Page 1 of 32 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 319

Thread: 80mp digital better than 8x10?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    152

    80mp digital better than 8x10?

    They now have an 80mp digital that claims to beat 8x10 Of course I'd have to shoot at least 1,000 Chromes before it would be economical. One thing I question is why they scanned at such a low resolution. They claimed there was no more detail to be had at higher resolutions.
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_8x10.shtml

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    323

    Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?

    You would think that a Ph.D. in Biology would have better training in research design!
    Peter Y.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?

    The 8x10 film images were all made at f32.
    One man's Mede is another man's Persian.

  4. #4
    Unwitting Thread Killer Ari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    6,286

    Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?

    Ah, the age-old question.
    The answer I usually give is:
    "No! I mean, yes! I mean, no! I mean, I don't really care!"

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?

    Consider the source.
    One man's Mede is another man's Persian.

  6. #6
    Still Developing
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    582

    A luminous landscape article

    Am I the only one consistently annoyed at Michael Reichman and colleagues inability to set up a proper test. This time comparing a phase one with an 8x10.

    Sounds a fair comparison and on luminosity grounds the phase should get close. However the phase trounced the 8x10 which I was quite surprised at - until I saw that they had only scanned the 8x10 at 900dpi !!!

    Also, they had used some form of micro-sharpening (and by the look at the scans it wasn't enough to match the inherent sharpening that raw conversion adds).

    AND they used f/32 for the LF and then used f/16 for the IQ180?? Well I may be wrong but I thought to match depth of fields you would have to use f/8 for the IQ180? (giving an advantage for the IQ180 in diffraction terms but not in depth of field terms). It would have helped if they had said where they focussed.

    Anyone got an IQ180 for a proper test?

    Tim

    p.s. Here is a sample from a shot I took in Glen Nevis and scanned a central section at 4000dpi.. and next to it is what it looked like scanned at 900dpi with no sharpening..



    The image above was upsized 200% to make things out more clearly.. Oh, and it was taken with the Nikkor T-ED 600/800/1200 which isn't the sharpest cookie in the 10x8 jar..
    Still Developing at http://www.timparkin.co.uk and scanning at http://cheapdrumscanning.com

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    229

    Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?

    From what I've gathered from other threads, this package will likely have a limited, high end market, and that means it won't get a whole lot less expensive than the current $50K anytime soon. Consumer digitals have got a lot more powerful and cheaper in the last 10 years because of mass sales.

    Unless this new gadget gets cheaper than about $10K, I don't think the market for LF film cameras is going to collapse. I suspect most of the people buying and using these high end digitals aren't doing LF anyway.

  8. #8
    Joshua Tree, California
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    224

    Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?

    There is more to it than resolution. Dynamic range, accurate color and the ability to easily blend multiple exposures are a few advantages of digital. It's also very easy to stitch digital frames for even more resolution and a wider field of view.

  9. #9
    Daniel Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Posts
    2,157

    Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?

    "Drum scanned (Dainippon screen SG 608) at 745 dpi – which results in 8874 x 7229 pixels."
    745dpi sample rate? C'mon LuLa, don't want to fight on a FAIR playing field, eh???? Also, how old is this drum scanner? I'm sure if they sent the film over to Lenny it'd come back smooth as a babys butt, and look a helluva lot better than this 20+ yr old scanner...

    -Dan

  10. #10
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Isle of Wight, near England
    Posts
    707

    Re: 80mp digital better than 8x10?

    If 80M = 80 square inches of film then a 35mm frame is equal to 1.33M.... which we know it isn't.

    So the answer is... NO!


    Steve.

Similar Threads

  1. Ultimate digital chip for LF
    By Bob McCarthy in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 3-Aug-2006, 16:01
  2. Digital Camera R&D...
    By Bobby Sandstrom in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 19-Dec-2005, 20:16
  3. Another victim - AGFA in Chapter 11
    By Juergen Sattler in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-May-2005, 03:11
  4. Epson 4990, 8x10, and Digital ICE
    By Lars Åke Vinberg in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 5-Mar-2005, 12:04
  5. digital back with detail and clarity superior to 8X10 transparancy
    By Neal Shields in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 5-Dec-2001, 18:07

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
  •