80mp digital better than 8x10?
They now have an 80mp digital that claims to beat 8x10:( Of course I'd have to shoot at least 1,000 Chromes before it would be economical. One thing I question is why they scanned at such a low resolution. They claimed there was no more detail to be had at higher resolutions.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_8x10.shtml
Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?
You would think that a Ph.D. in Biology would have better training in research design!
Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?
The 8x10 film images were all made at f32.
Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?
Ah, the age-old question.
The answer I usually give is:
"No! I mean, yes! I mean, no! I mean, I don't really care!"
Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?
Consider the source.:rolleyes:
A luminous landscape article
Am I the only one consistently annoyed at Michael Reichman and colleagues inability to set up a proper test. This time comparing a phase one with an 8x10.
Sounds a fair comparison and on luminosity grounds the phase should get close. However the phase trounced the 8x10 which I was quite surprised at - until I saw that they had only scanned the 8x10 at 900dpi !!!
Also, they had used some form of micro-sharpening (and by the look at the scans it wasn't enough to match the inherent sharpening that raw conversion adds).
AND they used f/32 for the LF and then used f/16 for the IQ180?? Well I may be wrong but I thought to match depth of fields you would have to use f/8 for the IQ180? (giving an advantage for the IQ180 in diffraction terms but not in depth of field terms). It would have helped if they had said where they focussed.
Anyone got an IQ180 for a proper test?
Tim
p.s. Here is a sample from a shot I took in Glen Nevis and scanned a central section at 4000dpi.. and next to it is what it looked like scanned at 900dpi with no sharpening..
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/810.jpg
The image above was upsized 200% to make things out more clearly.. Oh, and it was taken with the Nikkor T-ED 600/800/1200 which isn't the sharpest cookie in the 10x8 jar..
Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?
From what I've gathered from other threads, this package will likely have a limited, high end market, and that means it won't get a whole lot less expensive than the current $50K anytime soon. Consumer digitals have got a lot more powerful and cheaper in the last 10 years because of mass sales.
Unless this new gadget gets cheaper than about $10K, I don't think the market for LF film cameras is going to collapse. I suspect most of the people buying and using these high end digitals aren't doing LF anyway.
Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?
There is more to it than resolution. Dynamic range, accurate color and the ability to easily blend multiple exposures are a few advantages of digital. It's also very easy to stitch digital frames for even more resolution and a wider field of view.
Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?
Quote:
"Drum scanned (Dainippon screen SG 608) at 745 dpi – which results in 8874 x 7229 pixels."
745dpi sample rate? C'mon LuLa, don't want to fight on a FAIR playing field, eh???? Also, how old is this drum scanner? I'm sure if they sent the film over to Lenny it'd come back smooth as a babys butt, and look a helluva lot better than this 20+ yr old scanner...
-Dan
Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?
If 80M = 80 square inches of film then a 35mm frame is equal to 1.33M.... which we know it isn't.
So the answer is... NO!
Steve.