1DS III vs. Leaf 22 & 33MP Backs, vs. Hasselblad 39MP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Hutton

Honestly, it would be a joke to try and extract any meaningful conclusion from those two little jpegs.

I own a drum scanner and have done a lot of comparative testing with film formats of various sizes and with my 5D and my Leica M8. Meaningful comparison requires looking at the whole file in detail - crops will almost always skew favor one way or another in an unrepresentative way.

Incorrect. "Anything" on a computer screen is not two people standing in front of numerous print sizes of the same image taken with two different tools and attempting to determine the facts based on what they see (in a blindfolded/not knowing which prints are from the digital file and which are from the film file). Looking at the whole file in detail is entirely irrelevant...

On the digital capture vs film scan comparisons, this is a real issue because the different capture mediums have different strenghs. Also, I do find that while digital capture tends to hold up well to a point of magnification, once exceeded, it falls apart very quickly; whereas scanned film deteriorates much more slowly.

And you have seen 4X5 images compared to Betterlight images?

I remember a few years back looking at MRs 1DS comparison to MF film scanned on a drum scanner and his crops etc seemed to suport his conclusion (to some extent) - when I did my own tests, I was shocked to see how different they were and how they gave me a completely different answer.

Again, what's the point in these "on screen" tests?

---

Sandy,

Stay away from Genuine Fractals. It's horrible for maintaining fine details in landscapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Luttmann

Sandy,

Stay away from Genuine Fractals. It's horrible for maintaining fine details in landscapes.

---

David,

I am nearly always working with scans or MF or LF negatives, and don't print that large, so I do a lot more down-sizing than rezzing up. I have never used Genuine Fractals, and used the term in the earlier message simply to indicate that beyond a certain print size one would need to use interplation.

Which is to say that I really don't know much about the qualities of Genuie Fractals. I did down-load a demo copy, however, and may see what I can do with some of my 12.1 Canon G9 digital files that need a bit more detail to print in the 13X19" range.

Sandy

I use the current Genuine Fractals regularly for commercial work. When I tested all available programs last year it was the best I found by a slim margin.

I don't have time to wade through this whole thread, so its possible that some of what I'm about to say has already been mentioned.

Its even possible that someone mentioned it, someone more knowledgeable discredited it, and it has since been roundly panned by all. Here goes anyway . . .

Somewhere in the middle of this thread, (where I stopped reading) two issues seemed to be in more contention than any other.

1)Can a 33/39mp back compete with 4x5 film

2)How useful is extra dynamic range?

On the first issue, one camp keeps pointing to this test:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

as evidence that the back can compete.

Well, that test shows that they can compete with a scan of velvia, resized to 40". First of all, Velvia is not a film you shoot because you wanna pull resolution out of it. Some B&W will blow it away, and if you wanna shoot trannies Fuji "F" films are still head and shoulders above Velvia.

Secondly if you resize to 40", I'm pretty sure you're gonna loose some detail. (Resizing algorythms can't be perfect)This can mostly be recovered with skillfull sharpening though, and even when not, the quality loss is not readily apparent.

That said, if Charles Cramer says you can make a great 40" print from these backs, I believe him, and if you don't print past 40" (As I don't) the question is largely academic isn't it?

As far as Dynamic range goes, of COURSE it is more useful in landscape than in advertising.

In a studio, you have the means to control the light to make the dynamic range of the scene if front of the camera match the medium EXACLTY as you want. If your medium is low dynamic range (slide film) light with less contrast. High dynamic range? Light with more!

Not so in nature. If you want to capture an expanse we would measure in miles, you're not going to be able to excersize much control over the light. Waiting is the only tool in your arsenal. If it happens to be the case that the darkest thing you want to see detail in is 9 stops darker than the lightest thing you want to see detail in, you're out of luck with any film that doesn't take well to extensive push/pull. (I don't know any color films I'd want to pull that far) With 12 stops Dynamic range, you'd be in lucK.

I personally shoot 4x5 film. I'd love to have 12 stops, but I wouldn't 44K love it.