sometimes it can be irreplaceable, .....being irreplaceable for certain aspects (for now), it makes it both a media that shouldn't be abandoned yet, as well as a great "school" for anyone that persumed he (or she) could do photography by abandoning ...roots! Thanks again for the quote Quentin, ...I wish your first one would be earlier in the thread. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
How can you draw the conclusion that film is replaceable? Process is important. Film has distinct attributes. Resolving power is not the primary reason for choosing a system. As an art form, we are loosing depth by each loss of a process. Film is a great medium and has definite strengths. It will be a great loss to photography is film disappears (only an idiot would celebrate the loss of film). But these conversations usually boil down to infantile positions of mine is bigger than yours.
But I reject the idea that photo education should start with film. That is like saying you cannot be a film actor until you have acted on stage. The fundamentals are the same for both, but the medium is different. We live in a digital world. We need to focus on those factors first in education. I hope photo-chemical processes are still available to students who want to explore them and even require them if the facilities allow.
-
How can you draw the conclusion that film is replaceable? Process is important. Film has distinct attributes. Resolving power is not the primary reason for choosing a system. As an art form, we are loosing depth by each loss of a process. Film is a great medium and has definite strengths. It will be a great loss to photography is film disappears (only an idiot would celebrate the loss of film). But these conversations usually boil down to infantile positions of mine is bigger than yours.
But I reject the idea that photo education should start with film. That is like saying you cannot be a film actor until you have acted on stage. The fundamentals are the same for both, but the medium is different. We live in a digital world. We need to focus on those factors first in education. I hope photo-chemical processes are still available to students who want to explore them and even require them if the facilities allow.
I think you should re-read the post: The word is "irreplaceable" not "replaceable" that you state and this has lead you to a state of confusement. As far for you rejecting that "photo education should start from film" (which is not exactly what I said, but it will do), its your right to do so (and others), I feel though that its because you didn't.... and I also feel that if you do you'll change your opinon on this quote of yours.... :) :-X :'( 8) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotomatria.gr
-
Just a quick note about my statement re 35mm film and a 39MP back. If you dig, you will find a shootout performed by Don Hutton on the LF forum where he went out with a friend who owned a P45 and shot some very controlled tests with a Leica MP, a leica ASPH lens and Adox CMS document film and then scanned with a drum scanner. He also got out a very high powered microscope to examine resolution charts shot with this camera/film/scanner combination. Bottom line was real resolution above 100lpm, which the 39MP back can't do.
Now all that said, this combo is pretty limiting. It is black and white. It is slow film. No way would a professional want to use this for any sort of volume work. But if you are doing photography for your own account and on your time, the point is that there are more options (and less expensive ones) to achieving super high print quality than running out and buying the latest digital back.
My point with the initial post was that the test was not done in a way that optimized and really showed what an 8x10 can do. The scan sample rate was at least 1/3 of what a typical 8x10 setup is capable of resolving with normal film. Come on, less than 1000dpi? Every test I have ever seen done on sheet film indicates that there is probably around 2000-3000 spi of real resolution on 8x10 film if it is shot at optimal apertures with good modern optics.
I am not saying that anyone should run out and buy an 8x10 with a brace of Sironar-S lenses and a Aztek Premier drum scanner. Shooting 8x10 is a pain in the ass, and it has some of its own inherent limitations. You are always fighting the battle between depth of field and diffraction-induced resolution loss because of the long focal length lenses needed (a 'normal' lens on 8x10 is 300mm). It is heavy, demands the use of a tripod and a huge bag of film holders. You fight dust, alignment issues, and all sorts of other challenges.
But there are more options for getting truly high quality digital files than spending the amount of money that would buy you a nice Beemer on brand new digital back.
-
Hi,
A couple of issues:
1) You cannot compare Leica resolution to MF back, because the MF sensor is much larger. So 50 lp/mm on the sensor is close to 100 lp/mm on 135
2) Resolution is a poor parameter for sharpness. Edge contrast is the dominant factor for human vision. For instance a 50/1.4 lens at full aperture will have very good resolution but quite little edge contrast, because peripheral rays will dominate and those have higher aberration.
3) Large format is normally not limited by film but by lens and/or diffraction. LF lenses are normally used at small apertures, needed for both coverage and depth of field
Best regards
Erik
Just a quick note about my statement re 35mm film and a 39MP back. If you dig, you will find a shootout performed by Don Hutton on the LF forum where he went out with a friend who owned a P45 and shot some very controlled tests with a Leica MP, a leica ASPH lens and Adox CMS document film and then scanned with a drum scanner. He also got out a very high powered microscope to examine resolution charts shot with this camera/film/scanner combination. Bottom line was real resolution above 100lpm, which the 39MP back can't do.
Now all that said, this combo is pretty limiting. It is black and white. It is slow film. No way would a professional want to use this for any sort of volume work. But if you are doing photography for your own account and on your time, the point is that there are more options (and less expensive ones) to achieving super high print quality than running out and buying the latest digital back.
My point with the initial post was that the test was not done in a way that optimized and really showed what an 8x10 can do. The scan sample rate was at least 1/3 of what a typical 8x10 setup is capable of resolving with normal film. Come on, less than 1000dpi? Every test I have ever seen done on sheet film indicates that there is probably around 2000-3000 spi of real resolution on 8x10 film if it is shot at optimal apertures with good modern optics.
I am not saying that anyone should run out and buy an 8x10 with a brace of Sironar-S lenses and a Aztek Premier drum scanner. Shooting 8x10 is a pain in the ass, and it has some of its own inherent limitations. You are always fighting the battle between depth of field and diffraction-induced resolution loss because of the long focal length lenses needed (a 'normal' lens on 8x10 is 300mm). It is heavy, demands the use of a tripod and a huge bag of film holders. You fight dust, alignment issues, and all sorts of other challenges.
But there are more options for getting truly high quality digital files than spending the amount of money that would buy you a nice Beemer on brand new digital back.
-
Hi,
A couple of issues:
1) You cannot compare Leica resolution to MF back, because the MF sensor is much larger. So 50 lp/mm on the sensor is close to 100 lp/mm on 135
2) Resolution is a poor parameter for sharpness. Edge contrast is the dominant factor for human vision. For instance a 50/1.4 lens at full aperture will have very good resolution but quite little edge contrast, because peripheral rays will dominate and those have higher aberration.
3) Large format is normally not limited by film but by lens and/or diffraction. LF lenses are normally used at small apertures, needed for both coverage and depth of field
Best regards
Erik
So.... now we can all agree on: 1. The test was crap. :o 2. DBs are better in resolution and noise than film of equivalent area. >:( 3. Film retains the edge on other aspects of photography. ;) 4.LF film is dead because the resolution parameter has been diminished by DBs and the improvement of MF film. :'( 5. View cameras are only needed for their movements and can be as useful they were but with DB and 120/220 film instead of sheet. :-[ Regards Theodoros :D www.fotometria.gr
-
Bottom line was real resolution above 100lpm, which the 39MP back can't do.
100lpm? I assume you mean lines pairs per millimetre (lp/mm)? In that case you have a total of 7200x4800 lines (or approx 34 megapixels). That's high but it still doesn't "blow away" a 39MP digital back. I'd like to see these results for myself. I'm willing to bet the film is a lot more noisy.
Now all that said, this combo is pretty limiting. It is black and white. It is slow film.
Exactly, so why bring it up? We're comparing with a colour digital back here so let's look at a standard colour film (which I used to use):
(http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF_E100VS.gif)
(courtesy http://www.normankoren.com)
As you can see the green layer has a resolution of around 40 lp/mm (at 50% MTF), which translates to 2880x1920 lines for 35mm film, or 5.5 MP. Velvia is not much better:
(http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF_Velvia.gif)
Once you add lenses into the equation, it gets significantly worse.
My point with the initial post was that the test was not done in a way that optimized and really showed what an 8x10 can do. The scan sample rate was at least 1/3 of what a typical 8x10 setup is capable of resolving with normal film. Come on, less than 1000dpi? Every test I have ever seen done on sheet film indicates that there is probably around 2000-3000 spi of real resolution on 8x10 film if it is shot at optimal apertures with good modern optics.
All I can do is repeat what has already been said. The article stated that there was no more detail to scan, and the scans back up that claim. They are already lacking any single-pixel-level detail. You can go ahead and scan at 10,000dpi if you like but it won't reveal detail that's not there in the first place. 8x10 lenses are just not achieving the full potential of the film. If you really believe 8x10 is capable of much more, why do all these tests demonstrate otherwise? Even if the potential of 8x10 is higher, does it really matter if the full potential is so difficult to achieve in the real world? If you have an actual sample to show, in which a scan of 3000spi contains meaningful detail at a per-pixel level, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.
-
The article stated that there was no more detail to scan, and the scans back up that claim. They are already lacking any single-pixel-level detail. You can go ahead and scan at 10,000dpi if you like but it won't reveal detail that's not there in the first place.
But the reason there won't be any more detail at a higher resolution scan is not because the IQ180 is higher resolution than 8x10, but because the 8x10 image itself was botched.
Not adequate.
Not properly done.
Misfocused.
However you want to put it. There seems to be no area of focus, or there was camera shake, or whatever.... which might prove another point -- An image on 8x10 or film in general can be screwed up pretty easily.
But if you actually believe the IQ180 is better than 8x10, I can easily say you're wrong. I've seen 4x5 scans that, at 100 percent on screen viewing, match or exceed the resolution of the IQ180.
I'm talking about 100 percent crops from a scan and an image that's around 320 Megapixels (and incredibly large file size) that actually has detail, and lots of it. NOT anything like what is shown in the crops from the 8x10 in this unfortunate test.
How would a properly shot 8x10 chrome compare? Would it be just a little better than properly done 4x5, or perhaps in a different universe?
-
Hi,
I guess that the perfect 8x10 image may not be that easy to achieve.
Regarding 4x5", Charlie Cramer did some comparison on P45 vs. 4x5" and essentially found them to be on par, possibly with some advantage for the 4x5. The outcome may also depended on post processing. At that time there were a lot of discussion claiming that Charlie scanned at to low resolution. The IQ180 has about double resolution (in MP) compared to the P45, but sensor size is the same.
The lenses may have improved meanwhile. The new Rodenstock HR lenses are very impressive regarding MTF, they achieve around 50%+ MTF at 80 lp/mm, double of what normal MF lenses use be capable of.
8x10" has four time the surfacer of 4x5" so it should have 4 times the resolution all other factors being constant. In real life the other factors are not constant.
All scans I have seen from film were quite soft and noisy at actual pixels, including my own.
Best regards
Erik
But the reason there won't be any more detail at a higher resolution scan is not because the IQ180 is higher resolution than 8x10, but because the 8x10 image itself was botched.
Not adequate.
Not properly done.
Misfocused.
However you want to put it. There seems to be no area of focus, or there was camera shake, or whatever.... which might prove another point -- An image on 8x10 or film in general can be screwed up pretty easily.
But if you actually believe the IQ180 is better than 8x10, I can easily say you're wrong. I've seen 4x5 scans that, at 100 percent on screen viewing, match or exceed the resolution of the IQ180.
I'm talking about 100 percent crops from a scan and an image that's around 320 Megapixels (and incredibly large file size) that actually has detail, and lots of it. NOT anything like what is shown in the crops from the 8x10 in this unfortunate test.
How would a properly shot 8x10 chrome compare? Would it be just a little better than properly done 4x5, or perhaps in a different universe?
-
I am on Graham's side here: we still wish to see such an example, being it 4x5" or 8x10.
But if you actually believe the IQ180 is better than 8x10, I can easily say you're wrong. I've seen 4x5 scans that, at 100 percent on screen viewing, match or exceed the resolution of the IQ180.
Not well. As stated by Graham, LF lenses are just not good enough with their extrem large ICs to be able to cope with 8x10" and use its full potential.
How would a properly shot 8x10 chrome compare? Would it be just a little better than properly done 4x5, or perhaps in a different universe?
Thierry
-
8x10" has four time the surfacer of 4x5" so it should have 4 times the resolution all other factors being constant. In real life the other factors are not constant.
Resolution is a linear measurement, so an 8x10 should have twice the resolution.
But like you, I would like to see some results that disprove the results of this test. I agree with Graham that a higher resolution scan would not be pulling out more detail. Having worked in large format myself, motion blur would be obvious. You can see grain, so the scan is sharp. If the image is out of focus, where is it out of focus? The image shows it is covering the scene.
And T-1000 is right. We can say anything. That is why this test is good, it actually shows us something.
-
Resolution is a linear measurement, so an 8x10 should have twice the resolution.
But like you, I would like to see some results that disprove the results of this test. I agree with Graham that a higher resolution scan would not be pulling out more detail. Having worked in large format myself, motion blur would be obvious. You can see grain, so the scan is sharp. If the image is out of focus, where is it out of focus? The image shows it is covering the scene.
And T-1000 is right. We can say anything. That is why this test is good, it actually shows us something.
Resolution may be linear for a scanner but is not for a lens, if a lens covers twice the diameter of another, it doesn't mean that it has twice the resolution on the image, actually its no where near than double the resolution. This is because the projection distance to the light recording surface increases and thus (for the same resolving power of glass) the "projected resolution" is decreased! The phenomenon is the same with digital sensors, where doubling the resolution of a sensor doesn't necessarily improve the resolution of the printed image but it does double the recorded analysis. That is why if you shoot "multishot" 16x with an old back, the resolution is (much) better than say an IQ 180 while image analysis is the same, with the 22mpx back the lens requires to cope with only the 22mpx for each of its shooting actions, while with the more condensed back the lens is required to cope with the increased analysis. The same of course applies to "multiscan" than "just scan", the scanners that can do multiscan perform much better in this mode and even more so the more multiscan they do, because they reject the minority of data and only keep the confirmed ones by the multiple scans. Regards, Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
-
Resolution is a linear measurement, so an 8x10 should have twice the resolution.
But like you, I would like to see some results that disprove the results of this test. I agree with Graham that a higher resolution scan would not be pulling out more detail. Having worked in large format myself, motion blur would be obvious. You can see grain, so the scan is sharp. If the image is out of focus, where is it out of focus? The image shows it is covering the scene.
And T-1000 is right. We can say anything. That is why this test is good, it actually shows us something.
Clearly false. Resolution is based on area. The fundamental unit is the airy disk. If a system produces airy disks that overlap there is no resolution. If they are separate they are resolved. Test charts use converging lines because they are easy to distinguish. The resolution is then assumed to be the same over two dimensions.
An independent tester provided 4000, 6000dpi scans on page two. A scientist provided scans in the links on the original post. Some people continue to say it never happened. :-X
-
Resolution may be linear for a scanner but is not for a lens, if a lens covers twice the diameter of another, it doesn't mean that it has twice the resolution on the image, actually its no where near than double the resolution. This is because the projection distance to the light recording surface increases and thus (for the same resolving power of glass) the "projected resolution" is decreased! The phenomenon is the same with digital sensors, where doubling the resolution of a sensor doesn't necessarily improve the resolution of the printed image but it does double the recorded analysis. That is why if you shoot "multishot" 16x with an old back, the resolution is (much) better than say an IQ 180 while image analysis is the same, with the 22mpx back the lens requires to cope with only the 22mpx for each of its shooting actions, while with the more condensed back the lens is required to cope with the increased analysis. The same of course applies to "multiscan" than "just scan", the scanners that can do multiscan perform much better in this mode and even more so the more multiscan they do, because they reject the minority of data and only keep the confirmed ones by the multiple scans. Regards, Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
Actually, my comment was much simpler. Resolving power is given in l/mm which is a linear measurement and so area is not a factor.
Projection distance (i assume you mean focal length or image distance) has nothing to do with the resolving power at the image plane. Given equal quality, the f-number/aperture (or the angular size of the aperture from the image plane) will determine the resolving power. This has nothing to do with the size of the image circle either, beyond the constraints of the optical design.
Actually, resolving power (or MTF) is additive. And so it is a systemic problem. You can get benefit from over sampling--an image sensor/film with a resolving power of 100 l/mm can benefit from a lens working at 200 l/mm, matching the resolving power of two components halves the the systemic resolution. However, the system is always limited to the weakest link. So a better scan might be able to pull out some more detail, but it will ever add any more.
Multi-sampling in a scanner is simply for noise reduction. Multishot backs that shift the sensor are adding resolution. These are really not the same technology.
-
Clearly false. Resolution is based on area. The fundamental unit is the airy disk. If a system produces airy disks that overlap there is no resolution. If they are separate they are resolved. Test charts use converging lines because they are easy to distinguish. The resolution is then assumed to be the same over two dimensions.
An independent tester provided 4000, 6000dpi scans on page two. A scientist provided scans in the links on the original post. Some people continue to say it never happened. :-X
Really. I thought resolving power was measured in lines per mm, which is clearly a linear measurement.
You are speaking of resovling point sources/targets, which is not resolving power. It is actually harder to resolve points than lines and so the distinction is made. To be accurate, resolution still is easily achievable when the Airy disks start to overlap.
-
Tangential and sagittal rays, propagating in the tangential and in the sagittal planes: both planes are orthogonal to each other.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astigmatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astigmatism)
Thierry
The resolution is then assumed to be the same over two dimensions.
-
Don't tell someone he is wrong if he likes what he does and is successful with it.
But no one is doing that.
-
Johannes,
Just a correction. I have been with Sinar for more than 20 years. Sinar did never make any research in the resolution field of films (or sensors), nor did they publish anything under their name. Sinar did possibly use general data available from the film or lens makers, but nothing more than that.
Luckily enough, all the (Sinar) experts are still alive as per today, retired (forced or legally) but alive.
;)
Best regards
Thierry
The resolution of the various films (trans, neg, b&w) in different formats (35, mf, lf) is well known and was researched over many years by companies like Kodak, Agfa, Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, Leica, Nikon, Sinar, Hasselblad and so on. It was compared in technical regimes (very high contrast) and for general photographic applications. Also typical errors in the field were analyzed.
You can find all that in technical publications of the companies, advanced photography textbooks and scientific publications in an university library. Sadly, most of the experts are retired or dead now. If one of these experts could see the behind the scenes photo that shows the 8x10 on that tiny tripod with the ball head he would probably laugh, I guess.
Johannes
-
Hi,
My impression is that we get diminishing returns on high PPI scans. The samples you referred to look quite soft at actual pixels. I downloaded the 6000 PPI sample and did the following experiment:
1) Sharpened it to taste
2) Duplicated the image
3) Resized the duplicated image to 50% using bicubic
4) upsized the duplicated image to 200% using bicubic (so I downrezzed and than uprezzed by the same amount)
5) Pasted the downsized/upsized image above the original image
6) Added a layer mask over about 1/3 of the image
It is very hard to see any difference between the two images. I added a screen dump with the top layer in subtract mode. The mask is clearly visible, and the black area is the difference between the two images.
My conclusion is that there is very little excess information in the 6000 PPI file compared to the same file downscaled to 3000 PPI.
Best regards
Erik
Clearly false. Resolution is based on area. The fundamental unit is the airy disk. If a system produces airy disks that overlap there is no resolution. If they are separate they are resolved. Test charts use converging lines because they are easy to distinguish. The resolution is then assumed to be the same over two dimensions.
An independent tester provided 4000, 6000dpi scans on page two. A scientist provided scans in the links on the original post. Some people continue to say it never happened. :-X
-
I tried to explain how I understand the discussion that revolves around: "You are wrong - I'm right."
Best,
Johannes
Johannes, "you are wrong - I'm right" starts with the OP and is inevitable, otherwise we would have to accept all the crap anybody publishes or quotes as true and no criticism should be allowed. There can be two different approaches that can both be correct because of different values or priorities (like the guy with the Holga you suggested or digital vs. film for that matter) that people approach things with, but stating simplified inaccuracies all the time, like some (very few) are doing constantly, is quite different. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. I'm sorry that I took advantage of your statement to "picture" others, I wanted to avoid getting drugged to a pointless argument with that same crap as I state above.
-
Hi,
I guess I meant information. Thanks for putting things right.
Best regards
Erik
Resolution is a linear measurement, so an 8x10 should have twice the resolution.
-
Hi,
Sometimes around 1985, when Sony presented the original Mavica I arrived at the 6MP figure. If you look at Modern Photography resolution tests from that time anything above 50 lp/mm was excellent. On the other hand they have found out that with the best lenses, slowest film, best technique and focus bracketing they could achieve a bit over 100 lp/mm. But, resolution means barely resolvable, very little fine detail contrast.
In addition at that time, focusing accuracy yielded perhaps 30-40 lp/mm both AF and manual focus in tests also made by Modern Photography.
So I calculated that you need 100 pixels to resolve 50 lp/mm. A 135 image would thus be represented by 3600x2400 -> 8.64 MP. The 6MP figure I got came from using 3x2 cm as film size for easy calculation.
Best regards
Erik
You are right.
I have always thought that a 6mp file was close to typical 35mm film quality. I say typical, not Tech Pan scanned at 8000ppi on a drum scanner.
Scale that up to 4x5, and we are talking about roughly 60mp, which I happen to think is about right (years ago I think I posted somewhere on this forum that you would need about that to match 4x5). With four times the film area, that would mean 240mp is needed for 8x10 film equivalence (OK, knock a bit off for bigger issues with film flatness, but it is still more than double 80mp).
Of course everything I have just typed above is pure nonesense, because words like "typical", "equivalence" "quality" etc are so subjective, dependent upon use, and are only one small part of the entirte imaging story, meaning (of course) this entire thread is a hopeless waste of time ;D
By the way, I am more than happy with my 50mp Hassy H4D-50 which has so many actual advantages over film of any size I really don't want to go there.... If someone thinks 80mp matches 8x10 film, or 4x5 film, then they are "right" and "wrong" at the same time.
-
Actually, my comment was much simpler. Resolving power is given in l/mm which is a linear measurement and so area is not a factor.
Projection distance (i assume you mean focal length or image distance) has nothing to do with the resolving power at the image plane. Given equal quality, the f-number/aperture (or the angular size of the aperture from the image plane) will determine the resolving power. This has nothing to do with the size of the image circle either, beyond the constraints of the optical design.
Actually, resolving power (or MTF) is additive. And so it is a systemic problem. You can get benefit from over sampling--an image sensor/film with a resolving power of 100 l/mm can benefit from a lens working at 200 l/mm, matching the resolving power of two components halves the the systemic resolution. However, the system is always limited to the weakest link. So a better scan might be able to pull out some more detail, but it will ever add any more.
Multi-sampling in a scanner is simply for noise reduction. Multishot backs that shift the sensor are adding resolution. These are really not the same technology.
You are clearly wrong on all of the above, l/mm of a lens are measured on a certain FP distance, if FP distance is increased (and thus image circle magnifies) resolution drops. This simply means that if two lenses with the same glass resolving power are used to record the same AOV at different formats, the lens that records on the smaller image area will appear to have more resolution. Nobody said anything about same technology or scanners adding resolution, I think you (and others) are confusing resolution with analysis! Please re-read the post and make sure you understand it, don't quote in irrelevant matters. 8) Cheers, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
You are clearly wrong on all of the above, l/mm of a lens are measured on a certain FP distance, if FP distance is increased (and thus image circle magnifies) resolution drops. This simply means that if two lenses with the same glass resolving power are used to record the same AOV at different formats, the lens that records on the smaller image area will appear to have more resolution. Nobody said anything about same technology or scanners adding resolution, I think you (and others) are confusing resolution with analysis! Please re-read the post and make sure you understand it, don't quote in irrelevant matters. 8) Cheers, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Actually, I am right about everything in my post. If you read carefully you would see everything is based on the angular size of the aperture from the image plane. A very basic concept actually.
I obviously have problems understanding what you write.
Cheers.
-
Hi,
My impression is that we get diminishing returns on high PPI scans. The samples you referred to look quite soft at actual pixels. I downloaded the 6000 PPI sample and did the following experiment:
1) Sharpened it to taste
2) Duplicated the image
3) Resized the duplicated image to 50% using bicubic
4) upsized the duplicated image to 200% using bicubic (so I downrezzed and than uprezzed by the same amount)
5) Pasted the downsized/upsized image above the original image
6) Added a layer mask over about 1/3 of the image
It is very hard to see any difference between the two images. I added a screen dump with the top layer in subtract mode. The mask is clearly visible, and the black area is the difference between the two images.
My conclusion is that there is very little excess information in the 6000 PPI file compared to the same file downscaled to 3000 PPI.
Best regards
Erik
Here is a 750dpi vs that 3000dpi screen capture. I ran NN on the original, then downscaled to 3000dpi. I duplicated it, downscaled to 1/4 (750dpi) then set to 400% view side by side.
Of course people will say they can see spots on the 750 dpi so it must be all the information.
-
Actually, I am right about everything in my post. If you read carefully you would see everything is based on the angular size of the aperture from the image plane. A very basic concept actually.
I obviously have problems understanding what you write.
Cheers.
Obviously...... ;D Thanks for quoting, :-X please avoid to reply... 8) Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
You are absolutely right. I actually repeated my experiment downsizing to 25% and resizing by 400%, in that case the loss of information was obvious. It is interesting that the downsampled/upsamled image displays grain which looks like real grain.
Best regards
Erik
Here is a 750dpi vs that 3000dpi screen capture. I ran NN on the original, then downscaled to 3000dpi. I duplicated it, downscaled to 1/4 (750dpi) then set to 400% view side by side.
Of course people will say they can see spots on the 750 dpi so it must be all the information.
-
Hi,
You are absolutely right. I actually repeated my experiment downsizing to 25% and resizing by 400%, in that case the loss of information was obvious. It is interesting that the downsampled/upsamled image displays grain which looks like real grain.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik, let me put things from a different POV. Imagine an enlarger... the more the enlargement, the worst the quality right? Now imagine a LF camera to record the same scene on each version of both 4x5 and 8x10 capability with the same AOV, ...the 8X10 image would be further apart and would have THE SAME RESOLUTION for the whole image ...wouldn't it(?), ie lower resolution per square inch! This of course assumes that film quality exceeds lens analysis, now... the same would apply if on that hypothetical camera we would use 120/220 film, ...wouldn't it? The recorded resolution would have been the same even on MF film because it would be even nearer to the lens. But nobody would dare to scan MF film on 750dpi and then compare it with an IQ 180!!! All the above wouldn't apply on 1940s or 50s where film was poor... but it would apply with modern films and of course cannot be extended to compare 35mm as well because film quality didn't advance as much... :'( , but given the shortcomings of scanning LF and the lesser quality of LF lenses, it proves that scanning should have been done at the higher possible scanning resolution, because its irrelevant of film size and IMO at as much multiscanning as possible to avoid scanning errors. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I think it might be worth noting a few things. The diameter of an Airy disk given perfect aberration-free optics is this:
D=2.44 lambda N
Where N is the f-number and lamba is the wavelength of light.
And the Rayleigh criterion for resolving power (RP) is this:
RP= 1/1.22 lambda N
Note: focal length and magnification are irrelevant. N would be the effective f-number taking into account lens to image plane distance if working with a system not focused at or near infinity.
-
I think it might be worth noting a few things. The diameter of an Airy disk given perfect aberration-free optics is this:
D=2.44 lambda N
Where N is the f-number and lamba is the wavelength of light.
And the Rayleigh criterion for resolving power (RP) is this:
RP= 1/1.22 lambda N
Note: focal length and magnification are irrelevant. N would be the effective f-number taking into account lens to image plane distance if working with a system not focused at or near infinity.
"Given perfect aberration free optics"..... ;D is one, quoting on irrelevant matters is another... Jesus! Read before you quote, what you correctly state is true (physics) theory and are different and irrelevant than the problem we discuss that has to do with why scanning should have been done at 4000 dpi or more and also perhaps on different format! I mean this physics approach doesn't take into consideration "glass resolving power" does it? And it also doesn't consider the light sensitive erea recording/resolving ability! It assumes that are both INFINITE.... have you got it now? According to the way you make it appear an enlargement should be as sharp per square inch as a smaller print, what is you can not understand? Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Mind you that in "fotometria" we are now converting our P2 to work with lower circle lenses like the Mamiya RZ (with "Just Together" German kits) and that we don't use sheet film anymore but only plan to use (after we finish the conversion) the MFDB and 120/220 film! This is after observing that there was no difference with sheet film performance to MF film. Also consider that in our lab we test anything by printing it (digitally only from either HiRes files or from scanned files) and that these prints are enormous (110cm at the small side to ...whatever in the long side) and this is everyday job!
-
Obviously...... ;D Thanks for quoting, :-X please avoid to reply... 8) Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
...lula used to be a nice place, just my 2ct...
-
"Given perfect aberration free optics"..... ;D is one, quoting on irrelevant matters is another... Jesus! Read before you quote, what you correctly state is true (physics) theory and are different and irrelevant than the problem we discuss that has to do with why scanning should have been done at 4000 dpi or more and also perhaps on different format! I mean this physics approach doesn't take into consideration "glass resolving power" does it? It assumes that its INFINITE have you got it now? According to the way you make it appear an enlargement should be as sharp per square inch as a smaller print, what is you can not understand? Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Mind you that in "fotometria" we are now converting our P2 to work with lower circle lenses like the Mamiya RZ (with "Just Together" German kits) and that we don't use sheet film anymore but only plan to use (after we finish the conversion) the MFDB and 120/220 film! This is after observing that there was no difference with sheet film performance to MF film. Also consider that in our lab we test anything by printing it (digitally only from either HiRes files or from scanned files) and that these prints are enormous (110cm at the small side to ...whatever in the long side) and this is everyday job!
I did not quote your post, so please do not quote my posts. Not at least until you know a little more, or maybe a lot more, about optics. And how is your continued offensive behavior helping to make LuLa a nice place?
-
...lula used to be a nice place, just my 2ct...
You may be right, I should have let this one go...., but would this make it a better place? I guess ...history will tell. ....Sorry, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I did not quote your post, so please do not quote my posts. Not at least until you know a little more, or maybe a lot more, about optics. And how is your continued offensive behavior helping to make LuLa a nice place?
Yes but you did quote ON MY POST! Which I have no objection of you doing anymore..., but just consider that are other people reading and we are both on their judgement, I have nothing personal or intentional against you, its just that I feel you "jump in" by twisting the subject projecting irrelevant knowledge (which you have) and thus you mislead the conversation AND project people with similar or better knowledge as ignorants. Don't forget your (much) earlier quote on me a couple or three days ago in this very thread, that you "jumped in" by "making up" phrases that didn't even exist and then, after I quoted back exposing your mistake (intentional or not) ...you just disappeared, .....you didn't even apologize... which I'm prepared to do for you, if I have said anything offensive against you (which I haven't), ....I only protested for you posting irrelevant as relevant, .....nothing more, nothing less.... 8) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Yes but you did quote ON MY POST! Which I have no objection of you doing anymore..., but just consider that are other people reading and we are both on their judgement, I have nothing personal or intentional against you, its just that I feel you "jump in" by twisting the subject projecting irrelevant knowledge (which you have) and thus you mislead the conversation AND project people with similar or better knowledge as ignorants. Don't forget your (much) earlier quote on me a couple or three days ago in this very thread, that you "jumped in" by "making up" phrases that didn't even exist and then, after I quoted back exposing your mistake (intentional or not) ...you just disappeared, .....you didn't even apologize... which I'm prepared to do for you, if I have said anything offensive against you (which I haven't), ....I only protested for you posting irrelevant as relevant, .....nothing more, nothing less.... 8) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Like I said, when you learn more about optics, come back and we can talk, otherwise keep to yourself.
Actually, you are deeply offensive, even if you do learn something, avoid me. I am happy to avoid you.
-
Like I said, when you learn more about optics, come back and we can talk, otherwise keep to yourself.
Actually, you are deeply offensive, even if you do learn something, avoid me. I am happy to avoid you.
I'll say it once more "Don't project others as ignorants" but its your decision.... after all people can judge by reading.... ;) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
This site is clearly biased towards DSLR and MF digital image capture... Resolution is only one factor, of many, which informs "quality" images (and most differ on the subjectivity of quality).
Mr. Roversi seems to think the allure of LF film is not in its sharpness, but in its overall smoothness and softness. I agree. Perfect square pixels can't match what unique grain clumps offer in terms of how the entire image/print gels - and vice versa.
So let's stop this conversation please and just go take some pictures. Do what works for you.
-
This site is clearly biased towards high-end digital image capture...so it cracks me up how often these discussions about film vs digital come up. Resolution is only one factor, of many, which inform "quality" images.
Mr. Roversi seems to think the allure of LF film is not in its sharpness, but in its overall smoothness and softness. I agree. Perfect square pixels can't match what unique grain clumps offer in terms of how the entire image/print gels - and vice versa.
So let's stop this conversation please and just go take some pictures.
There's a peculiar need for the digital crowd to justify their gear and their price. In my experience us (partly) analog guys have mostly dropped that conversation years ago, and use it for various reasons rarely to do with resolving power, DR, or other narrow definition of IQ - if IQ has even any weight in the equation.
For the record I'm not saying there's no place or justification for an MFDB kit costing more than two-three good new cars - there is in many cases, and in many cases there's no need for justification (mostly affluent amateurs who don't get paid to photograph). Just like often there is a place and justification in spending low four figures in an LF kit, and five figures per year on film, developing and scanning.
Cameras are tools, and should be treated as such: right tool for the right application.
-
There's a peculiar need for the digital crowd to justify their gear and their price. In my experience us (partly) analog guys have mostly dropped that conversation years ago, and use it for various reasons rarely to do with resolving power, DR, or other narrow definition of IQ - if IQ has even any weight in the equation.
For the record I'm not saying there's no place or justification for an MFDB kit costing more than two-three good new cars - there is in many cases, and in many cases there's no need for justification (mostly affluent amateurs who don't get paid to photograph). Just like often there is a place and justification in spending low four figures in an LF kit, and five figures per year on film, developing and scanning.
Cameras are tools, and should be treated as such: right tool for the right application.
Perhaps it should be added to the well stated above, that adding a 22mpx back to the same comparison and using an "open system" with an alternative film back for the rare case that higher resolution would be needed and purchase an old Jobo CPE2 developing device along with a 9000ED scanner to avoid the cost of the lab, could save the cost of 2 out of 3 cars and do the same thing more efficiently. Even if there is some insignificant loss in resolution that bothers some now, but didn't bother them 3 years ago. Even more so..., what if the above back was a multi-shot one? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
...lula used to be a nice place, just my 2ct...
+1
-
Yes, the famous "system news", very good information in it. I have worked myself on a few of it.
And I did actually write one of my earlier posts in this thread based on the information from one of this publication, the difference in sharpness when the film is not absolutely flat.
But still, Sinar did not make any research in resolution power of film or lenses, and all such information was based on available data from the lens and film manufacturers.
Thierry
Sinar used to produce very good brochures (system news) were they showed which improvements are possible if you do it the right way. These infos actually contained valuable informations. Some examples: demonstration which will be the difference of an optimal placed film and a film that is 0.3 mm (I even remember that number) off at max f-stop. Difference if you expose a chrome with different exposure latitude and you give this into the offset print chain. And you could actually reproduce exactly this results. I remember especially the one with the adhesive film holder and one about lenses. All Sinar staff was always very helpful. Even at the time when I was a poor student who only owned a used f1, one lens and 3 film holders. I never experienced that with anything in the digital world.
Best,
Johannes