Theoretical digital sensor equivalent to 8x10?

[PhiloFarmer]

Is 3,200 megapixels enough?

http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/cou...tion1/lsst.jpg

I'd love to know more about that sensor....can you share??

[Sylvester Graham]

I'd love to know more about that sensor....can you share??

http://www.lsst.org/lsst/gallery/camera

Space: the final frontier.

Personally, I don't care much for pixel counting, and don't count sharpness as the most important quality of a photograph. That being said, I have my doubts about silver halide photographs being able to quantitatively out resolve digital, much less a bank of multiple sensors like the one above. Now, other chemical light recording methods, like photolithography, are a different story I think.

[paulr]

Would it be out of line to get practical? Anyone in NYC using an 8x10? It would be fun to do some side by side comparisons and compare results in prints.

[timparkin]

@timparkin:
These numbers seem more likely. How did you arrive at them?

Sharpening effects probably shouldn't count, because you're not capturing any further information, you're just exaggerating what is already there. (Of course, if the net result is that the final print of 30"x40" looks sharper to trained eyes, and without having the flattened, artificial look of an over-sharpened print, then you've accomplished part of the objective of making a photograph in the first place. Naturally, there are a multitude of other factors than just sharpness—but I'm surprised that a 40x54mm 80 mp sensor could do this well, in an objective comparison.)

Direct comparison of print samples and showing them to 'normal' people ;-)

[timparkin]

Short version: I've been making 12"x18" proof prints from d800 files that are to my eye better—by a lot—than anything I've done or seen with 4x5. This is true only for one of the two projects I've been working on. The other is hand-held, in low light, and those prints look every bit like what we expect from small camera pictures.

That depends on your scanning and sharpening technique. yes the D800 has high acutance at just the right lpmm for a 12x18 print but you can also sharpen a 4x5 scan to give the same acutance but you must have a very smooth scan at a high resolution to avoid creating noise. This is why it's often best to scan 4x5 on a drum scan with a very large aperture because it provides a very smooth result albeit one that loses detail. This then allows you to play with acutance without too many side effects.

I've tested the D800 against a 'well scanned' 4x5 and printed them both and the D800 nowhere near the 4x5 to be honest. And by nowhere near I mean it's like comparing the D800 with an 80-100Mp camera.. And if we're testing black and white then the gap is even larger.

Tim

[DennisD]

Regarding PaulR's post quoted above by Tim Parkin,

I, too, have compared my D800 images against 4x5. While the D800 is a marvelous camera and (with the best lenses) produces incredible & excellent images in terms of resolution, etc., I cannot honestly say it excels over anything I've done with 4x5 in terms of image quality. My observation is purely empirical, no hard testing at this point.

Paul, perhaps you should examine the process or workflow on those projects where you felt the 4x5 was exceeded by the D800. With all due respect, perhaps something is going on with your camera, lenses or processing technique that's causing you to achieve less than optimal 4x5 results. Just a thought.

Dennis

Ps - I love the D800 and use it as a backup / secondary camera when shooting 4x5.

[Gary Tarbert]

Hi Agree with Tim and Dennis , I bought a d800E thinking black and white is all i will use LF for, Ordered another two hundred sheets last week of colour , The d800e is a great camera but the people who say it rivals well scanned 5x4??? well not in my experience maybe V700 scans at best , But drum scans it's a no brainer . Cheers Gary

[ChuckT]

In another forum some one asked "What would you like the next Nikon DSLR to have". And I replied a full frame 50 MP sensor with Tru RGB.

Wishful thinking perhaps - but does anyone really know what is being done in research labs anyway.

Also for-what-its-worth I will toss in this real-world scenario: This week I sat in on a conference with a cutomer that wants (among others) a cropped section from a 1997 negative - probably a 35mm - to be 36 feet wide x 10 feet high at 300 pixel/inch without interpolation.

cvt