Rube Goldberg would be proud.
Rube Goldberg would be proud.
My point simply is, that the detail I can extract of reproducing a 4x5 chrome with an 80 MPX back isn't so much inferior to a controlled shot of a similar, real-life scene with a digital lens when viewed side by side. This is the third image.
My theory is really simple: if the macro lens shot does outresolve the full-frame view shot of film, the image would be less detailed and hence sharp than a digital real-life shot of a compareable scene. On the other hand, if the film outresolves the 80 MPX I would get a really visually sharp 80 MPX repro shot of the chrome and would see even more detail at a magnification of 1:1.
It is very subjective, but my impression is that 4x5 film isn't that far away from 80 mpx in terms of resolution.
As a side note I discovered the usefulness of "scanning" film with a macro lens on a light table. From now on I will mostly digitize 4x5 with my macro lens. It is that good.
I will probably do a full-on 8x10 80MPX comparison but I need to find the time ...
Kind regards
Paul
Is that a sarcastic comment? Don't understand ...Originally Posted by Robert Hughes
I guess he means there are better, simpler ways to get a nice image.
Weird? Weird!My theory is really simple: if the macro lens shot does outresolve the full-frame view shot of film, the image would be less detailed and hence sharp than a digital real-life shot of a compareable scene. On the other hand, if the film outresolves the 80 MPX I would get a really visually sharp 80 MPX repro shot of the chrome and would see even more detail at a magnification of 1:1.
It delivers a higher resolution. Just have a 4x5 chrome scanned with a drum scanner, and you don't have to be subjective or speculative anymore.It is very subjective, but my impression is that 4x5 film isn't that far away from 80 mpx in terms of resolution.
I understand the point of testing the MFD as a scanner. That result in itself is interesting, since the equivalent set up in 35mm (shooting a 35mm slide with a 20+MP camera) doesn't give very good results. The repro argument in #12 looks sound to me too, but it is redundant with the other comparison.
While the idea of introducing the MFD as scanner in the mix is interesting, it confuses many readers (hence the unfortunate negative posts, which are all too common). Your points who be made much more clearly in two separate posts: (a) scanned film vs. digi (b) scanned film vs. repro.
ok i ll come back when i do a controlled test ... hopefully i find time ...
I have no idea why you bought a digital back. For all I know, you could just be a gadget addict, with sixty-thousand pounds burning a hole in his pocket.
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr Pentaxforums RangeFinderForum
Omega View 45F Monorail, Super Graphic, Various Lenses (75, 90, 135, 150/265, 210)
Paul, not wet mounting the film on the scanner is not a fair example of what an IQSmart can do. Wet mounting reduces grain and increases resolution. Also the IQSmart 2 is res limited to 4300 optical, which is shy of the ultimate resolution of many films. I find that some films exceed 5000 dpi.
Also the method of doing a copy camera setup is a poor one. You're photographing a photograph, and we all know that there's always loss when you do that. Your process is not testing film versus digital, but a MFDB versus a scanner.
If I had not spent the money I would not still be working in the area I do, which is high end advertising, and no 5x4 film is not as good as film in a commercial context . I have mentioned before I shoot film for my personal work because I prefer the look and feel of film but using it for paid work is not practical
I disagree with both statements.
First, I have certain qualitative requirements concerning sharpness if I print something. Of course you can drum scan a piece of film at 11 000 DPI and get huge files and so on. But then the image will not have the sharpness I like. For me the ultimate criterium is sharpness to the point that you can get 1 feet close to the image and still see a lot of details. It is very qualitative and I can't pinpoint an exact resolution number; but for my experience scanning at about 3000-4000 dpi on a piece of LF film is completely sufficient and exactly what I strive for quality wise.
I have tried wet mounting, but I don't finde the difference to be too striking.
Lastly, if you scan the process is quite similar to a copy setup with a macro lens and a high-res back. In both digitizing scenarios you have a lens system in between a digitizing sensor and a film plane. I do not exactly why it shouldn't be possible to extract the same quality.
Believe it or not, I'm the first person to concede a quality advantage to scanners if it is merited; heck, I do own an IQSmart2 myself. But we're in the year 2011 and digital back technology has come so far as to produce beautiful, practically noise-free 10k x 8k files in one shot. The macro optics are considered to be some of the best in the whole Phase One line-up and the quality trule is amazing. I was really surprised to see that the detail and clarity I can get from a 80mpx copy setup is that good and so near to the results I get with the IQSmart. And yes, there are still differences. But believe me, if you print 5-6 feet wide, an enlargement made from the 80 mpx file will be very, very close to the file I get from the IQSmart with a lot less hassle and time needed.
But this is normal considering that I'm pitting 2010 technology agains 1990s ccd technology.
Did you ever try reproducing a piece of film with an 80 mpx back?
Kind regards
Pablo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks