80mp digital better than 8x10?

[thrice]

What's wrong with 8x10 on a light tripod with a ballhead? I took this with my 4x5 on a gitzo 1541T (tiny tripod) and a fotoclam ballhead (also tiny). Sorry for the rather boring photo. I am kind of jesting as I usually use a much larger/sturdier tripod with a heavier duty ballhead. A center column with a hook for your backpack helps a lot when you're using a smaller tripod.
This is my usual setup.
Totally off-topic but should I invest in a heavier duty tripod? A different kind of head?

For me, the cost of the Phase One IQ180 (or most other digital backs) put it out of reach, but I am still interested in the comparison. Looking through a loupe at Velvia 50, even on 4x5 trannies is staggering. I personally feel I get usable resolution all the way up to 1600dpi on my flatbed. If I had an 8x10 I would love to make this comparison.

I believe they do not touch on the subjective advantages of film in that comparison (but I'm sure they have before). For me, I can shoot an image on my Leica M9 that I'll happily print at 20x30, and very few people want a bigger print than that. The aesthetics and the process of shooting large format on the other hand is very enjoyable and infinitely more rewarding when it goes right. In this run & gun photographic industry it is hard to compete without a digital workflow, those who shoot fine art portraiture, landscapes or architecture using their large format cameras for a living are very lucky.

[timparkin]

I agree. Both 8x10 (and much smaller) film and the IQ80 (and smaller) digital sensors are now capable of really good image quality in large prints so who really cares?

It has now become the equivalent of a Nikon vs. Canon argument.


Steve.

Hmm - I think it is occasionally relevant. I need to produce an 10m x 4m print for the back of a National Park visitor centre where the goal is to allow people to see the amazing view to the horizon even on days where it is cloudy/raining/etc. People will be walking right up to this picture to have a look at the detail.

Do you think resolution is irrelevant for this?

Tim

[timparkin]

What's wrong with 8x10 on a light tripod with a ballhead? I took this with my 4x5 on a gitzo 1541T (tiny tripod) and a fotoclam ballhead (also tiny).

Hi - I think you *can* get great shots with the smallest of tripods. For instance I know a colleague who uses a gitzo traveller with a Chamonix 4x5 and her shots are wonderful. However, there is always a chance that vibrations or wind will reduce resolution and hence a sturdier tripod will help increase the chances of a sharp shot.

8x10 has appro four times the weight at twice the distance from the ballhead = 8 times as much problem with vibration etc and also the stiffness of the whole system is reduced, etc. I've tried mounting my 10x8 directly to the tripod and the vibrations were still apparent. The only way to stop them is with a secondary support to provide two points of contact (three points of contact at the extremities of the camera would be better but two gets rid of most of the issues).

Hence why I ended up doing this in the wind recently



To get the shot of the climbers with the 800mm lens (see <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin/5640827032/in/photostream">here</a>)

Love the sand dunes picture of the 4x5 :-)

[thrice]

Thanks Tim, appreciate your insight. I imagine the torque on 8*10 would be substantially larger as you pointed out.

[Steve Smith]

Do you think resolution is irrelevant for this?

No I don't. I was thinking in more general terms that for 99.9% of all uses, the argument is pointless.


Steve.

[Donald Qualls]

No I don't. I was thinking in more general terms that for 99.9% of all uses, the argument is pointless.


Steve.

I think it's safe to say that 99.9% of all uses aren't represented on this forum.

FWIW, I can scan just about 100 megapixels from 4x5 film with a flatbed scanner I bought used eight years ago. A dedicated film scanner could get close to ten times that -- and if the camera was steady, the lens sharp and focus critical, and the film developed for acutance, the better scanner would will be extracting more information. I've got at least one lens that will let me read license plates from a block away in a 4x5 negative -- which requires my maximum scanner resolution.

So, no, there's no way 80 megapixels is equivalent to 8x10 film. In fact, the much-vaunted Gigapixel Project didn't exceed the resolution capability of 8x10 film...

[timparkin]

No I don't. I was thinking in more general terms that for 99.9% of all uses, the argument is pointless.

Steve.

Maybe in general terms it isn't relevant but for those people who either produce very large work or don't know in advance which work may be use very large, then it is relevant. Hence a comparison *has relevance* for some people.

How about the landscape photographer who may get requests for 40x50 prints or perhaps want to have a single print at the front of their exhibition of that size. For a 360dpi print you would need a 15,000 x 18,000 pixel file. That is pushing the edges of 4x5 and is well beyond 80 megapixels. Yes you can make a 40x50 at a lot less dpi but some photographers would like 'noseable' prints however large.

How about the photographer who wants a panorama 72" wide? They would need 25,000 pixels for a 360dpi print and even if you want a 180dpi print, which most people would say is just about OK for sharp prints, then you need 12,500 pixels.. The Phase back is capable of 10,000 pixels wide so is *just* falling short. If someone could get a better result from 8x10 then they would be interested?

As someone has already mentioned. 99.9% of images are shot on compact cameras and smart phones so according to that this whole forum is irrelevant.

Tim

[jnantz]

i think that it is interesting that someone makes a high powered digital back
that costs as much as a sports car, but i still see no point in owning one.

in the end a lot of the people who will buy one of these things
-- the same ones who buy maserati because it will make them drive better
since they drove so poorly in their 2cv.

[Steve Smith]

i think that it is interesting that someone makes a high powered digital back
that costs as much as a sports car, but i still see no point in owning one.

Sports car or digital back? I don't see any point in owning either!


Steve.

[timparkin]

Sports car or digital back? I don't see any point in owning either!


Steve.

Again, if your hobby is track day events then owning a sports car becomes important. If you don't then it's not. But for the track day guy, knowing the finer points of Evo's vs M3's is important. etc.. Just cause you don't give a *** doesn't mean it isn't important/critical/valid to someone else.

Also, some people's hobby is pixel peeping - is that any less *valid* a hobby than sclumping large format film cameras around. There are no hobby police, scrapbooking is popular, as is train spotting and hypermiling.

People are also free to choose their own personal levels of interest in resolution. My interest in resolution was exceeded when I shot 4x5 but it doesn't mean I don't have a passing interest in seeing where the limits lie, just as people like watching olympics who couldn't run to catch a bus.

Tim