Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film  (Read 52979 times)

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2011, 01:22:36 am »

The comparison was intended to find out if IQ180 could replace 8x10". With the test methodology of the authors the result was a resounding yes. It may be argued that the authors should been more competent using the 8x10", and I certainly would scan film at higher resolution. The results may also simply indicate that achieving perfection with 8x10" is not easy.

Having spent a lot of time shooting 8x10 commercially and recently upgrading to an IQ 180, I agree that the basic premise of whether or not an IQ 180 could "replace" and 8x10 has been pretty much proven giving a maximum upward size of a print. An IQ 180 has a capture of 10328 x 7760 which equates to a digital print of 43x32.3 at 240PPI. So we're talking a nominal 30" x 40" print.

If you scan an 8x10 (nominally 9.5 x 7.5 unless you compose right to the rebate of the film) at 1600PPI (note I'm not saying that's the best you can get, I'm saying it's a reasonable file size for an 8x10 scan) you'll end up with an image of 15200 x 12000 pixels or about 43x34 at about 350PPI (353.488 to be exact).

In the analog world, that's a big print...heck, how many people have actually used an 8x10 enlarger (or even seen one)? I have and it was a real pain in the arse to make even a 16x20 enlarged print.

So, in terms of a digital print from an IQ 180 and an 8x10 scan assuming about 30x40 inch print, would the IQ 180 at about 240PPI look better than the 8x10 scanned at about 350PPI?

Hum...I don't know...but I'm willing to bet it would be close (and I'm leaning toward the IQ 180 shot on a tech camera with digital lenses). Forget about the reduced DOF on the 8x10 shot...forget about having to have a really good drum scanner to digitize the film...forget about the spotting and cleanup of the scan (which I used to REALLY hate). And of course, forget about dragging an 8x10 with tripod, lenses and film holders around and I think it's a no brainer. Assuming you have the bucks, the IQ 180 is a real competitive answer to 8x10. If you don't have the bucks...an 8x10 film camera is an economical alternative that will, as long as somebody makes 8x10 film and processes it and you have somebody who can scan it, provide really good image quality potential. So one is really, really expensive and the other is cheap (by comparison but weights a lot more :~)

I'll be honest and say that the scans of the 8x10 film don't look great to me...I have had enough 8x10 film scanned to view those scans as being less than optimal and I'm also wondering what the film looked like on the light table through an 8X loupe...

The other thing I will say is that I've had excellent results upsampling digital captures easily to 2x the original capture size. The same can't be said for film though...the grain makes upsampling less good than digital...so the real question is, what size prints do you want? Over 30x40 inches? Well then maybe we have a question here...under 30x40 inch prints? It would be hard to say 8x10 would be a winner considering all the factors aside from price.

But hey, you guys wanna keep yammering, you all go right ahead....personally, I would like to thank the authors for making the effort and at least contributing...you stick your face up in a crowd, you're likely to catch a lot of flak...
Logged

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2011, 01:58:44 am »

Well said Jeff.
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

Faintandfuzzy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #62 on: September 26, 2011, 08:22:07 am »

You completely missed the point Jeff.  It would be nice if we were indeed discussing a well scanned and processed 8x10 image scanned at 1600 ppi.  We however, are not.  We are discussing a 745ppi scan.  And I have yet to find anyone experienced with scanning that agrees this is enough for a comparison.  In fact, it's so obviously ridiculous that the article has so far become the laughingstock of the photography forums. 
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #63 on: September 26, 2011, 09:09:02 am »

Hi,

We don't know if the image was well executed. The authors wrote that they will rescan the image with higher resolution. Several posters made the comment that if an image is unsharp at the pixel level at 800 PPI it will also be unsharp at 1600 PPI.

I have not seen any similar comparison posted on the net, so this may be the best one there is.

A similar discussion arose when Reichmann, Atkinsson and Schewe compared 4x5" Velvia to P45.

Best regards
Erik



You completely missed the point Jeff.  It would be nice if we were indeed discussing a well scanned and processed 8x10 image scanned at 1600 ppi.  We however, are not.  We are discussing a 745ppi scan.  And I have yet to find anyone experienced with scanning that agrees this is enough for a comparison.  In fact, it's so obviously ridiculous that the article has so far become the laughingstock of the photography forums. 
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Stefan.Steib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 471
    • HCam - Hartblei Pro Photography solutions
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #64 on: September 26, 2011, 10:08:54 am »

Maybe it´s quite relaxing to get some numbers into this discussion - here is a google translated article of german photoscala:

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphotoscala.de%2FArtikel%2FWie-viele-Megapixel-hat-ein-Film

additionally there was a comparison of 35mmDSLR - Leica S2 and Mamiya RZ (with velvia) see here:

http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphotoscala.de%2FArtikel%2FKleinbild-kontra-Mittelformat

The results (for the film) look pretty similar to this test with 8x10 inch.
OK I know the film people don´t want to hear or see this, but there is a trend, and this also confirms what I think - and - probably most of the people do, at least of the PRO-E6 labs we had in Munich
most of them had closed down only 2 left of over 10.
Why should everybody use something more expensive, with worse quality and less usability as the Film defenders state about digital ?
I understand that there are emotions involved here, but I guess it is not helpful to accuse people of doing ridiculous and stupid comparisons here - I would propose try yourself and then
make your own judgements. Many (probably most) people already did this and look at the market now. I think this speaks for itself.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan Steib    hcam.de
Logged
Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done it before".

image66

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #65 on: September 26, 2011, 10:25:56 am »

I suppose I'm just impressed that camera technology from a hundred years ago is holding up as well as it does against a camera costing as much as my house.

That said, I see focus and vibration blurring in the 8x10 photo. I agree with others who have stated that if the film isn't sharp at 800 ppi, there is something going wrong on the capture side of the equation.

Ken
Logged

Faintandfuzzy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #66 on: September 26, 2011, 11:34:49 am »

Hi,

We don't know if the image was well executed. The authors wrote that they will rescan the image with higher resolution. Several posters made the comment that if an image is unsharp at the pixel level at 800 PPI it will also be unsharp at 1600 PPI.

I have not seen any similar comparison posted on the net, so this may be the best one there is.

A similar discussion arose when Reichmann, Atkinsson and Schewe compared 4x5" Velvia to P45.

Best regards
Erik




I guess therin lies the problem Erik.....if a 745ppi scan of the film is soft looking...then the issue is more with the capture method than it is anything else.  My scans of 4x5 are not soft at 800ppi, or 1600, or 2400ppi.  So, we're back to this simply being yet another flawed test.
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #67 on: September 26, 2011, 12:28:48 pm »

Why should everybody use something more expensive, with worse quality and less usability as the Film defenders state about digital ?

It's not that simple. 30-100k EUR/USD buys a lot of film, developing and scanning, so for some film is cheaper, for some, digital. It's also not purely about cost, but ROI: although digital might be more expensive in some cases, the cost of each additional exposure is practically zero, whereas with film it's (at least) the price of film and developing.

Also, with film you are less likely to upgrade your back every few years to a shiny new one.

Stefan.Steib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 471
    • HCam - Hartblei Pro Photography solutions
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #68 on: September 26, 2011, 02:01:43 pm »

@Feppe

well - I think most people forget how darn expensive it was 10 even more 20 years ago to buy this 8x10 " highend equipment, cameras (Sinar P2 full blown with 5 lenses and accessories, nice little expolux shutter or some other gimmicks and you easily went over 20-30000 DM !!!) , lenses (did all of you really forgot what a dollar/DMark was worth 20 years ago - this was Mark=€ today and the large lenses were 4000, 5000 or even 6000 DM !) and  you should not forget all the larger flash equipment which is now no more needed (who needs an 8000ws generator nowadays ? I had several of these !).

The only reason why using 8x10" is "cheap" now is because the Pros have sold their stuff for nearly nothing and moved on to the next technology.......

20 years ago I have often spent around 300 to 500 DM a day for material and E6 costs - pushpull, late lab costs, weekends,....... how can anybody forget this all ?
The only reason why people would do this, was that customers were paying for the material back then.

Now come the stupid photographers (myself included) who at the beginning of Digital were NOT consequent enough to charge a "Material fee" for the used Digi equipment !
It´s our own fault, the competition was and is like this, and I repeat it: Photographers are stupid and bad business men.

Otherwise NOBODY today would be complaining about the 35k$ for an IQ180.
I know there are countries where Photographers are working different, France/Paris I heard there are plenty of rental studios who rent the backs and the studios, Japan/Tokyo seems to be the same.
What I don´t know if these Photographers charge the real costs of the rental per job or if they put this in their day rates.

Would be interesting to hear from someone who is into that rental scene and working like this.

Greetings from Munich

Stefan Steib   hcam.de


Logged
Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done it before".

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #69 on: September 26, 2011, 02:56:22 pm »

The only reason why using 8x10" is "cheap" now is because the Pros have sold their stuff for nearly nothing and moved on to the next technology.......
I am a hobbyist. At the current price level, anything digital >35mm is out of the question for me. A cheap larger format film camera, dumped by the pros could still be interesting for experimentation (and probably not for taking a large number of pictures).

At the very least, camera movements (combined with reasonable quality) seem to be available cheaper with used film cameras than with existing DSLR tilt-shift lenses (will see if Samyang can change that).

-h
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #70 on: September 26, 2011, 04:07:49 pm »

@Feppe

well - I think most people forget how darn expensive it was 10 even more 20 years ago to buy this 8x10 " highend equipment, cameras (Sinar P2 full blown with 5 lenses and accessories, nice little expolux shutter or some other gimmicks and you easily went over 20-30000 DM !!!) , lenses (did all of you really forgot what a dollar/DMark was worth 20 years ago - this was Mark=€ today and the large lenses were 4000, 5000 or even 6000 DM !) and  you should not forget all the larger flash equipment which is now no more needed (who needs an 8000ws generator nowadays ? I had several of these !).

The only reason why using 8x10" is "cheap" now is because the Pros have sold their stuff for nearly nothing and moved on to the next technology.......

I don't see how that is relevant, other than an off-topic discussion of the recent advent of digital and its impact on prices. The fact is, as hjulenissen says, that digital larger than 35mm is prohibitively expensive to everyone except pros who shoot a lot and need a lot of pixels, and the proverbial dentist and trust fund hobbyists. How we got there doesn't really matter.

Agree with your assessment about the lack of business (or I should say financial) acumen in the photography business. Reading some of the economic and financial ignorance on these boards about what is the cost of doing business alone boggles the mind. The most common mistake seems to be that people assume their time is essentially free.

Stefan.Steib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 471
    • HCam - Hartblei Pro Photography solutions
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #71 on: September 26, 2011, 04:39:17 pm »

I say the 8/10" equipment was not cheaper, it´s costs have only been paid years ago. It was the best possible output of 10 years ago, but it is already surpassed.
What will a H4D200 do ? Did anybody already compare an Anagramm or Betterlight with 8/10 " ? I think the 80 Mpix are just another step in an ongoing process.
The CCD´s are just another leftover, next evolution will be large CMOS´s and then quality will become cheaper and even more affordable.

But the question is not about shere image size, the more interesting part is integration of this amount of data into workflows, easy accessability and  immediate control
of what I have shot. And under none of these points film does have any answers that work.

So maybe the flaw in this test is that it should have shown how much effort it took to make the digital shots and how much time and knowledge it took to get to these scans
-which obviously are a broad source of discussion nevertheless.

This is the really interesting part here.

Greetings from Munich

Stefan Steib   HCam.de
Logged
Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done it before".

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #72 on: September 26, 2011, 04:46:00 pm »

Hi!

Have you seen this? Tilt lens on a shoestring:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/29-handling-the-dof-trap?start=3

Best regards
Erik


I am a hobbyist. At the current price level, anything digital >35mm is out of the question for me. A cheap larger format film camera, dumped by the pros could still be interesting for experimentation (and probably not for taking a large number of pictures).

At the very least, camera movements (combined with reasonable quality) seem to be available cheaper with used film cameras than with existing DSLR tilt-shift lenses (will see if Samyang can change that).

-h
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #73 on: September 26, 2011, 04:56:32 pm »

Hi,

You are probably right about CMOS and increasing resolution. Another possibility may also be that MF digital starves out to competition from DSLRs. I don't think it will, there will always be an advantage to larger sensors, and those who are willing to pay for those advantages.

But, I'd suggest that the main driver behind 8x10" is not image quality but the sensation of craftmanship and uniqueness.

Best regards
Erik

I say the 8/10" equipment was not cheaper, it´s costs have only been paid years ago. It was the best possible output of 10 years ago, but it is already surpassed.
What will a H4D200 do ? Did anybody already compare an Anagramm or Betterlight with 8/10 " ? I think the 80 Mpix are just another step in an ongoing process.
The CCD´s are just another leftover, next evolution will be large CMOS´s and then quality will become cheaper and even more affordable.

But the question is not about shere image size, the more interesting part is integration of this amount of data into workflows, easy accessability and  immediate control
of what I have shot. And under none of these points film does have any answers that work.

So maybe the flaw in this test is that it should have shown how much effort it took to make the digital shots and how much time and knowledge it took to get to these scans
-which obviously are a broad source of discussion nevertheless.

This is the really interesting part here.

Greetings from Munich

Stefan Steib   HCam.de
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Schwarzzeit

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
    • HIGH-END-SCANS
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #74 on: September 27, 2011, 06:09:24 am »

Another perspective how experienced LF photographers perceived this test can be read here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=80963

It's interesting to read from post #57 and onwards that there was another test planned that somehow wasn't made. If you read further it seems that Markus has agreed to reshoot his test with the help of some experienced LF shooters and drum scanner operators. So I guess there's more to come and hopefully a fair test will be published on this site.

In its current form the only conclusion this test gives is that an optimally focused IQ180 on a tech cam does much better than an out of focus 8x10" with a low quality drum scan. It is one example that might reflect the practical experience of some but we all agree that a correctly focused 8x10" can do much better.

Besides the level of detail I don't think it's possible to replicate the unique look you can get with 8x10" film with an MFDB and vice versa. So there's no substitute. If that look is critical to the expression of your vision as a fine art photographer you should use the tools that give you the best starting point in order to achieve that. I think it would have been nicer if such a comparison would show the unique character of what these systems do in different situations, showing their strengths and unique quality at optimum use and also their weaknesses and problems, instead of just picking out some seemingly random crops showing that one system has a better level of detail in these crops on this particular image. It would take much more effort to do such a broad test but it would be very valuable to a lot of readers trying to get an informed opinion. And tests would be much more pleasing if the subjects would be worth being photographed. I like for example what Tim Parkin did when he recently compared all available color sheet films: http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/06/colour-film-comparison-pt-3/

-Dominique

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #75 on: September 27, 2011, 08:29:37 am »

I guess therin lies the problem Erik.....if a 745ppi scan of the film is soft looking...then the issue is more with the capture method than it is anything else.  My scans of 4x5 are not soft at 800ppi, or 1600, or 2400ppi.  So, we're back to this simply being yet another flawed test.

And given Michael's comparison shoot test also being flaw'd (NEX-7) ...

I think the best decision that Michael made for this web site was to stop doing resolution tests.

However this begat another problem - how can we judge what he sees when he says A is better than B?

I wonder if the problem is:
* bad technique in the test procedure
* not allocating enough time
* being happy with finding results that support the outcome desired

(or a combination of the above.)

In future resolution tests by Michael and others for this website, I'd like to encourage them to challenge any result that is in favour of the topic and search for ways to disprove themselves.

For example, rather than being happy with the 8x10@745ppi being of lesser quality than the IQ180 and leave it at that, search for ways and means to improve the 8x10's resolution.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #76 on: September 27, 2011, 11:41:20 am »

I think the best decision that Michael made for this web site was to stop doing resolution tests.

Agreed, but only if the test methodology is not sound.

Quote
However this begat another problem - how can we judge what he sees when he says A is better than B?

Opinions are often subjective, a proper test delivers objective results. Part of the issue is the seemingly allergic reaction to using a proper test target/chart, e.g. one that I developed and is available for free

By focusing (which is easy on such a target) on a flat surface/chart one eliminates DOF induced defocus. It indicates aliasing artifacts (e.g. at apertures that do not add enough diffraction blur), and it allows to nail the limiting resolution (also of a scanned film even when the scanner is the limiting factor), and it shows whether a very high scan resolution is overkill (producing larger files than needed for the resolution). One can focus optimally anywhere in the image circle and get an optimal outcome despite field curvature or non-parallel target surface and film/sensor plane. Even camera shake will be made visible if it spoils the fun.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Faintandfuzzy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #77 on: September 27, 2011, 12:22:39 pm »

Maybe it´s quite relaxing to get some numbers into this discussion - here is a google translated article of german photoscala:

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphotoscala.de%2FArtikel%2FWie-viele-Megapixel-hat-ein-Film

additionally there was a comparison of 35mmDSLR - Leica S2 and Mamiya RZ (with velvia) see here:

http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphotoscala.de%2FArtikel%2FKleinbild-kontra-Mittelformat

The results (for the film) look pretty similar to this test with 8x10 inch.
OK I know the film people don´t want to hear or see this, but there is a trend, and this also confirms what I think - and - probably most of the people do, at least of the PRO-E6 labs we had in Munich
most of them had closed down only 2 left of over 10.
Why should everybody use something more expensive, with worse quality and less usability as the Film defenders state about digital ?
I understand that there are emotions involved here, but I guess it is not helpful to accuse people of doing ridiculous and stupid comparisons here - I would propose try yourself and then
make your own judgements. Many (probably most) people already did this and look at the market now. I think this speaks for itself.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan Steib    hcam.de

Well, I checked the D3x vs S2 vs RZ images.  And as usual, the digital file had sharpening applied while the film scan did not.  This I find is typical.  Why don't we just run the film scan through a gaussian blur and really make it look bad.  I simply applied some USM to the film scan and voila, it was now better than the D3x.  Simple workflow technique completely changed the result of this comparison. 

A little knowledge goes a long way....but it's rarely applied in these "tests."
Logged

Stefan.Steib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 471
    • HCam - Hartblei Pro Photography solutions
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #78 on: September 27, 2011, 05:43:38 pm »

@faintandfuzzy

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

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

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 06:36:51 pm by Stefan.Steib »
Logged
Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done it before".

lenny_eiger

  • Guest
Re: Interesting comparison of IQ180 and 8x10" film
« Reply #79 on: September 27, 2011, 05:48:24 pm »

This is ridiculous. If you are going to compare two things, then you should compare things of the same quality. Period. As far as those who would suggest it is just fine for commercial work, I would agree. Digital is easier, you have instant feedback, you don't have the wait for the film, or soup it yourself, etc. Almost everything is for magazine size. Why shoot 80 mp even? If I was shooting commercially, then I would certain be doing it digitally.

However, I am an artist. The question the test was trying to ask was not if it was good enough, but if it was better. Clearly, it isn't. Going for 240 is going for mediocre. That's fine for some, but its not for me.

You can see the difference in printing of you look at over and under 300 dpi to the printer. With b&w inks, I usually prefer 450-500 dpi. I like smooth tonal changes. And you can't be the tonal reproduction of a large negative. No smaller sensor is going to do that. I could easily beat what they are doing with a 4x5 at 4000. You can not argue with film real estate.

In contrast to Jeff I think this kind of sloppiness in testing is less than helpful. We already knew that a fancy back would be handy for commercial work. What then, is the purpose of the comparison? Feels like a lot of marketing to me. I have less than 5K in each of my 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and they work exquisitely. Until they get me a couple of hundred megapixels, I won't be much interested... and I certainly don't want to spend money unless I can charge a client.

Lenny

EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up