4x5 on Flatbed vs 6x7 on film scanner

[jetcode]

If that is what you choose to believe. I haven't found it to be true however.

It's not true. 5D images are interpolated. 35mm film is better provided the scan hardware is better than a 5D.

[Ron Marshall]

I'm looking forward to Don's similarly good comparisons with his Leica setup using Velvia/Astia/Negative films...pick his emulsion of choice that isn't some rare/unattainable film that only he has...to a digital capture from his M8 or 5D.

Adox is very obtainable, just Google it:

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Film...OX_CHS_25.html

[David Luttmann]

Don,

I was blown away by the Leica and Adox scanned combo you did. B&W is indeed a different animal. For color though, in the comparison with a 5D (which I don't own), at what print size do you find the grain issue raises it's head. I normally use Astia, but only in 4x5. When you compare a high end scan from Astia on your Leica to the 5D at 16x24 or 20x30, at what point do you find the extra potential rez of 35mm is outweighed by the grain in the enlargement?

Nowadays, I'm only using Ilford HP5 and Delta 3200 for street work in my rangefinder....mainly cause I love the grain!

[Ron Marshall]

Don,

I was blown away by the Leica and Adox scanned combo you did. B&W is indeed a different animal. For color though, in the comparison with a 5D (which I don't own), at what print size do you find the grain issue raises it's head. I normally use Astia, but only in 4x5. When you compare a high end scan from Astia on your Leica to the 5D at 16x24 or 20x30, at what point do you find the extra potential rez of 35mm is outweighed by the grain in the enlargement?

Nowadays, I'm only using Ilford HP5 and Delta 3200 for street work in my rangefinder....mainly cause I love the grain!

Not 35mm, but a comparison:

http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html

[David Luttmann]

Not 35mm, but a comparison:

http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html

The thing about that comparison is that the D2X is easily ouresolved by the 5D. That is why I think the 5D is preety decent for color work. Clearly getting closer to MF than the D2X.

[Don Hutton]

Don,

I was blown away by the Leica and Adox scanned combo you did. B&W is indeed a different animal. For color though, in the comparison with a 5D (which I don't own), at what print size do you find the grain issue raises it's head. I normally use Astia, but only in 4x5. When you compare a high end scan from Astia on your Leica to the 5D at 16x24 or 20x30, at what point do you find the extra potential rez of 35mm is outweighed by the grain in the enlargement?

Nowadays, I'm only using Ilford HP5 and Delta 3200 for street work in my rangefinder....mainly cause I love the grain!

David

I'm of the opinion that color negative materials offer just about the same potential for really big enlargements as Astia at this point in time. The latest color emulsions have very good resolving power at medium contrast and are very fine grained. Astia is not the "sharpest" film around, but it sure is nice. Obviously grain is always a factor with big enlargements from small pieces of film. However, judicious use of Noise Ninja and other noise reducing software go a long way to controlling it's impact. It's also not always a "negative" - I find that when you're doing geometric corrections (like fixing perspective etc), it can actually help the image retain integrity. I don't believe for a second that there are any hard and fast rules with these sorts of comparisons - there are times and applications for which shooting film will be better and other times when I'd grab a DSLR instead. My objection was simply to the blanket "this is better than that" statement. The blanket statement is wrong. Worse still is that the OP has clearly never done any testing himself (last week he posted asking what lp/mm numbers mean...).Over the years, I've found this forum to be an incredible resource and it's value is diminished by posting regurgitated nonsense or quoting others completely out of context.

Attached is a shot I took last week (in a hurry, hence the inaccurate composition). It's in a famous Church in Charleston, SC. This was on Fuji Pro160S with a Leica 24mm Elmarit ASPH. The scan was done fully automated (I will rescan it with some attention later) on a Konica 5400II desktop film scanner and I gave it a tiny touch of Noise Ninja. While this is not a comparative exercise, I don't believe that using my 5D for this shot would have resulted in a better capture - in fact, I'm pretty sure a film capture was a better choice. When I'm done pushing some perspective corrections on the image, I am pretty certain that the film scan will have significant advantages. I have not made any adjustments whatsoever to the scan, except for dropping it down in size and bit level to save as a Jpeg. The image size is 20"x30" at 240DPI; the crop is 3"x3"inch crop of a "print" at that size... With a good drum scan things would be dramatically better too. Save the crop and print it at 3x3 and 240DPI - it'll give you a pretty good idea of the relative level of detail and grain in the giant print (it may need a tiny sharpen too).

[David Luttmann]

Thanks Don. I’ve been using a Minolta Scan Dual IV for 35mm….which has just been B&W. That only pulls 3200 ppi in a tailwind. For color work, that Pro 160S is nice….and even finer grained than Reala. I may use my rangefinder a bit more :-)

[David Luttmann]

Another thing Don, a lot of how to get the data off of film is the same as pulling everything off an audio LP. That has been my mistake in the past. I’ve spent a fortune on my audio equipment to do just that….pull everything off the LP. That is why I went full hog and bought a VPI TNT table, SME V arm and Koetsu cartridge.

Then when it came to film, I never made that connection and never spent that kind of investment on the same type of analog chain. Seeing your samples and Sandy King’s reinforces it even further that unless you invest in the best to pull everything off that piece of film, a DSLR may indeed be the best bet. I however enjoy the look of film for some things and will have to work harder at pulling everything off of it!

[audioexcels]

I spend a bit of time testing my equipment and materials for one reason - to make photographs.

Correct.

[Don Hutton]

Donny the closet scapegoat...it is the Minolta Multi Scan POS that you own and not the Nikon 9000...same thing, basically, no? Should have learned YOUR behemothly anal way of how to be beaten, I mean schooled/trained so I would have been able to "rightfully" quote you.

Ever been in the Army as an officer/general, taught at a strict a$$-nine academy, best friends with the Bush family...? You fit the scheme better than anyone from this walk of life and should be royally crowned the next Obama...

You don't need to prove anything to me, yet you continue to use words like a 5 year old bi$ch toy on the playground attempting to speak crudely upon someone when in fact you are mocking your own self with these slandering replies to my posts. And for what right?...being a complete A$$hole...

How sophisticated you are...