Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: 4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?  (Read 28708 times)

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« on: December 29, 2008, 04:53:57 pm »

Could someone who has experience with 4x5 photography as well as a high megapixel 35mm DSLR (ie, canon 5d2) provide an estimate of the number of DSLR frames required to achieve the resolution of 4x5 film (such as velvia 50)?  This assumes a given object (fixed frame) and same perspective, with allowance for using longer lenses on the DSLR.  For example, I could stitch a 4 frame rectangle with a 50mm lens, or a 16 frame rectangle of the same object with a longer lens.  I guess this question boils down to this: how many DSLR megapixels are needed to equal 4x5 resolution?

Thanks,
John
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2008, 04:57:06 pm »

Logged

DonWeston

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2008, 08:44:15 am »

fwiw, I was in SW USA in Nov this year, shooting with a D300, only a mere 12mp. Came upon a scene where I wanted more then just an HDR or NEF file, and decided to use my 28mm ais Nikor, instead of a zoom and shot a 5 frame panorama. I had been there last bout 10 yrs ago with a Linhof Super Tech V and lenses. Overlapping the frames bout 30-40%, merging in CS3, acheived a file about 200mb. It is below in jpg form, looks at least as detailed as the 4x5 sourced 30x40+ prints[from 10 yrs ago] I have in my office when I have made cropped images to compare. I figure this combined image amounts to about 32-36MP in scale. There is some artifacting on top right center at edge that is not visible in prints, but essentially, after seeing this, it has made me want a 24mp camera more. I figure I would then be able to shoot a two frame stitch and come close to the same pixel dimensions and quality from the previous images  I shot with 4x5. Pixel peepers need not comment, this is from looking at prints from 18 inches or further, which is still close for a print this size. YMMV...
Logged

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2008, 10:47:44 am »

Thanks guys!  

Michael, I've been looking for that shootout now for days (I guess I wasn't using the right search terms)- much appreciated.

Don- that's very helpful.  I just got the 5D2, hoping (like you) to cut down on my frames for stitches.  I'm hoping for 4, and no more than six.  My goal is to get a sequence done in a minute or less, to catch that fleeting magical light.  I figure that 60-100 megapixels (allowing for overlap) should at least come close.

John
Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2008, 10:58:28 am »

Quote from: DonWeston
fwiw, I was in SW USA in Nov this year, shooting with a D300, only a mere 12mp. Came upon a scene where I wanted more then just an HDR or NEF file, and decided to use my 28mm ais Nikor, instead of a zoom and shot a 5 frame panorama. I had been there last bout 10 yrs ago with a Linhof Super Tech V and lenses. Overlapping the frames bout 30-40%, merging in CS3, acheived a file about 200mb. It is below in jpg form, looks at least as detailed as the 4x5 sourced 30x40+ prints[from 10 yrs ago] I have in my office when I have made cropped images to compare. I figure this combined image amounts to about 32-36MP in scale. There is some artifacting on top right center at edge that is not visible in prints, but essentially, after seeing this, it has made me want a 24mp camera more. I figure I would then be able to shoot a two frame stitch and come close to the same pixel dimensions and quality from the previous images  I shot with 4x5. Pixel peepers need not comment, this is from looking at prints from 18 inches or further, which is still close for a print this size. YMMV...

I Have a 1DsmkIII, 1DsmkII and Kodak SLR/n, I know I'm an odd ball and see things differently, but the more MP's I have in a camera the better film looks to me. That AA filter does more than reduce moire, I think it takes away some picture depth, it levels the field between the sharp and less sharp. MP's when they reach the DR end can go ugly in the transition, film goes black or clear. Resolution wise I keep trying various Canon lenses, I'm mostly disappointed with the results, either distortion edge performance etc. Plus I would find stitching a 1/2 dozen frames more of a pain than scanning.
Shooting 5x4 is a different experience to a DSLr, the pictures you take will be different because your state of mind changes, your priority changes. No doubt if I had a Phaseone my opinion could change, at the moment I don't see 35mm digi's as any answer to the journey and creation of making LF images, lighter to carry, cheaper (possibly) to run and easier yes........... as good or better? not to me.

Kevin.
Logged
Kevin.

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2008, 11:24:42 am »

Quote from: KevinA
I Have a 1DsmkIII, 1DsmkII and Kodak SLR/n, I know I'm an odd ball and see things differently, but the more MP's I have in a camera the better film looks to me. That AA filter does more than reduce moire, I think it takes away some picture depth, it levels the field between the sharp and less sharp. MP's when they reach the DR end can go ugly in the transition, film goes black or clear. Resolution wise I keep trying various Canon lenses, I'm mostly disappointed with the results, either distortion edge performance etc. Plus I would find stitching a 1/2 dozen frames more of a pain than scanning.
Shooting 5x4 is a different experience to a DSLr, the pictures you take will be different because your state of mind changes, your priority changes. No doubt if I had a Phaseone my opinion could change, at the moment I don't see 35mm digi's as any answer to the journey and creation of making LF images, lighter to carry, cheaper (possibly) to run and easier yes........... as good or better? not to me.

Kevin.

That's a point of view that I wouldn't have expected, Kevin, and now I'll have to A/B my 5D2 against my 40D to try to see what you are seeing.  I assume that your comments refer to single frames from your DSLRs.  What is your impression of the results you've obtained from stitching?

John
Logged

DonWeston

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2008, 12:40:03 pm »

John - to say 4x5 is a different experience is obvious and true, used 4x5 for over a decade and MF for two decades. That said, it is a matter of taste and personal choice, I for one would not go back to film ever, and a mfdb or 4x5 digital back is way too much. For me, I like having a more portable system, more responsive system, a more multipurpose system, and a dslr is thing for me. As I said, YMMV. I think you will be good with your 5D2 and less stitching. Does not mean you can not stitch when you want to. I frankly could go either Canon or Nikon, have pretty comparable systems in both, but have personally had too many focusing issues with Canon, went through 3 5d bodies before I got one that focussed predictably, consistently. MF adjustment is just not my thing, I hope Nikons inclusion of this function is not a sign that future models will be more problematic. So far my d300 is fine with all my lenses I currently own.  Personally I think 60-100MP is a bit overkill, but you may view you prints closer than I do. Although friends of mine think I am way to picky as is. I can tell you just from what i said before, that 30+mp is fine for 30x45 prints, the image I included above looks great at 30x60 inches. Looking at cropped sample images, at this size, I can only imagine what a image with twice the pixels would look like. Hope you 5D2 works for you, you will for sure, be able to  stitch less and still acheive large file sizes, at this point I am waiting for a D700x model to arrive, to accomplish the same thing. IF you are surely, going for 60-100mp, you better make sure, your computer is up to top form in RAM and hard drive space....have fun, going to Greece in March and will surely shoot more stitched images and hdr....with whatever camera I have by then....
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2008, 01:30:07 pm »

I know this has been done to death, but i have a 1DS3 with some very fine Zeiss glass and have to say if i had to rely on this to produce fine prints for the wall that i was proud of i think i would change my career. Honestly my Pentax 67 pisses all over it and looks beautiful, and the 1DS3 gets used for stock only, and even for stock i'm shooting more and more colour neg in the Pentax because even on the Getty website i can see how much better the film pics look, but economically it makes sense to have both, and that's the way of the world i'm afraid, but out of choice i know which one i'd be sticking with.
Logged

markhout

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
    • http://www.markhout.com
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2008, 01:51:14 pm »

Quote from: Gary Yeowell
I know this has been done to death, but i have a 1DS3 with some very fine Zeiss glass and have to say if i had to rely on this to produce fine prints for the wall that i was proud of i think i would change my career. Honestly my Pentax 67 pisses all over it and looks beautiful, and the 1DS3 gets used for stock only, and even for stock i'm shooting more and more colour neg in the Pentax because even on the Getty website i can see how much better the film pics look, but economically it makes sense to have both, and that's the way of the world i'm afraid, but out of choice i know which one i'd be sticking with.

Very good points. Similarly, my Mamiya 7 used to beat the heck out of DSLR. Stitching though did help a bit - this is a D300 HDR stitch (click here for tech data). I have tried HDR to get the same smooth dynamic range as I would have with the M7 or 4x5. I'm not there yet, but I'm getting close. Wonder if a full frame would have helped here.

Logged

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2008, 03:08:38 pm »

Quote from: markhout
Very good points. Similarly, my Mamiya 7 used to beat the heck out of DSLR. Stitching though did help a bit - this is a D300 HDR stitch (click here for tech data). I have tried HDR to get the same smooth dynamic range as I would have with the M7 or 4x5. I'm not there yet, but I'm getting close. Wonder if a full frame would have helped here.


Mark, that's a helluva shot there- you could have impressed me with that even if it came out of a camera phone!  Tell 'ya what I'm going to do:  I'm going to take my 5D2 and shoot some pics of a dollar bill framed the way the crops are framed in the above linked "shootout" thread, with a variety of focal lengths to see what length is required in order to get resolution similar to that seen on th 4x5 image.  If the test goes well, I'll post the pics.

John
Logged

DonWeston

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2008, 03:50:06 pm »

Mark - I will second that as a beautiful shot....nice mono conversion......Don
Logged

markhout

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
    • http://www.markhout.com
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2008, 03:52:41 pm »

Quote from: button
I'm going to take my 5D2 and shoot some pics of a dollar bill framed the way the crops are framed in the above linked "shootout" thread, with a variety of focal lengths to see what length is required in order to get resolution similar to that seen on th 4x5 image.  If the test goes well, I'll post the pics.

John

The thing is - this not so much about resolution than about brilliance / dynamic range / "that 4x5 feeling". Resolution wise I think that Michael's tests show that there is very little difference in practice between the camera and lens combinations tested. And modern sharpening methods can I think easily mimic a 10MP file of a dollar bill into a high resolution file. The OP asked about resolution, but I still think the 4x5 vs. digital is about pixel size rather than pixel count - am more than happy (certainly financially) if anyone can prove me wrong...

Thanks Don & John for your kudos...!
« Last Edit: December 30, 2008, 03:53:24 pm by markhout »
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2008, 06:03:49 pm »

Simple math:
2400DPI scanner equivalent.(true pixels)
2400 X 5 = 12000
2400 X 4 = 9600

115.2 MP.

If your 35mm camera does, say, 6000*4000(say it's a top end model), then basically 4 shots.  If it only does 16MP, then it might take 6-8 shots.  

But, there is a dirty trick:
100-200DPI dye sub is just fine for printing things that will be viewed from a distance.  This means that  you can basically get away with 1/2 the resolution of 4 X 5 to have the same result to the audience/person viewing the printed results.   All larger formats do if you're dealing with digital and printing with an inkjet or dye sub printer is get you more room to enlarge.  The quality per linear inch is roughly the same no matter the MP.

The actual math:  200dpi dye sub X 1.5(Bayer losses compared to scanned film)=300DPI digital.  12000 X 9600 film equivalent is 40*32 with zero loss in quality that's discernible to the viewer.  At 100dpi, though, that's 80X64 (150 dpi digital = 100dpi dye sub)  Inkjets of course have no

But if you have, say, 6000*4000, that's still 40 X 32 at 100DPI printed. Most people wouldn't notice the difference from more than a few feet away.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2008, 08:04:54 pm »

Quote from: Plekto
But if you have, say, 6000*4000, that's still 40 X 32 at 100DPI printed. Most people wouldn't notice the difference from more than a few feet away.

That really depends on the subject IMHO.

South West landscapes are relatively forgiving since there are often few mid distance items with small details.

Woodscapes are a different matter from my experience.

On the other hand, I have seen 50x75 inch prints from a D200 that looked real good, but they were shot with a 85 T/S tilted so as to minimize DoF and only a few cm were in focus in the final print. Blurred areas are basically just as nice in large print whether they are from 8x10 or from a 10 MP DSLR if the RIP does a good job.

The bottom line though is that this is a matter of personnal standards. Whether you are happy with selling good prints, or whether you are trying to achieve very good prints. Since prints will rarely been displayed side by side, it ends up being a matter of personnal ethics more than anything else. Here also, how many MP you need to achieve a very good print at a given print size is highly subject/media dependant.

Another thing to take into account is possible future usage of the image, including foreseable improvements in display technologies. Will your images fare well in a slide show displayed on an A1 100MP LCD screen if the previous image was a stitch made from P65+ images?

Cheers,
Bernard

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2008, 12:06:33 pm »

Quote from: button
Thanks guys!  

Michael, I've been looking for that shootout now for days (I guess I wasn't using the right search terms)- much appreciated.

Don- that's very helpful.  I just got the 5D2, hoping (like you) to cut down on my frames for stitches.  I'm hoping for 4, and no more than six.  My goal is to get a sequence done in a minute or less, to catch that fleeting magical light.  I figure that 60-100 megapixels (allowing for overlap) should at least come close.

John

I should add a bit more to my statement. I don't see any real quality improvement from a MP point of view from the Kodaks 14mp to the Canon's 21mp, shooting 6x7 film I think just gives me more. I now shoot 99% digital for commercial work and film 99% for my own. Having now got 21mp, to me it just shows how good film is, instead of closing the gap on film and MF digital, I think those 21mp highlight the short falls of 35mm digital.
For commercial work I'm shooting from aircraft, I find it strange that my old 6x7's shot at 100 iso with a Pentax that had a flapping garage door for a mirror, slower lenses etc look much sharper than my digital at 400 iso with faster lenses and often lens stabillisation. I have stitched images from a helicopter, not easy as they are never stationary, with great results.
Yesterday I was out for fun shooting 5x7 sheets, 4 hours I only took 2 images yet to be processed, if I had taken a digital camera I would of shot dozens and viewed them by now. That sounds like an argument for digital right? Not to me, it was about the journey to the image as much as the image. It's easy to fill a HD with digital files if that's the goal. The pleasure of the LF thought process and joy of the rare occasion of getting it right are worth more than a HD of images. It's not just resolution either, I try to shoot my 5x7 with a Soft focus when possible, I mean how daft is that right, all that gear to get blurry pictures.
And I would swop all my digital images for them on 6x7 film if I had a magic wand. But that's just me, most would not.

Kevin.
Logged
Kevin.

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2008, 06:52:03 pm »

Quote from: Plekto
Simple math:
2400DPI scanner equivalent.(true pixels)
2400 X 5 = 12000
2400 X 4 = 9600

115.2 MP.
The pixels from a 2400dpi film scan are not the same quality as pixels from a DSLR image. This is the same type of math that people used to quote when arguing that you need a 20mp DSLR to match a 35mm film. Anybody who's compared actual prints knows that this is nonsense.
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2008, 07:26:05 pm »

Around 60 MP.  So a three image (portrait mode) stitch from a Sony A900, D3x or Canon 5DMk11 or 1Ds III should get you close enough - albeit  the image would look quite different in non-resolution related ways.

Comparisons with scanned film pixels are misleading.  Beyond a certain point all you are getting by scanning at higher resolutions is more grain.

A 25mp dslr should be close to 6x7 drum scanned film.

Quentin
« Last Edit: December 31, 2008, 07:29:04 pm by Quentin »
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2008, 10:37:56 pm »

Quote from: Quentin
albeit  the image would look quite different in non-resolution related ways.

Such as?
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2008, 10:51:28 pm »

Quote from: markhout
The thing is - this not so much about resolution than about brilliance / dynamic range / "that 4x5 feeling". Resolution wise I think that Michael's tests show that there is very little difference in practice between the camera and lens combinations tested. And modern sharpening methods can I think easily mimic a 10MP file of a dollar bill into a high resolution file. The OP asked about resolution, but I still think the 4x5 vs. digital is about pixel size rather than pixel count - am more than happy (certainly financially) if anyone can prove me wrong...

If anything, you will have more DR with a modern DSLR than with slide films. Brilliance is now being defined as micro contrast, and yes, you have more potential for good micro contrast and natural looking images with a large file like that provided by 4x5.

Too much DR results in flat looking images closer to what we used to be getting with color negatives. It is of course always possible to increase the contrast of a wide DR image after the fact by applying a steeper curve, but the problem is that many of us as loosing the ability to anticipate when shooting.

Slide on 4x5 forced us to focus on images where the light was such that the subject would fare well with limited DR. Now a DSLR enables us to address a wider set of subjects, but many of these subjects will not be suitable for the application of a steeper curve in post processing...

Now on the look... we have at least 4 factors impacting IMHO:

- aspect ratio (4x5 is more square)
- DoF (limited or infinite)
- geometry of the image as a result of proper T/S functions usage
- quality of the lenses, including the near total lack of distorsion

My personnal view is that it is possible to emulate these fairly well with 35 mm gear.

- aspect ratio (4x5 is more square) -> through flat or cylindrical stitching
- DoF -> through DoF stacking or the usage of a T/S lens when applicable
- geometry of the image as a result of proper T/S functions usage -> through PS post-processing or T/S lenses
- quality of the lenses, including the near total lack of distorsion -> various PS plug-ins, starting with DxO and PTlens, can help deal with this.

Cheers,
Bernard

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
4x5 vs DSLR stitch: how many megapixels needed?
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2009, 12:17:21 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Brilliance is now being defined as micro contrast...

Kind of like that achieved with the "clarity" slider in ACR/LR?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up