High-End Digital Vs. 4x5 Film

[Eric Leppanen]

Here is a pretty extensive resolution test comparing a variety of medium and high-end digital platforms with drum-scanned 4x5.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...-testing.shtml

Enjoy!

[dtomasula]

Reichmann's Canon bias is legendary. Why no Nikon's in the bunch? Surely the D2x compares favorably against the Canon MKII, and definitely the 5D.

[Don Miller]

Reichmann's Canon bias is legendary. Why no Nikon's in the bunch? Surely the D2x compares favorably against the Canon MKII, and definitely the 5D.

You may remember that Nikon wasn't making review cameras available when they were producing clearly inferior product.

I wouldn't put much stock in MR's 4x5 comparisons. His transparencies have less detail than just about anyone else who have done this testing.

[Jim collum]

You may remember that Nikon wasn't making review cameras available when they were producing clearly inferior product.

I wouldn't put much stock in MR's 4x5 comparisons. His transparencies have less detail than just about anyone else who have done this testing.

however, there's few around who can get as much detail from a sheet of film than charlie cramer... and he wasn't just a bystander in this testing.. he was a very active part in it.

[palantiri7]

Hi Frank. That 4x5 long exposure is just so coooool!

[Don Miller]

however, there's few around who can get as much detail from a sheet of film than charlie cramer... and he wasn't just a bystander in this testing.. he was a very active part in it.

Sorry, I should have actually read the original question before posting

I was thinking of the original excitement of the 1Ds v. 4x5.

I see there's a new review. I haven't read the conclusions, but looking at the images the 4x5 drum scan looks significant better to me than the P45. I'm looking at the last three scans and the details. Especially the colr threads. If shooting bitmapped images digital would win.

I'm 95% digital, and expect to purchase a MF back as well as the new Canon this fall. But the 4x5 still looks better tp me. I expect a scanning back would look the best under ideal conditions.

[Jim collum]

yes, i also did a 1ds vs film comparison... and the 1ds didn't come close. i also agree that the film in this case is still holds more detail than the p45, and if 30x40 or 40x50" images made up a large part of my income, the p45 wouldn't do it for me. i've seen Charlie's 30x40 " images, and they can be breathtaking. part of this is the seemingly infinite amount of detail present that provides very real sense of place. a 24 x 30" with the p45 will reatain this... i havne't see the 30x40 yet to make a judgement.

[QUOTE=Don Miller]Sorry, I should have actually read the original question before posting

I was thinking of the original excitement of the 1Ds v. 4x5.

I see there's a new review. I haven't read the conclusions, but looking at the images the 4x5 drum scan looks significant better to me than the P45. I'm looking at the last three scans and the details. Especially the colr threads. If shooting bitmapped images digital would win.
QUOTE]

[David Luttmann]

Jim,

Where is the 1Ds vs 4x5 film comparison? I've done a large search and I can't find any reference to it. Are you referring to Alan Briot's comparison of the 1Ds MK2 to 4x5? I've seen reference to that, as well as testing it out myself. If 16x20 was all I was doing, then the 1Ds MK2 would be a fine replacement for 4x5....but definitely NOT the original 1Ds.

[Jim collum]

Jim,

Where is the 1Ds vs 4x5 film comparison? I've done a large search and I can't find any reference to it. Are you referring to Alan Briot's comparison of the 1Ds MK2 to 4x5? I've seen reference to that, as well as testing it out myself. If 16x20 was all I was doing, then the 1Ds MK2 would be a fine replacement for 4x5....but definitely NOT the original 1Ds.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/..._film_1ds.html

the Betterlight used at that time was the 8000x6000 model, which was inline with the drum scanned 4x5 film up to about 30x40" prints. the model i'm currently using is the 12000x9000 model, which captures a bit more than the drum scanned provia.

as you said.. it really depends on what your output is. since the largest i've sold is 40x50", then anything capture above that isn't being used. (although i'm getting a 40"x120" print ready for a show.. taken with the Betterlight and pano adapter)

jim

[roteague]

I wouldn't put much stock in MR's 4x5 comparisons. His transparencies have less detail than just about anyone else who have done this testing.

I wouldn't either. There are just too many variables to do a valid comparison. For example, what developer was used to process the film? Fuji or Kodak. It does make a different. What contrast range was used in the test? Film resolves higher at higher contrasts (ever notice that MR comparisons are fairly flat). What scanner was used and how was it scanned? Single pass or multiple pass scanning, single sample or multiple sampling. Hiow has the generational loss between an already digital file (from the scanning back) and the film scan been taken into account? How about the loss when resizing for the web? Remember, when you resize the image from the film scan, you are essentially throwing away most of the information available in the scan - it isn't as big a problem for digital. MR's comparions are just plain BS.