If I looked at a pinhole camera that used 4x5 film, obviously that is low resolution, yet I think that would qualify as large format. Move slightly past that technology to a slightly better resolving lens, and my Voigtländer Bergheil (9x12 with 4x5 adapter), and that is something I also think is large format, though unfortunately not as good resolving a set-up as my Shen-Hao with modern Schneider and Nikkor lenses. When I mount my early 1850s Holmes, Booth & Haydens lens onto my Shen-Hao, and then mount my Linhof Super Rollex 56x72 rollfilm back, does the combination suddenly cease to be large format? After all the HB&H was originally for 1/4 plate, and the Linhof back is way smaller than 4x5. Anyway, I do think 9x12 cm should be included in large format, even if it is not widely used.
Weirdness in terminology alters usage of language: in machine vision, large format refers to 24mm by 36mm cameras, often with three chips installed; in very wide printing, large format refers to any prints wider than 72" on the shortest side. Neither of these things have any relevance on this forum, and anyone interested in this stuff can find out more somewhere else.
Several years ago I worked on an interesting project, and some technology discussions came out of that. The future perceived limit of sensor technology, at that time, was seen as a roughly 6x4.5 sized sensor of near 100MP . . . obviously we are not there yet, though surprisingly not too far away. Pixel density and cell site sizes are more of a limit of optical resolution (not file size) than file sizes and megapixels suggest, regardless of lenses. In large format, the capabilities of our films of choice are often lens limited, and sometimes scanner limited when we choose to post process in that way. Sometimes there is lens limited digital imaging, though I think more often the sensor is the limit.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD2X/page27.asp
A Nikon D2X resolves nearly 63 lp/mm in this comparison with a Canon 1DsMarkII (about 50 lp/mm)(some internet sites might indicate slightly better or worse). File sizes seem to suggest even greater resolution, though that ignores the anti-alias filter, Bayer interpolation, and the dead areas between pixels. About the only semi-constant observation of sensors is that pixel size does give a rough indication of optical resolving capability. So while that Canon 85mm lens can perform decently at f5.6 or f8.0, it can be sensor limited. Interestingly the newer 1DsMarkIII is not nearly as much improvement in optical resolution as the increase in file sizes would suggest (compared to a 1DsMarkII).
To answer a different question, the approach of using a large format camera, or a view camera, is very different from using smaller cameras. It is not just the larger film sizes, and certainly not resolution. Movements can be an advantage in many situations, though they are often subtle, and not always necessary. There can seem to be a blurring of techniques and technologies, but I think the main emphasis of this forum would suffer by diluting discussions with other formats, or other approaches, especially when those other approaches are too often considered in comparison, rather than on their own merits. In other words, if your images suck, it's not the camera.
I enjoy the narrower emphasis here. That makes this forum such the great resource it has become. While expanding emphasis might please a few people, or lead to even more discussions, I think the end result would be to dilute the great information already here. I see no need for this forum to be all encompassing, and quite likely I would drift away from it in the event discussions went that direction.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by jetcode
When I wanted some scans made and found out the price, I started to do it myself, thus a business was born.
Bookmarks