Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

  1. #51
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan J. Eberle View Post
    P.S. Long as I'm prognosticating, the break-through moment will occur 42 months from today when some maker posts an illustrated how-to for refilling Epson printer ink carts in order to do pin-registered multi-pass laying down of the photovoltaic and electrically-conductive inks on cleared Estar film base, which then must be heat-laminated in an autoclave made from a scrounged Jobo Expert Drum foot pump with the valving turned round backwards (to create a vacuum) in an Easy Bake Oven.
    Brilliant prediction, but I humbly suggest that it will take more on the order of 44 months, since the upcoming ban on 100 watt incandescent bulbs is forcing a major redesign of the Easy Bake Oven, and this will surely lead to setbacks.

  2. #52
    Nigels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Bedfordshire
    Posts
    35

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Dudenbostel View Post
    I'm curious how others feel about this. I know LF in film is determined by sq inches of film area but in the digital world I don't think this applies. Let me give an example, 8x10 film is obviously LF but is a digital back with a native file size of 18x22 inches with the back mounted on a view camera LF? I see a digital file uninterpolated at it's native size as being the equivalent of a piece of film that size. Is a file of 120 Megs at 18x22" ULF? What about a betterlight scanning back on 4x5? The sensor is only a small array of pixels on a bar that traverses the width of the back but the file sixe is very large. It may be 30x40 inches or so. Is it sensor size or native file size. Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?
    Going back to the original post - NO!
    Because you are not comparing like for like. If you want to cheat by enlarging your digital capture to native resolution you should do the same with your film. For digital native resolution is in pixels, for film it is grain. If the native resolution is a figure at which you can print without seeing pixels then for film it must also be the same i.e. how large can you print before grain is an issue. I suspect LF film will still give much larger acceptable prints.
    For me the format size is determine by the image area captured that is projected by the taking lens.
    (back to lurking).

    Nigels.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,424

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    Oh god, not this again

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Carmel Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,048

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    MIT researchers have smashed the Easy Bake Oven barrier to cheap photovoltaics:

    http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/201...-solar-panels/

    Kidding aside, it's not a stretch to see that before too very long this could very well be a route to cheap large scale image sensors in the form factor of film.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    275

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    Really? because my 8x10 film scanned at 2500 dpi give me something like a 70x90 inch print at 300 dpi with just a hint of grain.

    Quote Originally Posted by yaya View Post
    Format wise, digital is now at 645 full frame, hence why the term MFDB has become the norm. Obviously this is a lot smaller that 5X4 or 10X8

    Resolution wise, an 80MP MFDB, at 300dpi, produces a 34.40" x 25.84" print.

    When shot at low iso with a good lens, I very much doubt it can be matched by a 10X8 scan.

    Today's best scanners use line sensors that at best, were developed 8, 10 or even 15 years ago. These sensors are far behind the cutting edge we have in MFDB in terms of dynamic range, sharpness and colour depth. This is not just my view but what many reproduction experts say.
    So no matter how good your 10X8 sheet film and your camera are, you are still limited by what the scanner can record.

    Beyond that there are other factors such as DOF, FOV and the "look"...a 645 frame shot at f2.8 does not look like 4X5 shot at f5.6...a 400iso neg does not look like a 400iso digital file and so on...and then there's the cost

    I think that when photographers compare large format film work to medium-format digital work, they relate more to the above subjects than to the actual image quality pixel-for-pixel

    Yair

    Leaf Imaging Ltd | ysh@leaf-photography.com

  6. #56

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    I agree that the Leaf will outperform a scan of an 8X10 sheet of film.

    My Betterlight Scanning back is 216 megapixels NOT Interpolated. It does have its limitations, however; every medium format back that we have tested has not come close to the detail that the BL scan back can deliver. I made a pano scan which has a Native res of 30 inches X 18 feet at 300 DPI... 2.5 G file NATIVE...
    I shoot 8X10 and no scan of film gives me this detail. The Betterlight may be older tech but no Bayer filter (Interpolated by a computer) - its best guess...is as accurate with as subtle gradations as the 10 stop curve implemented by Mike Collette. It will catch up, and convenience is important. But for now??? I can still shoot film when the situation demands it. I will upload a sample and a few crops of a 30 inch X 20 foot image. Next Post
    The Medium format backs that we tried Phase 80megapixel had colour issues in Fine Art Repro.

  7. #57

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    Another post.
    This image is only 20X45 Native.
    I will find a bigger one in the morning.
    For now. the overall and a detail.
    You can drum scan film to be a bigger file but the detail won't be there.
    These are only jpegs of course.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    275

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    Yes, but you are talking about stitching and/or scanning backs, that is very different from one shot captures (I could stitch 5 8x10's together an have a monster image). I agree that certain digital devices can do better than 8x10, no one is arguing that. I was responding to the statement that an 80 megapixel digital back can give you the same resolution as a well scanned 8x10.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamphotoman View Post
    I agree that the Leaf will outperform a scan of an 8X10 sheet of film.

    My Betterlight Scanning back is 216 megapixels NOT Interpolated. It does have its limitations, however; every medium format back that we have tested has not come close to the detail that the BL scan back can deliver. I made a pano scan which has a Native res of 30 inches X 18 feet at 300 DPI... 2.5 G file NATIVE...
    I shoot 8X10 and no scan of film gives me this detail. The Betterlight may be older tech but no Bayer filter (Interpolated by a computer) - its best guess...is as accurate with as subtle gradations as the 10 stop curve implemented by Mike Collette. It will catch up, and convenience is important. But for now??? I can still shoot film when the situation demands it. I will upload a sample and a few crops of a 30 inch X 20 foot image. Next Post
    The Medium format backs that we tried Phase 80megapixel had colour issues in Fine Art Repro.

  9. #59
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Isle of Wight, near England
    Posts
    707

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    Quote Originally Posted by mcfactor View Post
    I was responding to the statement that an 80 megapixel digital back can give you the same resolution as a well scanned 8x10.
    Anyone who suggests that an 80 Megapixel back is equal to a piece of 8x10 film needs to do some simple working out:

    If 80 Mp = 80 square inches then 1 Mp = 1 square inch.

    A frame of 35mm film is about 1.33 square inches. Therefore 1.33 Mp is needed to equal 35mm film.

    EDIT: I seem to recall writing this somewhere a few weeks ago.... probably in this thread!


    Steve.

  10. #60
    Joshua Tree, California
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    224

    Re: Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    Anyone who suggests that an 80 Megapixel back is equal to a piece of 8x10 film needs to do some simple working out:

    If 80 Mp = 80 square inches then 1 Mp = 1 square inch.

    A frame of 35mm film is about 1.33 square inches. Therefore 1.33 Mp is needed to equal 35mm film.

    EDIT: I seem to recall writing this somewhere a few weeks ago.... probably in this thread!

    Steve.
    More illogic from the clueless

Similar Threads

  1. future of 4x5 and 8x10 film
    By bglick in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 259
    Last Post: 3-Mar-2022, 05:45
  2. Large Format Film And Digital Processing
    By Brian Ellis in forum On Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17-Apr-2007, 07:56
  3. "Digital" View Camera
    By FpJohn in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 27-Jun-2006, 14:56
  4. Digital Camera R&D...
    By Bobby Sandstrom in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 19-Dec-2005, 20:16

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •