Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

  1. #21
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,337

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    Frank, I see that your pal Dick has been good to you. Maybe your project explains why it's so darn difficult to find a store that have a

    1DsII


    in stock. More seriously, I think why Dan is seeing more "depth" in the 4x5 based small print is due to the way he processed the digital file. In my experience, digital files have natively a rather "flat" look (a bit like portrait neg color film) and they require much tweaking to match the color rendition of a film such as Velvia. This is particularly problematic in flat lighting.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    78

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    how can a 6MP nikon digital even compare with the 20-40MP available on 35mm film let alone anything larger??? somehow all the resolution and clarity of 35mm has been lost in the race for digitization.

    If you look closely at magazines (examples, Fine Woodworking, Automobile Quarterly, and others) there is a distinct loss of clarity in the images. Quite frankly we have gone 10 steps backwards in image quality in a lot of applications. This is not an argument for or against anything digital but simply about choices. It seems a lot of poor choices are being made. For some reason magaziines which would only accept high quality 35mm, medium format, and LF images have suddenly chosen to accept the poor image quality found in digital cameras that cant meet any kind of minimum standard??

    I do plan sometday to plunge into digital some day, but still waiitng for the quality to come up a lot!!

    Just my 2 cents worth

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Posts
    331

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    The small format has a considerable advantage in achieving DoF in the
    wind—at least when it comes to getting the shot. This especially is
    true when shooting something like wildflowers and using one of the Canon
    TS-E lenses (and the PC Micro-Nikkor 85 mm lens). In line with Glenn's
    comment, at ISO 100, settings of f/5.6 at 1/400 sec. often will do the job
    on a windy, slightly overcast day, while a 4x5 user working at f/22 and
    1/25 sec. may not get a single shot.

    Unfortunately, the small format's advantage in DoF is largely negated by
    the inability to control DoF, as Ray and Tillmans (and probably many
    others) have noted. In the old days, the DoF scales on manual-focus lenses
    for SLRs afforded reasonable control of DoF, though mentally interpolating
    between marked distances was somewhat of a pain. With the advent of AF,
    the DoF scales disappeared entirely from most zooms, and those on most
    fixed-focal-length lenses became so small as to be virtually unusable.
    Moreover, manual focus on AF lenses usually was far less pleasant that with
    the previous manual-focus lenses. Until recently, the top Canon cameras
    included "Depth-of-Field" AE, which sorta kinda set the focus and f-number
    from the focus spread. It wasn't the best possible algorithm, but in most
    cases, it seemed to do as well as manual technique with lens DoF scales.
    The DEP AE apparently never was very popular, so on the EOS-1D Mk II and
    EOS-1Ds Mk II, the feature was eliminated to free up firmware space for
    something else. Consequently, there is no current DSLR that really allows
    control of DoF.

    Of course, setting tilt and focus with a TS-E lens always has been a manual
    operation, but at least these lenses offer the same smooth focusing and
    readable DoF scales as did any manual-focus lens. The difficulty of
    determining focus while working at a small fraction of the final-image
    circle of confusion remains.

    In theory, the DoF advantage of the small format, combined with recent
    improvements in the imagers, should make it competitive with larger
    formats. However, unless there is some means of controlling DoF, the
    theoretical advantage would seem to remain largely theoretical.
    Journalists, portrait, and sports photographers usually don't care much
    about DoF, but folks who shoot landscapes and architecture often do. It
    remains to be seen if the needs of the latter two groups will grab the
    attention of camera manufacturers.

  4. #24

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    kreig:

    I suspect some of the quality loss in publications is in the printing, not the original photography. Certainly, 6MP is a bottom limit, but 11MP digital capture wastes any 35mm work I have ever seen, and based on what I have seen from 22MP backs, 40MP is going to waste most 4x5 work. Sure, you can scan 30MP off of a 35mm frame, but much of the information in those pixels is about grain structure that is, after all is said and done, noise.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    10

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    I know that the D70 is no 1Ds mk II. Then again, a Perfection 3200 is hardly an Imacon... There have been numerous more scientific tests using 1DS mkIIs, Imacon scanners and the like. Generally, the 4x5 does beat the mkII, but it might not be visible at 8x10 (most tests rely on screen magnification, not prints, and they're looking at sizes that would be equivalent to a 24x30 print, if not bigger). Anyone who has a mk II (or any other ultrahigh resolution digital)- how does it look at 16x20? There was a recent test posted on the Luminous Landscape boards that gave 4x5 a pretty clear lead over a mkII at high magnifications.

    I wanted to see where the difference became visible with the modest equipment I had around. I was actually pretty happy with how well the D70 did-it makes a heck of a nice 8x10, unlike any digital that isn't an SLR (I can't stand the dynamic range on any I've yet seen!). The kit lens is also a pretty darned good lens-a nice wide range and limited distortion. The D70's good, but 4x5's better even at a smallish print size (and no comparison in a big print). I'll keep using both (and 2 1/4 square) depending on the situation-try shooting birds in flight with a 4x5! I'm off to Costa Rica in a few weeks for a three week botanical expedition, and that's D70 territory. However, I prefer big film for landscapes near home, and this test confirms that...

    I was thinking about an interesting feature some creative camera manufacturer might add to a digital body...movements! With all these small sensors on digital SLRs, the lenses have extra covering power. Is there enough space in there (distance between lensmount and sensor) to squeeze in some sort of tilt,swing and perhaps even rise and fall-in the body? It would have to be "front standard"-moving the lensmount- in order to show up in the viewfinder (with today's technology, I'm NOT willing to accept an electronic viewfinder so I can see the effect of rear movements, and any sensor ("rear standard") movement is behind the mirror, so out of reach of an optical finder). I'm not sure how to control it, because the actual movements are so small on a tiny sensor. It would have to be geared, or perhaps even motor-driven, because friction movements would NEVER be precise enough. Minolta already makes a digital body with a sensor that moves, although it's an anti-shake device, not a perspective control.

    -Dan

  6. #26
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    These tests are interesting, but as someone pointed out, you were also testing that lens that and that camera's unique circuitry. It's important to realize that if you're looking for a "winner," any comparison of generalizations like "digital vs. film" will be meaningless. You can't judge digital vs. film--you can only judge a particular digital camera/lens/print combination vs. a particular analog cameral/lens/print combination.

    It's similar to audio. People are relentlessly debating digital vs. analog. One side will point out that an LP sounds better than a CD. The response will be that 24bit/96khz digital sounds better than an LP. But half-inch, 2-track, 30 inch per second analog master tape sounds better than that. Yet 32 bit, 192khz digital sounds better still ...

    In the end the question is wrong. there are no inherent limits to either digital or analog media. The only meaningful absolutes will apply to a particular format in a particular set of cricumstances.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    78

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    Glenn,

    The quality loss is not in the printing of the magazines. If you look at past issues before the use of digital cameras you see excellent quality, especially in premium publications. If you look at recent issues of Automobile Quarterly you can see absolutely terrible photos compared to past issues. It is easy to see the difference between a digital image and film unless the "enlargment" is small. Of course this does depend on whether it is 6MP or 11MP. In Fine Wood Working, Fine Homebuilding, and many others, the problems are the same, unsharp photos throughout the magazine. Again, I will say nothing wrong with digital technology as long as it is used appropriately. For me that means NOT going backwards in image quality.

  8. #28

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    Kreig:
    Do you actually KNOW what type of film camera is being used in the magazines you that you think have sharper pictures than digital? Some folks may actually still be using medium format cameras for auto magazine photo layouts. A 6mp DSLR is NOT going to compete with medium format on a full page layout and a close inspection of the photo.

    However, your original post stated that there was 20-40mp worth of image information in 35mm and this is just not true. There may be close to 20 but that’s about it. On the other hand a 6mp DSLR image can be resized up to 20 mp and be competitive with 35mm Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi. This has been demonstrated time and again in print and in many different places on the web.

    Actually, you seem to favor “sharpness” as a criterion for judging photos. Digital SLR’s at 11mp – 17mp make images that are MUCH sharper than 35mm film scans. This is because they are FIRST generation images. The digital image was produced with ONE lens, the camera’s. In the film scan workflow every image is second generation because it has to go through both the camera’s lens and the scanner’s lens. Each time your image is projected through a lens you have opportunity for image quality loss due to film flatness issues and lens aberrations etc….

  9. #29
    Photographer, Machinist, etc. Jeffrey Sipress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    641

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    Yes, Steve, thanks for bringing that up. For years I scanned 35mm transparencies on a nice 4000+dpi film scanner. Wow, was it ever better than my previous LS-2000. Plenty of pixels, but not really the sharpness I wanted. And the dust was a pain. It was essentially a picture of a picture. 2nd generation. My move to the 1Ds was wonderful. Clean and sharp, and 20x30" prints that looked great. Now after two years, I still want better, and 4x5 gives me the finest raw material. The only problem is that I'm back to scanning in order to continue with my comfortably established digital workflow to print. Of course, some scans are fantastic, at $50. to 100. a pop. Damn this traffic jam!

  10. #30

    Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

    Printing 4x5 onto 8x10 digitally your most limiting factor is your printer. Not familiar with your particular model, but most if not all inkjets downsample to 300-360 ppi. That equates to a scan resolution of 600-720 dpi for your test. Yuck! Digital prints from a good scan COULD have all the pop and depth of a contact print, but no one makes a printer to do it yet. The older model Lightjet, and I think the Frontier both do a pretty good 400 ppi, buts that's just not enough.

    High-end halftone reproduction is currently leagues ahead of one-off output, given the right source materials (sadly almost never the case). First-rate FM/stochastic screening should be able to take advantage of at least 500-600 dpi source resolution. Architectural Digest is a prime example--I dare you to match that on a one-off printer. Blind Spot's pretty decent too, at least when it occasionally gets the real deal like Burtynsky, someone who doesn't see image sharpness as a bourgeois plot against artistic integrity

    For B&W you can contact print FM/stochastic imagesetter negs. Theoretically you could do the same thing for color, but you'd need a very good pin registration system to make it worthwhile--I don't know of anyone actually doing it.

Similar Threads

  1. Another interesting fresnel
    By Tachi in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 16-May-2006, 16:42
  2. Digital versus contact print comparison
    By chris jordan in forum Business
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-Jan-2006, 22:29
  3. Interesting info on DOF etc
    By ADG in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2-Dec-2004, 08:10
  4. Comparison of 4 film formats and 2 digital cameras
    By Bert Otten in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 14-Aug-2004, 12:54

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •