My mistake. But I was comparing FF DSLR with 35mm. For that, at 30", the DSLR will look far better than a scan from color film. As to 30” prints looking awful from FF DSLRs….I’ve done 30” prints from the 1Ds Mk2 where other photographers actually argued with me that they were drum scanned MF 6x7. But you are correct….Gordon didn’t mention 35mm…..my badOriginally Posted by sanking
You missed it David, I said nothing about the film file and was strictly commenting about the digital file. I don't think either drum scanned 35mm film, nor any D-SLR will print a nice 30" image, and I have yet to see any print that changes my mind about that. If you think every pixel captures a line of detail, and that file size is an indication of true resolution, then we are not even on the same page of a discussion. Even if the sensor theoretically achieved one line resolution per pixel row or column, the majority of the current lenses don't resolve that well, especially not from Canon.
Further, take two shots with a 1DsMarkII (or MarkIII, or Nikon D2X), one hand held, and the other tripod mounted: both files will be the same dimensions, but the tripod shot will appear sharper than the hand held shot . . . this is an example of resolution. Granted that English is my second language, so if when I state optical resolution in a statement, feel free to suggest better terminology, and I will be happy to use it later.
The reality of the original topic and question here is that large format is more than enough, and sometimes too much for some printing usage. Even the largest of magazines is substantially under utilizing scanned large format. This is why smaller formats, film or digital, are quite good enough for publication. It is the movements of view cameras that allow an advantage over smaller cameras, not strictly the film area, especially when it is not being used.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
Last edited by Gordon Moat; 9-May-2008 at 15:21. Reason: incomplete sentence
An apology to David on this. I could have stated it more clearly. Thanks to Sandy for stating this better.
I see what you mean. I referred to the fact that on tripod or not, the file size for the D2X for example will always be 4288 pixels wide. The film file can be scanned at higher and higher resolutions....but the real rez doesn't increase. That is what I meant by the digital file size reflecting the max rez.
Your english is fine. My spelling however leaves a lot to be desired!
Not necessarily. The real resolution of a film scan depends on how much information, in detail ,is carried by the film, and on the effective resolution of the scanner.
For example, a negative made with a Lecia camera and a high quality Leitz lens, on a tripod, with a high speed slow film like Adox 25, will have real resolution on the order of 125-60 lines/mm. That is at least 2X-3X as much resolution as you could get with a full sensor DSLR, and the grain is virtually non-existent in ASA 25 film, so it could be enlarged to 40" wide and still have about 10 lines/mm of resolution, much more than the top quality DSLR on the market today. This is not theory. I have seen such an image, scanned with a drum scanner at 4000 spi, and the drum scanner was the limit to resolution, not the negative.
You could scan this 35mm negative on an Epsosn V750, but any real resolution of more than about 40 lines/mm would be lost. However, if you were to do a drum scan with an Aztek Premier at 8000 spi you would capture all of the resolution of the film up to about 160 lines/mm.
Sandy King
Last edited by sanking; 9-May-2008 at 19:07.
hmmm.....maybe the name of this forum should be changed to dslrs and those who use them because they cannot use a LF camera. Funny how even a clearly LF topic is steered towars dslrs.
No offense Sandy but why don't you guys take it to a digital forum? I doubt this discussion is benefiting the person who made the original post, and as always was highjacked by someone who is utterly ignorant of LF.
That is true. The current comments do not reflect the name of the thread, but that changed long before I joined the discussion. So in the sense that the thread was hijacked, youi are correct.
However, as far as LF is concerned the comments are relevant since the comparisons, at least some of them, are being made between DSLR and LF, and that is perfectly appropriate for the LF forum, IMO. In this type of discussion, given that LF and digital are linked, it is hard to see how one crosses the line. For example, people are using P45 digital backs, which have a sensor size of only about 1.9"X1.4", on LF cameras. Is that not relevant to the LF forum? Best to not get to anal about what is discussed, IMO. If I have to err one way or the other, it is on freedom in allowing people to say what they want to say.
In any event, I don't fit into your category of those who have DSLR and can't use LF, for the simple reason that I don't own a DSLR, though I have a really nice little Canon G9 point and shoot!! But I don't talk about the G9 here. But also, I really do have some mediocre understanding of the use of LF, at least IMHO.
Sandy
Last edited by sanking; 9-May-2008 at 18:38.
Gee, Iwould have to see that to believe it, man where did I leave my hip waders?
So if I am understanding you correctly then the larger file is inferior to the smaller file because of the camera, ie the digital camera output is direct to digital while film is scanned? So it is then the scanning an image which is inferior?
Last edited by Clay Turtle; 9-May-2008 at 18:50. Reason: Really
Sandy....quit quoting him....it renders my "ignore" selection useless. I'd say everyone here knows how to use a LF camera....and a DSLR is easy to use as well. Unfortunately, some people appear to think that using a LF camera requires some magical skill. They are fairly easy to use without any issue.
In this case, for the color film use I mentioned, there just isn't 225 meg of data there to start with. You can scan it at 8000ppi on an Imacon if you like....you won't find any real gain. My reference is made with comparing a 1Ds Mk2 to 35mm Astia. Image was taken with my Bessa R2A and 35mm Leica lens. One scan was on my Nikon 9000, another on an Imacon at 8000ppi. This generated a huge scan.....but with no more info than the 4000ppi scan because it was grain limited.
Sandy is correct about B&W though....the extra rez is useful until grain becomes an issue....and Adox 25 has virtually no grain. 16x24 prints I've done from scans on my Nikon 9000 show that the print is scanner limited....not film limited.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks