Are you making money with LF?

[David Luttmann]

That brings up a question that I have...if we were to compare apples with apples...large format film to an unlimited MP digital image...what quantity of MP in digital would equal a 4X5 negative or transparency image. I ask this question because I honestly do not know...

I do know that the so call gigapixel images far outstrip large format...supposedly beyond 8X10 film capture...Would a digital image of 160 MP possess more resolution than a 4X5 negative? Where would a 250 MP capture put it in comparison to enlarged 4X5 film? I do know that digital has other post processing tools that film does not have. I am getting set up to do large scale stitches and was wondering where I would fit into the scheme of things.

Thanks for any insight or information that you can share.

Donald Miller

Donald, I've found that while the 39mp backs are close, 4x5 still has a slight advantage on large prints. As there is nothing more than 39mp to compare to, I've had to extrapolate from my testing a 48mp Better Light scan back. Because the scan back is true color as opposed to a sensor with a Bayer array, it offers higher rez than a 48mp Bayer sensor. The advantage seems to be about 25% extra in file size. So while a 48mp Betterlight exceeds 4x5, it appears that when I've stitched digital files, it takes an equivalent of between 60mp and 70mp to equal a 4x5 sheet of color film. This is a file size of about 10,000 pixels wide.

While people can talk about scanning at higher resolutions, etc, etc, when comparing inkjet output from my old Epson 7600 (this was tested a while ago by me), and printed at 360 dpi, the 65mp files appeared better. This was done on cottonrag paper on 11x14 crops from a 40x50 print. As I very, very rarely print larger than 30" wide (odd one at 40") for me, the digital file looked sharper, with better detail, acutance, and color accuracy. Because the files are so clean, they interpolate and sharpen better than the film file.

That said, if you mainly print to 16x20, then sheet film on a flatbed will look perfect at a much better cost point than these digital backs on a view camera.

[Donald Miller]

David,

Thank you for providing this information. So if I consider this than stitching 160 mp images should be somewhat higher resolution than the 5X7 film negatives that I shoot and 250 mp should be at somewhere in the neighborhood of an 8x10 negative.

Thanks again.

[David Luttmann]

David,

Thank you for providing this information. So if I consider this than stitching 160 mp images should be somewhat higher resolution than the 5X7 film negatives that I shoot and 250 mp should be at somewhere in the neighborhood of an 8x10 negative.

Thanks again.

That's about it. Unfortunately, many people just look at the file sizes of the scans they get, or think that the math doesn't work. I prefer to compare directly. I was very surprised that such a small digital file could exceed 4x5.....because for years we had been told (and I believed) that it would take 150mp to 200mp to equal 4x5. As more and more people actually compare as opposed to providing unconfirmed opinion, we’ll hear less and less unsubstantiated figures for comparisons.

That said, regardless of any resolution differences, I still have a blast photographing with a view camera…..as well as my Holga!

[Kirk Gittings]

IME and in similar testing I have done, David's summation is largely right. While I still prefer the character of 4x5 film for my personal work, in a pinch I have successfully used stitching to produce exhibition quality files which look good next to scanned 4x5 film prints. Cost comparisons are very valid in larger formats, but the quality is there.

BTW, Donald I have revisited your HDR method using Luminosity masks to get rid of some of the weirdness. It works pretty well.

[David Luttmann]

IME and in similar testing I have done, David's summation is largely right. While I still prefer the character of 4x5 film for my personal work, in a pinch I have successfully used stitching to produce exhibition quality files which look good next to scanned 4x5 film prints. Cost comparisons are very valid in larger formats, but the quality is there.

BTW, Donald I have revisited your HDR method using Luminosity masks to get rid of some of the weirdness. It works pretty well.

I think you hit on it well Kirk. Like I said, regardless of resolution, etc, etc, the film files look different….you referred to it a character. Some people will prefer one over the other, or use both to their best capabilities. I will never again shoot a wedding with film, but I’ll be using 4x5 B&W for as long as I can for landscapes! I like the way B&W film renders the scene straight from the scan. To get the digital file to have the same look requires a fair bit of post processing.

[Gordon Moat]

Actually,

For digital capture, it's not meaningless as the file size for digital capture is the base resolution. For film scans, file size is meaningless. A 99mb 16 bit file from a FF DSLR will do far better than a 225mb, 5200ppi scan of 35mm film. This can be evidenced by comparing a 30” color print from 35mm and from a FF DSLR like the 1Ds Mk2. That 99mb digital file trounces that 225mb film file. For film it’s meaningless…for digital it’s not.

I would question your eyesight if you think a 30" from any file from any D-SLR looks good; and yes I have seen many, including from (supposedly) masters of digital printing. File size is not resolution. The best of D-SLRs barely makes 60 lp/mm in true resolution. If you are going up in size more than 20x, then you are left with barely 3 lp/mm on the print. What you are probably assuming as resolution is actually sharpness, or edge definition.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Donald Miller]

IME and in similar testing I have done, David's summation is largely right. While I still prefer the character of 4x5 film for my personal work, in a pinch I have successfully used stitching to produce exhibition quality files which look good next to scanned 4x5 film prints. Cost comparisons are very valid in larger formats, but the quality is there.

BTW, Donald I have revisited your HDR method using Luminosity masks to get rid of some of the weirdness. It works pretty well.

Kirk,
Thanks for sharing that. I have used either/or but not the two combined...I will give it a go.

[David Luttmann]

I would question your eyesight if you think a 30" from any file from any D-SLR looks good; and yes I have seen many, including from (supposedly) masters of digital printing. File size is not resolution. The best of D-SLRs barely makes 60 lp/mm in true resolution. If you are going up in size more than 20x, then you are left with barely 3 lp/mm on the print. What you are probably assuming as resolution is actually sharpness, or edge definition.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

Sorry, file size for digital capture is directly related to the resolution of the file. However, I was comparing the 1Ds Mk2 to 35mm color film. For that, if you think the film file will have better color, resolution, and smoother tonality than the 17mp DSLR at 30" then it's not my eyes that need checking! And you won't find many people who shoot with both in agreement with you I'm afraid!

[sanking]

[QUOTE=Gordon Moat;347734]File size is not resolution. The best of D-SLRs barely makes 60 lp/mm in true resolution. If you are going up in size more than 20x, then you are left with barely 3 lp/mm on the print. What you are probably assuming as resolution is actually sharpness, or edge definition.

Ciao!

[QUOTE]

Actually, slightly less than 3 lines/mm. 20X from a full sensor DSLR, where 60 lines/mm is the theoretical best possible, would result in just a tad more than 2 lines/mm.

As is well known, digital files are very clean and can be interpolated up and still look good. But not even the best interpolation software can create more resolution than is in the original file.

An apple to apple comparison of digital to film is quite complicated and must take into consideration the following factors.

1. The potential in resolution of the camera system in lines/mm, and the size of the sensor or film.
2. ISO of the film and speed at which the digital camera is used.
3. Effective resolution of the film scan.
3. Size of the final print.
4. Resolution of the output device.

File size, either a file produced from a digital camera, or one produced from a file scan, is totally meaningless. Yes, as Robert suggested, a 35mm scan at 5000 spi will produce a file size of around 200 mb, but to take full advantage of all that information would require a camera system that is putting 100 lines/mm on film, and scanner that is actually scanning at 100 lines/mm. Unless you have a Leica camera with a high quality Leitz lens on a tripod, used at optimum aperture, use a high resolution film, and have a drum scan made at 5000 spi, much of the information in the 200 mb file will be trash. To say nothing of film grain.

On the other hand, proponents of digital capture nearly always talk of sharpness, and effectively ignore the fact that anything over 15X from a full sensor DSLR is going to have very low real resolution.

In any event, based on the work I have seen, my own opinion is that a full sensor DSLR that can capture 60 lines/mm has a significant advantage over a 35mm film camera, except with very slow film and a high quality camera/lens system.

Sandy King

[sanking]

Sorry, file size for digital capture is directly related to the resolution of the file. However, I was comparing the 1Ds Mk2 to 35mm color film. For that, if you think the film file will have better color, resolution, and smoother tonality than the 17mp DSLR at 30" then it's not my eyes that need checking! And you won't find many people who shoot with both in agreement with you I'm afraid!

I think you must have mis-read Gordon's message. He did not compare 17mp DSLR to 35mm film, but merely stated that a full sensor DSLR is only capable of a maximum of 3 lines/mm at 20X. I think the point is that 4X5 fillm is capable of a lot more resolution than DSLR. If you print small enough it won't matter, but in prints 30" wide or more I don't believe any one would claim that DSLR equals 4X5. Or are you suggesting that?


Sandy