Topic: 1Ds MKII vs scanned 4x5 (Read 14755 times)

RobertJ · « **Reply #40 on:** December 17, 2004, 03:47:30 pm »

Does anyone actually shoot 8x10 in this forum?

T-1000

Graham Welland · « **Reply #41 on:** December 18, 2004, 02:11:49 am »

Well, doing the math assuming 8x10 dimensions it's about 500mp (477mp = 8 x 10 x 2500 x 2500 / (1024 x 1024) ) ... which I would expect to be somewhere in the region of ~500MB (8 bit) or ~1GB (16 bit) for an uncompressed TIFF. Lossless compression would obviously shrink these significantly depending upon the image complexity.

You start running into significant image transfer times at this sort of size even for the fastest machines. Storage is another matter again!

Graham Welland · « **Reply #42 on:** December 19, 2004, 07:32:48 pm »

You are correct - I realised that I'd missed the 3x & 6x factors for the bytes but I've been away ...

Pretty big stuff.

pfigen · « **Reply #43 on:** December 20, 2004, 10:44:30 pm »

"If an 8x10 is scanned on a drum scanner at 2500 DPI (the theoretical film grain resolution limit for ISO 100 transparency film)"

100 speed tranny film can resolve far more than 2500 on the film. Many lenses for 8 X10 probably can't and the thicker film base might limit it somewhat too. I can see a very noticeably improvement going from 6.4 microns (4000 ppi) to 3.2 microns (8000 ppi) on the Howtek drum from 6X7 RZ and 35mm frames . Both Tri-X and Agfa 400, believe it or not, can also resolve over 4000 and TMax 100 is even sharper.

Quentin · « **Reply #44 on:** December 01, 2004, 01:27:32 pm »

Quote

Conclusion: Scanned 4x5 remains King of detail by a pretty significant margin...

To be expected, but perhaps more important is at what print size would the difference become apparent? I supect you could go quite large before the 4x5 advantage was material. I would expect the 1Ds II or Kodak SLR/n or c to hold their own up to around A2.

Quentin

samirkharusi · « **Reply #45 on:** December 03, 2004, 07:06:03 am »

It's a pity that Canon seems unable to make wide lenses that match up to the 1Ds (I do not own a 1DsII). Many of these how-large-a-print comparisons are marred by inadequate lenses on the smaller format. OK, many people typically use zooms, but presumably not when they are chasing A2 prints. The cheapest, pixel-sharp Canon lens I have used is the 100mm/2.8macro USM, at any distance, at any f-stop. With that one, or Canon's longer lenses, it becomes obvious that the limit is the Bayerised/antialiaised pixels, not the lens. I have used an astro camera with no Bayer array and the look at the pixel-peeping 1:1 level is quite different. With all shorter primes that I have used on the 1Ds the limit invariably and rather obviously seems to be the lens, not the pixels. Heck, even on a D30, much of the time. Conclusion? Time for Canon to come up with wide lenses worthy of their DSLRs. I'd quite happily pay $1000+ for a decent, pixel-sharp (MTF>70% at 30 lp/mm), f2.8 50mm, 28mm, etc. But then it becomes quite silly to compare printability of 1DsII tele-shots with a 4x5... Somebody somewhere must be using a huge tele on a 4x5 but there can't be all that many of these guys. The people who adapt Zeiss Distagons to Canon DSLRs are testament to these lens issues.

BobMcCarthy · « **Reply #46 on:** December 03, 2004, 01:38:46 pm »

Jack, I read your article on sharpening and resizing at outback. I also just looked at the Qimage product which appears to make the claim that 300 dpi is not enough and offer two printing tests (test chart and photo) done as high as 720 dpi with the implication, for ultimate output we need to output at 720 not 300. If this has any merit then, larger format (more pixels in the capture) and less upsizing could produce substancially better prints. Seems like snake oil at first blush.

Have you looked at the product?

Bob

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #47 on:** December 04, 2004, 12:27:51 am »

BTW, the album was updated this afternoon and now includes a drum and Epson flatbed scan comparison...

pfigen · « **Reply #48 on:** December 11, 2004, 11:02:46 pm »

"The film is Velvia scanned on an Epson 2450 using SilverFast Ai Studio. 2400 dpi. Obviously an Imacon or drum scan would have better shadow detail and DMax. I can't vouch for the 1DsII quality but the Kodak is no slouch in this department. Film still wins in my book - but it's not by a lot."

I'd say by a lot more than you think. Making any comparison between digital and film, you are really comparing the quality of your scanner, not your film, to the digital capture, and in the instances in this thread, none of the scanners can come close to resolving nearly what is actually held in a sharp piece of film. Scan your film on a truly state of the art (not Imacon) drum scanner and you'll be amazed at how much more is there. What's little known is that virtually no scanners achieve their advertised optical resolutions, and Imacon PIII's and Epson flatbeds are great examples of that phenomenon, yielding far less resolution than you might expect.

Quentin · « **Reply #49 on:** December 12, 2004, 08:48:41 am »

Quote

Don't worry, I'm not ditching the digital equipment any time soon ......

Hi Graham,

Glad to hear it. I'm thinking of re-starting shooting large format again because its one way of blowing those $30k digital backs in to the weeds

And I'm having drum scanning withdrawal symptoms.

What I actually thought when I saw your comparisons was that the Mamiya / digi back solution looked more than "good enough" for most purposes. I also find scanning LF at 2,000 dpi on my drum scanner pulls out more than enough detail: beyond that and you increase file sizes to silly levels with relatively minor gains (unless you want to cover the side if a house).

Quentin

Graham Welland · « **Reply #50 on:** December 13, 2004, 11:11:12 am »

Quote

Quote
Both produce outstanding image quality, but one is more 'outstanding' than the other in qualitative terms if not usability and convenience.
This is surely nearly incontestible. I've wondered, however, based on what we know from 1dsMKII and from MF backs, how do you think an MF DSLR with about the pixel density of 1dsMKII would do? That would be something on the order of 35 Mpixels or so (depending on exact pixel density and sensor dimensions). Do you think that this would rival 4x5 transparency scans for the most demanding large print applications? I realize you can get still bigger files from the scans, but realistically speaking (taking into account grain) do you think that MF can potentially rival 4x5 sharpness with no caveats?

I think that this is probably where we'll end up. It's logical to believe the MF sensors will get denser in terms of pixels (I don't believe the current crop of 22/25mp sensors are any denser than the 16mp - just bigger dimensionally).

I would imagine that we're not many generations away from MF sensors exceeding scanned LF film and it's inevitable that we'll hit some physical limitations with the resolution of the glass available before the sensor folks hit physics limitations. In any case, things will only get better and if we can wait long enough, affordable.

To be honest, we're hitting the limits of what is required to produce 12x18's/A2 sized prints. It's only a matter of time before that's also true for 30x40" and above. It's certain that there will still be differentiation between solutions at the qualitative level. As we see/understand today, not all digital backs produce the same results even though they use the same chips.

In any case, it'll still be nice to use film some of the time ....

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #51 on:** December 13, 2004, 01:11:28 pm »

I'm going to step a bit further out on a limb here and claim it will take over 50 Megapixels in a MF sensor to approach scanned LF image quality. And even then I remain dubious over that being a true replacement for scanned 4x5. It may take 80-100MP before that really happens.

Lin Evans · « **Reply #52 on:** December 13, 2004, 07:04:18 pm »

Quote

Really ? On my Epson 2100 I'm pressed to see any real difference above 240 dpi. Colorbyte Software (makers of Image Print) claim that anything above 200 dpi is more than their RIP needs. And I've certainly got the impression from various experts that anything over 300 is a waste of ink.

That's because there is a confusion here in terminology. 300 dpi print density is the actual number of individual pixels being represented in the file. The inkjet process on an Epson will automatically interpolate at the fine settings to 720 dpi by the print driver regardless of what you furnish it in the file. The number of actual drops of ink per given unit of measurement (in this case per inch) depends on the individual inkjet where each pixel may be represented by a large number of micro-fine dropletts of ink. Some of the newer Epsons have over 5000 drops of ink per inch and if you divide the individual resolution of the printer by 720 you will know how many dropletts of ink are used to create proper color tone in each printed pixel.

Lin

didger · « **Reply #53 on:** December 14, 2004, 11:31:27 am »

Quote

IMO it is enough better than the 1Ds that I can safely say it trumps drum-scanned 6x7.

Any direct comparison pictures yet? The only ones posted so far were by Akiss, but shot at f22 and there was virtually no sharpness difference. f8 would certainly show a bigger difference, but 2 pictures are worth a thousand opinions.

RobertJ · « **Reply #54 on:** December 14, 2004, 10:06:24 pm »

Would it be stupid of me to buy a 6x7 medium format camera that doesn't support digital backs, since I most likely can't afford these upcoming digital backs/P25's? Or maybe a 4x5?

My current setup would be a high end DSLR plus some sort of film camera: 6x7 or large format. I'm not sure...

T-1000

RobertJ · « **Reply #55 on:** December 15, 2004, 02:50:29 pm »

Yeah, if it was up to me, I'd stick with digital, since I use it for my persoanl work and enjoyment as well. But some people still only take film, like stock/magazines. They're afraid of receiving submissions from point and shoot digitals, (or some other reason, maybe just uneducated on digital). Most people can safely transition over to digital, without the need for film ever again. For me, I think I should have/shoot both for the time being, until everyone else makes the transition.

T-1000

Lin Evans · « **Reply #56 on:** December 18, 2004, 11:14:13 am »

Quote

If so, wouldn't this make the ~500MP image roughly 1.5 GIGA-bytes in size and the 16-bit version 3 Gig?

Talk about storage and processing issues!

Actually, a true 1.09 gigapixel image ended up being a bit over 2 gigabytes in size at eight bits and special software had to be developed to process it into the 8x12 foot uninterpolated LightJet print displayed at PMA by Max Lyons. Here's a link FYI - good info.... I saw this print and it was exceptional both in tonality and in incredible sharpness.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm

Also, this may be of interest:

http://www.gigapxl.org/technology.htm

Lin

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #57 on:** December 14, 2004, 06:25:24 pm »

Quote

I wanna see pictures,

That is the precise point I was trying to make -- download the DNG's and print them for yourself!

As for the big differece between the 1DII and 1Ds, suffice it to say that I own a 1DII and it requires a very different sharpening regimen than the 1Ds or 1DsII does to get optimal images -- thus it is unlikely somebody who does not own the camera will got it right the first time.

Hence, my opinion -- an opinion formed from having processed and printed large images from the 1DII, the 1Ds and the 1DsII -- is that the "gap" between the 1DII and 1Ds is not any bigger than the gap between the 1Ds and 1DsII -- with perhaps even a slightly larger gap going from the 1Ds to the 1DsII.

Cheers,
Jack

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #58 on:** December 17, 2004, 11:37:06 pm »

Jim:

Help my pea-brain out with the math... If an 8x10 is scanned on a drum scanner at 2500 DPI (the theoretical film grain resolution limit for ISO 100 transparency film), how many megapixels would that be equivalent to?

8-bit file sizes? 16-bit file sizes??

Author Topic: 1Ds MKII vs scanned 4x5 (Read 14755 times)