Going back to the original post - NO!
Because you are not comparing like for like. If you want to cheat by enlarging your digital capture to native resolution you should do the same with your film. For digital native resolution is in pixels, for film it is grain. If the native resolution is a figure at which you can print without seeing pixels then for film it must also be the same i.e. how large can you print before grain is an issue. I suspect LF film will still give much larger acceptable prints.
For me the format size is determine by the image area captured that is projected by the taking lens.
(back to lurking).
Nigels.
Oh god, not this again
MIT researchers have smashed the Easy Bake Oven barrier to cheap photovoltaics:
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/201...-solar-panels/
Kidding aside, it's not a stretch to see that before too very long this could very well be a route to cheap large scale image sensors in the form factor of film.
I agree that the Leaf will outperform a scan of an 8X10 sheet of film.
My Betterlight Scanning back is 216 megapixels NOT Interpolated. It does have its limitations, however; every medium format back that we have tested has not come close to the detail that the BL scan back can deliver. I made a pano scan which has a Native res of 30 inches X 18 feet at 300 DPI... 2.5 G file NATIVE...
I shoot 8X10 and no scan of film gives me this detail. The Betterlight may be older tech but no Bayer filter (Interpolated by a computer) - its best guess...is as accurate with as subtle gradations as the 10 stop curve implemented by Mike Collette. It will catch up, and convenience is important. But for now??? I can still shoot film when the situation demands it. I will upload a sample and a few crops of a 30 inch X 20 foot image. Next Post
The Medium format backs that we tried Phase 80megapixel had colour issues in Fine Art Repro.
Another post.
This image is only 20X45 Native.
I will find a bigger one in the morning.
For now. the overall and a detail.
You can drum scan film to be a bigger file but the detail won't be there.
These are only jpegs of course.
Yes, but you are talking about stitching and/or scanning backs, that is very different from one shot captures (I could stitch 5 8x10's together an have a monster image). I agree that certain digital devices can do better than 8x10, no one is arguing that. I was responding to the statement that an 80 megapixel digital back can give you the same resolution as a well scanned 8x10.
Anyone who suggests that an 80 Megapixel back is equal to a piece of 8x10 film needs to do some simple working out:
If 80 Mp = 80 square inches then 1 Mp = 1 square inch.
A frame of 35mm film is about 1.33 square inches. Therefore 1.33 Mp is needed to equal 35mm film.
EDIT: I seem to recall writing this somewhere a few weeks ago.... probably in this thread!
Steve.
Bookmarks