Ultimate digital chip for LF

[bglick]

Ok, I thought you were chasing the noise issue.....

But, unless things have changed, the dynamic range of the digital sensor is still limited by it's linear recording method. If you have 75% of the total available tonal ranges (based on bit depth) in the top two recorded stops, your dynamic range will always be very limited...... in other words, its a hardware / software issue, which is the heart n sole of these recording mediums. Scanning backs do escape this a bit.

Granted you may have less noise, but IMO, these chips do not produce enough noise to sacrifice all the benefits of the smaller more dense chips.

[Eric Leppanen]

Daniel, I too often wondered about that Foveon....

My vague (and possibly flawed) recollection is that the Foveon sensor suffers from noise problems on certain color channels (the deeper light penetrates into the sensor silicon, the noiser the sensor gets). There was a rumor on the street several years ago that Nikon was going with Foveon, but nothing materialized and we had to wait another year or so for the D2X (with a conventional Bayer-type sensor) to arrive.

Over at the APUG site, Photo Engineer (a Kodak retiree who is still quite active in the photographic world) recently summarized some thoughts on the future of digital after attending an imaging conference earlier this year. His summary is that Foveon-like sensors (any Foveon patents notwithstanding) are coming, as well as enhanced superlenses:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29274

Enjoy!

[MJSfoto1956]

Granted you may have less noise, but IMO, these chips do not produce enough noise to sacrifice all the benefits of the smaller more dense chips.

The smaller denser chips are EXTREMELY noisy compared to, say, a BetterLight back with 87 pixels per mm density. How come we don't see the noise? They clean it up using Adobe RAW and other RAW conversions. If you could "look inside" of RAW you would see a mess (I have a tool that does, and it is). So what you get on output has been significantly polished by behind-the-scenes software. Obviously, this has great consumer benefit. But for an exacting pro, I'd rather know and control what I'm really getting.

Unfortunately, you are somewhat off about some concepts regarding digital sensors -- the output bit depth has nothing to do with dynamic range. Nothing at all. The Signal to Noise ratio is the throttling factor. Less noise = greater dynamic range. In a pure world, we could theoretically get 14 stops of dynamic range out of today's sensors. Unfortunately the low bits end up being useless due to ever-present electronic noise. Such is life. Super-cooling would recapture another bit or so -- this is what astronomers do to make every photon count. Anyway, we normal folks end up with 11 useful stops with the BetterLight and 9-10 stops with high-end digital backs, and 8 stops (or less) with consumer digicams -- regardless of whether or not the output is in 8bit JPEG or 16bit RAW.

Now it is VERY true that the # of bits will affect "banding" -- particularly noticable in smooth (quiet) transitions. An analogy to music here is apt. The number of bits has nothing to do with frequency response (typically the high and low bit represent the "ends" of the spectrum -- it is up to the playback equipment to make it sound like real bass). But it DOES affect how the sound "feels" -- its richness if you will. i.e. 18 bit sounds much better to trained ears than 16 bit and so on. Of course, taken to its extreme you can compress a sound much more if you are willing to chop off high and low bits (MP3 does this). But we are not talking about compression. We are talking full-spectrum RAW data during recording.

If you would like to read a good explanation of dynamic range vs. spatial resolution in regards to digital sensors, check out BetterLight's site for one of the best explanations I've found yet on the web (you can disregard the obvious sales pitch):
http://www.betterlight.com/why_better.html

[bglick]

Michael, I fully understand your post....

I agree dynamic range and tonal ranges are two different subject matters, but, what we may differ on is.... how close they are related. I accept that larger pixels have the potential to record more stops of light as the noise is reduced..... you did a nice job explaining this, but what good are these recorded stops if you have run dry on tonal ranges to display them? This is the balancing act which I refered to above... but regardless... as they say the proof is in the pudding...

I have to agree with Daves findings.... if the end result is a satisfying print, the new 39MP digital files meet or beat scanned 4x5 film. This is where the rubber meets the road. But what is interesting is, if 39MP can match 4x5, what will two stitched 39MP shots produce?

The digital advantages keep growing, it's only the price which is the deterent for most. Of course this excludes the specialty stuff that film excels at, like color neg dynamic range, B&W film, speciality formats, etc.

Anyway, I am very curious about where and how you see color film as being advantageous over high end digital one shot backs. I am not being sarcastic here.... I really want your opinion on this... I have a huge investment in film, high end scanners, cameras, etc. I will be a film users for the rest of my life, as some of the formats I shoot will preclude the use of digital. This does not preclude me from using digital also, as I follow the hourses for courses mindset. So I am interested in learning your position on such, as you seem slightly film biased, which is not a bad thing.... I would like understand more of what you have learned.

[David Luttmann]

BG,

That is my point exactly. Some people love to dissect this issue with MTF figures, pixel counts, resolution, mathamatical formulae.....but when it comes down to the print, all that stuff becomes a non-issue. It is not the number of pixels....it's the numbers IN the pixels. It is the final print that I am concerned with. The print samples I've produced between the film & digital file have people choosing the digital file as their favorite. I don't need to analize why with math or excuses....I just know what I see and what others report. Comments about how the RAW file is "cleaned up" or altered are not relevant....the results stand for themselves.

As to RAW files being altered & film versions not....I suggest one looks at an exposed, undeveloped piece of film....try to convince me that developer & fixing doesn't alter the sheet of film from it's native undeveloped state. This silly arguement can be twisted to death.

As to QT deleting my post due to "unsuitable language"....I kept a copy of this thread as I figured as much...and there was no unsuitable language in my post.....however, there seems to be the standard attack from Mr. Sullivan directed to anyone who disagrees.

We can leave it at that as there are some people who refuse to accept what they see on print. I've encountered it a fair bit with digital backs and DSLRs compared to MF film where some people accuse me of stitching 2 digital images together because "it is physically impossible for the digital file to outclass the film."

[MJSfoto1956]

Anyway, I am very curious about where and how you see color film as being advantageous over high end digital one shot backs. I am not being sarcastic here.... I really want your opinion on this... I have a huge investment in film, high end scanners, cameras, etc. I will be a film users for the rest of my life, as some of the formats I shoot will preclude the use of digital. This does not preclude me from using digital also, as I follow the hourses for courses mindset. So I am interested in learning your position on such, as you seem slightly film biased, which is not a bad thing.... I would like understand more of what you have learned.

Thank you QT for preventing yet another flame war. You are a wise man. David and I just ain't good chemistry, I'm afraid.

As for film vs. digital, I'd rather make the case that I firmly believe that BIG CAMERAS change the way you photograph in a positive way and that SMALL CAMERAS (be they digital or film) change the way you photograph in a negative way.

How so? A big camera is clumsy. It takes time and commitment to set up and adjust and "invest" in a photograph. To master it is a form of zen. I can readily see this in the final image itself (regardless of whether or not it is film or digital). Think Christopher Burkett. It takes tremendous skill to overcome the bulkiness of the equipment and produce art (as opposed to mere cliche!) The opposite can be said of small cameras: they make you lazy. Click here click there. Instant feedback. Instant gratification. No investment in the process. No skin in the game. Soul-less at times. Great for snapshots. Great for professionals.

We are entering an age that will be marked by the "dumbing down" of photography. And those who continue to use and perfect the use of BIG CAMERAS are going to be the saviors of an art form that is under considerable risk of mass commoditization. Today, literally everyone is a photographer or fancies themselves one. The price of entry is a digicam, an inkjet printer, and a website. One need only look at flickr to see what the rest of the world considers great photography.

So what does this have to do with film? Well there really are no BIG DIGITAL SENSORS out there. Most digital backs are hardly bigger than 35mm format (in spite of their being mated to 645 bodies). And there doesn't seem to be any interest financially or emotionally for manufacturers to develop digital sensors beyond 645. Which is such a shame 'cause I'm a big fan of digital (in spite of my recent criticisms of the endless digital hype). I personally would rush out to purchase a 6x7 or 6x9 digital back if someone would step up to the plate and deliver. My bet is that it won't ever happen, in spite of the fact that there are probably 1 million people out there worldwide who actively use medium format cameras and/or backs with large format. And I seriously doubt that there will ever be a true 4x5 sensor -- ever. (however, sign me up if you are taking orders!)

So I will continue to shoot BIG film because I find it makes me a better photographer and I have no other choice. I'll shoot fewer photos, but better ones. Its the camera and the PROCESS itself that influences me much more than the medium. When I'm out and about using any one of my many digital (i.e. small) cameras, I find that I shoot more, but the quality suffers. However, I actually have come to like the distinction: when I'm not feeling particularly motivated, I'll shoot a bunch of snapshots of the family and I'm very very glad that there is practically no work at all involved. It wasn't always so -- even 35mm took a lot of time and investment just to make a few 4x6 prints of a birthday party. I for one am glad that for this kind of photography has become brainless.

But it is this very brainlessness that is creeping into "art". I was at the Marriott San Diego Marina a few weeks ago and the walls were plastered with HUGE 44"x66" prints of various underwater themes. At first I was pleased that Marriott would invest so much in photography. But upon closer inspection the prints were fuzzy "small" camera stock photos likely taken by an amateur and chosen by an interior decorator and blown up on inkjet by the local kinkos and framed by a local frame shop. No signature either (a good thing that). They spent much more on the frames than on the photography I have no doubt. In the end, this was not photography at all -- it was nothing more than expensive wallpaper. This is the dumbing down of photography of which I speak. People don't care about quality. We have a culture that only relishes celebrity and the latest fad.

At a recent member's show, there were several photographic submissions from 6MP and 8MP digital photos that were blown up way beyond the abilty to image any real detail yet everyone oohed and ahhed about the "beautiful" photos so and so did. Yes some of them did indeed look great from a distance, but there was no THERE there when you went up close to inspect. Again, we have an ignorant population (even among practicing artists!!!) that cannot distinguish photographic quality. But they can readily distinguish celebrity and the latest trend. And that is all that matters to most people.

As such it is doubly important to take a stand. Art must rule in the end or the very soul of western culture is at risk (I mean that literally). How you achieve it doesn't matter of course, but every article and every ad and every website and all the hype that focuses on "small" cameras (and by extension, brainlessness) in the end chips away at the pure art that I believe is the raison d'etre and soul of Large Format photography.

[bglick]

Michael, interesting rant. I agree with most of what you write.... but the older I get, the more I have come to accept - the art we see the most of, is the art which satisfies the masses. The tiny % of the population that can articulate what you just wrote is just that.... a tiny %. While I share your passion for the end product, it seems most of the public does not, and that is the reality of the situation, as frustrating as it can be. It reminds me of seeing musicians who play music they just love, and yet, no one else loves, they can't figure out why everyone can be so dumb....

My points are evidenced by how few successful photo galleries there is in the USA. The failure rate is worse than restaurants. People like it, but not enough to buy it.... this is the real reason fine art photography has not taken off more in the USA. That's just my opinion.... I feel other parts of the world, such as the land of the OZ, where photography is much more accepted as an art form. Would you agree with this?


As for your position on the camera being a better composure tool for you as an artist, I understand your position. But not everyone will agree with you on this one. I am one who weighs all the factors when selecting a tool... and while I like the big look on the gg, and the slower more methodical work, it does make me think a bit more....but OTOH, I also like to shoot more images and see my results immediate to be confident I got the shot. I also like the reduced downtime and expense of procuring film, loading / unloading film holders, processing film, scanning film, etc. In many ways, this reduces the fun factor for me, as I prefer to spend more time doing other aspects of photography vs. these film based issues. This is why so many I beleive are on the fence, just waiting for the features and price point to be pushed a tad further before diving into the digital waters. Some are driven by the end product, while others are driven by the journey, the procedure, the chase, the tools, the satisfaction of lugging heavy gear, etc.... no right or wrong here, just horses for courses.

[MJSfoto1956]

Michael, interesting rant.

Gosh! I was pouring my heart out rather than ranting!!! But thanx anyway!

My points are evidenced by how few successful photo galleries there is in the USA. The failure rate is worse than restaurants. People like it, but not enough to buy it.... this is the real reason fine art photography has not taken off more in the USA. That's just my opinion.... I feel other parts of the world, such as the land of the OZ, where photography is much more accepted as an art form. Would you agree with this?

Definitely agree. The American system of focusing only on celebrity makes winners of a select few and losers of the vast majority. Think about how many actors need to wait tables to make a living. The starving artist is real, I'm afraid.

As for your position on the camera being a better composure tool for you as an artist, I understand your position. But not everyone will agree with you on this one.

Oh I'm aware of that. Call it elitism if you like. However, there is one exception to my rule: capturing the "decisive moment" is made much more viable when the equipment disappears and allows the artist to focus on (and in) the moment. So for that kind of photography, yes the small camera is infinitely superior. Unfortunately, even here brainlessness can creep in. I'm thinking of motor drives of course, where someone clips off 100 images in a matter of seconds. There is not much skill or art in that IMHO. I find such photography generally soul-less (as is most advertising photography, especially fashion).

However, that being said, you *can* use a "big" camera to capture a "decisive moment" if you try real hard. Here is a recent picture I took (using a Mamiya 7) of a roller-coaster while on holiday in San Diego. Again I want to emphasize that I anticipated the photograph before hand, stood up on a car bumper, and clicked the shutter just once and walked away knowing that I "got it".



As a side note: any 4x5 technical camera could have pulled this off as easily as the Mamiya 7.

Now of course, you may or may not like the photo (I for one find it competent enough). But I add it here only to suggest that even big cameras in the right hands can pull off "ad hoc" types of photography without the risk of brainlessness creeping in.

In case you haven't figured it out: I'm a big fan of big cameras!

[bglick]

Oh I got picked up on the "big camera fan" early in the thread :-) A blind person would have seen that!

Sorry for the use of the rant, it was humor.