HUH? film? what is film?
never heard of it..................
HUH? film? what is film?
never heard of it..................
My YouTube Channel has many interesting videos on Soft Focus Lenses and Wood Cameras. Check it out.
My YouTube videos
oldstyleportraits.com
photo.net gallery
Images have many qualities. Originating photographically on film is one such quality. Which quality were you asking about?1. Is image quality really better with digital photography?
See above.are there real qualities to film that digital photography simply cannot replace?
When they make a 75984 gigapixel camera that costs $10 and takes the pictures for you, I still won't care.When they make a digital 8x10 at under $1000, I will switch immediately.
Thank you for understanding this. It matters little how close digital imaging can mimic photography. There's nothing it will stop at, whether it's fake film borders, fake grain, gaussian blur to appear like a lens swing, whatever. It doesn't bother me; imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Digital imaging is virtual photography. Saying that it can replace photography "when it gets good enough" is like saying that when music synthesizers get good enough, nobody will 'need to' learn to play guitar. Please, please note that I have no gripe with digital itself. In fact I have great respect for it, and I feel that if anything it comes closer to the classical painted portraits and landscapes, which can be made to the imagination. Digital can look like anything...including photography. The other side of the coin is that the medium itself doesn't actually look like anything.What the pictures look like doesn't count in the long run. Digital picture making can, or soon will be able to, replicate the surface appearance of any medium; film, paint, pencil, whatever.
Currently it takes about 33 minutes for a 384 megapixel LF BetterLight scanning back to download 1.1G of data. On the other hand it takes but a fraction of a second for a sheet of 4x5 film to capture 1.5G.
Which is "better"?
Your point is mainly valid but, lets compare apples and apples. You would still have to scan the film with a first rate drum scanner to get the best out of the film. Add that to the films capture time if you want to compare apples to apples. And where did you get that number for BL scanning backs download time? As I read it their documentation states capture time at between 100 seconds (1.5 minutes) and 2000 seconds (33 minutes) for a 1.1 GB file. Maybe Jim Collum can chime in to share his actual experience with BL backs.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Kirk,
A first rate scanner - or any rate scanner for that matter - can only capture what's on the negative. If it's not on the negative, then it's not going to be in the scan. If it is, then it's an artifact from the scanning process. Which begs the question: Which is capable of capturing the most truedata: the scanner or the negative?
I interpretated the BL capture times as cited above as dependant upon the size of the chip and the amount of data captured. So to capture the max, you need to use their biggest chip (384mp) for the full 33 minutes.
Finally, note that the capture times, weight and prices are comming down to where mere mortals such as I will be able to afford them in the not too distant future. In the meantime, keep shooting that big negative.
Only a few years ago, there were debates on this site about whether people should even be allowed to discuss digital technology.
Over the last year, I've been to two workshops run by a highly reputable organisation, one on lighting and one on digital printing. In both cases, the other participants, with one or two exceptions, had never used a film camera, and in both cases I was the only person shooting film.
Marko has this right. This is like listening to people debate the merits of tube amps vs. solid state amps and vinyl vs. compact disks. Believe me, there are plenty of esoteric websites where people actually spend time debating those questions. But the debate, whether it is about the alleged merits of tube amps, vinyl records or film, is irrelevant, because the vast majority of people have moved on, and they are not going to turn back. The photographic technology that they have opted for (and in the case of just about anyone under, say, 30, the technology they have been brought up with) may be different, but it will offer its own advantages and limitations. And so the world goes.
A question for those of you who grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s and are fighting digital. When you were in your late teens or early 20s and putting together your obligatory killer audio system, did you buy a tube amp or a solid state amp to go with the Tannoy or B&W or Acoustic Research (or if you were really hip with dollars to spare, Quad) speakers?
P.S. I am writing this while listening to the Edgar Meyer/Mark O'Connor/Yo Yo Ma CD Appalachia Waltz on a solid state CD player through a tube amplifier that I built to the specifications of a French sound engineer named Yves Cochet.
Arca-Swiss 8x10/4x5 | Mamiya 6x7 | Leica 35mm | Blackmagic Ultra HD Video
Sound Devices audio recorder, Schoeps & DPA mikes
Mac Studio/Eizo with Capture One, Final Cut, DaVinci Resolve, Logic
My mistake on the capture time which can take anywhere from 100 seconds to 33 minutes for a full 1.1G scan. Below are the specs copied from the BL website. Note the "Megapixel ratings."
Model 6000E-HS* Super 6K-HS™ Super 8K-HS™
Native Maximum
Resolution @ 100%
(48 bit RGB File)
Image Size @ 300 ppi
6000 x 8000
(274 MB)
20" x 26.7"
6000 x 8000
(274 MB)
20" x 26.7"
8000 x 10600
(488 MB)
26.7" x 35.5"
Megapixel Rating 144 Megapixels 216 Megapixels 384 Megapixels
Enhanced Maximum
Resolution @ 150%
(48 bit RGB File)
Image Size @ 300 ppi
N/A
9000 x 12000
(618 MB)
30" x 40"
12000 x 15990
(1.1 GB)
40" x 53.3"
Number of
Resolution Options 8 12 18
Internal Hard Drive
(in Control Unit) 80 GB 80 GB 80 GB
FAST Pre-Scan Time 4 seconds 4 seconds 6 seconds
Minimum Scan Time
at Full Image Size
35 seconds
for 274 MB scan
53 seconds
for 618 MB scan
100 seconds
for 1.1GB scan
Adjustable ISO Range
(1/10 f-stop increments) 100 – 1600 Daylight 200 – 3200 Daylight
(new 2X CCD)
125 – 2000 Daylight
(new 2X CCD)
Suggested User Price
with Standard Warranty
$9,495 U.S.
includes 2-year warranty
$14,995 U.S.
includes 2-year warranty
$17,995 U.S.
includes 2-year warranty
Last edited by tgtaylor; 2-Nov-2009 at 16:58. Reason: clarify
Here is an interesting tidbit on the Megapixel fudge factor:
As with other Better Light camera models, the resolution up to 100% is pure, “native” RGB pixel data. At resolution levels above 100%, the long dimension (scan direction) will remain as pure pixel information, while the narrow dimension will use minimal interpolation to complete the image. By utilizing a linear (one direction) redistribution of the original CCD pixel data, the resulting images will have more detail than is the result from resampling a smaller file in Photoshop to the same pixel dimensions. In the worst case (150% res), this technique uses data from 2 pure pixels to create 3 pixels
Bookmarks