Is digital 6x9cm quality as good as 5x4" film"

[wnw]

Being fed up with the inability of digital lenses to resolve images to anything like the quality I am looking for I am considering a Linhof 679 which will give me access to Schneider/Rodenstock lenses.

I need to decide on digital or film or both but have a question:-

I recognise 5x4" film gives amazing quality but the Linhof matched to a Phase One P45+ back seems to be 6x9cm format (given it's a 49x38cms chip). If not 6x9cms then what format is it?

As this seems to be half the size of 5x4 film can anyone explain how it is now generally recognised 6x9cm will give better or equivalent quality??

I'd really appreciate a simple answer if there is one (and also no generic debate over film v digital). I just need to understand the considerations of the two formats in terms of the end quality of images produced.

[Kirk Gittings]

My two cents based on limited first hand knowledge and allot of reading. The P45 back has much smaller capture area than 6x9, but the quality IMO is somewhere in between drum scanned 6x9 and 4x5.

Given equal quality lenses and film flatness, quality drum scans etc., IME 6x9 film gives about half the quality of 4x5 film.

[wnw]

That's great, thanks.

Do we know why the digital back gives this level of quality and how it can compare so highly? I'm just confused because of the small sensor size when compared to a massive piece of film measuring 5x4"

[wnw]

What I seem to be asking is: How can medium format digital compare to 5x4" film in quality - doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Thanks for your patience.

[sanking]

I touched on this in my previous message. A file produced by digital capture is very clean and has no grain, and this compensates for the fact that it has less real detail than in a 6X9 cm negative.

However, this is not an absolute as there are some very fine grain films which when scanned show little or no grain, and even this can be reduced considerably by post-scan processing with a program like Noise Ninja.

In terms of real detail the P45 breaks down at about 24X30", without interpolation, while there is enough detail in a MF 6X7 or 6X9 cm negative to go to about 30X40", assuming a high quality scan.

Sandy King

That's great, thanks.

Do we know why the digital back gives this level of quality and how it can compare so highly? I'm just confused because of the small sensor size when compared to a massive piece of film measuring 5x4"

[wnw]

It's the whole post processing/Noise Ninja/CS3 thing I'm trying to avoid. I really want to try to capture as pure an image as possible at the time of capture and not rely on all the digital gizmos.

I am an accomplished digital photographer in 35mm but when I see 5x4" film images it blows me away and is so far ahead of anything 35mm can capture. Hence the 6x9cm decision. It's really a choice of film or digital but it seems 6x9cms P45+ digital can compete with large format film, given all the financial considerations.

5x4" film or 6x9cm digital is the quandry - the camera would be the same. 6x9cm film doesn't seem the answer I'm probably looking for in terms of quality.

Sorry to sound uninformed but your replies are really helping.

[sanking]

You rather take me off guard with this comment. Whether you shoot digital or scan film there is always some degree of post-processing involved for optimum results. Using digital, be it film or digital capture, inevitablly involves the use of numerous "gizmos" to produce a final image. The use of a noise reducer to minimize grain is as natural to the process as unsharp mask, luminous layer masks, etc.

Sandy King

It's the whole post processing/Noise Ninja/CS3 thing I'm trying to avoid. I really want to try to capture as pure an image as possible at the time of capture and not rely on all the digital gizmos.

I

[wnw]

The replies are enlightening (despite a few going off message) so thanks to everyone. Sorry to Mr Brepsom for my small typo. I admit to being less than perfect.

With regard to 'digital gizmos', and my original point, I should explain that I see 99% of 35mm digital images enhanced by clever and ever increasing numbers of little Photoshop actions (I do not refer to digitisation in general as should have been fairly obvious hopefully), without which the original RAW file as captured in the field remains flat, has unbelievably low dynamic range and needs every bit of software processing to bring it up to even a basically acceptable standard. The proliferation of PS seminars and courses seems to prove this point, the focus of which completely centers around the 'Wow, you should see this new PS action I've got, want to trade it?" philosophy to photography. Forums everywhere dealing with 35mm digital are loaded with cries of despair from photographers the world over about the time they need to spend on post processing. This is the 'gizmo' factor to which I refer.

Hasselblad, even in MF, seem to follow this route for software corrections which are necessary arising from lenses which cannot resolve the power of their digital chips: color aberration, distortion, vignetting and moiré and a Hassy lens isn't exactly a cheap piece of glass.

It is to look for an alternative to 35mm and MF lenses and the necessity of making corrections in software during post processing to cover those lens problems that my enquiry into view cameras arose.

Having said that I seem to glean from the posts that some MF lenses such as some from Mamiya can indeed resolve the power available from these large chips. Is this so anyone? Anyone have any info. If so, which lenses in MF are up to the standard from Schneider and Rodenstock?

I have no burning desire to lug around a field camera if MF digital will give me the top quality I am after. I take on board the very helpful comments with thanks to Sandy and the others especially regarding the quality of the scan being important to the final result.

Many thanks and also your your patience.

[sanking]

The Phase One P45 back has a sensor that is 49.1 X 36.8 mm in size, or about 1.9 X 1.4". That is actually less than the size of a 6 X 4.5 cm negative. If you do the match you will find that the resolution limit of the P45 back is about 72 lines/mm. In practice a maximum resolution of 60-64 lines/mm is what the back delivers.

The P45 is a great creative tool and gives enough resolution to satisfy most professional requirements in print sizes up to about 24X30". However, you can actually get a lot more effective detail in a 6X7 cm or 6X9 cm film negative if you use a top quality film camera than you get from the P45. This is really kind of a no-brainer since the film area of a 6X7 cm or 6X9 cm negative is much greater than the sensor area of the P45, and you can get at least as much resolution in lines/mm from top quality MF lenses.

However, to take advantage of the potential of the 6X7 and 6X9 cm negatives you will either have to print optically or scan the negatives with a high quality scanner. You probably need a drum scan to pull everything out of the negatives, but a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon LS-9000 or a high end flatbed will come close.

If you are using a lot of film and work professionally the P45 might be a wise investment. For most of the rest of us MF is a lot less expensive and, when digitized, is capable of higher absolute performance than the P45. I say this with the caveat that it depends a lot on the film because one of the advantages of digital capture is that it can be interpolated up in size better than film that has a lot of grain.

Sandy King

Being fed up with the inability of digital lenses to resolve images to anything like the quality I am looking for I am considering a Linhof 679 which will give me access to Schneider/Rodenstock lenses.

I need to decide on digital or film or both but have a question:-

I recognise 5x4" film gives amazing quality but the Linhof matched to a Phase One P45+ back seems to be 6x9cm format (given it's a 49x38cms chip). If not 6x9cms then what format is it?

As this seems to be half the size of 5x4 film can anyone explain how it is now generally recognised 6x9cm will give better or equivalent quality??

I'd really appreciate a simple answer if there is one (and also no generic debate over film v digital). I just need to understand the considerations of the two formats in terms of the end quality of images produced.

[Dave Parker]

If you don't want to rely on "digital gizmos" then why are you trying to compare a digital back to film?, shoot film and have it high quality scanned, 6x9 film handled properly can result in some very stunning images, as can 4x5 and up..different animals do not result in similar baby's...your going to have to figure out which poison you want to use to get the results you are after..if your trying to get images into a computer, no matter what you do, your going to have to used "digital gizmos" to do it, I have not seen a camera or a back yet, that does not require some processing.

Dave