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

[David Luttmann]

Regarding these links, the film is far sharper, distinctively places the context into the frame where the digital makes it difficult to tell what is what. Sure, you can see branches, leaves, and a blob as cement, but these fine details of tree branches are very difficult to distinguish in the digital shot and well, and to my eyes are soft. Color is definitely nice, though oversaturated IMHO. A leaf does not look in any way that vivid in life nor does the foliage/branches/etc. But color is relative, subjective, and who knows what it looks like on the print since people seem to say a digital print looks just like a film print.

I don't see a "dramatic" difference, but at the same time, I have seen comparisons of point and shoot cameras being compared to the best DSLRs and they look equally similar to the amount of difference in the two shots above...

.

Now this is unusual. With the two links provided you say in one line that the film is far sharper (it's not....but whatever) and then in the next line you see no dramatic difference.

Now how can we have "far sharper" and no dramatic difference? Printed as crops, there is no visible difference between the film scan and the digital file. None. So please, spare me the film is far sharper nonsense. If I had added a grain layer on the digital file, you wouldn't have been able to tell which is which. In fact, the only way to tell at all which is which is that the film file has grain!

[David Luttmann]

Donald,

And shall I also post the nasty and sarcastic comments by you?

This thread, with the exception of your contributions, has been about content. If you have content to offer, please contribute. If you do not have anything in the way of content to offer, why should any of us care what you have to say?

Sandy

And Sandy, my tone with you has been too harsh in this thread. For that I apologize. I'll try to keep it to content as well.

Regards,

[sanking]

And Sandy, my tone with you has been too harsh in this thread. For that I apologize. I'll try to keep it to content as well.

Regards,

David,

Thanks, but you have no reason to apologize. You have an opinion and are expressing it, with some evidence, as I am. I do, however, object to petty personal attacks by a person who has contributed no content at all to the thread.


Sandy

[jetcode]

I do, however, object to petty personal attacks by a person who has contributed no content at all to the thread.

I object to petty personal attacks period. It isn't necessary for an active debate.

[Gordon Moat]

Pardon my ignorance, but since when can a 4X5 yield a tack sharp print at 40"X60"? I don't see a print size beyond 30"X40" being practical and would even question 30"X40" as being a severe fine-line limit for 4X5. Maybe a 5X7/8-8X10 can do a nice 40X60, but 4X5? That's too small a piece of film for such enlargements IMHO. But this stuff is all subjective. What one may consider a fine 40X60 is what another may think looks like absolute garbage. Same for a 30"X40" print. One may find even at this size with 45 sheet film, it does not hold up or look the way they would want a print this size to look...

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

[sanking]

I
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).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

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

[Gordon Moat]

Absolutely, even in scanning for larger prints, it is not as simple as it might seem. I find that the bigger advantage in drum scanning or in a high end flatbed scan is the improved Dmax, allowing you to capture in that digital file all (or most) of what is on a transparency, while retaining most (or all) of the colour information. Rather than comparing resolution, which I think is too simple a basis, there should be more emphasis on scanning performance based upon colour information.

I tend to come from a different direction with scanning. Scanners, like CCD or CMOS imaging chips, are biased in horizontal and vertical directions. I find that most subjects don't neatly fit into those biases, except some architecture. So to retain better edge definition on oblique angles within a scene, or upon curved surfaces, I have found in practice it is better to overscan beyond what it seems you might need; then reduce resolution to match printing as a last step in post processing. This is why I find value in high resolution scans, though not the only reason.

If we were to judge the resolution of the sky in an image, we have few points to make such judgments. Instead we look at colour and tonality. Scanning at a higher resolution allows more finer sampling of tonal changes across an image plain. In practice, I have found that in commercial imaging, a client might complain about colour, but I have never had one complain about resolution. I still think there is a distinct colour advantage to using large format transparency films and high end scanning; unfortunately it is much tougher to quantify this in comparisons with MFDBs.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Nick]

There always is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about this.

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.

Above 40" in the long dimension, things get a little hazy. Things like film choice, scanning, lenses used, image content, etc really come into play. At no point is the digi back very inferior, and it's usually better. It's certainly easier to use in every situation other than when I need movements.

This is my experience. Your results may vary. For me at least, it's about the print. I know what I want and like, and I can achieve that with digital. Compare yourself, but don't judge things by jpgs on the internet. How people who have never owned nor printed with these items can make judgement, I just don't know?

[sanking]

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.

You must be making a lot of money at your business, or have a good tax write-off.

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".

We could put some money on it if you like. Bad bet on your part if you take it, IMO.

Sandy King

[audioexcels]

Now this is unusual. With the two links provided you say in one line that the film is far sharper (it's not....but whatever) and then in the next line you see no dramatic difference.

Now how can we have "far sharper" and no dramatic difference? Printed as crops, there is no visible difference between the film scan and the digital file. None. So please, spare me the film is far sharper nonsense. If I had added a grain layer on the digital file, you wouldn't have been able to tell which is which. In fact, the only way to tell at all which is which is that the film file has grain!

Do you consider a point and shoot to be as good as a Canon 5D or Leica M8? Just as sharp at these magnifications right? May as well have a point and shoot over a Canon 5D/Leica M8 since they aren't "dramatically" different. You missed my point.

The P45 looks like 4X5 scanned with an Epson V700 vs one from an IQ3...both show the same context, one shows it by distinctively displaying the fine details and the details/scan as a sum is sharper. P45 "clearly" does not show the fine details that can be seen with the 4X5 scan. That's my eyes. Two sets of eyes are not the same, so who can argue something that is not arguable if one sees something one way and one sees something another way.

Now time to go shop for a nice point and shoot and toss my DSLR...