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

[Ken Lee]

In the words of Ken Rockwell:

"This $300 used 4x5 is sharper than a new $3,000 Hasselblad and worlds beyond a $5,000 Leica or Contax"

Keep in mind that 4x5 is on the small end of "Large Format".

So if you are blown away by 4x5, have a look at some prints made from 8x10 and larger.

[Kirk Gittings]

WNW, here is a link to a comparison that alot of people refer to. It is not gospel as far as comparisons go, as some would argue that there are better scanners than the Tango and therefore the 4x5 is capable of a bit more than is represented here.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

[sanking]

WNW, here is a link to a comparison that alot of people refer to. It is not gospel as far as comparisons go, as some would argue that there are better scanners than the Tango and therefore the 4x5 is capable of a bit more than is represented here.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

Don Hutton and I, together with a friend from Atlanta who owns a P45 back, did some comparison testing a few weeks ago that involved Mamiya 7II, Canon 1ds Mark III, 4X5 and the P45 back on a Contax. We tested both a real scene and a constructed scene with resolution target. The goal is to make prints at a number of different sizes and get together and compare output, and hopefully write the test up for publication. I really believe that this will be a much more valid comparison than the one at LL.

At this point I have seen the film scans (Fuji Acros and Portra 160) of the 6X7 cm and
4X5, which were drum scanned with a Howtek 4500, but not the files from the P45. However, my understanding is that there is no comparison between the 4X5 and the P45, and that in terms of detail the MF scans are much better than the P45. 4X5 clearly beat the 6X7 cm. How this compares with real images on paper remains to be seen.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

I look forward to seeing the results of that test.

[HeinrichVoelkel]

A p45 has a dynamic range of 11,5 up to 12 stops, more than a color slide, less than a b/w negative.

[Mattg]

Don Hutton and I, together with a friend from Atlanta who owns a P45 back, did some comparison testing a few weeks ago that involved Mamiya 7II, Canon 1ds Mark III, 4X5 and the P45 back on a Contax. We tested both a real scene and a constructed scene with resolution target. The goal is to make prints at a number of different sizes and get together and compare output, and hopefully write the test up for publication. I really believe that this will be a much more valid comparison than the one at LL.

At this point I have seen the film scans (Fuji Acros and Portra 160) of the 6X7 cm and
4X5, which were drum scanned with a Howtek 4500, but not the files from the P45. However, my understanding is that there is no comparison between the 4X5 and the P45, and that in terms of detail the MF scans are much better than the P45. 4X5 clearly beat the 6X7 cm. How this compares with real images on paper remains to be seen.

Sandy King

Sounds very interesting Sandy, especially as are going to compare prints made from the various formats rather than just looking at pixels on a screen.

I understand the reasons for wanting to scan the film, if it's colour, but doesn't that put it at a disadvantage in a test like this? Film has the advantage over a digital file that it can be printed optically; would the film based prints be shown to their full/better potential by enlarging them rather than scanning them?

[Eric Leppanen]

Don Hutton and I, together with a friend from Atlanta who owns a P45 back, did some comparison testing a few weeks ago that involved Mamiya 7II, Canon 1ds Mark III, 4X5 and the P45 back on a Contax.

I am very interested in the results of this, too. What film stock(s) did you use for the test?

[sanking]

We discussed the issue of optical printing versus scanning the film. However, since we have access to a good drum scanner (Howtek 4500) that can resolve about 80 lines/mm I think it will be a fair comparison. If you have ever tested film you know that it is pretty difficult to actually put more than 80 lines/mm on film. I have seen tests that show some of the Mamiya lenses resolving over 100 lines/mm on Tmax-100 but I have not been able to get those kind of numbers with my Mamiya 7II lenses.

So I think the Howtek 4500 will pull out about all of the detail in the film negatives, at least from the MF negatives. Don actually tested a Leica with 50mm aspheric lens that day and it looks like the resolution for it is over 150 lines/mm. The results amazed me, but to pull all of the data from the negative he may have to get Lenny Eiger to scan with his 8000 spi Premier.

Sandy King

Sounds very interesting Sandy, especially as are going to compare prints made from the various formats rather than just looking at pixels on a screen.

I understand the reasons for wanting to scan the film, if it's colour, but doesn't that put it at a disadvantage in a test like this? Film has the advantage over a digital file that it can be printed optically; would the film based prints be shown to their full/better potential by enlarging them rather than scanning them?

[sanking]

I am very interested in the results of this, too. What film stock(s) did you use for the test?

We used Fuji Acros, an ASA 100 B&W film, which I find slightly sharper than Tmax-100, and Kodak Portra 160 VC, which we rated at EFS 100.

Sandy King

[Mattg]

We discussed the issue of optical printing versus scanning the film. However, since we have access to a good drum scanner (Howtek 4500) that can resolve about 80 lines/mm I think it will be a fair comparison. If you have ever tested film you know that it is pretty difficult to actually put more than 80 lines/mm on film. I have seen tests that show some of the Mamiya lenses resolving over 100 lines/mm on Tmax-100 but I have not been able to get those kind of numbers with my Mamiya 7II lenses.

So I think the Howtek 4500 will pull out about all of the detail in the film negatives, at least from the MF negatives. Don actually tested a Leica with 50mm aspheric lens that day and it looks like the resolution for it is over 150 lines/mm. The results amazed me, but to pull all of the data from the negative he may have to get Lenny Eiger to scan with his 8000 spi Premier.

Sandy King

I'm not sure I follow your logic Sandy. I can see that using a very good drum scanner might let you scan the film at a resolution approaching the best the lens can deliver but it is still sampling the film in a regular fashion and then printing it in that same regular pattern.

Wouldn't there be qualitative differences if you printed optically, with different sources of losses in resolution? Put it this way, I'd love to see you compare the scanned results to some optically printed results and see them assessed for more than just a numerical measurment of resolution. Easy to suggest when someone else is doing all the work I know but there it is.