Interesting article: "36 Megapixels vs 6×7 Velvia" and 4 x 5

[Lenny Eiger]

Tim,

I have the next comparison for you - black and white! I'll toss down the gauntlet. Back in the 1880's, in your country, there was a man named Frederick Evans. He made the most amazing platinum prints, filled with the atmospheric quality of light. There is an aperture monograph in paperback that is pretty good. You may already have one of these...

I'd suggest using a film like Ilford Delta, a developer like Xtol, and comparing it with a digital camera. The goal would be to achieve perfect smoothness of print, matching as close a possible, a platinum print. Reasonable sharpness is expected, but the resolution is not the issue, its the smoothness I would be after.

Can do?

I'll do the scans if you want...

Lenny

[Adamphotoman]

And 4X5

Remove this from the forum

It is wrong to leave this. The add on 4x5 is bogus

[fishbulb]

I think this article is very relevant for the Large Format Forum. There is a lot of good information on 4x5 and 8x10.

The article linked in the first post of this thread is actually a follow-up to a 2011 article that includes quite a bit more information on 4x5 and 8x10. I would also check out this page on Tim's site, which has a lot of comparison shots of 4x5 and 8x10.

What I find very interesting about the 2011 article are the tests on how much stopping down impacts resolution (via diffraction of course). For example, 4x5 Provia scanned at 4000dpi yielded 205mp at f/16 but only 157mp at f/22 and only 115mp at f/32. This shows how huge of an impact f/stop has on sharpness and resolution. For comparison, that article found 627mp from a 4000dpi 8x10 scan vs. 320mp from a comparable 4x5 scan. So, stopping down too much could have as much impact as choosing 4x5 over 8x10 in terms of resolution.

The takeaway here, to me, is that managing your depth of field is really important if you want that optimum resolution - that is, knowing how to use the camera's movements to obtain maximum use of your DOF so you don't have to stop down too much. Obviously I am a beginner but it really drives home the importance of movements and DOF management.

[Tin Can]

I think this article is very relevant for the Large Format Forum. There is a lot of good information on 4x5 and 8x10.

The article linked in the first post of this thread is actually a follow-up to a 2011 article that includes quite a bit more information on 4x5 and 8x10. I would also check out this page on Tim's site, which has a lot of comparison shots of 4x5 and 8x10.

What I find very interesting about the 2011 article are the tests on how much stopping down impacts resolution (via diffraction of course). For example, 4x5 Provia scanned at 4000dpi yielded 205mp at f/16 but only 157mp at f/22 and only 115mp at f/32. This shows how huge of an impact f/stop has on sharpness and resolution. For comparison, that article found 627mp from a 4000dpi 8x10 scan vs. 320mp from a comparable 4x5 scan. So, stopping down too much could have as much impact as choosing 4x5 over 8x10 in terms of resolution.

The takeaway here, to me, is that managing your depth of field is really important if you want that optimum resolution - that is, knowing how to use the camera's movements to obtain maximum use of your DOF so you don't have to stop down too much. Obviously I am a beginner but it really drives home the importance of movements and DOF management.

Thanks for those new links, very interesting, Tim has done a grand experiment and shown the results in a comprehensible manner.

[Daniel Stone]

POTENTIAL resolution is one thing
ACTUAL resolution is another (aka what's actually put onto that film)
Top-tier equipment is nice to have, but knowing how to maximize that potential is what's key
Judge photographs by prints on the wall or in your hand, not pixels at the end of your nose.
As uncle Ansel stated so well: "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
Numbers on a chart don't squat if you can't frame and compose a balanced photograph, much less print one.

[Tin Can]

Tim showed great examples, yes we see them on a monitor, but I bet most of us have fairly good monitors.

He did a lot of work producing his results.

Thanks Tim!

[Old-N-Feeble]

Agreed... Thank you, Tim.

[buggz]

My RZ67 Pro II does this also, with a two connection cable.
No problems.

I only have a lowly RB-67 Pro-S, but with the double cable release, I push down halfway to release the mirror, wait a second and push down the rest of the way to take the shot. Piece of pie. Easy as cake. Even I can do it.

[StoneNYC]

You guys make me shake my head.

I feel like I'm watching an episode of south park with a mob "rubble-rebble-rubble-rubble" film is great "rubble-rebble-rubble-rubble"

I will say one thing, my Mamiya 7 lenses are way sharper than my Mamiya RZ67 lenses, they resolve better and have much less CA. So using the Mamiya7 is a better choice for optimal results.

That said, this whole thing is irrelevant, you're talking 35mm sensor vs 6x7 which is 4 times the surface area, yet only just barely compares, which means the new nikon is 4 times higher resolution than the same surface area on the best film.

Sure it's nice to know if I use my Mamiya7 I can get equivalent detail as the new nikon, but they are different animals and their application and usage is totally different.

Just go out and make some art, the film vs digital argument is old...

[koh303]

I will say one thing, my Mamiya 7 lenses are way sharper than my Mamiya RZ67 lenses, they resolve better and have much less CA. So using the Mamiya7 is a better choice for optimal results.

That *might* be true, but how can you ever tell when anything is in focus when you cannot see through the lens? That is not optimal, i don't think.