80mp digital better than 8x10? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

timparkin

22-Sep-2011, 08:09

Am I the only one consistently annoyed at Michael Reichman and colleagues inability to set up a proper test. This time comparing a phase one with an 8x10.

Sounds a fair comparison and on luminosity grounds the phase should get close. However the phase trounced the 8x10 which I was quite surprised at - until I saw that they had only scanned the 8x10 at 900dpi !!!

Also, they had used some form of micro-sharpening (and by the look at the scans it wasn't enough to match the inherent sharpening that raw conversion adds).

AND they used f/32 for the LF and then used f/16 for the IQ180?? Well I may be wrong but I thought to match depth of fields you would have to use f/8 for the IQ180? (giving an advantage for the IQ180 in diffraction terms but not in depth of field terms). It would have helped if they had said where they focussed.

Anyone got an IQ180 for a proper test?

Tim

p.s. Here is a sample from a shot I took in Glen Nevis and scanned a central section at 4000dpi.. and next to it is what it looked like scanned at 900dpi with no sharpening..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/810.jpg

The image above was upsized 200% to make things out more clearly.. Oh, and it was taken with the Nikkor T-ED 600/800/1200 which isn't the sharpest cookie in the 10x8 jar..

desertrat

22-Sep-2011, 08:15

From what I've gathered from other threads, this package will likely have a limited, high end market, and that means it won't get a whole lot less expensive than the current $50K anytime soon. Consumer digitals have got a lot more powerful and cheaper in the last 10 years because of mass sales.

Unless this new gadget gets cheaper than about $10K, I don't think the market for LF film cameras is going to collapse. I suspect most of the people buying and using these high end digitals aren't doing LF anyway.

Ed Kelsey

22-Sep-2011, 08:17

There is more to it than resolution. Dynamic range, accurate color and the ability to easily blend multiple exposures are a few advantages of digital. It's also very easy to stitch digital frames for even more resolution and a wider field of view.

Daniel Stone

22-Sep-2011, 08:23

"Drum scanned (Dainippon screen SG 608) at 745 dpi – which results in 8874 x 7229 pixels."

745dpi sample rate? C'mon LuLa, don't want to fight on a FAIR playing field, eh???? Also, how old is this drum scanner? I'm sure if they sent the film over to Lenny it'd come back smooth as a babys butt, and look a helluva lot better than this 20+ yr old scanner...

-Dan

Steve Smith

22-Sep-2011, 08:27

If 80M = 80 square inches of film then a 35mm frame is equal to 1.33M.... which we know it isn't.

So the answer is... NO!

Steve.

Nathan Potter

22-Sep-2011, 08:29

Not the only one annoyed by furtive comparisons. These are difficult to make in an apples to apples sense. In fact the technologies are so fundamentally different that apples to apples comparisons can't be made in any kind of a precise way.

Sharpening any image by digital means introduces a new edge artifact which then becomes an interpretation of the original image edge and not a replication of the original film and certainly not of the original scene.

There are legions of other variables between film and digital capture which conspire to blur the distinctions between the two and while the comparisons can be interesting and instructive I don't really know what it all means.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

timparkin

22-Sep-2011, 08:29

Here's an example of what you get if you scan at 4000dpi vs 900dpi (I assumed the 8800 pixels was the image area).

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/810.jpg

This file is shown upscaled 200% to show finer detail

And that was using a Nikkor T-ED 800mm, not the sharpest cookie.

They also got the apertures wrong - it should be four stops difference if they want to get equivalent depth of field (strangely the Phase had greater depth of field at f/16 when it should have been f/8)

Darin Boville

22-Sep-2011, 08:35

Forget the technical debate, it's these lines that make me laugh out loud (thanks for that, LL):

First he says he is a landscape photographer, a former 8x10 user, then...

"...I can shoot more than 300 images a day – if needed – not only the amount of films I can carry with me – which should not be neglected when doing mountain trips of 8 hours and more…"

Three hundred images in eight hours? My God! That's more than an image every two minutes! So much for the intensely felt image--if he had a strong emotional reaction in each of those images he'd be an emotional wreck after one of those trips.

LL = richboywannabe.com

I do enjoy that site.

--Darin

Brian C. Miller

22-Sep-2011, 08:39

From my own estimations, I knew that an 80Mp back would give an 8x10 a good run for its money. 80Mp and a sharp lens is really good.

The 8x10 images look a bit "funky" to me. The image with the red and black cars with the blue "Eingang" sign is soft. Is it soft from the lens being tilted, poor film-to-GG registration, or scanning? The scanning was done at a lower resolution than 80Mp. I'll go with the author's statement that there wasn't any further image resolution on the film.

Getting the sharpest image out of a view camera can be tricky. I get images that are sharper than what's been shown, but I'm picky about that. If you want the sharpest images your camera can deliver, then it requires a lot of testing and adjustment.

Dan Baumbach

22-Sep-2011, 08:45

Reichman has been trying to prove that digital is better than LF for a long time now. As far as I'm concerned, it all depends on the reasons you're shooting LF not just blown up comparisons.

cps

22-Sep-2011, 08:52

I saw the article as well. The 8x10 film in this comparison was:

"Drum scanned (Dainippon screen SG 608) at 745 dpi – which results in 8874 x 7229 pixels"

Seems like there's a pretty big thumb on the scale here. I agree these comparisons are all apples and oranges, and no doubt those $40k backs are astounding, but really, 745 dpi scans?

I would love to see these guys review cars. "The Porsche (driven exclusively in first gear), simply couldn't hold a candle to the other cars in our test drive."

tgtaylor

22-Sep-2011, 08:53

A quick read shows that they are comparing enlargements of high resolution digital captures to a lower resolution drum scan of film capture and claiming that the scanner is unable to make a higher resolution scan of the film. Under those conditions which one should have the higher resolution? Duh! I've always maintained that a unbiased comparision would necessarily require comparing the actual negative against the scan/digital capture. The negative will always be a first generation creation and the digital/scan a second generation but nevertheless you can put a 10x loop to a negative and compare what you see with a 10x enlargement on a screen.

But showing the 8x10 camera mounted on a ball head states it plainly: It's just a pile of crap to shake money from the photography saps who only need to be told that "this" is better than "that."

Thomas

cps

22-Sep-2011, 09:03

Exactly. On a good day, I feel like I can get 8k by 7k of useful pixels out of a frame of medium format film. If that's all they can get out of 8x10, then something seems seriously amiss.

Daniel Stone

22-Sep-2011, 09:08

Reichmann is just trying to show off: "Look at me, I got lot$ of money!!!"

he compared 35mm slides to a 6mp digital almost 10yrs ago. Rubbish. After seeing some 20x30 Ilfochromes professionally printed from Astia 100F slides(and properly contrast masked too), I couldn't justify spending $30K + on even a MF digital system. I could stick my nose into those prints and still see uber fine detail in flowers(that were 30ft away from the camera at capture). Amazing what Nikon 80's vintage AIS glass can do in a Nikon F4 :). Not mine, but a friends. He doesn't shoot anything bigger than 35mm cause he does "ultralight" backpacking/photo trips.

Now, for people who AREN'T doing fine-art photography, and don't have deadlines to meet, then digital's great. Commercial people love it, since it means more in their pocket $$$-wise. No more budgeting for film. Easier to write off a portion of a digital back's price on a per-job basis than trying to justify $2k in film shot on a large(r) job...

I'm rambling again...

-Dan

NicolasArg

22-Sep-2011, 09:14

I know that generally speaking "money rules".... but is that extra chunk of money or equipment for "review" worth the while?

dsim

22-Sep-2011, 09:42

Am I the only one consistently annoyed at Michael Reichman and colleagues inability to set up a proper test.

I don't think it's an inability Tim. Lula constructed a test to show that the IQ80 was better than 8x10 film scanned at 745dpi :eek:. To add insult to injury they equated f/32 on 8x10 to f/16 on medium format :eek:.

Great going Lula.

Steve Smith

22-Sep-2011, 09:48

I will repeat the answer I gave in another thread.

If you assume 80 square inches of film to be equivalent to 80 million pixels then logically that is one million pixels per square inch. A 35mm frame is 1.33 square inches therefore you must also believe that a 1.33 million pixel digital camera is the equivalent to a 35mm frame of film.

Steve.

timparkin

22-Sep-2011, 09:49

Getting the sharpest image out of a view camera can be tricky. I get images that are sharper than what's been shown, but I'm picky about that. If you want the sharpest images your camera can deliver, then it requires a lot of testing and adjustment.

I would say it's fairly straight forward to get sharper images than are show. Flat focus, use the same depth of field as the phase. Use a very good quality 8x10 camera and dark slide. I would be very surprised if a photographic novice with an hour of training couldn't get sharper images.

Tim

timparkin

22-Sep-2011, 10:00

As for 'Higher scan resolution would not have brought in more details' and 'we can already see the grain', I call bollocks..

Here is a Portra 160 scan at 4000dpi taken with a 150mm Sironar S..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/film-lens-resolution.jpg

The right hand side was reduced to the 745 dpi they used in the test and then upressed.

Pffft!

GPS

22-Sep-2011, 10:01

Am I the only one consistently annoyed at Michael Reichman and colleagues inability to set up a proper test.
...
Oh, and it was taken with the Nikkor T-ED 600/800/1200 which isn't the sharpest cookie in the 10x8 jar..

Unfortunately, your last sentence is in the same category as their testing methods you criticise. Trying to start yet one more urban legend of amateur photographers, perhaps?

mcfactor

22-Sep-2011, 10:07

I have been waiting for someone else to notice this ridiculous article. The scans looks incredibly soft, like the focus was slightly off and/or the scanner not properly calibrated. Just to make sure I wasnt crazy, I immediately opened an 8x10 scan that I did on an eversmart at 2500 dpi with kodak 160 nc and there was information up to about 2300 dpi and that is with an older ccd scanner.

rdenney

22-Sep-2011, 10:35

Not the only one annoyed by furtive comparisons. These are difficult to make in an apples to apples sense. In fact the technologies are so fundamentally different that apples to apples comparisons can't be made in any kind of a precise way.

Sure. But it is reasonable to have a reasonable comparison, in which Technology A is compared to Technology B in the manner in which both are likely to be used to get the best out of them.

Of course, there are many problems, the main one being that they are comparing direct digital captures with scans of negatives. They should, instead compare high-resolution scans of portions of equal-sized prints. If the objective is web display, nobody is going to use either of these technologies--they are therefore not a reasonable solution to a web-page need. But they are a reasonable solution to the need for a large print. So, compare large prints.

And scanning at <900 spi? They should scan at the maximum capability likely to be used by a real photographer. I'd be satisfied with the best scan from a properly tuned Epson 750, at least for one scenario. But then they should also include a well-made optical enlargement to the same print magnification in their evaluation. That way, they'd be closer to comparing big prints made optically, which should bring out the best of the 8x10 within the reasonable capability of many 8x10 photographers. PMT drum scans ought to be in there, too, but including that doesn't mean they should not also include the Epson scan. Not everyone can afford drum scans, and one of the main advantages of 8x10 is that an Epson is good enough even for large prints. The point of a test is to provide readers an idea of what they can reasonably expect.

Each test scenario should reflect a reasonable application of the test technology. Not doing that is fundamentally flawed and unfair. No amount of subsequent rigor can make up for not setting up the test scenarios reasonably.

I would propose five scenarios, evaluated using a large print: Three using the state-of-the-art processes (which for film would include two scenarios--optical printing and drum scanning), and one each using state-of-the-practice processes, so that people can read the article and know what to expect with processes they can reasonable afford. The state of the art and the state of the practice may be the same with the digital back, so they may only need one test to cover both scenarios.

I've seen tests where film was the favored medium and they were skewed in that direction, too. They would do things with film few could afford to do in practice (which really does include drum scanning for most amateurs and many fine-art photographers). The first half of any such article should present and defend as valid the test scenarios.

I've stopped reading LuLa's tests after they denigrated a 30mm Arsat fisheye based on a comparison with a 30mm Zeiss Distagon fisheye (in Hasselblad mount), when the Arsat was not focused accurately on the same target as the Zeiss lens. When challenged, Reichmann defended the result on the basis that it didn't really matter. Indeed. The Distagon routinely sold at that time for 10-20 times what the Arsat sold for, so a successful outcome for the Arsat might still underperform the Zeiss. But by not focusing properly, he didn't give the reader the tools to make an evaluation of what they might expect.

Rick "validation is as important as verification in testing" Denney

Tyler Boley

22-Sep-2011, 10:42

other than passing on usedfull information to someone experiecing a problem with which we may have some familiarity, or getting the same in return, or even perhaps taking one of the resident shills to task, I find the site is pretty much irrelevant to high end work...
Tyler

Bill_1856

22-Sep-2011, 11:08

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml

An excellent review. My only quam is that they developed the B&W film in Microdol-X, not Pyro or even D-76.

John NYC

22-Sep-2011, 11:15

At f/32 it is getting diffraction limited. The scans look very poorly done, and I mean in comparison to my own scans coming from a lowly Epson V750.... And done at 745 dpi? Come on.

timparkin

22-Sep-2011, 11:27

Unfortunately, your last sentence is in the same category as their testing methods you criticise. Trying to start yet one more urban legend of amateur photographers, perhaps?

What did I get wrong? Is the Nikkor 800mm as sharp as the Schneider 800mm and are they both as sharp as the Fuji 240A or Nikon 450mm? Perhaps it's just me that has a bad copy?

Tim

Vaughn

22-Sep-2011, 11:28

Microdol-X is a fine grain developer that gets that fine grain by dissolving the edges silver grains -- decreasing grain at the expense of sharpness. Probably not the best idea for the test, as you (Bill 1856) mentioned.

Ken Lee

22-Sep-2011, 11:30

This thread has been merged with another on the same subject.

Robert Hughes

22-Sep-2011, 11:35

Heh. Reminds me of what digi audio mfg agents were doing years ago - comparing CD player output to vinyl records - after the vinyl had been run through cheap ass converters to digital. Hint: any format conversion involves degradation.

Ken Lee

22-Sep-2011, 11:39

Another thread on the same topic has been merged into this one.

GPS

22-Sep-2011, 11:49

What did I get wrong? Is the Nikkor 800mm as sharp as the Schneider 800mm and are they both as sharp as the Fuji 240A or Nikon 450mm? Perhaps it's just me that has a bad copy?

Tim

Tim, those are questions you should ask yourself before you start making sweeping comments about such a complicated issue as sharpness of lenses. Unfortunately, amateurs love giving the kind of comment you uttered - notwithstanding the lack of proper testing methods or even an experience with them. Maybe you have "a bad copy" - even so, does it make the "good" copies less good? If you said - "my copy doesn't satisfy me" then you have a true statement, otherwise it's just hot air.
Never mind, you got at least the first point right, about the LL testing method...:)

timparkin

22-Sep-2011, 11:56

Tim, those are questions you should ask yourself before you start making sweeping comments about such a complicated issue as sharpness of lenses. Unfortunately, amateurs love giving the kind of comment you uttered - notwithstanding the lack of proper testing methods or even an experience with them. Maybe you have "a bad copy" - even so, does it make the "good" copies less good? If you said - "my copy doesn't satisfy me" then you have a true statement, otherwise it's just hot air.
Never mind, you got at least the first point right, about the LL testing method...:)

Question still stands - do you have evidence that the Nikkor T-ED 800mm is one of the sharpest 8x10 lenses (of all focal lengths)? I have evidence that it isn't from multiple sources and was under the general impression that telephoto design, long focal length 8x10 lenses generally are not as sharp as medium focal length standard lenses such as the 360mm Sironar S (and this includes the fact that shorter focal length lenses are less prone to vibration, etc - real world sharpness... )??

Also - "lack of proper testing methods or even an experience with them' - I own five 8x10 lenses and have tried out another couple. They have been tested using a 4000dpi drum scanner I own. Where did this comment come from? Even if I had four copies of every lens I own I would only have an opinion on those four copies against each other. Even if I set up a consistent test under laboratory conditions then it won't be relevant for real world, etc, etc, etc.. All tests are 'relative' and 'dependent' - they are still tests. Every utterance is also opinion - and hence when I say "it's not the sharpest cookie in the 8x10 jar" then it is obviously my opinion and without further evidence, is based on personal opinion or research, it can be nothing else.

I remember why I put you on my ignore list now :-) if you have anything to add about the sharpness of the 800mm Nikkor T-ED vs other 8x10 lenses, I'll take a look. Otherwise, just don't bother answering my rhetorical questions above..

Tim

GPS

22-Sep-2011, 12:06

Tim, it didn't even down on me that you would mean Nikon 800 etc. lens in comparison to all other lenses. At least if you wanted to compare the same class of lenses - but no, you wanted to tell the world that Nikon 600/800/1200 lens is not the sharpest lens among all others. Wow, I get impressed!

GPS

22-Sep-2011, 12:21

Question still stands - do you have evidence that the Nikkor T-ED 800mm is one of the sharpest 8x10 lenses (of all focal lengths)? I have evidence that it isn't from multiple sources and was under the general impression that telephoto design, long focal length 8x10 lenses generally are not as sharp as medium focal length standard lenses such as the 360mm Sironar S (and this includes the fact that shorter focal length lenses are less prone to vibration, etc - real world sharpness... )??

Tim

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.

John NYC

22-Sep-2011, 12:25

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.

Great! Please show us some high res scans of these many photos you have made!

timparkin

22-Sep-2011, 12:26

Drew Wiley

22-Sep-2011, 12:59

This kind of BS again???? It's impossible to critically test one lens against another unless you've got an optical bench setup and a vacuum filmholder with high acutance
film. Otherwise you can't compare specific apertures and are only looking at how film
sags on an uneven plane. Groundglass viewing with a good magnifier might be an accetable substitute for this if everything is properly aligned. But I don't know of any
true tele that will outperform an optimized modern apo lens. And every no 3 shutter I
know of will cause enough vibration on all but the very most solid camera to offset
some of the optical sharpness. 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. If I have some spare change I think I'll
get Grimes to mount my 720 Apo Nikkor in a shutter. I'm thinking of 4x5 use. For 8x10
I have a Fuji 600C for the coverage and compactness.

Edwin Beckenbach

22-Sep-2011, 13:00

The question is not whether they promote your work it is why they have a problem with you showing your work non-commercially. I've never heard of such a thing.

The ones I work with promote my work themselves. I don't care about it - I take pictures.

GPS

22-Sep-2011, 13:12

timparkin

22-Sep-2011, 13:34

I couldn't agree more. Yesterday I returned from high mountains (2800 m) where I took pictures with Fuji 600C - always amazed what the lens can do with a proper lens shade. The same for 800 Nikon. Talk about sharpness.

"But I don't know of any true tele that will outperform an optimized modern apo lens"

Hmm - I think he just agreed with the fact that a Nikkor T-ED is generally not the sharpest cookie

Glad you agree with him disagreeing with you :-)

Tim

p.s. Troll...

sanchi heuser

22-Sep-2011, 13:47

Pssst, I see Kirk's finger high above the delete button :p

John NYC

22-Sep-2011, 13:51

Pssst, I see Kirk's finger high above the delete button :p

I am making a legitimate query here. But it seems the photography is not for sale, so I will stop.

kev curry

22-Sep-2011, 14:01

Boo!:-)

sanchi heuser

22-Sep-2011, 14:07

I am making a legitimate query here. But it seems the photography is not for sale, so I will stop.

You were not the one being unfriendly:)

When I read the LL article I thought it's just impossible to photograph the
number plate of the vehicle such unsharp with 8x10 since the distance from the camera isn't so big according the set up pic. Even with 4x5 it's usually sharper.

kev curry

22-Sep-2011, 14:19

Hilarious:)

Ed Kelsey

22-Sep-2011, 14:20

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

DJG

22-Sep-2011, 14:57

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

22-Sep-2011, 15:47

...
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

22-Sep-2011, 15:49

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?:p

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

22-Sep-2011, 15:49

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

22-Sep-2011, 15:59

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

22-Sep-2011, 15:59

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

22-Sep-2011, 16:25

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

22-Sep-2011, 16:28

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

22-Sep-2011, 16:38

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...

Edwin Beckenbach

22-Sep-2011, 16:41

Completely agree. Could you add a bit of detail about your holders and the maximum apertures you typically use with them? I have crappy holders and usually stick to f16 and f32 for 4x5 and 8x10, respectively, which is sufficient for film plane slop. I can open up another stop if I'm careful and lucky but due to the scanner limitations and corner aberrations I don't benefit from going wider if my objective is a uniformly high resolution image.

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.

Peter York

22-Sep-2011, 16:49

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.

Bob, please share your experiences.

I was really looking forward to the Carnie/Eiger/Reichman test, and I hope that you eventually perform it, write it up, and post the results, with or without Reichman.

Ari

22-Sep-2011, 17:15

"No! I mean, yes! I mean, no! I mean, I don't really care!"

You are so right! :p

Lenny Eiger

22-Sep-2011, 19:12

Bob, please share your experiences.

I was really looking forward to the Carnie/Eiger/Reichman test, and I hope that you eventually perform it, write it up, and post the results, with or without Reichman.

I did ask him... Reichman said he had it all covered, and that he didn't need me. It's unfortunate. I think its ridiculous to compare the best equipment on one side and some lousy scan on the other. It's ridiculous...

Lenny

Kirk Gittings

22-Sep-2011, 19:25

Interesting thread on LL about the test including some comments by Jack Flesher who used to be a regular here. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=58020.msg468728;topicseen#msg468728

patrickjames

22-Sep-2011, 19:40

What a load of crap, in fact that is one of the biggest loads of crap I have seen on the internet, but it is not surprising considering the source. This kind of junk is why I think Luminous Landscape is a complete waste of time.

I would love to know why the original test wasn't done. Maybe because the result wasn't going to be satisfactory to the foregone erroneous conclusion that an 80mp back is better than 8x10 film? The scans that they did are so bad they look like they were made that way on purpose. The whole article is pitiful.

I would love for Bob and Lenny to do the real test. I have no doubt the result wouldn't even be close to this junk.

Kirk Gittings

22-Sep-2011, 20:01

Funny, I see LL and the LFF forum as opposite ends sides of the coin. There is about as much missinformation here about digital as there is there about film. Personally I regularly check out LL because its the only forum that I know of where any top flight commercial architectural photographers regularly post.

Drew Wiley

22-Sep-2011, 20:13

Edwin - I use adhesive filmholders ala Sinar style. The adhesive film is thin enough
to be negligible at my typical working apertures of f/32 to f/45, and certainly less than the film is capable of bowing in a conventional holder. I rarely do this for black
and white work where IF a relatively stiff polyester film base in present, and I enlarge to no more than 20 by 24. I prefer polyester for color sheet film too, but in
the past it wasn't always available, and the acetate version was sloppier in the holder. The other factor is that I want the option to enlarge color considerably larger,
and still hold very fine detail even in a Ciba or Fuji Supergloss print. 4 by 5 is less
of a problem because it just doesn't slump that much. In the lab for really critical
work like making enlarged dupes or internegs, I use an all-metal vacuum filmholder.
My personal 8 by 10 lenses tend to be very high quality Fuji-A's and C's etc, but as
I stated, almost all reasonably modern lenses in comparable focal lengths would be
adequate for generaly use, since the bigger problem is really the film plane itself,
and the general challenge of depth of field in the real world.

Edwin Beckenbach

22-Sep-2011, 20:22

Thank you Drew,
Do you apply the adhesive film yourself? If so what is the product? I did this for a project where I was shooting 8x10 directly down and it worked really well as far as keeping the film flat but the adhesive I was using, I don't remember what it was anymore, was too sticky and made inserting and extricating the film unduly difficult so I gave up on it for horizontal shooting. I would probably give it another try if I knew of a more appropriate material.

Brian Ellis

22-Sep-2011, 20:44

I've only seen one group of really large - 5 foot or so - prints from 8x10 film. Those were b&w prints made by Clyde Butcher in his darkroom and were exhibited in Tampa about 10-12 years ago. I've also only seen one group of really large - about 4 foot - prints from a digital back. Those were made by a local professional photographer with his new Pentax 645D camera. I was unimpressed with the technical quality of the Clyde Butcher prints. They were o.k. from a distance, not particularly good when viewed from about three or four feet away. OTOH, I was very impressed with the technical quality of the prints from the Pentax 645. I was able to see them from inches away and remained impressed.

I don't draw any general conclusions about 8x10 vs a digital back from this very limited experience. Different photographers, different processes, different lenses, different subject matter, different size prints, viewed at very different times, etc. etc. I also recognize that I had different expectations with the two groups of prints. I expected the ones from 8x10 film to blow me away and when they didn't I was disappointed. I wasn't expecting a whole lot from the 645D at those print sizes so they were a pleasant surprise. Nevertheless, taking all of these factors into consideration, I do think it's fair to say that at a minimum anyone who claims that any large print from any 8x10 negative will "smoke" a print from a 645 digital back couldn't be more wrong.

tgtaylor

22-Sep-2011, 20:58

In attempting to compare a digital capture, whether that be a direct capture from a digital camera or digital scan of an analogue capture with the analogue, I believe that it is important to remember that each detail or point in the digital capture is encapsulated in pixels that are arranged in a linear array or pattern of neat and orderly horizontal rows and vertical columns whereas each point in the analogue capture is not arranged in a linear array of rows and columns but whose particular arrangement is determined solely by the energy of the impinging electromagnetic wave on the silver halide emulsion of the film. All current attempts to compare a scan of a negative to the digital capture is analogous to attempting to “square the circle” so to speak. Am I wrong in this?

One further thing to consider (for the future) is that the closer one gets to 'reality' then the closer one gets to 'nothingness.'

Thomas

Frank Petronio

22-Sep-2011, 22:03

macz

23-Sep-2011, 00:44

Hi

The internet can show images as precise as some worn out newspaper paper - therefore I would like to add this link:

http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html

Markus

Rory_5244

23-Sep-2011, 00:58

JEven though they were different photographers, perhaps the 8x10 just wasn't focused properly or the ground glass was in the wrong spot? I would expect a good 200mb drum scan of an 8x10 too look pretty crisp where things are focused - and this doesn't.

Indeed. It looked like that to me also.

aluncrockford

23-Sep-2011, 01:07

To get back to the original question, is 80mp better than 10x8.

As someone who works with high res digital and 10x8 I would suggest that the output from a digital file is certainly cleaner and a lot quicker to use, and as long as your end use is for press, print or any other commercial option then digital has a legitimate claim to be a better and more cost effective choice than film.
the ability to shoot endless digital images can be seen to be a good thing, and thereby lies the problem ,the difference in the type of equipment informs the outcome, the smaller format of digital tends to be produce a lot faster and has a tendency to be edited in post the subject usually is shot to death and whilst covering all options runs the risk of missing the picture .
The experience of shooting large format film is different in both approach and workflow, a lot more time is demanded of film and there is a need to concentrate on the image . So the question is 80mg better than 10x8 is not unlike is sable a better brush than badger . Both have there uses, but for the ultimate quality then 10x 8 trannies (or for that matter 5x4 ) scanned properly and outputted to sizes of 60x40 plus will far and away outperform digital, if you need confirmation of this just go and see the Thomas Struth exibition at the Whitechapel gallery . As for myself, all my commercial work is shot on a P45 and all personal work is shot on film,

Ken Lee

23-Sep-2011, 03:30

Hi

The internet can show images as precise as some worn out newspaper paper - therefore I would like to add this link:

http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html

Markus

Markus - It is very good of you to join this conversation!

Depending on your location, perhaps one of our forum members could assist you in re-shooting the test, and one of our scanning experts would volunteer to make a professional scan of the film. It may be that with better equipment or technique, the differences are less than your original test would suggest.

Would you be willing to try that?

Thanks for listening :)

macz

23-Sep-2011, 04:21

timparkin

23-Sep-2011, 05:29

Hi everybody

I have no objection to restart the test since I am interested in a biased result which can be accepted by all parties. I am not doing any promotion for anything here.

So, as let's do as Ken suggested: I live in Switzerland. if anybody in this area is eager to reshoot the test, pls contact me via my website. I could also offer that the scans can be redone by an all accepted pro (without further costs for me please) ;) - and finally, when the results are there, we can repost them - hopefully on Luminous Landscape again.

Markus

Feel free to send them over here.. I don't operate an amazing drum scanner but if I see more detail awaiting I can get a ICG or Lanovia. I also have an 8x10 so would love to add another quick test alongside it.

Please DM me for details of where to send if interested..

Tim

p.s. Not sure about the 'all accepted pro' but I'll hopefully pass muster as a good second opinion. Perhaps Lenny might also contribute a third opinion?

bob carnie

23-Sep-2011, 06:27

When we compare prints on the phase, to 4x5 negatives the prints are pretty close, I was looking forward to this test as I believe that a true side by side comparison would be wonderful, also we have a network here on LLF that could send the tests around so each person could see for themselves.
Rarely does 8x10 film come through my shop and quite regularly phase files do. My take is the phase back technology is wonderful and not really sure about scientific differences... If it looks like a good print,,,, well it must be a good print...

Micheal Reichmam has not been in touch with me and I am sort of still interested, as at some time our business would be interested in this digital back, but frankly I think it really has to be a fair test with great optics , on both sides. As well we are now in our busy season and I am not available till after December.
As I originally stated, I am a newbie to large format equipment and I would not be the right person to expose the film.
M Reichman travels extensively and maybe he would be in the area of a top notch 8x10 shooter and together the first stage could be done, Lenny could do the scan if he is still interested and I will make large silver and colour prints, digitally and optically at 30 x40 size. I would hope some black and white film would be exposed.

This debate is a marketing ploy IMO , plain and simple, and the poor old 8x10 camera is being picked on because its the biggest practical boy in the bunch.. We all remember Paul Bunyon, I cried at the end of that movie.

Lambda vs Chromira, Chromira vs Lightjet... this bullshit debate goes on all the time, if you own a Lambda you want everyone to know its better than a Chromira and vice versa.

At the end of the day if the equipment is doing the job that you intend it to do them great , its doing the job that you invested cash into.

I know my business partner and our studio mate are salivating over this technology, and probably not because a marketing campaign is saying it is better than the 8x10 camera. They see real advantages over the 40mb technology and I do not think size is what they are yearning for.
I think too many people are getting their shorts in a knot over nothing but a cute marketing blitz.

Bob, please share your experiences.

I was really looking forward to the Carnie/Eiger/Reichman test, and I hope that you eventually perform it, write it up, and post the results, with or without Reichman.

peter ramm

23-Sep-2011, 06:54

I have an IQ180 with various digital lenses and some tech cameras, and an 8 x 10 Sinar P2 with nice lenses in the 200-480mm range. Been fooling about with film and do love it.

I lack the LF skill to make a valid comparison but would be happy to participate if anyone with a serious rep is near my location in Niagara on the Lake Ontario.

bigguy88

23-Sep-2011, 07:19

i accept the LF and a digital back are 2 different things. :) http://www.edslrvideo.com/line.jpg Hope to be able to afford one one of these days.

AnselAdamsX

23-Sep-2011, 07:24

Is the Fuji Across also scaned at 745 DPI? It looks very grainy. I scanned some Tri-X 320 at 2400dpi on a cheap HP flatbed and it looks about the same or maybe a tad better. Tri-X 320 scan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35972337@N00/6160024653/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

Hi

The internet can show images as precise as some worn out newspaper paper - therefore I would like to add this link:

http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html

Markus

E. von Hoegh

23-Sep-2011, 07:32

Jack Flescher has some good points over on the LuLu forum.

It's funny to note that LuLu's NEX7 preview had really incredibly poor results from the Leica 24mm Summilux used on that camera... it looked so bad it looked like a focusing error. Even though they were different photographers, perhaps the 8x10 just wasn't focused properly or the ground glass was in the wrong spot? I would expect a good 200mb drum scan of an 8x10 too look pretty crisp where things are focused - and this doesn't.

What I thought. Looking at the 8x10 perched on a ballhead mounted to a fairly light tripod, I'd say he was using an inexperienced (although"passioned") photographer.

I was looking at an 8x10 negative I shot quite a few years ago, Tri-X and a 10 3/4" Dagor, and the detail on a bulletin board about as far away as that auto registration plate is crisp. Another thing, they claim to have used a 20x loupe to focus the 8x10. When I put a 20x loupe on my GG, I see gravel, and have a hard time focussing.

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 07:46

Hi

The internet can show images as precise as some worn out newspaper paper - therefore I would like to add this link:

http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html

Markus

Yes, thanks for joining the discussion.

You are also testing the scanner in your test. So, assuming you don't want to do a real test where you make an 80 inch optical print from the 8x10 and an 80 inch digital print from the the IQ180, you are going to need to get the best scan you can. This means using a great scanner, OVERSAMPLING the scan with a greater dpi resolution than the final comparison, applying sharpening to compensate for the sampling errors and blur the scan introduces and downsizing the final file to the same size as the IQ file. That will give you the best possible scan you can get with 8x10, and that is what you really want to compare.

I would also say you need something like an Arca M-Line and a Rodenstock APO Sironar-S lens if you are to compare state of the art on both sides. Also need state of the art support in terms of tripod and head.

Finally, you need someone to do the shooting who regularly pixel peeps their 8x10s so they have learned what they need to do on their camera to get the best results. Many people don't and probably are more like Jack said he was where his technique is all off on focusing.

timparkin

23-Sep-2011, 07:56

Yes, thanks for joining the discussion.

You are also testing the scanner in your test. So, assuming you don't want to do a real test where you make an 80 inch optical print from the 8x10 and an 80 inch digital print from the the IQ180, you are going to need to get the best scan you can. This means using a great scanner, OVERSAMPLING the scan with a greater dpi resolution than the final comparison, applying sharpening to compensate for the sampling errors and blur the scan introduces and downsizing the final file to the same size as the IQ file. That will give you the best possible scan you can get with 8x10, and that is what you really want to compare.

I would also say you need something like an Arca M-Line and a Rodenstock APO Sironar-S lens if you are to compare state of the art on both sides. Also need state of the art support in terms of tripod and head.

Finally, you need someone to do the shooting who regularly pixel peeps their 8x10s so they have learned what they need to do on their camera to get the best results. Many people don't and probably are more like Jack said he was where his technique is all off on focusing.

Toyo 810MII and two tripods, Fuji 240A or 450C, scan samples at 4000dpi? I would also suggest cutting a medium format sample out of 8x10 for a darkroom print. I also have an 80x microscope with digital camera attachment I can use to take pictures..

Tim

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 08:02

Toyo 810MII and two tripods, Fuji 240A or 450C, scan samples at 4000dpi? I would also suggest cutting a medium format sample out of 8x10 for a darkroom print. I also have an 80x microscope with digital camera attachment I can use to take pictures..

Tim

Sounds good to me.

On a personal note, I think we are in the last days of doing these types of comparisons. At some point a MFDB is going to come out where we all look at the file and say there is no contest any more just by a casual glance at full size on screen.

timparkin

23-Sep-2011, 08:08

Sounds good to me.

On a personal note, I think we are in the last days of doing these types of comparisons. At some point a MFDB is going to come out where we all look at the file and say there is no contest any more just by a casual glance at full size on screen.

It's pretty irrelevant anyway as I shoot film for other reasons and am happy whether it's from an 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6 or 35mm - however the sense of fairness in me demands a response :-)

Tim

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 08:15

It's pretty irrelevant anyway as I shoot film for other reasons and am happy whether it's from an 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6 or 35mm - however the sense of fairness in me demands a response :-)

Tim

Same here actually. I shoot more MF film with a TLR than I do anything else, but I love shooting my 8x10 the most.

Digital still needs to catch up in terms of out of the box color, smoothness of tonality, handling of highlights, etc...

dsim

23-Sep-2011, 08:25

I shoot film for other reasons and am happy whether it's from an 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6 or 35mm

Indeed :)

Brian Ellis

23-Sep-2011, 08:53

. . . I think too many people are getting their shorts in a knot over nothing but a cute marketing blitz.

I haven't followed most of this thread closely because I think the kind of stuff everyone is getting so worked up about isn't worth worrying about. To me the only relevant equipment-related question is whether your equipment, whatever it is, does what you want it to do. And the possibility that some other equipment might do something better is unimportant if you don't care about whatever it is that the other equipment does better (in this case making massive prints).

But having said that, I'm curious why it's a marketing ploy (genuine question, not a disguised argument or challenge). By that I mean who among the participants in this test, whatever exactly it was, is marketing anything and what are they marketing?

Noah A

23-Sep-2011, 08:55

I did my own tests to compare the previous generation of digital backs (in my case, a P45+) with small-format digital (Leica M9) and 6x7 film (Mamiya 7II).

I couldn't care less about which format captured the most lp/mm. I was looking at final print quality at the sizes I intended to print. For me the digital was spectacular at small sizes. It possibly captured more actual resolution than the film. I have 8x12-inch prints from the M9 that look as sharp and smooth as large format.

But at large print sizes, the digital started to fall apart and the film held on much longer. When pushed to the limits of enlargement, film gets grainy, but to some (myself included) that natural, organic grain pattern is beautiful. (It also tends to increase the apparent sharpness of a print.)

I'd LOVE to test an IQ180 against my 4x5 drum scans. If anyone in the Philadelphia/NYC area is game and wants to put together at test, I'd be happy to participate. Alternatively, if anyone wants to send me a few pieces of film to scan, I'd be glad to help.

When I did my tests, I really wanted to go digital. But in the end, I decided to stick it out, at first with 6x7 film but I switched to 4x5 for the perspective control. The additional image quality was a nice bonus.

Photography is an art and a science. Personally, I make my final choices based on aesthetic concerns. But if you're publishing a test or comparison, you owe it to your audience to do a proper scientific test. The reviewers state that their low-res scans are sufficient as if it's a fact, without backing that up scientifically. I know there is a HUGE difference between 1000dpi and 4000dpi scans on my Howtek HR8000. Perhaps their scanner is out of adjustment, or the slide isn't really sharp so higher-res scans don't look good. Something is clearly wrong.

Also, the Alpa lenses were new and state-of-the-art. The 8x10 lenses were a generation old (in the case of the Apo-Symmar) and the longer lens is an even older process lens not intended for general photography (the Apo-Ronar). The tripod used with the 8x10 was a joke. It's smaller than my 4x5 tripod. A slight wind would have blown that camera around.

Something, either the film itself or the scan, is out of focus. There is no way that you shouldn't see some grain in the Ektachrome scan, but it's very soft.

Is there anywhere where I can download a raw sample from the IQ180? Or at least a full-res section? I am a bit curious to see how it would look in a big print, say 48x60in.

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 09:03

I haven't followed most of this thread closely because I think the kind of stuff everyone is getting so worked up about isn't worth worrying about.

I think it is a mistake to assume that everyone who is interested in this topic gets worked up about it. I certainly don't, but I enjoy this technical aspect of photography, though I enjoy the creative part more. Ultimately, I have chosen tools to suit my own ends and that is it. That said, I like to see these kinds of comparisons. I find it interesting.

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 09:09

Is there anywhere where I can download a raw sample from the IQ180? Or at least a full-res section?

If you find one without distribution restrictions, I would love to have a well shot full resolution file from the IQ180 as well just to examine and play with on my own.

rdenney

23-Sep-2011, 09:20

But having said that, I'm curious why it's a marketing ploy (genuine question, not a disguised argument or challenge). By that I mean who among the participants in this test, whatever exactly it was, is marketing anything and what are they marketing?

Marketing is the wrong word.

Rationalization may be more like it. When someone spends several tens of thousands of dollars on a piece of equipment (or when they are trying to persuade themselves to), they become married to the idea that it must be better. Otherwise, they would not spend the money.

If it's a pure business decision, then they would defend it in business terms. When Kirk defends his use of digital technology, that's how he does it.

So, from a journalistic point of view, is Mr. Reichmann really trying to provide a service, or is he trying to justify an expenditure that he has or would like to make? Bloggers run into this trouble frequently because they are not always trained to be journalistic.

Of course, in the matter of accepting the dominant paradigm on grounds of faith, this forum is really no better than that one. But in this case, the facts do seem to support the complaint.

My main complaint is not that they might be motivated to make digital look better, but that they are apparently not motivated to set up test scenarios that might provide readers with a realistic assessment that might support a decision. Comparing the bleeding edge of each technology is interesting, if both comparisons are at the bleeding edge. Comparing a reasonable scenario for amateurs and non-commercial art photographers might lead to less cutting-edge scenarios. But comparing a state-of-the-art scenario using one technology to a modest state-of-the-practice scenario wtih the other technology does not provide the reader with the data needed to make a decision or even form an informed opinion.

An example from another world: When QST Magazine reviews an amateur radio, it does a series of rigorous testing to discover 1.) whether the manufacturer's specs are honest, and 2.) the edge of the performance envelope. But it also uses the equipment in several of its intended applications, and reports on how those test results translate to practice. But they keep these evaluations separate from the rigorous performance testing.

In the case of LL, the rigor is often not there, and the application usability tests are often confused with the purported performance testing. That's why you end up with a comparison of an optimal setup for the digital back against a sub-optimal setup for the 8x10 camera. And when there seems to be a motive to validate the digital solution, that false comparison causes one to question the author's motives.

It would have been easy enough to perform a state-of-the-practice comparison. If the 8x10 setup is comparing whatever lens happens to be in the guy's bag, the digital test should do the same. Let's say I'm testing a Pentax 645D against 4x5 film, which is a realistic comparison for me (except that I don't have ten grand for the Pentax). Would it be fair to compare the Pentax, with the latest super-optimized 55mm normal lens (total cost: $12,000) against a battered old Speed Graphic with a 152mm Ektar (cost: $300)? If that's going too far, then where is the line? I'd be happy with a test of the Pentax, with a 75mm lens from the prior production, against a 4x5 camera of similar reputation. Say, a decent Toyo in confirmed excellent condition, with a Nikkor or Fuji 210mm plasmat. That seems a fair comparison, despite the still strong difference in price. Then, let's take the digital output from the Pentax and make a print, and compare that to an optical print made from the 4x5 camera. Or, let's compare it to a good scan of the 4x5. If we are going to test the optimal solution with the Pentax, using its best lens, then we ought to compare that to a new Sinar P with a brand new Rodenstock Sironar-S (cost: something much closer to the Pentax).

It is inherently unfair to compare the direct digital output of a digital camera to scanned film, with both compared on a computer monitor at unrealistic magnification. Take it all the way to the anticipated print and then compare.

Their problem was that they built bias into the test by how they designed their test scenario before they even demonstrated sub-optimal scanning and technique using the film camera.

Rick "who is agnostic on the test itself, having neither an 8x10 camera nor a MFDB" Denney

Oren Grad

23-Sep-2011, 09:36

Is there anywhere where I can download a raw sample from the IQ180? Or at least a full-res section? I am a bit curious to see how it would look in a big print, say 48x60in.

Far from ideal as a test, but FWIW:

http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/02/04/phase-one-iq180-sample-raws/

Drew Wiley

23-Sep-2011, 10:00

If you understand how marketing works none of this is so cryptic. Once you get a reputation as a published "expert" there are incentives for favoring a particular form
of technology, and it takes a bit of tact to avoid this tarpit if you expect to continue
getting sometimes very nice free things or outright monetary compensation. I avoid this trap by endorsing only manufacturers whose equipment and business philosophy I
really believe in myself. But I do have some friends who, having mastered darkroom
skills, have gone on to be well-heeled digital gurus. To be expected, they are now
singing the praises of the newer and better technology. What surprises me, however,
is how much better their old analog prints often look compared to that state-of-the-
art digital stuff. I'm not implying they're not sincere, but sometimes people take a
different perspective just because they need a change of pace - a new intellectual
challenge - or perhaps because this is how they now need to make money. It's no
big deal to me - more like, what do you prefer, cats or dogs? Weigh the pros and cons
intelligently, keeping in mind you own personal or commercial needs rather than all
the superficial media hype.

tgtaylor

23-Sep-2011, 10:04

Hi Markus,

I believe that anyone that has made modest enlargements from film negative will tell you that they are far sharper than in your examples. Frankly I don't feel that their lack of sharpness is due to either a low or high resolution scan of the negative. Post #5 in the link below will bring you to a 80 DPI Epson 3200 scan of a contact print from an 8x10 negative that was posted to exhibit tray marks that appeared on the negative during development. Sure, it's not anywhere near as sharp as the print itself which clearly shown about 50 or so Cormorants on the higher rock but to me it indicates that there is something wrong with your methology beyond the resolution of the scan.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=80743

Thomas

Ken Lee

23-Sep-2011, 10:16

Post #5 in the link below will bring you to a 80 DPI Epson 3200 scan

There is no image in that post. Please check again.

Brian C. Miller

23-Sep-2011, 10:19

Thomas, that photo is unavailable.

tgtaylor

23-Sep-2011, 10:21

Post #5 in the link below will bring you to a 80 DPI Epson 3200 scan

There is no image in that post. Please check again.

Ken,

I just clicked on it and the image comes up. I did remove the link a couple of days ago but apparently it takes time to disappear.

Thomas

tgtaylor

23-Sep-2011, 10:23

Thomas, that photo is unavailable.

Well then why does it show up when I click on it and scroll down to Post #5?

Ken Lee

23-Sep-2011, 10:24

Well then why does it show up when I click on it and scroll down to Post #5?

Perhaps your browser has cached a copy. If I try to visit the file directly, by pasting the URL into my browser, the host reports that the image is unavailable.

tgtaylor

23-Sep-2011, 10:27

Perhaps it's your photo, and the service that hosts that image is letting you see it, but not us. This wouldn't be the first time that Flickr-hosted photos fail to show here for whatever reason.

I "removed" the flicker link by deleating the photo from flicker.

Ken Lee

23-Sep-2011, 10:32

That explains it :)

cyrus

23-Sep-2011, 10:33

Look folks the day will come when digital images are going to match film for sharpness and other technical qualities BUT that's not why people shoot film. Similarly, sharpness and other such qualities are not why people paint with oil paints, or why people take up wet plate photography. Film photography is simply a separate medium of expression than digital, and so there's no more point in comparing film with digital than there is to compare oil painting with sculpture.

tgtaylor

23-Sep-2011, 10:43

David R Munson

23-Sep-2011, 10:52

Has anything been established in the last 11 pages? Can anyone summarize in two sentences or less?

bob carnie

23-Sep-2011, 10:53

I believe that LL is really in tight with the manufacturers of phase and other digital products, and by going after 8x10 film as the premo capture device lots of lemmings will be able to justify spending big bucks on new equipment, and as a long term ploy the digital producers and LL win financially in some way....
I must add that I have no problem with this, but it is a marketing method.

I may be naive but these mb x mb yearly increase with phase and DSLrs is a long term plan to suck money over the long haul out of peoples pockets.
Not to mention the yearly improvements in Adobe products or inkjet technologys.

Just my opinion of course.
I also have no problem with Micheal Reichman making these claims and I am kind of envious of his skills, he really is good at what he does.
At a certain point the debate will be over, next we will see faster , cheaper and this will be spread over the next 10 years.

Cannon and Nikon, Hp and others are winning big and good on them.

I haven't followed most of this thread closely because I think the kind of stuff everyone is getting so worked up about isn't worth worrying about. To me the only relevant equipment-related question is whether your equipment, whatever it is, does what you want it to do. And the possibility that some other equipment might do something better is unimportant if you don't care about whatever it is that the other equipment does better (in this case making massive prints).

But having said that, I'm curious why it's a marketing ploy (genuine question, not a disguised argument or challenge). By that I mean who among the participants in this test, whatever exactly it was, is marketing anything and what are they marketing?

Darin Boville

23-Sep-2011, 10:53

Film photography is simply a separate medium of expression than digital, and so there's no more point in comparing film with digital than there is to compare oil painting with sculpture.

Not at all true in practice, I'm afraid. Take landscape photography, the dominant genre here and on the LL board. The subject, the approach to the subject, the composition, the presentation--it is all essentially identical no matter whether you use film or digital. To non-technical viewers the results--not technical results but the exults flowing from aesthetic decisions--are indistinguishable.

For my part I find I can easily tell the difference between an oil painting and a sculpture.

--Darin

Ken Lee

23-Sep-2011, 10:54

Kirk Gittings

23-Sep-2011, 10:55

Markus has graciously accepted our request that he re-shoot the test, with some assistance in selecting equipment, shooting, and scanning, provided by forum members.

Very cool!

Brian K

23-Sep-2011, 11:00

When I saw the Luminous test, I could not believe how poorly the images from the 8x10 looked. I also looked at the set up and feel that the tripod used for the 8x10 seemed undersized. So I looked for any old scans of ektachromes that I had. This image is from the 1990's.

Here are 3 versions of a drum scan of a 4x5" ektachrome, scanned originally at about 1600 PPI. Mind you it's a macro shot. Also DOF on a macro shot is far less, and the image was most likely shot at f45 to get sufficient DOF. Not the best scenario for comparison, but I have very few drum scanned chromes to choose from.

The bigger image shows the areas of detail, and I have scaled those to match somewhat to the size of the detail images used in the Luminous test.

In looking at about the same amount of film area on my 4x5 chrome as on the 8x10 samples, the difference in sharpness I think is startling. In spite of shooting a macro shot at f 45. Besides the tripod issue, I wonder if his GG is not in the right place.

Vaughn

23-Sep-2011, 11:03

...For my part I find I can easily tell the difference between an oil painting and a sculpture. --Darin

But can you always tell the difference between a large photograph and a photo-realistic painting of the same size at the "normal" viewing distance? ;)

That's cool that the test will be re-done! This has not all been useless blather after-all!

Vaughn

cyrus

23-Sep-2011, 11:05

Not at all true in practice, I'm afraid. Take landscape photography, the dominant genre here and on the LL board. The subject, the approach to the subject, the composition, the presentation--it is all essentially identical no matter whether you use film or digital. To non-technical viewers the results--not technical results but the exults flowing from aesthetic decisions--are indistinguishable.

For my part I find I can easily tell the difference between an oil painting and a sculpture.

--Darin

The point isn't that the end result would look identical or not - the point is that the medium is different, regardless of whether the end product appears the same, and the difference in the medium is what makes them apples and oranges. So there's no point in comparing an analog photography with digital photography because we're talkng about two entirely different mediums. After all the goal of the digital photographer isn't to approximate an analog LF photo when creating an image nor is the goal of an LF phtogorapher to approximate a digital photo. So IMHO all these efforts to show that an analog LF photo is sharper/more detailed/have high resolution/etc than a digital photo simply miss the point: these minor and purely technical points do not create some sort of over-arching objective standard by which all photography should always be judged.

There's nothing particularly different in landscape photography than landscape painting (in fact the "realists" can nowdays make an oil painting look like a photo - and there are filters that make photos look like paintings) - but that doesn't make landscape painting better or worse than landscape photography. They're simply not comparable, just different mediums.

Same with digital vs. analog photography. Same with carbo or wet plate vs. silver gelatin. In fact what we vaguely call "photography" has always consisted of many different processes which today also happens to include digital - but you can't judge one to be superior to the other, because they're just different. So I for one don't really care what the latest whizbang digital advance will be - and I don't care if it results in a sharper or brighter or whatever photo than an analog LF photo. I don't take LF photos for there mere sharpness or brightness or whatever of the resultant images - I take analog LF photos because I like analog LF photography as a medium. Similarly, a painter doesn't paint because he can make the sharpest or brightest image using oil paints; he paints because he likes using that medium - he is an oil painter & not simply the manufacturer of the sharpest/brightest/whatever images.

Kirk Gittings

23-Sep-2011, 11:11

cyrus

23-Sep-2011, 11:15

All true Cyrus but from the simple perspective of.......can I get as finely detailed a 30x40 print from 80MP back and state of the art lenses as I can from a first class scanned 8x10 sheet of film? That may not be interesting to you but it is of some interest to me and others even if it is simply an intellectual curiosity (intellectual curiousity because I am not in a position to buy the back and a technical camera unless I win the lottery and in the meantime 4x5 scanned film suites me fine).

Well if that's (fineness of detail) is what floats your boat, good for you. But the subject of this thread is whether a whizbang is "better" than LF. The point is that there is no such thing as "better". It is sort of like saying "do watermelons tast better or oranges" and then simply deciding the answer based on a single factor such as relative acidity of their juices.

Personally, I often go out of my way to avoid "fineness of detail" and intentionally put pantyhose over my lenses to reduce it!

Brian K

23-Sep-2011, 11:23

Here's another scan set from a 4x5 drum scanned at 1524 ppi.

David R Munson

23-Sep-2011, 11:26

Has anything been established in the last 11 pages? Can anyone summarize in two sentences or less?

Markus has graciously accepted our request that he re-shoot the test, with some assistance in selecting equipment, shooting, and scanning, provided by forum members.

Awesome. Thanks. :)

cyrus

23-Sep-2011, 11:28

And here's a Steiglitz - it lacks sharpness, fineness of detail, and everything else. And so what? :)

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 11:38

Darin Boville

23-Sep-2011, 11:38

>>(in fact the "realists" can nowdays make an oil painting look like a photo - and there are filters that make photos look like paintings)<<

But if you consider the whole of landscape painting vs landscape photography they just happen to "touch" at this one point. Your generalization is not a fair one. A photo-realistic landscape painting certainly shouldn't be considered representative of landscape painting.

The point I am making is that digital is not so much a different medium as it is largely practiced by folks here and on LL in that their approach to image making, their motivations, their standards, their subject matter, etc etc will be nearly the same whichever tool is used. To put it bluntly, the viewer wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

That's not saying that digital doesn't have the potential to be something more than a mimic of photography--I am myself working on projects that cannot be done with film photography (my iPad app is a case in point)--but I am saying that digital has not yet earned a place as a separate medium. In theory, perhaps yes, in practice, no.

--Darin

Kirk Gittings

23-Sep-2011, 11:40

cyrus

23-Sep-2011, 11:48

Chill out. I didn't say anything like what you are ascribing to me.

I am chill Kirk. Nothing personal.

cyrus

23-Sep-2011, 11:51

I am saying that digital has not yet earned a place as a separate medium. In theory, perhaps yes, in practice, no.
--Darin
Oh here we will have to disagree. It is far too late in the game to say that digital is not earned its place as a separate medium IMHO - there are jsut too many things being done in digital nowdays - and I say that as someone who is not exactly a fan of digital either.

cyrus

23-Sep-2011, 11:53

Drew Wiley

23-Sep-2011, 12:04

The problem with these so-called bettter than this or that comparison, is that the outcome can easily be skewed by all kinds of secondary variables; and in this case, there are wormholes everywhere.

Bruce Watson

23-Sep-2011, 12:07

other than passing on useful information to someone experiencing a problem with which we may have some familiarity, or getting the same in return, or even perhaps taking one of the resident shills to task, I find the site is pretty much irrelevant to high end work...
Tyler

+1.

timparkin

23-Sep-2011, 12:13

My point was that none of these should be considered as representative of anything - there is no single objective standard by which anything has to be compared.

Indeed.. hence you just display the results and let people make there own interpretations whilst providing your own opinion. As long as the 'data' is there, people can draw there own conclusions based on all sorts of criteria..

Tim

Peter York

23-Sep-2011, 12:22

Markus has graciously accepted our request that he re-shoot the test, with some assistance in selecting equipment, shooting, and scanning, provided by forum members.

Wonderful. Markus should be commended for this.

EOTS

23-Sep-2011, 12:24

Indeed.. hence you just display the results and let people make there own interpretations whilst providing your own opinion. As long as the 'data' is there, people can draw there own conclusions based on all sorts of criteria..

Tim

+1

Martin Köhler

Vaughn

23-Sep-2011, 12:41

...The point I am making is that digital is not so much a different medium as it is largely practiced by folks here and on LL in that their approach to image making, their motivations, their standards, their subject matter, etc etc will be nearly the same whichever tool is used. To put it bluntly, the viewer wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
--Darin

It is not that I disagree with you, but the question of whether or not our university art department will shut down the darkroom in favor of a pure digital program has come up again and this makes me wish I could say that digital is a different medium altogether and that digital, therefor, does not replace the wet darkroom.

A totally off-the-wall thought. If the image is originally captured with a camera (film or digital), is the out-put automatically "photography"? If so, then can a realistic painting taken straight from a photographic image actually be a photograph? Does it matter if it was printed on silver gelatin paper, inkjet, cyanotype, or painted by hand?

Just fun thoughts really and not put here for reason of debate.

Vaughn

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 12:50

Far from ideal as a test, but FWIW:

http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/02/04/phase-one-iq180-sample-raws/

Thanks, when I get back in town to a real computer I will enjoy looking this over.

cyrus

23-Sep-2011, 12:58

It is not that I disagree with you, but the question of whether or not our university art department will shut down the darkroom in favor of a pure digital program has come up again and this makes me wish I could say that digital is a different medium altogether and that digital, therefor, does not replace the wet darkroom.

Yeah but on the other hand, youtube is now full of videos on how to do wet plate! Its not just that darkrooms in university art departments are passe - universities themselves are becoming passe as a whole new paradigm of tranmitting knowledge is emerging, and traditional photography is doing just fine if you look at this new way of transmitting knowledge. Look at this very forum - I bet it does a lot more daily educating about traditional photography than all the university art departments combined.

A totally off-the-wall thought. If the image is originally captured with a camera (film or digital), is the out-put automatically "photography"? If so, then can a realistic painting taken straight from a photographic image actually be a photograph? Does it matter if it was printed on silver gelatin paper, inkjet, cyanotype, or painted by hand?

Just fun thoughts really and not put here for reason of debate.

Vaughn

Eh, who knows. The term photography was always vaguely limited to just making an images with light. Silk screen process uses photo emulsion and UV - is it photography? Cliche verre is printed on photo paper - but is hand-drawn on glass first. Etching or photography? Copper-plate photogravure: itaglio etching or photography? I once considered calling myself a photoartist rather than a photographer because the images I produce are the result of more than just "straight" photography - I handcoat papers, etch copper plate with acids, etc.

cyrus

23-Sep-2011, 13:07

It is just a shorthand way of talking and titling the thread. I think most people here who are participating and interested in the comparison get that and are not confused. Everyone can read and decide for themselves if they care about the comparison.

In any debate, the person who defines the terms and sets the framing, wins. These "shorthand" things have a way of becoming/defining the frame of what is "good" vs. what is bad. After all, there was a reason why Marcus, in comparing the digital back with the 8x10, immediately set about comparing resolution. We've come to implicitly accept THAT as some sort of objective measure of "betterness" and it isn't.

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 13:41

In any debate, the person who defines the terms and sets the framing, wins. These "shorthand" things have a way of becoming/defining the frame of what is "good" vs. what is bad.

I can't speak for everyone, but I myself am not falling into that trap. I just want to see the original experiment done better, with the improvements we suggested here, and then see what results from that, for my own ends and no one else's.

Brian K

23-Sep-2011, 14:28

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 14:33

timparkin

23-Sep-2011, 14:35

Interesting, I posted multiple images showing LF film magnified to the same extent as the samples in the article and there's not even the slightest bit of interest or curiosity about them.

Why is there all this talk of theoretical, when there is empirical information available?

But if you want to talk theoretical, the sensor on the IQ180 is 2.12 inches wide and an 8x10 piece of film is 4.5 times larger. That means the IQ180 combination has to be 4.5 times higher resolving just to break even.

I think it's because most people just nodded and said 'yep..' to themselves. The 4x5 times higher resolving isnt' quite right as there are many more factors.

However, your pictures show that even at f/45 there is at least twice as much info..

Ken Lee

23-Sep-2011, 14:48

And the photo itself is gorgeous (orange makeup kit). I imagine the chrome is even more stunning.

Brian K

23-Sep-2011, 15:04

Thanks guys, I wasn't posting them in the "show your stuff "sense. But they were the only examples I had that were appropriate as comparison. The 8x10 images posted by Markus just looked way too soft. I think he's having a technical issue.

Steve M Hostetter

23-Sep-2011, 15:35

$47,990

why even talk about it

David Luttmann

23-Sep-2011, 15:40

I did ask him... Reichman said he had it all covered, and that he didn't need me. It's unfortunate. I think its ridiculous to compare the best equipment on one side and some lousy scan on the other. It's ridiculous...

Lenny

It's not ridiculous when the person involved is obviously stacking the results against film to further his anti-film agenda. This began with his D30 vs Provia....which made him the laughingstock of experienced photographers. It then progressed with his 11mp vs 6x7 film....where the 11mp camera won.....but then his 17mp camera was "almost" as good as 645.....see a problem here?

The test was a complete joke. If you had done the scans Mr. Eiger, this would never had made it to LL because the result would have been reversed!

tgtaylor

23-Sep-2011, 15:48

Here's the photo that was posted in the link above:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/6175813068_d93fabe8cd_z.jpg

Ok although I am a complete novice when it comes to scanning and my scanner is the lowely Epson 3200, I decided to do a little experimenting on my own and scanned the large background rock which is shown in the 80DPI whole image scan above, at 800DPI, 1600DPI, and finally 3200DPI respectively. You be the judge.

800DPI:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6176439584_f198245118.jpg

1600DPI:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6152/6176444928_2aaf01bcc1.jpg

3200DPI:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6163/6175978285_8fc5bf97a2.jpg

There does seem to be a point of vanishing return - at least with the Epson 3200.

Thomas

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 15:53

There does seem to be a point of vanishing return - at least with the Epson 3200.
Thomas

I certainly don't want to stir this up again, but various flatbeds have an ideal optical true scanning resolution and then upsize with software to get to their advertised resolution maximums. There are a couple of holy war threads on the forum here about this. I have my own views on where the limits are with the V750, but they are not shared by all.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that a high end scanner should be able to resolve much much higher than 745 dpi.

David Luttmann

23-Sep-2011, 16:01

I certainly don't want to stir this up again, but various flatbeds have an ideal optical true scanning resolution and then upsize with software to get to their advertised resolution maximums. There are a couple of holy war threads on the forum here about this. I have my own views on where the limits are with the V750, but they are not shared by all.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that a high end scanner should be able to resolve much much higher than 745 dpi.

If I've worked my magic with my Epson V700 with fluid mounting, I feel safe to say I get a minimum of about 2000-2200ppi. But at worst....it's gonna be at least 1600....which is more than double the 745ppi used in this test. I mean really....what were they thinking? :eek:

tgtaylor

23-Sep-2011, 16:08

Then again all scans were of the print and not the negative. That probably made difference. At 800DPI I may have reached the vanishing point for the print and not the negative.

Thomas

Addendum: In any event I'm certainly not going to trade-in all my film cameras for a digital back. As noted above film just looks different and sharpness has it's vanishing point where it doesn't matter any more.

timparkin

23-Sep-2011, 16:08

There does seem to be a point of vanishing return - at least with the Epson 3200.

Thomas

Hi Thomas - my testing and quite a few online resources come to the conclusion that 2200-2400 is the max you can get out of the Epson. I was only able to get this maximum by scanning at 4800 and downsizing.

Tim

timparkin

23-Sep-2011, 16:10

QT Luong

23-Sep-2011, 16:11

David Luttmann

23-Sep-2011, 16:11

Hi Thomas - my testing and quite a few online resources come to the conclusion that 2200-2400 is the max you can get out of the Epson. I was only able to get this maximum by scanning at 4800 and downsizing.

Tim

That's what I do as well for the V700. Scan at 4800ppi, and then downsample 50%.

David Luttmann

23-Sep-2011, 16:14

I'd like to remind everyone that although Michael Reichman does not participate in this forum, the same standards of courtesy apply. You may disagree with his ideas and findings, but please no name calling or second-guessing of motives.

There is no need to be defensive about the fact that LF flim does not provide anymore the highest-resolution captures. LF has plenty of technical and artistic benefits, but highest possible resolution is simply no longer one of them. This has gone for a while with Gigapixel digital stitching, which has become practical enough that, besides the record-breaking image sizes, there is a sub-$1,000 head to automate the capture process, and a whole website where people upload their processed images.

Last, if someone would like their own testing and do not have a space to post the results, we will be happy to host them.

I guess the issue I have QT...and you know I've been a strong proponent of digital use....is that if we are going to accept a 745ppi scan, then I may as well publish a 50ppi scan of 8x10 and claim film is surpassed by my 11 year old 3mp Canon D30. I think posting such "tests" opens the publisher up to ridicule. While remaining polite, I say this test was complete garbage.

Chris Strobel

23-Sep-2011, 18:07

This has gone for a while with Gigapixel digital stitching, which has become practical enough that, besides the record-breaking image sizes, there is a sub-$1,000 head to automate the capture process, and a whole website where people upload their processed images.

Thankyou QT.Yes 80mp doesnt even sound like a lot anymore.I have images shot with my old Canon A640 three times that resolution shot on my nodal head.Havent shot my 810 in ages.

Bill_1856

23-Sep-2011, 18:38

My, my! A lot of oxen being gored around here.

tgtaylor

23-Sep-2011, 19:08

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6160/6176359729_715f02e0d6.jpg

rdenney

23-Sep-2011, 19:16

Has anything been established in the last 11 pages? Can anyone summarize in two sentences or less?

Sentence Number 1:

Luminous Landscape wrote a review of a digital back and claimed, using data extensively challenged and based on motives that have been accused of lacking integrity, that it outperformed 8x10 film.

Sentence Number 2:

Many members of the Large Format Photography Forum used this opportunity to (again) litigate the relative merits of digital versus film.

Rick "whose contributions don't rate inclusion in the summary" Denney

John NYC

23-Sep-2011, 19:16

Thankyou QT.Yes 80mp doesnt even sound like a lot anymore.I have images shot with my old Canon A640 three times that resolution shot on my nodal head.Havent shot my 810 in ages.

Sure but stitching only works well for certain applications.

I don't think many of us still here shoot LF just for resolution, but I could be wrong.

rdenney

23-Sep-2011, 19:18

rdenney

23-Sep-2011, 19:24

Well if that's (fineness of detail) is what floats your boat, good for you. But the subject of this thread is whether a whizbang is "better" than LF. The point is that there is no such thing as "better". It is sort of like saying "do watermelons tast better or oranges" and then simply deciding the answer based on a single factor such as relative acidity of their juices.

Personally, I often go out of my way to avoid "fineness of detail" and intentionally put pantyhose over my lenses to reduce it!

We just had another thread trying to identify what makes a picture uniquely producable using large format. You can stretch pantyhose over the lens of a 35mm camera, but you can't make fine detail or smooth tonality if the format is too small to record it. The only sensible conclusion of that other thread was that fine detail (beyond a demanding threshold) was one of several characteristics uniquely demonstrable by a large format photograph.

This test claims that a smaller digital back provided fine detail in excess of an 8x10 large-format camera. So, the entire comparison was about fine detail stem to stern.

Rick "not about the artistic validity of either technology" Denney

Robert Jonathan

23-Sep-2011, 20:02

I'm looking forward to a new comparison where something is actually in focus on the 8x10.

This isn't about the low DPI scanning. I think something went very wrong when the 8x10 images were captured, lol.

cyrus

24-Sep-2011, 00:11

We just had another thread trying to identify what makes a picture uniquely producable using large format. You can stretch pantyhose over the lens of a 35mm camera, but you can't make fine detail or smooth tonality if the format is too small to record it. The only sensible conclusion of that other thread was that fine detail (beyond a demanding threshold) was one of several characteristics uniquely demonstrable by a large format photograph.

This test claims that a smaller digital back provided fine detail in excess of an 8x10 large-format camera. So, the entire comparison was about fine detail stem to stern.

Rick "not about the artistic validity of either technology" Denney

Yes but the reason why the initial test was a comparison of fine detail was simply because everyone just assumes that more fine detail = "better". It isn't. Good photography doesn't necessarily have anything to do with fine detail at all. That's the problem with the other thread, as I mentioned there too. The question of whether an SLR is better than LF does not revolve around whether the SLR can capture the same detail or have the same shift/tilts. Those things do not by themselves define the experience of LF photography and are the wrong metrics to use (in fact they're minor aspects - how much shift/tilt did Weegee use? Or how much "fine detail" was Brady worried about? None. Was Capa hindered by the absence of shift/tilt any on his Leica or Rolleiflex? Nope.)

It is natural that 1- people wnat to compare things to find which is better even when they're comparing apples and oranges, and 2- when people want to compare two things they would try to latch onto some objectively measurable metric as a basis for comparison, even if that metric is not really all that significant. But when they do this, after a while people tend to forget that those particular measurable qualities do not really define the thing, and may even be misleading when they impercetibly turn into a universal standard that supposedly defines the goodness or badness of the product.

So to end my rant on this thread: I object to these sorts of comparisons. They're comparing metrics that 1- aren't all that important and do not really define the quality or merit of the type of photography involved, and 2- are attempts to compare things which are fundamentally too different to be comparable in the first place.

timparkin

24-Sep-2011, 01:18

So to end my rant on this thread: I object to these sorts of comparisons. They're comparing metrics that 1- aren't all that important and do not really define the quality or merit of the type of photography involved, and 2- are attempts to compare things which are fundamentally too different to be comparable in the first place.

<rhetorical>So why don't we all use 35mm cameras and print smaller? </rhetorical>

The 'transparency' of a photograph is a pertinent issue and one aspect of that 'transparency' is enough resolution to suspend the recognition of reproduction.

If we enlarged a 35mm picture to 16x20 (a reasonable size print) then the photographic process does intrude through grain, lack of sharpness, etc.

Larger formats and the associated better glass give a result that allow prints that immerse the viewer; to let them engage with a photograph in a different way.

Yes there are many other aspects but pure 100% clarity of reproduction is an important factor in some types of photography. If it's not an important factor in your type of photography then don't read.

As mentioned previously, I'd like to compare the results of dynamic range - shooting a high contast scene on Portra 400 and with grads on the digital (or blending, or whatever) and show the difference in look.

I'd also like to see how the digital backs cope with this sort of problem:-

http://goo.gl/XhT0r

There are many aspects to photography, craft is one of them and precision can be part of that craft.

Tim

John NYC

24-Sep-2011, 05:46

Yes but the reason why the initial test was a comparison of fine detail was simply because everyone just assumes that more fine detail = "better".

No, I -- for one -- don't think that way at all. I suspect that more people here are like me in this regard and less like you think everyone is.

Nathan Potter

24-Sep-2011, 07:41

rdenney is correct, the comparison discussed is entirely about image quality (resolution) so is very narrowly drawn. Much of the criticism here is to that point and I believe well given. The host of other attributes that are differentiated by the two mediums are always worthy of discussion but those are largely not the comparisons made.

The other problem with the comparison is what I would term the chain rule (not as in differential calculus) but the difficulty in doing comparisons through generations of images where each generation suffers a degradation from the original scene. The obvious first question, as mentioned above, is how sharp was the original 8X10? In fact what precisely were the settings used for digital capture and were they optimized for high definition image capture?

Out of respect for the LL which has often provided useful information, at least for me, I think it is sufficient to just politely point out the shortcomings in the comparison.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

regorrengaw

24-Sep-2011, 08:03

Hi everybody

I think we shall accept, that digital Photography is breaking with most of what we learned and owned in 20 years. But this is called evolution!
I keep going on with my 8x10 until......:D
Best to you all.

r.

sector99

24-Sep-2011, 09:49

Reichmann attempts to compare detectors (203mm X 254mm Silver Halide film) to a Silicon-Based photodiode 645 format (56mm X 42mm).

He then injects numerous complicating variables such as differing focal length optical lenses as well as an under-sampled film scanner for the film detector. We'll ignore the human factor of focussing––Which has numerous compounding variables.

His result is an obvious mis-representation of film detector total potential resolution capture.

*** Color Film media resolves 160 LP/MM or about 6-8 microns. B&W can double that but we'll ignore the advantage in B&W for now.

*** The Silicon image detector used for the Reichmann "Comparison" matches that resolution with about 6 micron resolution.

Advantage?

The advantage for digital is an immediate viewable result that unfortunately delivers far less total resolution potential than 203 X 254mm film media (Where film is recognized as being much more laborious to process).

Indeed, since the resolution elements (Rezels) are essentially equal in dimension––the difference in this "Comparison" is simply the PHYSICAL AREA of the detectors:

Digital IQ180 = 56mm X 42mm= 2,352mm^2 square resolution elements (Rezels)

203mm X 254mm = 51,562 ^2 square resolution elements (Rezels).

In other words film is 22 times greater in image resolution capture at the 203mm x 254mm size format than the 645 6 micron Silicon detector used in Reichmann's "Comparison".

In PRACTICE it is difficult to match lenses with equal resolving power that ALSO PROPERLY cover the two "Compared" formats (56mm x 42mm and 203mm x 254mm). It is known that lenses get better as their focal lengths get smaller.

A PROPER test might begin with a 203mm x 254mm MACRO LF lens set at infinity and the developed result scanned at 4 microns (6,350 DPI).

Of course, changing to higher resolution B&W emulsions would make such a Digital to Film "Comparison" just as mis-representational as Reichmann's initial effort.

Digital has distinct advantages and attributes however, if it's resolution and detail one seeks, film still reigns. There is nothing quite like a properly exposed color transparency in 203mm x 254mm viewed on a proper light table.

Reichmann's arm-waving article only draws attention to the commercial nature of his website.

paulr

24-Sep-2011, 10:10

Wow. The amount of speculation here is staggering. Wouldn't it be interesting to just keep an open mind until we can compare some useful results? In the form of prints?

If I must muddy the waters with my own speculation, I'd suggest that 8x10 may for a while remain the grand poobah, in terms of maximum recoverable resolution. BUT! it's exceedingly rare for this quality, by itself, to make a difference in a print. This is 2011; we've known for decades that resolution numbers are primarily of interest in spy satelite imaging. If we want to predict the subjective sharpness and clarity and sense of detail in a print, we need to examine a whole range of variables, including the MTF curves of every item in the optical chain, the degree of enlargement, and the viewing distance.

It's the combined MTF characteristics of the new sensors and the best digital lenses that make these camera systems so formidable. This and the extremely high signal to noise properties of the sensors.

I would predict that for enormous enlargements the big film would have an advantage. For most typical enlargements the MF digital camera would have an advantage. And for small enlargements it would be a draw.

Then there are the (considerable) issues of workflow and price. I'm loving the digital workflow. Maybe that's just me. But I'm loving the analog price tag. I'm probably not alone in that regard.

Chris Strobel

24-Sep-2011, 13:18

Sure but stitching only works well for certain applications.

True just like 8x10 :D

timparkin

24-Sep-2011, 13:24

True just like 8x10 :D

I'm just working on a project where I'm stitching 8x10 shots... people always say "Oh you can stitch digital", well you can film too... obviously slightly more expensive and nodal rails get unwieldy! :-)

John NYC

24-Sep-2011, 14:35

True just like 8x10 :D

Or MFDB.

Which brings me full circle. I want all the information so I can decide what the best tool for the job is... Which means doing a better comparison.

Tony Karnezis

24-Sep-2011, 16:24

The statements below nicely summarize my thoughts.

In the case of LL, the rigor is often not there, and the application usability tests are often confused with the purported performance testing. That's why you end up with a comparison of an optimal setup for the digital back against a sub-optimal setup for the 8x10 camera. And when there seems to be a motive to validate the digital solution, that false comparison causes one to question the author's motives.

It's not ridiculous when the person involved is obviously stacking the results against film to further his anti-film agenda. This began with his D30 vs Provia....which made him the laughingstock of experienced photographers. It then progressed with his 11mp vs 6x7 film....where the 11mp camera won.....but then his 17mp camera was "almost" as good as 645.....see a problem here?

The test was a complete joke. If you had done the scans Mr. Eiger, this would never had made it to LL because the result would have been reversed!

If you understand how marketing works none of this is so cryptic. ...sometimes people take a different perspective just because they need a change of pace - a new intellectual challenge - or perhaps because this is how they now need to make money.

Has anything been established in the last 11 pages? Can anyone summarize in two sentences or less?

If I may,

1. The experiment was poorly performed and slanted to such an obvious extent that, when viewed in light of previous comparisons on the LL web site, it is not unreasonable to question the biases of the tester or his host.

2. Markus Zuber, the tester, as well as Peter Ramm and others have offered to repeat the experiment in response to the criticisms so that a more accurate answer to the question can be achieved.

I hope we can have the answer soon. I have $50,000 burning a hole in my pocket.

SUNdog

24-Sep-2011, 18:13

Hi

I use an 8x10 camera, we expose film to light together. We talk to each other and sometimes say not nice things to each other. We've been doing it for 50 plus years.

A Prayer

Lord, in 10 or 15 years when I'm too decrepit to lift my friend up on the tripod or even carry the tripod, I hope there is a digital camera that can capture light as well as my old companion. I hope I won't have to sell my soul to the devil to buy it and I hope something can be done about that teeny-tiny viewfinder and I hope *that I won't succumb to taking those hellishly awful over saturated color landscapes that gesture like some lurid whore. What Lord, yes I still like those "Intimate Landscapes" and Lord protect me from the techno pimps and their fabricature and manufacture of desire. And Lord, Help me to not end up yoked to some commercial perversity with clients and a web site or acquire some silly profane notion that in the end the only thing that matters are the pictures.*

Amen

And oh, Lord can you not bring back those crystal clear blue skies to the Southwestern deserts?

Oh, and say hi to Per there in Heaven for me Lord.*

Tony Karnezis

24-Sep-2011, 18:18

Oh, and say hi to Per there in Heaven for me Lord.*

Amen.

Chris Strobel

24-Sep-2011, 23:24

Or MFDB.

Which brings me full circle. I want all the information so I can decide what the best tool for the job is... Which means doing a better comparison.

Personally if I was able to actually afford a 43,000.00 camera back and the lenses for it, and was seriously interested in foregoing my 8x10 for it, I'd wait till my local calumet or sammies had one in rental stock, and do my own comparisons.Thats a pretty big investment to make going off a LL test or re-test me thinks :eek:

Armin Seeholzer

25-Sep-2011, 01:33

If I want a picture with really high resoltution as main purpose, then I take my Ninja5 and stittch 60 pics together or even more and every MF back is blown away! The lenses from my Nikon DSLRs are sharper then the MF lenses and so on and so on!
Markus Zuber is a good digital printer, but has not really an idea of analog! Otherwise the files would look much better from a 8x10.
But it is really not that easy to get the same smooth look from an analog file, then from a high end digi file, for to look on the monitor!
But it gets even with my Epson 750 at 2400 a bit better then this low res scans here!

Cheers from Lindenberg, Armin

tgtaylor

25-Sep-2011, 09:00

Here's an interesting exerpt from a Wickipedia article regarding film vs digital resolution and grain and noise in cinematography:

Resolution

Substantive debate over the subject of film resolution versus digital image resolution is clouded by the fact that it is difficult to meaningfully and objectively determine the resolution of either. However the huge majority of all blockbuster-movie of the first decade of the 21st century have been finished in 2K - which can easily be surpassed by mechanical as well as digital camera systems.

Unlike a digital sensor, a film frame does not have a regular grid of discrete pixels. Rather, it has an irregular pattern of differently sized grains. As a film frame is scanned at higher and higher resolutions, image detail is increasingly masked by grain, but it is difficult to determine at what point there is no more useful detail to extract. Moreover, different film stocks have widely varying ability to resolve detail.

Determining resolution in digital acquisition seems straightforward, but is significantly complicated by the way digital camera sensors work in the real world. This is particularly true in the case of high-end digital cinematography cameras that use a single large bayer pattern CMOS sensor. A bayer pattern sensor does not sample full RGB data at every point; each pixel is biased toward red, green or blue,[5] and a full color image is assembled from this checkerboard of color by processing the image through a demosaicing algorithm. Generally with a bayer pattern sensor, actual resolution will fall somewhere between the "native" value and half this figure, with different demosaicing algorithms producing different results. Additionally, most digital cameras (both bayer and three-chip designs) employ optical low-pass filters to avoid aliasing. Such filters reduce resolution.

In general, it is widely accepted that an original film camera negative exceeds the resolution of HDTV formats and the 2K digital cinema format, but there is still significant debate about whether 4K digital acquisition can match the results achieved by scanning 35 mm film at 4K, as well as whether 4K scanning actually extracts all the useful detail from 35 mm film in the first place. However, from 2000 to 2009, the overwhelming majority of films that used a digital intermediate were mastered at 2K, independent of their budget. Additionally, 2K projection is chosen for most permanent digital cinema installations, often even when 4K projection is available.

One important thing to note is that the process of optical duplication, used to produce theatrical release prints for movies that originate both on film and digitally, causes significant loss of resolution. If a 35 mm negative does capture more detail than 4K digital acquisition, ironically this may only be visible when a 35 mm movie is scanned and projected on a 4K digital projector. The most limiting factor when not using digital cinema however is the end of the exhibition chain: For mechanical projection, the SMPTE allows flutter and weave up to 0.2%, which reduces projected resolution down to 1K. Well maintained mechanical projectors however can operate at 0.05%, which can almost reach 2K resolution.

Grain & noise

Film has a characteristic grain structure. Different film stocks have different grain, and cinematographers may use this for artistic effect.

Digitally acquired footage lacks this grain structure. Electronic noise is sometimes visible in digitally acquired footage, particularly in dark areas of an image or when footage was shot in low lighting conditions and gain was used.

Since most theatrical exhibition still occurs via film prints, the clean look of digital acquisition is often lost before moviegoers get to see it, because most major releases are in the 35mm film format and all film stocks have film grain.

You can read the whole article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography

Thomas

Ed Kelsey

25-Sep-2011, 09:02

I wonder if the same kind of perception existed when film came into existence? "I'll never give up my wet plates." Vapid minds seem to persist through the ages.

John NYC

25-Sep-2011, 09:24

Personally if I was able to actually afford a 43,000.00 camera back and the lenses for it, and was seriously interested in foregoing my 8x10 for it, I'd wait till my local calumet or sammies had one in rental stock, and do my own comparisons.Thats a pretty big investment to make going off a LL test or re-test me thinks :eek:

Yeah, I would not be buying one of these things.

tgtaylor

25-Sep-2011, 09:27

I wonder if the same kind of perception existed when film came into existence? "I'll never give up my wet plates." Vapid minds seem to persist through the ages.

Although you haven't noticed it but the old historical photographic processes, now called "alternative process" with emphasis on the "alternative," are on a comeback with more and more photographers relearning the old processes and making a statement with them. Just yesterday I was at a large public darkroom in San Francisco that has 40 enlarger stations - probably the largest of its kind in the world - and they have a 4 week Cyanotype & Van Dyke Brown course starting next month.

Just because something has been around for a while, for example the two historical processes above, doesn't by itself mean that its "outmoded."

Thomas

desertrat

25-Sep-2011, 12:14

Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire, and that's the issue of how long the images in different formats will last. I believe professional photographic conservators have estimated the the collodion wet plates and gelatin dry plates of the last half of the 19th century will far outlast any film formats into the distant future. The collodion plates probably have the edge over gelatin dry plates here. Very few images made on nitrate base film still exist on their original media. Most of those that haven't been transferred to modern media are badly deteriorated.

Digital advocates insist their medium will potentially last forever, but there are logistical problems. Digital storage media typically become obsolete in a few decades. Digital advocates say the solution is to simply copy the data onto new media. The problem is a large amount of digital image files aren't being copied, and in a few more decades the hardware to read the old storage media won't be available. Something like 15% of the CD-ROMS made in the 1980s have been infected with 'CD rot' and aren't readable anymore, at least not in their entirety. These were promoted as being able to last a couple of centuries when they were introduced.

I think archaeologists 10,000 years from now will find the late 19th century better documented with surviving media than most of the 20th or early 21st centuries.

Rory_5244

25-Sep-2011, 12:32

Ya, digital requires too much active management to make sure everything's safe IMO. Film negatives/slides? I just stuff 'em in the ol' wardrobe and that's it. Of course, one prays the house doesn't burn down.

jnantz

25-Sep-2011, 13:12

looking forward to the results of the new test !
( not that it will really mean much to me )

tgtaylor

25-Sep-2011, 15:29

There is no need to be defensive about the fact that LF flim does not provide anymore the highest-resolution captures. LF has plenty of technical and artistic benefits, but highest possible resolution is simply no longer one of them.

Well maybe large format film falls short in the resolution arena but I, for one, doubt it. But in cinematography land it is clear that if 35mm film does not have greater resolution than digital it is surely its equal:

In general, it is widely accepted that an original film camera negative exceeds the resolution of HDTV formats and the 2K digital cinema format, but there is still significant debate about whether 4K digital acquisition can match the results achieved by scanning 35 mm film at 4K, as well as whether 4K scanning actually extracts all the useful detail from 35 mm film in the first place. However, from 2000 to 2009, the overwhelming majority of films that used a digital intermediate were mastered at 2K, independent of their budget. Additionally, 2K projection is chosen for most permanent digital cinema installations, often even when 4K projection is available.
You can read the whole article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography

Will the new digital technology one day surpass film in resolution? Quite possibly and even likely. But we have not reached that point yet. Moreover an increase in resolution is for all practical purposes insignificant for general image making. As you can see in the above article, both technologies currently provide a resolution that is more than sufficient. The real benefit of digital is its lower cost and ease of distribution.

Thomas

Drew Wiley

25-Sep-2011, 17:41

Well, digital is NOT hypothetically less costly than film if you consider equipment
investment and the likelihood of a rapid catastrophic drop in its value. I can understand the advantage in certain studio settings like catalog photography and food photography, where it saves some money on film and scanning, but recovers
the investment at least once because the entire art dept gets fired. After that, you
just need a set designer or assistant and a camera/input man who plugs the thing
right into pre-press. And I can see the value of DLSR's when all that is needed is
magazine-size spreads, postcards, and web content. But large-format film is still
unchallenged for numerous other applications. That too may change some day. I'm
not waiting.

Brian Ellis

25-Sep-2011, 19:16

John NYC

25-Sep-2011, 20:42

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=781023&postcount=132

I had a chance to play with the image from the IQ180 that Oren found. It certainly is stunning.

The blown out areas and surrounding transitions are definitely the best I've seen digital do in that regard.

As I would expect, the full size image completely and utterly blows away my APS-C 18MP camera on a similar shot. The little DSLR makes an image that looks positively flat and lifeless in comparison.

When comparing to a scan of an 8x10 portrait I shot, it was harder. The one I was using was shot on 8x10 at f/6.3 on a 14-inch lens, so really only parts of the eyelashes are truly in focus when viewed at large magnification. So in that regard, the systems are two different animals, as people have pointed out before on this thread. Not sure if you could even get that effect with a normal length lens on the IQ180 system. I liked both shots as I flipped back and forth, but it is just a totally different look.

The real telling thing for me though was when I upsized the IQ180 shot in Photoshop to print at 80 inches wide. The image did not fall apart as much as I had expected it would. It still looked pretty darn good.

David Luttmann

26-Sep-2011, 05:35

*** Color Film media resolves 160 LP/MM or about 6-8 microns. B&W can double that but we'll ignore the advantage in B&W for now.

You're not doing yourself any favors trying to imply a resolution for the film of 160 lp/mm. You simply are going to get nowhere near that under normal contrast situations. If all you want to photograph is airforce test charts, then you still won't get 160.

Sorry, the best you're going to find with Ektachrome is maybe 60 to 70lp/mm. That is still far beyond anything the digital sensor can capture....but also a lot more realistic.

Jeremy Moore

26-Sep-2011, 07:35

Well, I just rezzed one of my 8"x10" scans down from it's 23,000 x 18,400 px size to match the 10,328 max px width of the IQ180 and my 8x10 shot look quite a bit different than theirs do -- also without any sharpening like their shot.

My images are flatbed scanned on an Epson 10,000XL @ 2400ppi then cropped down to my pre-visualization as an 8"x10" @ 2300ppi.

"Whether we can get the same tonal quality especially in black and white images, as widely known from John Sexton and others, is a question of fine tuning and finally choosing the perfect printing technique, which is not very easy to find even nowadays."

Well, there's no "fine tuning" of my process because my process is the intuitive in nature--"fine tuning" my equipment isn't worth it, I prefer to make better images in the first place with the equipment I have than spend time making crappy pictures with high resolution in the hopes I remember every "fine tuning" step when it counts. I don't have to "find" the perfect printing technique either, because I'm the printer and I do a pretty damn good job at it. Then again, I'm not making any money selling my methods for making art, whether it be via DVDs or workshops or ad-revenue so I don't have to sell anyone that THEIR work will be better if they make it how I make mine.

I would rather spend all day making 5 photographs I want to develop, scan, and print than all day making 500 photographs I have to edit and fine-tune.

Edit: I guess my reason for making this post is because everyone is getting hung up on the particulars of the test when what really matters is whether you want to be making photographs using the process required to shoot like Reichmann. How would an IQ180 fit into your gear bag? I don't think we shoot large format because of resolution -- I don't make any photographs because of resolution. I make photographs because when I stop and set up my camera the most important thing in the world to me is sharing what I see with the world. Clarity is overrated. Art obfuscation is bullshit. Just get out with a camera, make photographs that resonate with you, and print it so you're proud to share it.

Brian C. Miller

26-Sep-2011, 09:06

How would an IQ180 fit into your gear bag? I don't think we shoot large format because of resolution -- I don't make any photographs because of resolution. I make photographs because when I stop and set up my camera the most important thing in the world to me is sharing what I see with the world. Clarity is overrated. Art obfuscation is bullshit. Just get out with a camera, make photographs that resonate with you, and print it so you're proud to share it.

The real question for that is, how does the camera fit what you want to photograph? I got into LF because straight MF lenses didn't fit the scenery. Box cameras have limitations. I oh-so-sorely wanted certain aspects of the scene to be in focus, and the shutter speed I wanted to use. I can do that with LF, but not with MF. More megapixels isn't the answer for me, it's in how the tool can be used. I personally would still need movements on a MF camera. The extra resolution of LF is just icing on the cake, and how thick and sweet it is!

John NYC

26-Sep-2011, 09:09

Well, I just rezzed one of my 8"x10" scans down from it's 23,000 x 18,400 px size to match the 10,328 max px width of the IQ180 and my 8x10 shot look quite a bit different than theirs do -- also without any sharpening like their shot.

I don't think anyone here thinks you can't make a good 24x30 with an 8x10 scan. The question is can the IQ180 make as good of an 80-inch print as an 8x10. Fill in your own definition of "good".

Jeremy Moore

26-Sep-2011, 09:13

The real question for that is, how does the camera fit what you want to photograph?

Yep. That's why I don't care if other people think I have a lot of different cameras. I use them all differently to match what I am shooting as how I shoot and approach a subject affects the final photograph. And it affects my perception of the experience of creating the photograph.

I have a day job, photography is a lifestyle choice.

Daniel Stone

26-Sep-2011, 11:25

The question is can the IQ180 make as good of an 80-inch print as an 8x10....

Also, HOW OFTEN are any of us making an 80" print(through any process, analog or digital)? I mean, that's over 6.5 feet! Most people don't even have enough wall space to hang(or the budget to frame) an 80" print. We aren't all Gursky's with unlimited budgets here ;).

-Dan

Brian C. Miller

26-Sep-2011, 11:54

But Dan, that's the same question that could be posed to owners of the IQ180. "Do you really need that?" There is a market for "ginourmous" prints. I remember a number of years back where somebody was making wall-sized prints from a ULF camera, and everybody was agog over the rather mundane scenes. What carried it was detail. Everybody who isn't a photographer is attracted by gobs and gobs of simple detail in a scene.

John NYC

26-Sep-2011, 11:57

Also, HOW OFTEN are any of us making an 80" print(through any process, analog or digital)? I mean, that's over 6.5 feet! Most people don't even have enough wall space to hang(or the budget to frame) an 80" print. We aren't all Gursky's with unlimited budgets here ;).

-Dan

Agree totally.

But if we are talking about 24x30 prints, then why even compare? Both might have slightly different looks to them, but both systems can do that with ease.

Drew Wiley

26-Sep-2011, 12:40

How many people or their bobble-headed interior decorators even give a damn whether
a "ginormous" wall print is sharp or not?

John NYC

26-Sep-2011, 13:08

How many people or their bobble-headed interior decorators even give a damn whether
a "ginormous" wall print is sharp or not?

I would imagine not many.

In fact, Avedon prints are decidedly not sharp and lots of rich people collect those.

John NYC

26-Sep-2011, 13:29

I suspect that if the IQ180 were $1,000 no one would actually be arguing about any of this. You might still have an 8x10, but you'd probably have one of these as well.

Brian C. Miller

26-Sep-2011, 13:35

Drew, I'm guessing that would be the difference between "consumer" and "connoisseur." One wants the wall covered, the other wants it covered tastefully. One will pay $50 for a big poster, the other will pay gobs of money, and then have the furniture match the artwork.

Brian C. Miller

26-Sep-2011, 13:47

I suspect that if the IQ180 were $1,000 no one would actually be arguing about any of this. You might still have an 8x10, but you'd probably have one of these as well.

I would still be asking the question. I would want to know.

If a Pentax 645D was $1,000 (which will happen sooner than the IQ180), I would still compare its performance to Kodak film and a Pentax 645. I'm not kidding, I would most certainly do it. I am that impressed with the Pentax-Kodak combination that I would think twice.

I have made a rough personal estimation of 8x10 film vs 80Mp image. I like the film image better, but the resolution difference would only show up at "ginourmous' sizes. Would I replace my Pentax 645 with an IQ180 if the IQ180 were $1,000? Depending on how the IQ180 handles extreme contrast, yes. But if it showed magenta fringing like I've seen from other sensors, then I never would do it. The equipment has to do the job I need.

Drew Wiley

26-Sep-2011, 13:48

Well, folks can go down to Ikea and get an interesting decor-ish mounted 8 ft wide print for a couple of hundred bucks. I saw one recently in a friend's home and it looked
like it was possibly a Hassie shot originally, though it had been through such a digital
makeover it's hard to tell for sure. It saved them a lot of wall patching and sanding
here in earthquake land - just cover everything! No matter how well you tape and muc the wall joints they pop sooner or later. But none of this affects how I choose to operate. I have my personal standards and print accordingly. 8x10 film for me.

cyrus

26-Sep-2011, 13:52

I suspect that if the IQ180 were $1,000 no one would actually be arguing about any of this. You might still have an 8x10, but you'd probably have one of these as well.

I don't know about that. Right now even a cheapie P&S digital camera has the same or better resolution (not to mention convenience) of 35mm or even MF film and I use and prefer film. Like I keep saying, these are just different mediums, and resolution is not the issue.

emh

26-Sep-2011, 14:10

For me, and others who choose film, I think (at least I'd like to) that there are reasons beyond resolution regarding our choice. It's a much more contemplative process (in the field, and in the darkroom)... It forces you to "pre-edit", based on the number of holders you carry... The anticipation of taking the neg/print into the light... The satisfaction of creating something hand-crafted, which I don't get from using a program designed by some computer whiz...
I'm sure others can add to the reasons.

John NYC

26-Sep-2011, 14:29

For the record, I never said resolution was everything. I shoot 80 percent or more of my photography on a TLR, 10 percent on 35mm film. The rest on 8x10 and digital.

If I was hung up on resolution only, I would not be shooting so much MF film. But for my roof project, I could definitey see adding an IQ180 or similar one day if became affordable. I prefer to pick the right tool for what I am doing instead of saying... "I only shoot 8x10 film" no matter what the project. That isn't thinking either. That is just a slavish devotion to a tool. To me the cameras are just tools.

I will probably always want to shoot 8x10 for some things, even after digital has surpassed it in resolution.

pdmoylan

26-Sep-2011, 15:40

You know, what's interesting is that noone mentioned the real difference - movements. If digital lenses max out resolution wise at say F11 and deteriorate significantly to smaller apertures, what good is a digital anything if you cannot use front and back tilt, swings and smaller apertures. Others have said you need little tilt on MF digital to get it all in focus. But in reality I see some producing multiple differentially focused images stitched to obtain enough apparent DOF. For immovable subjects this is a usable means to an end; for what I shoot, it is not possible. There is something invasive in the process to think of many images focused at different points to obtain the image. The gratification of taking one shutter release per image is lost.

tgtaylor

26-Sep-2011, 16:48

Considering the resolution issue the Wikipedia article refers to a substantial doubt in cinematography that a 4K digital capture is the equal of a 4K scan of a 35mm film negative and whether all the detail in the negative can even be captured by a 4K scan. The maximum 4K capture or scan is defined as being 4096X2160 pixels which translates to 8.4MP. The size of a 35mm frame is approx 1.0X1.5 inches. Now, I ask, would an 80MP capture or scan of an 8x10 negative produce the same image result as the 35mm 4K capture/scan - everything else being equal?

Thomas

tgtaylor

26-Sep-2011, 18:17

Well let's consider the size of the IQ80 chip, 2.11x1.59 inch and the 35mm negative, 1.0x1.5. So the area of the chip is roughly 2.25 times that of the negative which is approximately .45 the size of the chip. Assuming that the chip does deliver 80MP maximum resolution then it could scan/image the same area as the negative at a resolution of around 35MP. That would be greater by a factor of 4 than the 4K film capture/scan of cinematography and almost twice the 21MP that Shutterbug said it would require to equal the resolution of 35mm film. However at the "Sensor +" resolution of the chip, 20MP, the resolution would be essentially the same as 4K.

Thomas "with no special knowledge but just trying to crunch some numbers and critically consider the claim" Taylor

paulr

26-Sep-2011, 20:37

I don't have big worries about resolution. First of all, I don't think anyone here is really talking about resolution, which is mostly meaningless outside of technical applications. I think the term is being used casually to describe subjective sharpness and subjective sense of clarity and fine detail. Everyone I know who's tested an 80 mpix back with a digital lens has found the results jaw-dropping in this regard.

I have trouble imagining that these image qualities would become an issue unless you were making very large prints. Digital images go to pieeces in less pleasant ways than film images when you over-enlarge.

Some issues much more likely to make a difference:

-Movements (as pdmoylan suggested). The lenses have fairly small coverage.

-Dynamic range. The best backs have capacities comparable to most color negative films, but nowhere near black and white films.

-Selective focus. This is really a signature ability of very big film. Esthetic use of the tiny depth of field of the long lenses. I don't think it's going to be possible get this look naturally with a smaller negative or sensor.

-Workflow. The most divisive factor. Some people don't want to spend another minute looking at a computer, others are happy to do it all day.

Bill Burk

26-Sep-2011, 21:53

It takes work to get great results from film.

Heck, last weekend somebody got a better shot from their iPhone than I got with my 4x5 and it didn't faze me. Yeah, I really messed up. It was overcast so I opened up two stops. Then I wasn't thinking where I was focusing. I should have left it at f/8, scale focused and dealt with a thin neg in the darkroom. The posed shots are fine, 22 kids in one frame where each kid has about a half-frame of 35mm's worth of detail. But the action parade shot I wanted, I didn't get. Sour grapes? Even if the shot was in focus and had the necessary depth, only the kid carrying the flag could be seen, everyone else in line is obscured. Oh well it was a fun day. The kids are getting used to seeing the camera. It's kind of fun hearing them make no big deal out of it.

cyrus

26-Sep-2011, 23:22

Oh well it was a fun day.

And in the end that's all that will matter because no one is handing out any medals! :)

tgtaylor

26-Sep-2011, 23:39

Continuing with the resolution issue it would appear that the native resolution of the IQ80 exceeds that of the 35mm negative 35MP to the 21MP hypothesized by Shutterbug. But the area of an 8x10 negative is 53 times greater than the 35mm negative and, as pointed out above, 80MP spread over 80 square inches translates to a mere 1MP per square inch – far less than the acknowledged resolution of film. What could make it appear just as sharp or even sharper than film?

I think that the answer to that question lies in the software algorithm of the SQ80 and not in the native resolution indicated by the pixel count. Hence every data point contained in the sensor, call it Set A, can be mapped onto an output source, Set B, in multiple ways. In other words it can be a mapping that is greater than a 1 to 1 mapping, i.e., interpolated or extrapolated. Conversely every data point on a film negative mapped onto a sheet of enlarging paper is 1 to 1. But you would think that you could create the same multi-point mapping by scanning the negative and converting it to a digital file that can be manipulated by software. Theoretically you can, I suppose, but surely the scanners are all ancient models with outdated algorithms and may not have even had a algrorithm that permitted a mapping that is not 1 to 1.

It's equally likely, though, that the two paragraphs above are totally off-track. I never did follow-up a course in discreet mathematics with set theory so I may be chasing foul balls late in the night :)

Thomas

Steve Smith

27-Sep-2011, 00:13

I don't think anyone here is really talking about resolution, which is mostly meaningless outside of technical applications.

I agree. Both 8x10 (and much smaller) film and the IQ80 (and smaller) digital sensors are now capable of really good image quality in large prints so who really cares?

It has now become the equivalent of a Nikon vs. Canon argument.

Steve.

thrice

27-Sep-2011, 01:29

What's wrong with 8x10 on a light tripod with a ballhead? :p I took this (http://www.aeos-photo.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Velvia-Melbourne-2.jpg) with my 4x5 on a gitzo 1541T (tiny tripod) and a fotoclam ballhead (also tiny). Sorry for the rather boring photo. I am kind of jesting as I usually use a much larger/sturdier tripod with a heavier duty ballhead. A center column with a hook for your backpack helps a lot when you're using a smaller tripod.
This (http://www.aeos-photo.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/LFintheDunes.jpg)is my usual setup.
Totally off-topic but should I invest in a heavier duty tripod? A different kind of head?

For me, the cost of the Phase One IQ180 (or most other digital backs) put it out of reach, but I am still interested in the comparison. Looking through a loupe at Velvia 50, even on 4x5 trannies is staggering. I personally feel I get usable resolution all the way up to 1600dpi on my flatbed. If I had an 8x10 I would love to make this comparison.

I believe they do not touch on the subjective advantages of film in that comparison (but I'm sure they have before). For me, I can shoot an image on my Leica M9 that I'll happily print at 20x30, and very few people want a bigger print than that. The aesthetics and the process of shooting large format on the other hand is very enjoyable and infinitely more rewarding when it goes right. In this run & gun photographic industry it is hard to compete without a digital workflow, those who shoot fine art portraiture, landscapes or architecture using their large format cameras for a living are very lucky.

timparkin

27-Sep-2011, 01:58

I agree. Both 8x10 (and much smaller) film and the IQ80 (and smaller) digital sensors are now capable of really good image quality in large prints so who really cares?

It has now become the equivalent of a Nikon vs. Canon argument.

Steve.

Hmm - I think it is occasionally relevant. I need to produce an 10m x 4m print for the back of a National Park visitor centre where the goal is to allow people to see the amazing view to the horizon even on days where it is cloudy/raining/etc. People will be walking right up to this picture to have a look at the detail.

Do you think resolution is irrelevant for this?

Tim

timparkin

27-Sep-2011, 02:06

What's wrong with 8x10 on a light tripod with a ballhead? :p I took this (http://www.aeos-photo.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Velvia-Melbourne-2.jpg) with my 4x5 on a gitzo 1541T (tiny tripod) and a fotoclam ballhead (also tiny).

Hi - I think you *can* get great shots with the smallest of tripods. For instance I know a colleague who uses a gitzo traveller with a Chamonix 4x5 and her shots are wonderful. However, there is always a chance that vibrations or wind will reduce resolution and hence a sturdier tripod will help increase the chances of a sharp shot.

8x10 has appro four times the weight at twice the distance from the ballhead = 8 times as much problem with vibration etc and also the stiffness of the whole system is reduced, etc. I've tried mounting my 10x8 directly to the tripod and the vibrations were still apparent. The only way to stop them is with a secondary support to provide two points of contact (three points of contact at the extremities of the camera would be better but two gets rid of most of the issues).

Hence why I ended up doing this in the wind recently

http://www.landscapegb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/MG_6753.jpg

To get the shot of the climbers with the 800mm lens (see <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin/5640827032/in/photostream">here</a>)

Love the sand dunes picture of the 4x5 :-)

thrice

27-Sep-2011, 02:19

Thanks Tim, appreciate your insight. I imagine the torque on 8*10 would be substantially larger as you pointed out.

Steve Smith

27-Sep-2011, 03:28

Do you think resolution is irrelevant for this?

No I don't. I was thinking in more general terms that for 99.9% of all uses, the argument is pointless.

Steve.

Donald Qualls

27-Sep-2011, 04:12

No I don't. I was thinking in more general terms that for 99.9% of all uses, the argument is pointless.

Steve.

I think it's safe to say that 99.9% of all uses aren't represented on this forum.

FWIW, I can scan just about 100 megapixels from 4x5 film with a flatbed scanner I bought used eight years ago. A dedicated film scanner could get close to ten times that -- and if the camera was steady, the lens sharp and focus critical, and the film developed for acutance, the better scanner would will be extracting more information. I've got at least one lens that will let me read license plates from a block away in a 4x5 negative -- which requires my maximum scanner resolution.

So, no, there's no way 80 megapixels is equivalent to 8x10 film. In fact, the much-vaunted Gigapixel Project didn't exceed the resolution capability of 8x10 film...

timparkin

27-Sep-2011, 04:15

No I don't. I was thinking in more general terms that for 99.9% of all uses, the argument is pointless.

Steve.

Maybe in general terms it isn't relevant but for those people who either produce very large work or don't know in advance which work may be use very large, then it is relevant. Hence a comparison *has relevance* for some people.

How about the landscape photographer who may get requests for 40x50 prints or perhaps want to have a single print at the front of their exhibition of that size. For a 360dpi print you would need a 15,000 x 18,000 pixel file. That is pushing the edges of 4x5 and is well beyond 80 megapixels. Yes you can make a 40x50 at a lot less dpi but some photographers would like 'noseable' prints however large.

How about the photographer who wants a panorama 72" wide? They would need 25,000 pixels for a 360dpi print and even if you want a 180dpi print, which most people would say is just about OK for sharp prints, then you need 12,500 pixels.. The Phase back is capable of 10,000 pixels wide so is *just* falling short. If someone could get a better result from 8x10 then they would be interested?

As someone has already mentioned. 99.9% of images are shot on compact cameras and smart phones so according to that this whole forum is irrelevant.

Tim

jnantz

27-Sep-2011, 04:32

i think that it is interesting that someone makes a high powered digital back
that costs as much as a sports car, but i still see no point in owning one.

in the end a lot of the people who will buy one of these things
-- the same ones who buy maserati because it will make them drive better
since they drove so poorly in their 2cv.

Steve Smith

27-Sep-2011, 04:38

i think that it is interesting that someone makes a high powered digital back
that costs as much as a sports car, but i still see no point in owning one.

Sports car or digital back? I don't see any point in owning either!

Steve.

timparkin

27-Sep-2011, 05:34

Sports car or digital back? I don't see any point in owning either!

Steve.

Again, if your hobby is track day events then owning a sports car becomes important. If you don't then it's not. But for the track day guy, knowing the finer points of Evo's vs M3's is important. etc.. Just cause you don't give a *** doesn't mean it isn't important/critical/valid to someone else.

Also, some people's hobby is pixel peeping - is that any less *valid* a hobby than sclumping large format film cameras around. There are no hobby police, scrapbooking is popular, as is train spotting and hypermiling.

People are also free to choose their own personal levels of interest in resolution. My interest in resolution was exceeded when I shot 4x5 but it doesn't mean I don't have a passing interest in seeing where the limits lie, just as people like watching olympics who couldn't run to catch a bus.

Tim

Tobias Key

27-Sep-2011, 06:17

Steve Smith

27-Sep-2011, 06:40

I think we should run our own test to prove that a Minnox negative has more resolution than an 8oMP digital back!

(before anyone starts arguing with me, I know it hasn't really).

Steve.

thepowerthatbe

27-Sep-2011, 07:04

As an aside, how usual is it for professional landscape photographers to be earning enough to justify (in a business sense) shooting an IQ180. I wouldn't be surprised if the number was around 100 worldwide. In which case the whole comparison is moot for the vast majority of landscape shooters out there. I know there are weekend warriors who finance them through their day jobs, or you could hire one for trips, but it seems to me this product is squarely aimed at commercial photographers with large volumes of work, not the landscape photographer who might shoot 500 sheets of film a year.

We sell about as many IQ180 to enthusiasts as to anyone. Think about fast cars and big yachts; most aren't sold to professional delivery drivers and fishermen.

Now we do sell IQ180s to some commercial folks (often architecture, product, interiors), quite a few to rental houses. The IQ160 is a product marketed more to commercial guys who need to justify cost-vs-return.

The nice thing about being a dealer for such nice equipement is that if someone is interested we can easily make time to host them for a test with any equipment on our shelf, or provide them a rental which is fully credited towards any purchase. We do a lot of these tests and - as mentioned on this thread - we often post raws/tiffs to our website, but the best test is always the one that you yourself run in conditions relevant to your needs/wants.

Doug Peterson
Phase One Partner of the Year
www.captureintegration.com (http://www.captureintegration.com)

E. von Hoegh

27-Sep-2011, 07:15

What I got from the test: The IQ80 does an absolutely superb job. Truly impressive.
The 8x10 images posted are not very sharp. I can, and have, done better using lenses made before WWI, and a camera made in 1950. I don't see the point in comparing the IQ80 to a poor quality negative/transparency from an 8x10 - what does this prove? It's like saying a Volkswagen Jetta will outperform a Maserati Bora, without mentioning that the Maserati is running on 5 out of 8 cylinders the day of the test.

Ivan J. Eberle

27-Sep-2011, 07:31

John NYC

27-Sep-2011, 09:29

Many posts on this thread follow the same argument... Which is directly stating or implying... "I don't care about this, so no one else should either." Or "I can't imagine there is a large market for this this, so don't talk about it."

I don't happen to care at all about wet plate and there is not a big market for it either. But I don't think it is an invalid topic to discuss. This is a discussion forum after all. If you are not interested, you don't really need to participate, since adding your "I don't care about this" comment doesn't really help move the discussion along for those who do have some level of interest in it.

tgtaylor

27-Sep-2011, 09:40

8x10 has appro four times the weight at twice the distance from the ballhead = 8 times as much problem with vibration etc and also the stiffness of the whole system is reduced, etc. I've tried mounting my 10x8 directly to the tripod and the vibrations were still apparent. The only way to stop them is with a secondary support to provide two points of contact (three points of contact at the extremities of the camera would be better but two gets rid of most of the issues).

That's why I use two tripod blocks to mount my 8x10. See my avatar.

Thomas

Brian K

27-Sep-2011, 10:10

This is an apples and oranges argument. There is no question a well executed 8x10 will have more resolution than the output of a IQ180. However for more applications the IQ180 is the better capture platform to use.

Having done both landscape photography and commercial photography I have sufficient experience in both. For 99% of the commercial work I did, and that included everything from images appearing on the web to magazine ads, to point of sales posters to billboards, the IQ180 would be the better solution. For the Billboards or really large POS posters, then maybe 8x10.

For my landscape work, even though I own an 8x10, I don't use it. I also don't even shoot 4x5 much anymore because I tend to shoot long and skinny and 4x5 is more of a hassle to travel with than MF film and a roll film back. I care deeply about the image quality of my work, but i also care more about the content. So another reason I shoot roll film versus sheet film is that I can shoot 30 exposures of a scene until I get exactly the peak moment. Whereas with 4x5 or especially 8x10 I am having to hope that I am getting the peak moment because I have only so many holders with me and therefore will not wait out a scene as much.

When a 100MP digital back comes out, I will likely buy one, and will most likely phase out analog photography from my work flow. I do this because I am getting too old to travel with multiple camera systems. I currently carry a Linhof system for my more set images, and a Mamiya 7 system for faster scenes and grab shots. To instead carry just one camera system, I own an extensive Rollei 6008i series (although who knows if any digi backs will end up fitting it?) which I would just love to use, would be great. I don't use it now because my 6x12cm images are far higher quality than the 30x58mm images that I would end up with from the Rollei.

So to argue about the validity of one system versus another 8x10, or IQ180 is a waste of time. Each one excels at certain things, and we are all lucky to have them both as a choice.

cyrus

27-Sep-2011, 10:14

Whereas with 4x5 or especially 8x10 I am having to hope that I am getting the peak moment because I have only so many holders with me and therefore will not wait out a scene as much.

That's why I luv Grafmatics for 4x5!

Ivan J. Eberle

27-Sep-2011, 10:18

My belief is that 96 dpi is well within the realm of what can be resolved on 645 film stock, and extricated via drum-scanning-- provided one has the lenses that can put down this sort of resolution in the first place. It's fairly well established that some of the digital MF lenses may be doing this-- but might perhaps some be capable of doing even better? Are these lenses essentially being sensor limited used on the best available 645 FF sensors like the Phase One IQ180?

I don't know the full answer to that, but I've become very interested in the 645 nexus of lenses and resolution. (Surely there is a sweet spot here, evidenced in no small part by little interest in making physically larger sensors than 645.)

I've got a Pentax 35mm f/3.5 for my P645N that is one of the most astounding optics I've encountered, and I've had a bunch of super-sharp lenses. This lens is dedicated macro lens sharp. To my eyes, I'm guess-timating it's better than 100 lp/mm between f/8 to f/11 (which lens, incidentally cost me a staggering $295).

There are a lot of variables and perhaps practical limits to ultimate resolution in the field, especially in available light at dusk. But under more controlled conditions, there are tests showing resolutions of 120 lp/mm are possible on film with classic film MF lenses (Thalmann & Perez). It seems within the realm of possibility that one could come fairly close to that using specular light sources such as electronic flash, or shooting under full sun.

I've yet to see anyone try a test with one of these digital optimized lenses on one of the finest modern film stocks like Ektar to see the limits of what can be resolved on medium format film. Of course, it will be an esoteric exercise without the right drum scanner. (e.g. a Nikon Coolscan 9000 delivers at most 67 lp/mm.)

rdenney

27-Sep-2011, 10:59

You know, what's interesting is that noone mentioned the real difference - movements.

In a parallel thread on the main difference between small and large formats, there has been considerable discussion of movements, including demonstration of the fact that movements can be scaled to any format. What is difficult to scale is sheer detail. What is also difficult to scale is access to ancient and interesting lenses that are too rare or that don't exist at all in focal lengths short enough. And another thing that doesn't scale is the ability to limit depth of field to fairly extreme levels.

It's easy enough (except for the cost), though, to put this digital back on a medium-format view camera and get the same degree of image management available on most 8x10 cameras. The movements are smaller to achieve the same effect, and therefore require higher precision, but the same effects are available.

But that does limit for me the value of a camera like a Pentax 645D, though I have some lenses that I could put on that camera that do provide some movement capabilities. Even so, if they were $1000 (to carry out someone else's hypothesis), I'd have one. I'd have one if they were twice that. If this back were that cheap, I'd have one of those, too.

Rick "agreeing with the point that some movements, particularly tilt, are as important in small formats as large formats for some pictures" Denney

Brian C. Miller

27-Sep-2011, 13:08

Frank Petronio

27-Sep-2011, 13:17

Tobias Key

27-Sep-2011, 14:29

"Better" is a subjective measurement, which takes into account factors other than a quantitative measurement of effective image resolution, color tonality, and dynamic range.

From a business perspective, the cost and workflow must be taken into account. A Toyo-View or Horseman geared MF body is appx. $4,600, IQ180 back is $40,000+, and add three new "digital" lenses for at least $8,000 is $52,600. If the final output for the business is always digital and you have a high volume, then outright purchase makes sense. (Rental or leasing makes sense, doesn't it?)

But if the process is "fine art" and the volume is low, then 8x10 film (still) works just fine.

Businesses are built on profits, and this means counting the beans.

I agree with this totally. Renting a digital back would certainly be cheaper for me than shooting fashion with a 6x7 for a day, once developing, contacts and scanning is added up. But isn't landscape photography low volume, not to mention often low paid work? In that context isn't Lula cooing over digital backs just a bit pathetic, I just can't see how the business side would pan out for the vast majority of landscape shooters.

Ivan J. Eberle

27-Sep-2011, 15:13

[I really want to hear the answers before I join the rant]

Brian K

27-Sep-2011, 17:10

Remember that a true professional owns a back-up system. My friend in town who shoots a Phase/Mamiya system owns two so he can run two sets and have a back-up. For the clients he shoots with, they would flip if he only had one back.

Add the requisite ProFoto gear and a leather couch for the clients to sit on and he's got an easy $200K worth of gear in the studio.

For stuff that is printed 30dpi and goes on the sides of trucks, it's complete overkill but it pleases the client to be state-of-the-art.

Funny how when 18mb Leaf RGB backs and DSC 460s were state-of-the-art, the files were just fine then too.

That's true Frank, and one of the reasons I don't own one (two) yet. As it is with my travel, it took me a while to get used to having just the one Linhof with me, and that's still having 2 mamiya 7II's as a back up. If i go digital it will require two backs, two bodies, and a close ratio of lenses.

If I can't use the Rolleis then I'd end up going back to Hassy, so that's at least 2 bodies, a 50, 60, 80, 100, 150, 180 an 1.4x converter (which I tested on the 180mm and it was superior to the 250mm) so I'm looking at an investment of $120K? But I guess if I sell the Rolleis, some of the sinars, the Fuji gx617 cameras, the Fuji gx680III system, The 4 fotoman's, the linhof, I'd probably still have to kick in $70k !!!!!! Damn! I think I'll stick with film for a while...

Brian K

27-Sep-2011, 17:15

"Better" is a subjective measurement, which takes into account factors other than a quantitative measurement of effective image resolution, color tonality, and dynamic range.

From a business perspective, the cost and workflow must be taken into account. A Toyo-View or Horseman geared MF body is appx. $4,600, IQ180 back is $40,000+, and add three new "digital" lenses for at least $8,000 is $52,600. If the final output for the business is always digital and you have a high volume, then outright purchase makes sense. (Rental or leasing makes sense, doesn't it?)

But if the process is "fine art" and the volume is low, then 8x10 film (still) works just fine.

Businesses are built on profits, and this means counting the beans.

Here's the killer from the business end, I used to make a $30-40k a year profit on the film mark up. The current studio photogs now have to spend all this money on a digi back and LOSE the profit from the film mark up.

John NYC

27-Sep-2011, 17:50

Here's the killer from the business end, I used to make a $30-40k a year profit on the film mark up. The current studio photogs now have to spend all this money on a digi back and LOSE the profit from the film mark up.

I've seen Kirk mention several times here on the forum that the transition from film to digital didn't hurt his profitability. Maybe he can chime in here and explain.

Peter De Smidt

27-Sep-2011, 18:11

For stuff that is printed 30dpi and goes on the sides of trucks, it's complete overkill but it pleases the client to be state-of-the-art.

I've worked at the photo studio for a national department store chain. They use Sinar P3s and Emotion digital backs, along with Foba stands, Broncolor and Profoto lighting... for product pictures used in the small sales flyers in newspapers.

John NYC

27-Sep-2011, 18:31

I think it's safe to say that 99.9% of all uses aren't represented on this forum.

FWIW, I can scan just about 100 megapixels from 4x5 film with a flatbed scanner I bought used eight years ago.

Theoretically, yes, but you are not getting blur-less pixels in that scan. There is a lot of weakness in the film scanning chain.

If you calculate the mathematical megapixels created by scanning 8x10 film at 2400ppi, then you get 461 megapixels. One look at an 80MP digital file and you will see that those digital pixels are not the same quality in sharpness as the ones you get from the 8x10 scan -- they are much more precise.

By my own personal hypothesizing, one will need 120MP in a digital back to just match the resolution of (a perfectly executed) 8x10 for all practical purposes (including very large prints). With a sensor at a 3x2 ratio of sides, a 120MP image would print at 40.8x27.2 inches. By the time that type of back is available, I believe there will be other improvements in smoothness and tonality so that up-rezing in PS to an 80-inch print will compare favorably then to an 8x10 optical print at the same size.

All just guesses though. Google this in five years ago and make fun of me if I am not right.

paulr

27-Sep-2011, 20:05

Calculating theoretical megapixels from scans rellies on a mountain of fallacies. It just doesn't work that way. My black and white 4x5 scans are 56 megapixels (after down-sampling to my printing resolution). And yes, the results look great at the sizes I print. But I know from my recent digital experience that comparable results could be had from fewer than half that number of pixels, if they came from a good sensor.

A lot of this has to do with the MTF characteristics of film, a lot has to do with s/n performance of the film + scanner vs. the digital sensor. I don't know what all the factors are. But I do know that a high quality 80mp sensor would be capable of stupefyingly detailed and sharp results.

John NYC

27-Sep-2011, 20:36

tgtaylor

27-Sep-2011, 20:36

Doug Peterson, nice to see you join the discussion.

Can you point to any more credible and realistic comparisons between the resolving power of the IQ180 and large-format film than the recent most dreadful one on Luminous Landscape which started this discussion?

And do I have it right from the Wikipededia pixel specs for the sensor (10328x7760) and my back-of-the-envelope calculation (using the sensor size of 53.7mm x 40.4mm) that at the base ISO--without considering binning-- the sensor can theoretically resolve 96 lp/mm?

Doug hasn't replied yet but the theoretical resolution of 96 lp/mm for the IQ180 sounds correct to me. If that is correct then that puts the published resolution of film in the same ball park as the IQ180. For example Fuji's data sheet states the resolution of its Velvia 100F to be 80 to 160 lines/mm depending on the contrast of the chart. Running somewhat concurrently with this thread, a thread on the apug site is discussing the resolution of film and several posters there are claiming that the published resolution of a number of films can be significantly higher according to the developer used.

Thomas

Thomas

John NYC

27-Sep-2011, 20:43

For example Fuji's data sheet states the resolution of its Velvia 100F to be 80 to 160 lines/mm depending on the contrast of the chart.

Find me an 8x10 lens that resolves anywhere near that across its entire image circle.

tgtaylor

27-Sep-2011, 20:50

Find me an 8x10 lens that resolves anywhere near that across its entire image circle.

Good point John. In the 3d edition of the Darkroom Cookbook, Steve Anchil states that all modern lens are able to outresolve film. So I did a quick search on the B&H website for the resolution specification of the new digital lens and found only phrases like "Extremely-High Resolution/Contrast" but no specs. Likewise I searched the Schneider website for the resolution specs of my newest lens - a 360mm Schneider Symmar-S and also came up with a blank.

Thomas

TJV

28-Sep-2011, 03:03

Well, from where I sit today an IQ180 sounds pretty good – just got a call from the lab saying they accidentally destroyed 30 sheets of my film in a processing accident. Can't even measure the resolution on them, just hope they somehow become iconic like R Capa's D-day photos...

thrice

28-Sep-2011, 03:06

Here is a crop from a 2400 dpi scan resampled to 745 dpi :) this is 4x5 and Kodak E100G, using my Nikkor-SW 75/4.5.

http://www.aeos-photo.com.au/blog/files/E100Gcroplines.jpg

http://www.aeos-photo.com.au/blog/files/E100GCrop1.jpg

http://www.aeos-photo.com.au/blog/files/E100GCrop2.jpg

Even resampled to 8774pixels on the long end (same res as their 8x10 scan) it looks better than theirs.

thrice

28-Sep-2011, 03:32

rdenney

28-Sep-2011, 07:36

I've seen Kirk mention several times here on the forum that the transition from film to digital didn't hurt his profitability. Maybe he can chime in here and explain.

I'd like to hear that, too. But I suspect that Kirk's and Brian's business models have been rather different. Kirk is an architectural photographer primarily, and thus mostly does field work. Brian's work in New York was of a different nature, and with a different set of clients and their expectations.

For the work that I did, film was included as part of the price, but in contracting terms, I did firm fixed price contracts: A given product for a given quantity of dollars. The reason I did that work is because my clients didn't trust my efficiency, and thus used that contracting method to put the risk of being inefficient on me.

For event work, the model in the old days was to charge a firm fixed price for showing up and then providing a proof book, followed by charging for enlargements by the print. Boy, did we mark up those prints! That model seems to be gone now.

Brian's situation is quite different. As a known quantity in the New York scene, he could have perhaps built his contracting model around a time-and-materials method, where he charges by the hour, plus expenses. And he could have charged a markup on expenses. In the contracting world, we'd call that "general and administrative" expenses, marked up as a fixed percentage of expenses (including sub-contractors). You have to be at the top of the contracting world to be able to demand those terms, of course.

They may also be the terms demanded by his clients, versus the terms acceptable to Kirk's clients. The market sets the price...

Rick "speculating on Brian's business model from the perspective of quite a bit of experience with contracting" Denney

rdenney

28-Sep-2011, 07:56

A lot of this has to do with the MTF characteristics of film, a lot has to do with s/n performance of the film + scanner vs. the digital sensor. I don't know what all the factors are. But I do know that a high quality 80mp sensor would be capable of stupefyingly detailed and sharp results.

Yes. When we report seeing additional detail up to about 2400 spi on, say, the Epson flatbed scanner, we are reporting perhaps 10% MTF (minimum discernable signal) for subject material that the lens might have delivered at 50% MTF or more. The sensor might be much closer to what the lens delivers. But my experience with digital suggests that there is a floor beneath which the digital sensor drops precipitously to zero. Film provides a more gentle fall. That's why digital loses it more profoundly when over-enlarged compared to film. And that's why tools to allow over-enlargement of digital files do so by introducing random noise (e.g. Genuine Fractals)--it rounds the corner of that cliff edge.

But if we don't over-enlarge, then both methods produce quite good MTF. Different scanning methods impose different definitions of "over-enlarge". I have made prints up to more than 10x from my Nikon scannner with good results, but I don't think I'd be happy with prints larger than maybe 6x from the Epson, and that's probably more than what many would accept. But I routinely make very good looking prints from digital cameras at 20x.

8x10, of course, has a bit better than a factor of 4 advantage over the digital back from the start because it's about that much bigger. But at least half of that is given up using the scanning method most of us have available to us economically, for routine work.

It seems to me that if we are constrained by digital technology and sensor cost to large enlargement ratios, that puts a greater burden on everything else in the chain. Thus, we end up demanding far more expensive lenses of newer design. One key advantage to me for the larger format is that I can use old lenses effectively for the print sizes I use. That's a key cost issue. Consider the price of the Hasselblad kit as Brian outlined above. That's far more than most of us could possibly consider (which was Brian's point). And we need the lens diversity to make use of the full format of the sensor--giving up big chunks of the sensor through cropping gives up big chunks of enlargeability, given the sharp cutoff.

Rick "observing that delivering 100 lpm costs much more then twice what delivering 50 lpm costs" Denney