80mp digital better than 8x10?

[bigguy88]

i accept the LF and a digital back are 2 different things. Hope to be able to afford one one of these days.

[AnselAdamsX]

Is the Fuji Across also scaned at 745 DPI? It looks very grainy. I scanned some Tri-X 320 at 2400dpi on a cheap HP flatbed and it looks about the same or maybe a tad better. Tri-X 320 scan

Hi

The internet can show images as precise as some worn out newspaper paper - therefore I would like to add this link:

http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html

Markus

[E. von Hoegh]

Jack Flescher has some good points over on the LuLu forum.

It's funny to note that LuLu's NEX7 preview had really incredibly poor results from the Leica 24mm Summilux used on that camera... it looked so bad it looked like a focusing error. Even though they were different photographers, perhaps the 8x10 just wasn't focused properly or the ground glass was in the wrong spot? I would expect a good 200mb drum scan of an 8x10 too look pretty crisp where things are focused - and this doesn't.

What I thought. Looking at the 8x10 perched on a ballhead mounted to a fairly light tripod, I'd say he was using an inexperienced (although"passioned") photographer.

I was looking at an 8x10 negative I shot quite a few years ago, Tri-X and a 10 3/4" Dagor, and the detail on a bulletin board about as far away as that auto registration plate is crisp. Another thing, they claim to have used a 20x loupe to focus the 8x10. When I put a 20x loupe on my GG, I see gravel, and have a hard time focussing.

[John NYC]

Hi

The internet can show images as precise as some worn out newspaper paper - therefore I would like to add this link:

http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html

Markus

Yes, thanks for joining the discussion.

You are also testing the scanner in your test. So, assuming you don't want to do a real test where you make an 80 inch optical print from the 8x10 and an 80 inch digital print from the the IQ180, you are going to need to get the best scan you can. This means using a great scanner, OVERSAMPLING the scan with a greater dpi resolution than the final comparison, applying sharpening to compensate for the sampling errors and blur the scan introduces and downsizing the final file to the same size as the IQ file. That will give you the best possible scan you can get with 8x10, and that is what you really want to compare.

I would also say you need something like an Arca M-Line and a Rodenstock APO Sironar-S lens if you are to compare state of the art on both sides. Also need state of the art support in terms of tripod and head.

Finally, you need someone to do the shooting who regularly pixel peeps their 8x10s so they have learned what they need to do on their camera to get the best results. Many people don't and probably are more like Jack said he was where his technique is all off on focusing.

[timparkin]

Yes, thanks for joining the discussion.

You are also testing the scanner in your test. So, assuming you don't want to do a real test where you make an 80 inch optical print from the 8x10 and an 80 inch digital print from the the IQ180, you are going to need to get the best scan you can. This means using a great scanner, OVERSAMPLING the scan with a greater dpi resolution than the final comparison, applying sharpening to compensate for the sampling errors and blur the scan introduces and downsizing the final file to the same size as the IQ file. That will give you the best possible scan you can get with 8x10, and that is what you really want to compare.

I would also say you need something like an Arca M-Line and a Rodenstock APO Sironar-S lens if you are to compare state of the art on both sides. Also need state of the art support in terms of tripod and head.

Finally, you need someone to do the shooting who regularly pixel peeps their 8x10s so they have learned what they need to do on their camera to get the best results. Many people don't and probably are more like Jack said he was where his technique is all off on focusing.

Toyo 810MII and two tripods, Fuji 240A or 450C, scan samples at 4000dpi? I would also suggest cutting a medium format sample out of 8x10 for a darkroom print. I also have an 80x microscope with digital camera attachment I can use to take pictures..

Tim

[John NYC]

Toyo 810MII and two tripods, Fuji 240A or 450C, scan samples at 4000dpi? I would also suggest cutting a medium format sample out of 8x10 for a darkroom print. I also have an 80x microscope with digital camera attachment I can use to take pictures..

Tim

Sounds good to me.

On a personal note, I think we are in the last days of doing these types of comparisons. At some point a MFDB is going to come out where we all look at the file and say there is no contest any more just by a casual glance at full size on screen.

[timparkin]

Sounds good to me.

On a personal note, I think we are in the last days of doing these types of comparisons. At some point a MFDB is going to come out where we all look at the file and say there is no contest any more just by a casual glance at full size on screen.

It's pretty irrelevant anyway as I shoot film for other reasons and am happy whether it's from an 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6 or 35mm - however the sense of fairness in me demands a response :-)

Tim

[John NYC]

It's pretty irrelevant anyway as I shoot film for other reasons and am happy whether it's from an 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6 or 35mm - however the sense of fairness in me demands a response :-)

Tim

Same here actually. I shoot more MF film with a TLR than I do anything else, but I love shooting my 8x10 the most.

Digital still needs to catch up in terms of out of the box color, smoothness of tonality, handling of highlights, etc...

[dsim]

I shoot film for other reasons and am happy whether it's from an 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6 or 35mm

Indeed

[Brian Ellis]

. . . I think too many people are getting their shorts in a knot over nothing but a cute marketing blitz.

I haven't followed most of this thread closely because I think the kind of stuff everyone is getting so worked up about isn't worth worrying about. To me the only relevant equipment-related question is whether your equipment, whatever it is, does what you want it to do. And the possibility that some other equipment might do something better is unimportant if you don't care about whatever it is that the other equipment does better (in this case making massive prints).

But having said that, I'm curious why it's a marketing ploy (genuine question, not a disguised argument or challenge). By that I mean who among the participants in this test, whatever exactly it was, is marketing anything and what are they marketing?