High-End Digital Vs. 4x5 Film

[Joseph O'Neil]

The venom flowed and some of us were skewered for even suggesting that such low pixel counts could compare to 4x5 scanned film. Now fast forward 8 months and all of a sudden it is accepted that this is so....but instead, now the arguement focusses on cost.

Amazing how time changes everything ;-)

HI;
For me, it was and always is the money, never the quality.


For what it is worth, I think there's a difference in attitude between a serious hobbisy or artist and commerical use.

For desktop publishing - something that pays the bills and puts food on the table in part for me - when a new program, new printer, new large large capacity hard drive, etc, etc, comes out, and it is the next "must have" bit of equipment, my first thought is "can I afford it" or " do I really need it, and if so, how fast, or how long can I hold off before I really have to buy it."

Quite frequently buying that brand a new high resolution scanner - for me anyhow - might mean giving up on a dentist visit or some planned car repairs I had hoped for this month.

If I were using 4x5 to make my main source of living income from, and not something I do on the side, then my main reaction to "see this new 4x5 scanning back" would not be "gee, that's great, gotta rush out and get one" but rather "how the hell am I goning to be able to afford that!"

A local newspaper photographer I know and was talking to not long ago - I noticed his digital SLRs were getting close to 2 years old. I asked him with a smile when they would upgrade to the newest model SLR. His reply - "are you kidding, they likely haven't paid off these ones yet."

Frankly I could not care less what has better or worse resolution - I don't compare how many lines of resolution a sheet of 4x5 tech pan has compared to an oil painting - it's two different mediums, two different looks. What irks me - and if any venom does spill out from me - my apologies - but what bothers me to no end is the fact I have large format lenses and cameras that are 10, 20 or even 50 years old, and i still use them. I just bought a "new" used Schenider lens this week- 15 years old - perfectly good. Two weeks ago I finally threw out a 10 year old laser printer that orignally cost me new $4,000.

In the past 15 years I have spent ten of thousands of dollars, probally into 6 figures even now, on computers, scanner, printers, backup tape drives, monitors, etc, etc, and almost all of it is worthless. A brand new colour laser printer I bought 6 months ago dropped in price by 20% about 6 weeks after i bought it. "E-junk" filling up the landfills.

I know this is the way the world is nowadays, and I know there's little I can do about it, and i know I am certianly part of the problem to begin with. But still, on some fundamental, moral, ethical or philosophical level, isn't there something terribly wrong with a society that produces so much goods that is destined on purpose to becomes redundant in such a short time? I dunno what the alternative is, even if there is one at all. Maybe that's one reason I love large format so much - it's longevity.

Sorry to ramble on - need more coffee, need more coffee . But if you see me lash out at the latest 4x5 scanning back or any digital product, it has nothing to do with film vs digital or any such thing. It's a deeper, more philosophical issue at hand. That, and the fear I may have to press my cashflow to buy yet again another device that by the time I master it to my personal level of satisfaction will be replaced by something "better".

thus endith the sermon on the mount for today - we return you all to your reguarliry scheduled "digital bashing" forum for the day.



joe

[Brian Ellis]

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.

Maybe because the 5D costs about $2200 with rebate and the D2X costs about $5000?

[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.

[Scott Fleming]

Maybe because the 5D costs about $2200 with rebate and the D2X costs about $5000?

WHAT rebate for gawds sake?! $2200 samollians?! Jumpin Judas Priest? Where's my freakin checkbook?

(googling as fast as he can)

[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

[Michael Gordon]

Sorry, this had to be posted in response to Mr. O'Neil's post

[David Luttmann]

Thanks Jim.

It looks like I missed that one. I would most certainly not put the 1Ds up to 4x5.

Regards,

[MJSfoto1956]

A couple of misconceptions:

There is no BetterLight model that delivers 9000x12000 natively.

There are two BetterLight series -- 6000 series and 8000 series with 6000x8000 and 8000x10666 native resolution respectively. Both can instruct the stepper motor to capture an additional line of data in between the native scan lines resulting in an interpolated 9000x12000 and 12000x16000 pixels respectively. (the other dimension is totally interpolated with no additonal "real" data contribution). Thus, the 9000x12000 is not real data. Nor for that matter is the 1Ds data as stated below.

I have used the Betterlight 6000 series extensively and even at 6000 pixels the scan back is right at the resolution threshold of most lenses (approx 80 l/mm). So any additional sampling/interpolation may not deliver all that much more "true" resolution (of course, depending upon which lens and where in the image area you are measuring).

For that matter, the 1Ds Mark II is already over the threshold for most lenses (3328/24=138) which means that much of the native "resolution" delivered by the 1Ds Mark II is already faked. (to make matters worse, the Bayer array itself essentially interpolates the data by a factor of 2x which means that much of the data delivered by the Canon 1Ds and its ilk is suspect from the get-go)

Which brings me to my main point: Any test that uses scaling *OF ANY KIND* to scale one image up or down "to bring it into alignment" with the others for comparison purposes is essentially flawed since scaling will introduce artifical "resolution" that simply is not there. Further, most scaling routines add a modicum of sharpening further disqualifying the result. This is the main "trick" MR and others use to "prove" that digital is as good or almost as good as film.

If this were a fair test, NO SCALING WHATSOEVER would have been allowed and the result demonstrated online would have been significantly weighted in favor of film and the BetterLight (yes size DOES matter!). What is more, I opened the 1Ds files and saw absolutely no noise or obvious Bayer artifacts whatsoever in the blue or red channels leading me to come to the conclusion that the 1Ds data being presented had been doctored significantly.

In short, in spite of all the credentials, what we are seeing on the Luminous Landscape site is at best a terribly flawed test and at worse a fabricated exaggeration.

J Michael Sullivan

[Richard Littlewood]

Oh now I see where you are at. Clinging to definitions and arrogant and pompous as well. Are you English by chance?

The good old English 2 fingered salute to you mate!