80mp digital better than 8x10?

[Nathan Potter]

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]

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



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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