Is there any real utility to ULF?

[sanking]

Just to put things in perspective re: the Gigapixel project, when I scan a 12X20 negative with my EverSmart Pro scanner, at 2540 ppi in 16 bit Grayscale, I get a file size of 2.88 gig. If that is not large enough I can go to 3175 ppi for a final file size of 4.5 gig.

I can not understand how anyone could work with larger files, or why they would want to, since from the 4.5 gig file one could potentially print an image 96" X 192" in size at 400 ppi. Even with a modern Intel duo-core MAC processing the smallest of these files takes an eternity.

Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, I don't want ignore your post - it's not my style. But you need to re read my post, cause based on your response, you must have mis-understood it....

I thought you said you will stitch 6MP images. All I am saying is that you are welcome to use scanned LF negatives as well if you want. If you are so confident that stitched 6MP images are better than a 12x20 ULF negative then use them... is up to you.

It is starting to sound to me like you don't do digital, you don't do ULF yet you have very strong opinions about their use and capabilities.... Had you started with this I would not have even bothered to respond.

[timparkin]

No, it does not work that way. You are talking about a camera that has been made to take those high resolution images. Now, I don't see what the big deal is, give me 100k (I beleive this is what he spent is his camera) to make a vacuum holder, reinforce the camera, buy an optimzed lens like the Schnider 550 or 1000 and I will be glad to put any negative I make against his high res captures. You gotta compare apples to apples.

WHat we are talking about here is normal everyday use cameras as they come form the manufacuturer with lenses that are not too expensive and easily available. One side says that stitched digital images are better than ULF because of the lenses and apertures I say it is not so.

OK

http://www.maxlyons.net/locreadingroom.htm

This guy is using an off the shelf digital camera and getting the same resolution images..

Tim

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

OK

http://www.maxlyons.net/locreadingroom.htm

This guy is using an off the shelf digital camera and getting the same resolution images..

Tim

Well lets see, he has a 116x110 inch print. I see no problem with doing this. You want to pay for the enlargement? I can send the negative to France or Norway to have a print made and I bet you it will be just as crisp as the one shown in the link you provided, and it was taken in one shot, not 243.

Let me remind you that I made a scan on a cheap flat bed scanner. I am sure that if I use a drum scanner, apply all the stuff people do to the scans and make a file big enough I can get just as good resolution. Then again, even if I just come close, heck not even close lets leave it at 8 l/mm.... taking just one shot and being able to make a 120x200 inch print in one take sure beats sitting around taking 243 shots.

PS. I forgot, how about we even things out. You take the 243 shots, make a 12x20 and I take my negative and make a 12x20.... I would be willing to do that as well.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Now for my personal opinion on ULF, with no mathematics or optical theory:

I use sheet film formats from 6.5x9cm to 30x40cm. The smallest one is not LF according to the only viable definition I've seen (more than 100 square centimeters), but at least it gives me a "small format" basis of comparison.

I do mostly landscape photography. where you live it might be different, but around here the landscapes tend to be rather rugged and near vertical. This has the advantage that I can always find a mountain to stand on, so getting the whole scene at close to infinity is not a problem. But that again leads to a different problem: I have to haul the bl**dy thing up that mountain first - and by the time I get thereem the whole valley is fogged in!

I've come to the conclusion that the 30x40cm (12x16") camera is just too big and heavy to use more than 50m from the car. The 24x30cm (9.5x12" for the metrically challenged) is a neat compact German "Reisekamera" only marginally larger than my 8x10" - in fact it's thinner when packed up! I can carry this for quite a distance.

8x10" and the 18x24cm metric equivalent is a sort of "inbetween" size for me. When I enlarge smaller negatives I usually make 24x30cm prints, very rarely 8x10". So since I'm limited to contact prints from all the sizes mentioned so far - at least if I'm not paying someone else for the printing and/or scanning - the 8x10" falls between two chairs: Too small to be big, too big to make bigger.

So most of the time I end up using 5x7". Unless I know I'm going to need lots and lots of movements, or a very narrow field of view - then I'll use 4x5". Or I'll use 4x5" with barrel lenses, since I also have a Speed Graphic.

My personal conclusion after a couple of years of hauling LF around is this: 5x7" is generally good, and generally good enough for really large prints (I have a 5x7" enlarger). 4x5" is convenient when I need a focal plane shutter or all the movements of a monorail somewhere halfway up a mountain. 24x30cm is beautiful, and gets less use than the 5x7" only because A: I can't choose to enlarge it without paying someone else to do it; B: There's a limited selection of films, C: I only have three double plate holers for it, and D: The bellows is so full of holes it looks more like lace than leather.

30x40cm is too big for me - maybe it would have been different if the camera had been an antique German precision instrument like the 24x30? A Russian copy of an old German camera is in no way the equivalent of the original...

You know, I think my ratio is 25 8x10 shots per 1 12x20. I just don't find enough subjects that fit my vision for the 12x20. So in that sense I would agree that some sizes fit us better, I love 8x10, and when I get a good 12x20 it is a thing to behold. Sadly I get more failures than keepers with the big camera....nice big, sharp negative, boring shot..

[timparkin]

Well lets see, he has a 116x110 inch print. I see no problem with doing this. You want to pay for the enlargement? I can send the negative to France or Norway to have a print made and I bet you it will be just as crisp as the one shown in the link you provided, and it was taken in one shot, not 243.

Let me remind you that I made a scan on a cheap flat bed scanner. I am sure that if I use a drum scanner, apply all the stuff people do to the scans and make a file big enough I can get just as good resolution. Then again, even if I just come close, heck not even close lets leave it at 8 l/mm.... taking just one shot and being able to make a 120x200 inch print in one take sure beats sitting around taking 243 shots.

So your 120x200 inch print would be less than one line per mm wheras his images are 8 pixels per mm (3 lines per mm) .. The problem isn't just enlarging, it's keeping the resolution...

What we'e all talking about is that if you stitch 6mp images enough you will get a 20x12 at greater than 300 dpi. If you take a sharp 4x5 and enlarge 4x you will get a resolution greater than 300 dpi .. if you contact print a 20x12 you will get a resolution greater than 300dpi... The differences between them can be discounted by user error, atmospherics, lens design, wind etc etc etc ...

So unless you are enlarging ULF.. the resolution tends not to really matter ...

If you want to get larger than 20x12 then you need to find somewhere that can enlarge a 20x12 or somewhere that can enlarge a 4x5 or 8x10 - I'll leave the utility of that up to someone else... I'm finished now..

Tim

[Matt Magruder]

Just to put things in perspective re: the Gigapixel project, when I scan a 12X20 negative with my EverSmart Pro scanner, at 2540 ppi in 16 bit Grayscale, I get a file size of 2.88 gig. If that is not large enough I can go to 3175 ppi for a final file size of 4.5 gig.

I can not understand how anyone could work with larger files, or why they would want to, since from the 4.5 gig file one could potentially print an image 96" X 192" in size at 400 ppi. Even with a modern Intel duo-core MAC processing the smallest of these files takes an eternity.

Sandy King

I had a conversation similar to this a few year back Sandy. It was through email with a guy who was creating 1GP digital images with massive amounts of 3.2mp digital camera files... stitching them all together. I asked about how he was processing and creating the massive images, this was back during the intro of the G4 motorola Power Macs. He mentioned that he would create small 400pixel wide JPGs of each original 3.2MP capture and would create a workflow stitching all the images together and then would basically hit "play" in photoshop on the original sized images and would just let the machine run through the workflow for a few days.
Makes you wonder if this is a possibility or something built into PS nowadays.
Seemed to make logical sense to me.
Luckily I dont have to worry about files that big... my day to day grind revolves around a miniscule little magazine sized files

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So your 120x200 inch print would be less than one line per mm wheras his images are 8 pixels per mm (3 lines per mm) .. The problem isn't just enlarging, it's keeping the resolution...

What we'e all talking about is that if you stitch 6mp images enough you will get a 20x12 at greater than 300 dpi. If you take a sharp 4x5 and enlarge 4x you will get a resolution greater than 300 dpi .. if you contact print a 20x12 you will get a resolution greater than 300dpi... The differences between them can be discounted by user error, atmospherics, lens design, wind etc etc etc ...

So unless you are enlarging ULF.. the resolution tends not to really matter ...

If you want to get larger than 20x12 then you need to find somewhere that can enlarge a 20x12 or somewhere that can enlarge a 4x5 or 8x10 - I'll leave the utility of that up to someone else... I'm finished now..

Tim

No, the third image that you calculated as 8 l/mm is already the enlarged portion to what would be equivalent of a 120x200 in photograph. Consider that this was a shot taken in the wind, long exposure, at f/45 and scanned in a cheap flat bed scanner that does not even hold the negative flat.

No, YOU are talking about dpi and all that and I am well aware that the idea is to keep resolution this is why I am talking about final quality. You posted a link of someone who took 243 shots to make one 116x110 image. Very convenient for you to post this...tell me, what size and what resolution would he have gotten if he only took ONE shot?

The question presented was, does ULF have any utility? It does, if you want the best possible negative for contact printing, regardless of the MTF tables, resolution, etc. SIZE DOES MATTER, most people I know buy and USE these cameras to make contact prints, not enlargements. Even so, you want enlargements then you got it, but lets talk apples with apples. You take your digital camera, the best one you can get or even a LF with a scanning back and you take ONE shot and you enlarge it to 120x200 inches and I take my 12x20 negative and I enlarge it to 120x200 inches and we will see which one keeps the better resolution, was easier to take and looks better.

[timparkin]

? It does, if you want the best possible negative for contact printing, regardless of the MTF tables, resolution, etc. SIZE DOES MATTER, most people I know buy and USE these cameras to make contact prints, not enlargements.

I think I said in a previous email

"So if you want to stick with an analogue process, want resolution, are happy to work with less depth of field, can get good sharp lenses that cover the area then I think ULF not only has utility but is unique in what it can achieve."...

to paraphrase "If you want to contact print with the best resolution then ULF is unique"? Why are you trying to disagree with me by restating what I said previously ...

I'm beginning to think you are a troll...

Tim

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think I said in a previous email

"So if you want to stick with an analogue process, want resolution, are happy to work with less depth of field, can get good sharp lenses that cover the area then I think ULF not only has utility but is unique in what it can achieve."...

to paraphrase "If you want to contact print with the best resolution then ULF is unique"? Why are you trying to disagree with me by restating what I said previously ...

I'm beginning to think you are a troll...

Tim

Lets see, a troll with more than 2000 posts, member of this forum since it was back at photo.net.... the accuser... a new comer with 32 posts... yep I am a troll alright.

I don't disagree with you on the above statements. What I disagree on is this falacy that digital is soooo much better at everything....