side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

[David Luttmann]

Don't forget that Reichmann is getting older and his eyesight might not be as good as in the past. Many of the comparisons I read on the internet involve a viewed comparison, which always throws into question the eyesight of the writer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

Not just that....his impression changes with the weather as well. Before, he was claiming that his old Canon 1Ds surpassed 6x7 MF film. Now in the most recent test, he found that the new 1Ds 2 was "almost as good" as 645. It sure left me scratching my head.

[Tyler Boley]

I believe it was $39,000. Basically, $1K per megapixel.

Lenny

I just wanted the numbers to be part of the discussion. There's a borderline absurd nature to these discussions that taints the concept of "progress".
Tyler (I use both as appropriate, so don't think I'm evangilising)

[DrPablo]

We talk about this stuff all the time, but honestly why aren't there any published, methodologically sound comparisons out there?

First of all, pick an outcome measure for the comparison. If it's resolution, then why are we looking at crops of trees and not looking at quantifiable resolution targets? Why are we not controlling for critical variables like aperture / diffraction, lens characteristics, and focus? It would make these conversations so much easier if we had something useful to reference.

This just feels like a big rhetorical pissing match a lot of the time, where we find a way to justify (or perhaps rationalize) the superiority of our chosen method, and the best we can do is cite internet heresay or personal anecdotes. Fundamentally the decision of a digital or film system usually comes down to things other than pure decisions about resolution.

[Adam Kavalunas]

A good friend of mine, Ron Flickinger, did a lot of testing with his P45 and his Chamonix 4x5. He owns and operates a Screen Cezanne and knows how to scan quite well. He shot the exact same scenes with both cameras, and did prints of each. He sent me 100% samples of each, I think he did an up-res of the digital, and a down res of the film in 2 seperate tests, and the digital won in both on screen, and in prints. The P45 captures 39mp images, but that is compressed, uncompressed i think its around 120mp(don't quote me on that). If you would like more info about the tests, I would suggest to contact him. He is obsessed with quality, and it was enough for him to switch......

Adam Kavalunas
www.plateauvisions.com

[DrPablo]

Thanks, Adam. I myself am not so interested that I'd contact him, but I'd love it if it were either formally published or at least posted on the internet with an open methodology as a resource to us all.

[Lenny Eiger]

A good friend of mine, Ron Flickinger, did a lot of testing with his P45 and his Chamonix 4x5. He owns and operates a Screen Cezanne and knows how to scan quite well. He shot the exact same scenes with both cameras, and did prints of each. He sent me 100% samples of each, I think he did an up-res of the digital, and a down res of the film in 2 seperate tests, and the digital won in both on screen, and in prints. The P45 captures 39mp images, but that is compressed, uncompressed i think its around 120mp(don't quote me on that). If you would like more info about the tests, I would suggest to contact him. He is obsessed with quality, and it was enough for him to switch......

Adam Kavalunas
www.plateauvisions.com

Yes, and the Cezanne is a mediocre scanner. It's blurry in comparison to a top-level drum scanner. Why doesn't he compare something that is reasonable....

Lenny

[Adam Kavalunas]

Lenny,

I'm no scanner expert, but I'll give my experiences. I've had drum scans done by many, including 2 Howtek's which many say is one of the sharpest drum scanners. The cezanne scans are sharper. Also, a few years back I think it was Seybold that did a scanner comparison test and the Cezanne came out on top. So to say that it is an unreasonable scanner to use in a test, may be unreasonable in itself. And besides, I just gave my experience in my first post, I said nothing of it being the end all comparison test. Your response was quite arrogant.

Adam

[Peter De Smidt]

Ted Harris thought the Cezanne was a pretty good scanner. Not the best, certainly, but not mediocre. He seemed to know what he was doing.

Lenny, you could've said: "I wonder what the test would've showed if the scan had been done on a high quality drum scanner?" That would've gotten your point across without the negativity or needless controversy.

[PenGun]

Ted Harris thought the Cezanne was a pretty good scanner. Not the best, certainly, but not mediocre. He seemed to know what he was doing.

Lenny, you could've said: "I wonder what the test would've showed if the scan had been done on a high quality drum scanner?" That would've gotten your point across without the negativity or needless controversy.

You would think of all people who could settle this Lenny has the equipment and the motivation. What about it?

[Peter De Smidt]

But not the needed objectivity.