No, there isn't one. I was saying that if 80MP is equal to 8x10 film, then that's 1MP per square inch. A 35mm frame is 1.33 square inches so by the same logic (or lack of it) that should be equalled or bettered by 1.33MP.Originally Posted by John NYC
Steve.
That is probably the most important question.
Steve.
If access to content were the only reason for the existence of universities, they would have long ago been wiped out by public libraries. The problem with the internet is that it lacks editing. Anyone can be an "expert" on the internet. Universities should have the ability to teach both classical knowledge and contemporary. They SHOULD change with the times. Universities should be teaching foundations of knowledge and critical thinking. Universities have never been the only way one could gain these skills, but they are structured and designed to train many people reliably. But socialization is also part of the experience of attending university and it fosters another set of skills useful in the real world.
********************Back on topic**************************
As others have alluded, as far as I can tell Mr. Reichman has made himself into an expert on digital photography by doing nothing more than publishing on the web. He has consistently been pro digital and he has edited his website with a consistently pro-digital bent.
Many years ago, he published a review where a 16.7MP Canon camera supposedly outperformed a 6X7 (RB or Pentax) in terms of resolution. A scan from a Nikon LS-8000 should have been able to mop the floor with that Canon. Then he went after 4X5 with a medium format digital back (drum scanning 4X5 at 1600spi for some reason). A trend of hamstringing film is starting to develop here. Now he has gone after 8x10 (scanned at an even lower 750spi because for some reason this 20 year old drum scanner was the "best" available) with another medium format digital back. He fuels the sales of the digital equipment makers with extremely lopsided comparisons and in return... I mean coincidentally... they send him gear to review and keep his site running, which in turn gives him the name recognition that allows him to conduct his high dollar tours and sell his high priced videos.
I've made wet mount scans from 4X5 on my Epson 4990 that I feel would at a minimum be in neighborhood for resolution comparison with this 80MP wunderkind, but that I feel would have more than a decent chance of exceeding it. But I don't use the 4X5 simply for resolution. I enjoy the fact that it can provide that fine texture that LF is capable of delivering. But I also really enjoy using the camera, seeing the film on a light table.
Also, his critical review of the (Rollei/Leaf) Sinar back, was underwhelming to say the least, with a odd color-balanced picture of a model, not exactly his landscape or street experience. Considering that he was loaned one of the few "review models" of the back, this, IMHO, really set back the new Sinar back's standing. The Sinar back was admittedly hampered by having to use several software tools for translating the RAw, but if that's required for a fair review, then that's what one must do. I have had the feeling sometimes that if one would call up Michael at night one might wake up the Phase One salesman.
Still, I must admit that the Canon 30D was a superb new camera that shocked us and Michael correctly noted that and it was his "Paul of Tarsus" moment!
Yes, he's good at what he does! The tours BTW, are expensive but serve the wonderful extra purpose of providing material for the videos!
I feel the same way. I also like the idea that a sheet of film is itself a storage medium, albeit, flammable and therefore potentially lost if one does not keep copies in a different place!
Asher
Applying their logic in that way seems to me completely appropriate.
It has been said that the current crop of 24x36 sensor DSLRs can match medium format. If we take a 3:2 chunk out of 6x6, we end up with 6x4, or (approximately) 3.25 square inches of film. That would be 3.25 megapixels at the same relative pixels density as their claim. And 4x5 would be 20 megapixels. All of these exceed any plausible claims.
If we turn it around, it was claimed when the first competent 6-MP cameras came out that it matched the capability of 35mm film. Taking that claim as valid, it would take 80/1.34 * 6 = 358 megapixels to match 8x10 film to the same degree as 6-MP matches 35mm film. And it would take 90 megapixels to match 4x5 film to the same degree as a 6-MP camera. If 6 megapixels is too small a number, then scale UP accordingly.
These equivalencies are based on the same enlargement ratio (which means that the print from 8x10 will be around 9 times bigger than the print from 35mm), but viewed at the same distance (not at scaled distances).
This is, to me, a reality check. If I'm doing a detailed comparison as they did, and it violates this reality check to a substantial degree, then either the test is wrong or the reality check is wrong, and both must be explored before drawing any conclusions. There have been a myriad of comparisons between film and digital in small format, and these tests do not all have the same flaws we have noted in the 8x10 comparison.
Rick "dimensionless ratios should be maintained, as with most linear processes" Denney
So far, I have owned and sold... 240mm G-Claron, 300mm Sironar-N, 150mm SS XL with center filter.
I am currently shooting with a 300mm G-Claron (extremely sharp, as was my 240mm) and a 450mm Fujinon-C. I have on the way a Fujinon 250mm f/6.7.
Right now, I am getting negs that meet my needs, but wind, my own mistakes, etc. are the limiting factor. Currently, the IQ180 is beyond what I would pay and not quite (I am guessing... but I would like to see the test of a huge print!) there. But in a half dozen years more, it might be more realistic for me. I want to know where we are with the current system, but I am not interested in buying one now.
Of course digital is better than film... The Pro's outdo the Con's.
But if you are doing something specific... that will crown which one is better for YOU.
Combining this thread with "the sky is falling" similar threads constantly predicting the demise of film, I tend to take an optimistic view. Probably before all the sheet
film in my freezer is used up, the software upgrades and service contracts on all the present digital backs will have copped out too. No problem. Don't those digital backs
have nice smooth surfaces somewhere in there where the photons land? You could
probably use that for the wet-plate process, peel the emulsion off after the shot
like a Polaroid transfer, then recoat it over and over. Costs a bit more in initial investment than an ordinary sheet of glass, but heck, in a few years at the rate
every new digital device upstages the previous one and sends it into obsolescene,
used digital backs might even be cheaper than glass!
or an 11.5 x 9 inch print at 720ppi
Ronan, of course digital is better? For who? For still photographer careers and those
lab services supported by them? Seems like the digital revolution has been more like the French Revolution, with a guillotine lopping off one job after another. For
stock photographers? Half a century ago one-time publishing rights for a LF image
image might fetch hundred or even thousands of dollars. Adjusted for inflation, how
does that compare to today, when the average royalty would be ten bucks if you're
lucky, and every kid's hamster owns a digital cam and website? How does that balance out all that money you saved by not needing to buy film? Better for ultimate
print quality. Dream on. Maybe, but I have yet to see that new version of PS with
the gelatin relief slider to replicate a carbon print, or even a digitally printed color
print which can match a really well done darkroom one. Better for self-publishing?
Admitted; but you still need a ton of time, money, and background to make a good
looking book of any sort. So all this depends on just how you balance your pros
and cons. I see the balance way on the other side.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks