80mp digital better than 8x10?

[Ed Kelsey]

Pretty stupid to scan 8x10 at 750 dpi. This is leaving a hell of a lot on the table.

[DJG]

I usually do a quick and dirty scan of my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives at 600 dpi on my Epson, just for a quick proof that I can share on the web with family, for example. Nothing I'd every try to print from or anything like that.

All this tested, in my opinion, is an 80 MP digital image ("80 MP = 10328 x 7760 pixels") against a low resolution drum scan ("745 dpi – which results in 8874 x 7229 pixels") that just happened to be on an 8x10 negative.

That's also 80145280 pixels versus 64150146 pixels, or a difference of almost 16 million pixels worth of data.

I'd also love to see a large optical enlargement of the 8x10 side by side with a print made from the digital back.

[GPS]

...
A fellow I know who specializes in using a view camera
as a telescope adapts Apo-Nikkor process lenses to a Toyo G 8x10 and then sticks
a Nikon 35 or Pentax 6x7 on the film plane. Take a 600 Apo Nikkor and this degree of
magnification, and the biggest variable becomes sheer atmosphere; but under the right
kind of weather conditions, he gets some amazing results, even superior to what he
got using a Celestron and equatorial mount.
...

That's called afocal photography. What does he use it for?? BTW it would be more practical to make a simple construction for this setup rather than to force a view camera to do the service. Anyway he cannot use movements with it.

[akfreak]

I took an ear full from GPS now to hear he is a Stock Photo guru that wont share a single link to a single image. That does bring the value of his word, not to say I am his boss, or he works for a forum, or put any words in his mouth. I am just saying this, it take the finest image ever made with an 80MP back, and take the finest image made with an 8x10 film camera. Now make the largest print you can without loss of detail at 300dpi and lets see what image is larger and shows more detail.

The little 645 sensor 80million pixel sites stuffed on it cant come close. Max out each file and make a print. Now make a platinum print from that digi file, make a silver print, make a carbon transfer, hell make a fiber based print from that digi snapper. You see with the 8x10 I can make all of the wonderful prints I want in a traditional darkroom then or I can scan it and make all the same prints the Digi can.

I know you can make a transparency from a digital file and make a traditional print, but another step in the process is gong to cause file degradation.

I dont know why people insist on trying to compare analog to digital stuff. It seems Analog is almost always better, In audio Tube amps are where the big money is. It reproduces sound way better then a mosfet transistor.

Digital is trying to reproduce what an analog source creates. Most of the time digital is great, I love the digital world, I just dont say it's better. It is what it is, one day there is no doubt digital will be able to record a scene with so much detail it will be like you are standing and looking at it as if you are actually there. Improvements in printing, and capture will have to vastly increase to do so.

Ask yourself why do people shoot black and white to this very day. It is because they can make images that have so much information (dynamic range). How do you that in a digital sense, Stacking images in HDR this will get you a final image with increased dynamic range. Here is the catch with digital dynamic range you have to remember that the contrast ratio of standard monitors is rather low, much lower than the dynamic range of most scenes. This means that your monitor is unable to display the entire range of tonal values available in an HDR image created from multiple exposures. (How do you pint that much information digitally, can you dev. N+3, +5,-8. Film is much better for making prints and this is what it is all about right? Or do you use an 80mp back for web work?

So now you have all this wonderful information and cant see it because your monitor cant display it all. How one must "ToneMap" Tone Mapping is the process of converting the tonal values of an image from a high range to a lower one. For instance, an HDR image with a dynamic range of 100,000:1 will be converted into an image with tonal values ranging from just 1 to 255. Now where are we back at a file that fakes you into thinking you are seeing more range.

Tone Mapping consists in scaling each pixel of the HDR image, so that details in highlights and shadows show correctly on monitors and prints (those details are available in the HDR image but not directly visible in both highlights and shadows because of the low dynamic range of the display). Can you say File degradation?

Response curves, films do have a response curve. Digital cameras dont, digital cameras' sensors is mostly linear, which means the response curve of the sensors is simply a straight line, Firmware of digital cameras pre-processes the raw output of those sensors with a non-linear conversion. However, the tonal curve used for the in-camera raw conversion has little to do with fixed characteristics of the camera. It is determined by software, not by hardware, and may even depend on the characteristics of the scene or lighting conditions of the capture.
This means there is no such thing as a specific response curve for a digital camera. Moreover, even for a given scene, there is no guarantee that the curve applied by the firmware to the sensor values will be the same for all exposures. Another problem is that the camera firmware may decide to apply a varying multiplying factor to the sensor values of each image in an attempt to correct for under- or over-exposure. When this happens, the underlying assumptions of algorithms used to recover response curves are not valid anymore.

So how can you envision a scene and recreate that vision if some computer software is going to interpret a scene in various ways that you have zero control over, and compare it to what you can control in an analog device. Performance charistics of films are known. One can consider all available information before deciding the best materials to use to achieve a vision and have full control from moment of inception to finished product.

With digital the software is under lock and key, you get what you get and are forced to use a workflow that is limited to capabilities of current technology. They price gouge you every single time they update the firmware, so that $50,000 80mp back is the cats ass right now, wait 6 months to a year and they will make a software update, put that same sensor in a new box and charge $65,000 for the latest bells and whistles. And endless cycle of greed, and hobbled products so they can profit later from the work done 2 to 3 years ago.


I know I have gone off the deep end here, I know I have a problem with very long posts, it just pisses me off when trolls, and people that choose to offer up information that dont really know squat and speak it as they are God himself.

8x10 film will smoke a 645 digital sensor any day of the week. Max out both formats make some prints and then lets see what we have.

[timparkin]

So you want to shout "real world sharpness" of 800mm Nikon based on vibration of your camera? Now that is some courage you have. Let me tell you this - I normally use 800mm Nikon on my cameras (home made stuff) even in strong winds (high mountains, meteorology, weather and its impact on landscape photography) with no vibration at all. Get at least a proper camera for your lenses if you want to comment their sharpness. Otherwise you just keep uttering the hot air comments in the category of LL testing methods.

Can you please tell me what you know of the 800mm Nikkor T-ED sharpness in comparison to lenses like the Fuji 240A or 360 Sironar S.

[Drew Wiley]

This all gets a little bizarre when you consider that it is virtually impossible to tell the
difference between a good 8x10 lens and a super-good one unless you're making truly massive enlargements. There are certainly more important practical considerations in
the choice of lenses, such as image circle and weight. Now if you tend to use the same lens on 4x5, MTF etc becomes a little more relevant. But if your film plane isn't truly flat, you throw away all that special engineering anyway. And the FACT is,
that ordinary 8x10 holders do not hold film especially flat. Nor do any of the Quickload
or Readyload variety of 4x5 holders. So unless you use precision holders like I do, some of this discussion is moot. You're only as good as your weakest link.

[bob carnie]

The original test if I am not correct was to make an similar image on both cameras
then make a large print off each.

I was in communication with Micheal Reichman and this test was going to happen in Toronto, when he got the equipment.

I was going to make a silver print on an enlarger at 30 x40,
Lenny Eiger had agreed to make the best scan he could of the 8x10 film.
I then was going to make a digital print at 30 x40 off Lennys file using my workflow.

Micheal Reichman was going to make his print or I would make it for him if he required from his file.

Somehow this test was done , and not the one I discussed with M Reichman.

Offer still open at my end.
I am quite interested in this camera, or at least my company would love to see a 80mb file. We have onsite a phase which delivers around 40mb and we know how that compares to film.

[Edwin Beckenbach]

Here is a sample. 8x10 Ektar at f45, 10 minute exposure, 360 fujinon-A. This was taken from a fully extended tripod on the bed of an unstable truck and it was dark enough to be difficult to focus. The first detail is from the raw unadjusted scan with nothing but a post-scan levels adjustment to the crop area. The scan was at 2000 dpi on a Howtek 4500. I resampled at 745 dpi with plain old bicubic. And just for kicks the second detail is the raw scan at 2000 dpi treated the same way. The differences in color are just the levels adjustment applied to different crop areas. On the second detail the scan has a good deal more resolution than the image (remember f45).

[timparkin]

I am quite interested in this camera, or at least my company would love to see a 80mb file. We have onsite a phase which delivers around 40mb and we know how that compares to film.

I have a colleague with an IQ180 and I have a Toyo 810M with a Fuji 240A and 450C that I could use to test against (plus access to a 6000dpi scanner). I'm hoping to get these things together in the next month or so..

I would love to see your 4x5 comparisons though...

Tim

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Comparing different lens formulae
Comparing old formula lens against really new optics...
Scanning at 745 dpi and asserting that no more resolution could be achieved....

oh poor man...