IQ180 Vs. 8X10 film article

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[Quentin]

.... Are we all nuts? Thanks for the bright statement Quentin. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Well I'm nuts, so its a start    Just ask my wife!

[fotometria gr]

Well I'm nuts, so its a start    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?  Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[fotometria gr]

Stop trying to be sarcastic ... try being quiet. 

I prefer sarcastic... if you prefer quiet ...do it!  QED

[Graham Mitchell]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[Mr. Rib]

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.

[Graham Mitchell]

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.

[Graham Mitchell]

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.

[TH_Alpa]

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

[UlfKrentz]

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

[Mr. Rib]

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?

[fotometria gr]

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

[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

[Quentin]

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?   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  

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.

[theguywitha645d]

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  

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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  

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.

[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  

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

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[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.

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....       Regards, Theodoros. www.fotomatria.gr