MFDB vs Large Format - where are we today?

[Jack Dahlgren]

Paul,

The ultimate in quality comes from stitching together multiple 20"x24" negatives.
Fewer shots are needed with that size. You could probably get by with 4 instead of the 12 8x10's that people usually are stitching together. But if you want to have smooth transitions with enough overlap you might want to bump it up to 6 or 8 per image. It is also important to use a slow film to capture all the detail with minimum grain.

[williamtheis]

of course, you can stitch Betterlight captures easily as well.... I want one of these but am doing it the hard way now by just pivoting the tripod head and overlapping

http://www.betterlight.com/panoWideView.html

[Ron Marshall]

Up to a certain print size, there will be very little difference in color prints from MF digital and LF.

"Little difference" is obviously subjective, and best judged by renting both a MF digital setup and a LF setup and having comparison prints made at the size you want.

Sure that is not cheap; but if you are seriously considering something in the ballpark of the P65 you are talking major bucks and it would be worth investing a relatively tiny, in comparison, amount of time and money to settle the question for yourself.

Of course, you may also have to get someone to prep your files in Photoshop etc., but it's worth the money to be sure.

[Jack Dahlgren]

of course, you can stitch Betterlight captures easily as well.... I want one of these but am doing it the hard way now by just pivoting the tripod head and overlapping

http://www.betterlight.com/panoWideView.html

That gives a lowly gigapixel or so. 6x20"x24" will give you closer to 16 gigapixels which will almost always suffice for larger prints.

[David de Gruyl]

Are there actually any printers that can handle an image like that? (serious question).

I get an angry phone call when my image files crash the printers at my lab. And that is only 30x40 @ 300dpi (apparently there is a problem with 16bit color, but wtf? put a filter on the damn thing).

[Ron Marshall]

Are there actually any printers that can handle an image like that? (serious question).

I think he is joking!

[David de Gruyl]

I think he is joking!

I figured as much, but apparently people do this sort of shenanigans with the betterlight motor pano thingy.

[erie patsellis]

I agree with erie patsellis: king of the hill is betterlight but it comes at a cost. Long exposure times and problems with artifacts if the subject moves (wind). I shoot 8x10 and scan with respectable scanner (Heidelberg Tango drum) but it does not approach the betterlight. Also there are no cords and batteries to film. there is a clarity and color purity not matched by focal plane sensor DSLRs. Having said that, I don't have access to a medium format back for comparison mainly due to expense. a used betterlight goes for $8K, far less than medium format but you have to add the camera and it must be a rigid one (I had to replace my wooden folder with an Arca Swiss). this also gives the opportunity to shoot both 4x5 and betterlight digital just by carrying a few holders.

I'm about as hardcore film as it gets, I have my own C41 processor and print all of my b&w work and about 85% of my C41 work myself. I bought a used Dicomed FieldPro and I'm having a blast, 20x24 at native size, more detail and sharpness than I ever thought digital was capable of (even my Phase One scan back doesn't compare). I have found I can upsample about 2.5 times before detail starts to suffer visibly, Making it roughly comparable to the interpolation a Bayer pattern sensor performs.

I've compared some of the MFDB (Sinar 54m, Hassy 39V, and my Megavision S3), the only advantage they bring to the table is the ability to use strobe. I was surprised that even the 54M in 4x multi pop didn't compare from an IQ standpoint. The only sticking point (well two if you include price) is the exposure times. A good comparision of Dslr, Betterlight and film is on the Betterlight website here, orginally posted on the Luminous Landscape forum, with some comparision and notes by Mike Collette.

On the plus side, any reasonably good lens with an aperture will work quite well with a scanback, the resolution requirements are far less demanding with a larger sensor.

The MFDB has numerous drawbacks, Joseph Holmes does a good job of running down the issues here

All in all, if I'm going to go through the hassle, I might as well get the best possible image I can, and I typically shoot at least one sheet of film as well as a digital capture.

[Eric Leppanen]

Take a look at Jack Flesher's posts in this thread. Jack is a former member of this forum and shot a lot of 4x5 and 8x10 film before migrating to MFDB:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...howtopic=36661

[PaulSchneider]

Thank you very much for your comments, so basically if one really wants to go big, stitching and 8x10 should do the trick. But what interests me to know is, where is digital's finest today compared to analogue film?

I read an article on luminous landscape that basically said that the p45 is nowadays about equivalent to 4 x 5 film. So I guess the p65 is a little better than that.

Does anyone concur with this assessment? Or was Mr. Reichmann a bit over enthusiastic?

Would theoretical resolution would one need to achieve in a digital back to approach the resolutions extracteable out of 8 x 10? 200 Megapixels? 300?

Furthermore, for someone who has no idea with the costs involved in large format photography.

How much does a good (not the best) 8 x 10 setup cost? 10k? and how much is the total cost of one exposure? 30 USD?


Thank you very much for your comments!