1DS III vs. Leaf 22 & 33MP Backs, vs. Hasselblad 39MP

[audioexcels]

If an exhibit of Edward Burtynsky gets to any museum or gallery near you, go take a look at his 40" by 50" prints. Many of the older prints were made with an enlarger, using colour negative films. His newer prints are often LightJet, though same sizes, and identical enough in quality that it is not possible to tell them from the enlarger prints.

Given Perez, et al testing of large format lenses indicating 60 lp/mm about average achievable with many large format set-ups, a 10x print could still show 6 lp/mm of detail. That falls well within the normal viewer eyesight limits (roughly 5 to 8 lp/mm, depending upon who you ask).

Granted not everyone, nor every lab, is capable of generating good large prints. Whether it is digital capture, enlarger, of film scanner to output, getting high quality large prints is not easy, and often not cheap at the better places. There are great high quality large prints from 4x5, but you just are not going to find them to be that common; I think it is well worth looking, and I have the luck of being near MOPA, and have seen numerous great large prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

Thanks Gordon. First 40"X60" that is capable of me walking up to it and seeing everything perfectly sharp and clean (where the photographer intended it to be of course) gets my big kudos! I don't doubt it is impossible, but seeing many large prints done on? type of format, I have to stand away in order for things to look relatively sharp. I like to be with my nose to the print and no further away from it to judge its merits (at first). Second thing I do is walk back and forth "if" something is not looking right or I am trying to see if the print truly is correct looking (to my eyes). Third is to stand at a proper distance comfortable to me and disect the ingredients, and overall beauty or lack of beauty in the photo.

Would like to see some big prints in the Portland area. I know that's where Chris is, so maybe he can point me to some places to go.

[audioexcels]

I think you are right, with a slight caveat about real life resolution. I have not looked at the testing to which you refer in a while, but I have done a fair amount of this type of testing myself. My experience is that 60 lines/mm with LF equipment is not the average, but close to the best one can do. And even with modern multi-coated optics of the highest quality. So 50 lines/mm would be closer to real life experience taking into consideration the fact that diffraction is a major factor in degradation of resolution in typical view camera work.

Still, that does allow for about a 10X magnification with an enlarger, or with a digital file made from a scan with "effective" resolution of at least 2540 spi. Unfortunately none of the consumer scanners will give quite that much effective resolution so 10X magnification of 4X5 needs to be scanned on drum or high end flatbed.

Sandy King

I'm still looking forward to seeing a 40"X60" crystal clear/sharp as a tack at every single point in the landscape based photograph with no signs of blurrrr or issues that would not show up in a small sized print. One I can be right up to and see that every single piece of the photo looks perfect. I don't need to see a print that is sharp enough. It needs to be sharp as if I was holding a contact print in my hand. Though I do not see myself finding a 40X60 out there that would be able to do this, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing them!!! There would be zero point for anyone to shoot anything but 4X5 and use that extra money spent for the larger format equipment on a high end flatbed/drum scanner. 40X60 is more than large enough for me.

[erie patsellis]

I've owned a 1Ds2, a Phase One PowerPhase FX, many 4x5's, and currently shoot with a 6x12 fotoman and a Hassy H3D-39.

I also own a 44" Z3100 printer as well, so I am pretty aware of characteristics between them.

The scanback spanks everything, but was too much of a hassle for things other than art repro.

Smaller than 40" in the long dimension, the 39MP pretty much always looks better to MY eye. Maybe I am blind. That's a big print already.

Nick, for tabletop and product work, my lowly PhaseOne StudioKit is just amazing, even at a lowly 9 mp. While not as convenient as a single shot back, for what I use it for, it's great.


erie

[Gordon Moat]

Thanks Gordon. First 40"X60" that is capable of me walking up to it and seeing everything perfectly sharp and clean (where the photographer intended it to be of course) gets my big kudos! I don't doubt it is impossible, but seeing many large prints done on? type of format, I have to stand away in order for things to look relatively sharp. I like to be with my nose to the print and no further away from it to judge its merits (at first). Second thing I do is walk back and forth "if" something is not looking right or I am trying to see if the print truly is correct looking (to my eyes). Third is to stand at a proper distance comfortable to me and disect the ingredients, and overall beauty or lack of beauty in the photo.

Would like to see some big prints in the Portland area. I know that's where Chris is, so maybe he can point me to some places to go.

Well, I am not so nearsighted (or is it farsighted?) that I can put my nose onto something and actually focus, though I think I know what you mean.

You seem to be quite isolated as far as photography museums, or exhibits, in Portland. Anyway, I checked and there are no Burtynsky prints in any collections in Portland. In case you are curious where his images might be showing:

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/

I saw his exhibit at MOPA in 2005. This was before MFDBs were really that good, though oddly enough I had rented a PhaseOne and Contax 645 combination a couple times that year. After seeing Burtynsky's prints, I was convinced to get back into 4x5, which I did in January 2006.

I should point out that while I do wear contact lenses, my eyesight is very good without them. I only need very weak strength contact lenses to see distances. I also get colour perception tested annually, because my eyes (and my hands) are my main work tools (commercial photography).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Ted Harris]

I saw a Ted Harris image in the latest View Camera magazine. He was comparing one thing or another, I don't remember. (I think my brain was a little fried after the Scheimpflug article.) The key thing was that I looked at the print he had of a woman as an example. Frankly, I don't want to make a print like that. Nothing wrong with his choice, it just isn't the same as mine, aesthetically. He's right for him. But when I look at taking his advice I have to take what he is trying to accomplish into consideration.

Lenny, what was being compared is crucial and was what determined the images I used. The comparison was of the three 'glossy' baryta based digital papers on the market. The goal was to see how each of them compared to the other and to an air dried silver gelatin print. In addition to the portrait there was also a landscape. Both were chosen specifically to allow me to make comparisons of a wide range of values.

Had to do with testing paper only and seeing subtle differences; unfortunately, the sort of differences you can't even begin to see on the printed page. The selections had more to do with what I was looking for than anything else.

[Ted Harris]

I don't know the Phase One, but if you want to have a shoot-out with the Hasselblad 39mp and Mamiya 7II I am willing to entertain you. This would be for a typical landscape scene at print size of 30X40".

Sandy,

I want to see the results. I'd like to take it even a step farther. We can see from Charlie Cramer's work how well a p 45 (39mp) back compares to 4x5 the next question for me is how about the 39mp back v. 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 film? I recently did a 24x48 print from a Velvia chrome shot with a Noblex 150F and scanned on the IQsmart 3. Absolutely nothing is lacking in the print, even for the most dedicated print sniffer (and it have gone a bit larger but space dictated size). I'd like to see a 100% one-on-one comparison between film and a 39mp back with the only change from one exposure to the next being changing from a film back to a digital back. Actually, you'd have to change lenses too to allow for the crop factor if you were using the back on a 6x6 or 6x7 camera. My point being, if you drop back in size to 24x30 what differences will you see? Will the 39mp back visibly outperform film? How much depends on subject matter? Will the differences justify the cost of the back? I'm continuing the MF discussion since many of us do shoot MF as well as LF and also use roll film backs.

I recall that when the 16mp backs came out I was underwhelmed v. MF film, then the 20+ generation ..... Taking a hard look at the 39mp crop is now interesting info for that day when mere mortals can afford them.

[Gordon Moat]

There are a few factors at work here. One of which maybe should not be mentioned is the eyesight of ever aging reviewers of this gear; though in general if we chose 5 lp/mm discernible on a print, a think that would be a safe assumption. The final print really should be the determining factor, but how many people would notice a difference between 4 lp/mm and 5 lp/mm on a print? How many people would notice the difference between 3 lp/mm and 5 lp/mm? How often does edge definition, without high frequency detail, fool people into thinking a print is sharp?

The optical resolution capability of an imaging chip is not the pixel density divided into the chip dimensions. All chips have either micro-lenses, diffusion or anti-alias layers, or at the very least a Bayer pattern over the chip. The physical pixel sizes are not the pixel density divided by the chip area; there are dead areas between pixel cell sites on all chips. Resolution is not file sizes, and should not be used to determine print resolutions. At best of current larger CCD and CMOS sensors (24 by 36 mm or larger), combined with very good lenses, are usually no better systems than about 60 to 65 lp/mm, with most nearer 45 to 50 lp/mm. So what is really happening; some point out better edge definition, or cleaner edges; others point out better line definition at lower contrast levels; whatever is at work, outright resolution is not why prints from imaging chips are perceived as better than prints from film . . . by some people.

If we look at a 48mm by 36mm CCD in a top level MFDB, and went with our best figure of 65 lp/mm, then a print retaining at least 5 lp/mm would need to be about 18" by 24". If we assumed many cannot tell much difference between 3 lp/mm and 5 lp/mm, then a roughly 30" by 40" print should still seem quite good. I think this, combined with clean edges, sharpness, or edge definition, is really what is happening; basically the eyesight of the reviewers just isn't that good; and I seriously doubt anyone will admit it (I also expect to catch some grief over this statement).

To go at this from a different direction: what would it take in a film set-up to match the resolution capability of a MFDB? Using a roughly 18" by 24" final print, we get a little more than 8x from a 6x7(cm) piece of film (perhaps 56x72 Linhof size), and around 5x enlargement/increase from 4x5(inch). To achieve 5 lp/mm from 6x7 requires a system with at least 40 lp/mm resolution. To achieve 5 lp/mm from a 4x5 system would require at least 25 lp/mm resolution. I think both of those are well within the capabilities of many cameras, lenses, and high end film scanners; especially true of the Mamiya 7 system, and probably the ALPA 12 system using colour transparency films like Fuji Astia 100F or Kodak E100G.

If we compared based upon a 30" by 40" print, then from a 6x7 camera we would need nearly 14x enlargement to get to that size, and about 8x enlargement from film from a 4x5 camera. Assuming a reviewer could see the difference between 3 lp/mm and 5 lp/mm, and using the tougher to achieve 5 lp/mm for film, then we would need a 6x7 system capable of around 70 lp/mm, or a 4x5 system capable of 40 lp/mm. Assuming our camera is steady, film is relatively flat, and a high quality scanner with a skilled operator, are we still within the capabilities of a Mamiya 7, or a good 4x5 system with a modern lens?

Okay, so this only answers outright high contrast information. Using the often stated metric of 50% contrast being better with imaging chips than film (though without anyone quantifying how much better), another test might work better. Perhaps the testers could photograph a popular downtown area of a city while it is enclosed in fog, haze, or marine layer . . . probably a good way to simulate real world medium to low contrast.

I think there is another factor at work too. Namely that anyone putting up over $30k for a MFDB is not likely to complain about it, nor to point out shortcomings. Let's face it, this is a huge investment, and wouldn't someone look like a complete idiot if they didn't tout their latest purchase as the next best thing to discovering holes in Swiss cheese. As long as the differences to any film system are subtle, or close enough, then I don't think anyone with a MFDB will state anything positive about film capabilities. I have used a few of these, and handled post processing on files from most of the latest; I have seen the capabilities; I only rent as needed, and even then only when a client specifically requests it. Anyway, as Frank Petronia put it, who can afford these things anyway, unless you have deep pockets, or large commercial client billings.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[sanking]

Gordon,

That is really excellent comment and analysis.

I did some calculations based on 39mp Hasselblad. The pixel dimensions are 5412 X 7212, with a sensor size of 36.7mm X 49.0mm. Unless I overlooked something that would mean that the absolute maximum resolution of this system is 74 lines/mm, for sensor size of 1.44" X 1.92". If 5 lines/mm is the smallest acceptable figure for resolution, that means you can enlarge the 39mp Hasselblad image to 23X30" and it should have detail beyond the threshold of human vision.

Briefly, these are the numbers.

1.44X1.92" 74 lines/mm
2.9X3.8" 37 lines/mm
5.8X7.6" 18 lines/mm
11.6X15.2" 9 lines/mm
23.2X30.4 5 lines/mm

After that you are in the world of genuine fractals.

By contrast, everyone familar with the Mamiya 7II will concede that 80 lines/mm is both possible and likely. So, we do the same numbers.

2.25X2.75" 80 lines/mm
4.5X5.5" 40 lines/mm
9X11" 20 lines/mm
18X22" 10 lines/mm
36X44" 5 lines/mm

Of course, these figures are based on optimum resolution with both the 39 mp Hasselblad and the Mamiya. I suspect that actual results would be around 60 and 70 lines/mm respectively. In any event, to pull all of the resolution from the Mamiya 7 negatives would require effective resolution of at least 70 lines/mm, which is easy to get with drum scanners, and maybe possible with a Nikkor LS-9000. I easily get that much from the Leafscan 45 scanning at 5080 and stitching.

There are clearly shooting conditions that would make the Mamiya 7II or the Hasselblad 39mp the best camera for the job but in terms final image quality I believe the Mamiya 7II has a slight edge. And I have tested the 39mp Hasselblad, though that was some time ago and perhaps not the best of studies.

I don't know why these discussions have to turn into wars. Photography is art and science, but in the science part the numbers don't lie. My only interest is in getting the most bang for the bucks based on the type of photography I do.

Sandy King

[Ted Harris]

Gordon,

Eloquently stated and right on the money, especially the aging eyes part. One of the things I like about my Rollei 6008 AF is the autofocus. When I am working fast and/or under pressure I know it is better than my eyes in most situations.

[sanking]

Gordon,

Eloquently stated and right on the money, especially the aging eyes part. One of the things I like about my Rollei 6008 AF is the autofocus. When I am working fast and/or under pressure I know it is better than my eyes in most situations.

About the eye thing, I have astigmatism in one eye and the other one has myopia. Until recently, with glasses my vision was 20/20, but now the right eye, the one I use to focus, has developed a cataract. Not serious enough yet for surgery, but it does interfere with my ability to focus with the loupe with view camera, and with the rangefinder with the Mamiya.

Autofocus, as I have with a Fuji GA645 Zi, is becoming more and more a blessing.,

Sandy King