looking forward to the results of the new test !
( not that it will really mean much to me )
looking forward to the results of the new test !
( not that it will really mean much to me )
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:Originally Posted by QT Luong
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
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.
Wake up Drew. It's 2011. The limited purposes for which you see value in a DSLR were the purposes for which digital cameras were used maybe 15 years ago. Things have changed a lot since then.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...&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.
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.
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.
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!
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".
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks