Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

In article , (Bob
Monaghan) wrote:

probably easier and cheaper to just ask Solms/Leica about the coverage; my
bet would be that getting 400 lpmm (aerial?) resolution would require
Leica to optimize the lens for the smaller format, yes? ;-)

now if you are really looking for a unique leica mount tele-lens, see

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...1317 427&rd=1

it was $98,000 in 1970 dollars, about $700,000 today's dollarettes (?) ;-)
this one is under $2k, a fixer upper though ;-)

This lens was $75,000 in Sixties US dollars.
http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/newlens1/

thanks for the interesting URL and review:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/

An aside: It might be interesting to David L. and the others who find
scanned 35mm can't beat 6 MP, given that Clark's estimate equates to over
28 Megapixels delivered to the print (and 216 MP for 4x5" at 3200 ppi) ;-)

Clark does make the point that the eye can see quality differences beyond
the "photo-realistic" printing standard of ~300 dpi. I calculated that the
"leica standard" of 8 lpmm on the print equated to ~392 dpi on an 8x10"
print. I also noted that wet printing papers are able to provide 12 lpmm
and even 16 lpmm and beyond resolution. Since 16 lpmm is double 8 lpmm,
that means 2*392 dpi or ~800 dpi. Yes, printing trade specs (lpi) would be
better, but there probably is a good reason the computer printer mfgers
don't want to provide their specs in such easily comparable formats? ;-)

If you are doing a 2X enlargement from a 4x5" onto an 8x10" print, you
could easily be delivering 20 or 30 lpmm to the print, but I don't know
any printing papers spec'd to hold this level of resolution. The reason
would seem to be that such extra high resolution is probably beyond what
the eye can resolve even under ideal lighting? Similarly the well known
qualities of 4x5" contact prints may well reflect removing the optical
(enlarger lens) resolution losses and limitations while using the maximum
resolution the printing paper can sustain. The point here is that film has
very high megapixel values of captured information (cf. 28+ MP for 35mm
and 216 MP for 4x5" per Clark's article above URL). There is simply more
info at 28 MP+ from film than from a 6MP DSLR.

I agree that many people like and prefer the digital prints, which is a
subjective decision and I believe they feel that way. Objectively, a 6 MP
image printed as an 8x10" at 300 dpi equates to ~5.6 lpmm on the print
(IIRC), while a "leica standard" wet print at 8 lpmm equates to ~392 dpi
on the same sized print. And as Clark notes, there is even more info in
the film analog image which would be on the print, up to perhaps 800+ dpi
equiv. using a high end lens and technique with high resolution 35mm film.
And double that (literally ;-) for medium format and 10X for LF (at 216 MP
per Clark's scans).

Finally, the printer algorithms mainly smooth or interpolate between the
supplied pixels. Finer dot dimensions and smoother contours can't add
any information or fine detail which isn't already captured in the input
file (whether from DSLR or scanner). There are other issues like ink dot
spreading and Bayer pattern color spreading and so on which others have
raised in this interesting thread too. But the ink jet printers aren't
creating image detail or fine structure by printing smaller dots of ink,
they are just smoothing the colors around better ;-)

grins bobm


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

"Bob Monaghan" wrote:

thanks for the interesting URL and review:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/

An aside: It might be interesting to David L. and the others who find
scanned 35mm can't beat 6 MP,

That's not what anyone's said. What we've said is that in an A/B comparison,
no one has ever found a film print anything other than inferior to a digital
print when the same area of sensor/film is used for both. Regardless of
printing technologies.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Bob Monaghan wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . Yes, printing trade specs (lpi) would be
better, but there probably is a good reason the computer printer mfgers
don't want to provide their specs in such easily comparable formats? ;-)

Another problem is that printing industry specs would need to encompass many
types of printing, not just offset, screened, CMYK outputs. Just to give a
brief idea, there are several variable screening, frequency modulation, and
screenless printing technologies available. Ink dot placement can be variable
in size, shape and placement, and encompass (for example) dot sizes of 4 µm
to 70 µm in size, all on the same print.



If you are doing a 2X enlargement from a 4x5" onto an 8x10" print, you
could easily be delivering 20 or 30 lpmm to the print, but I don't know
any printing papers spec'd to hold this level of resolution. The reason
would seem to be that such extra high resolution is probably beyond what
the eye can resolve even under ideal lighting?

Add to that, too large file sizes to be practical, or time efficient. Sure,
there are times you might want that level of detail, though that fine detail
might be generated by a file (vector artwork for example), rather than from
strictly optical data (or raster artwork). There are practical working limits
in all printing technologies . . . besides, pushing too much detail would
seem to be a rather academic endeavour, without much practical needs.

Similarly the well known
qualities of 4x5" contact prints may well reflect removing the optical
(enlarger lens) resolution losses and limitations while using the maximum
resolution the printing paper can sustain. The point here is that film has
very high megapixel values of captured information (cf. 28+ MP for 35mm
and 216 MP for 4x5" per Clark's article above URL). There is simply more
info at 28 MP+ from film than from a 6MP DSLR.

I have gone through some proprietary processes to generate 2400 dpi prints to
film (film used for printing, not normal photographic films), that are then
used for B/W contact prints. The results can actually be incredibly good,
even though these are not fast to produce. I learned these techniques from
Dan Burkholder.



I agree that many people like and prefer the digital prints, which is a
subjective decision and I believe they feel that way. Objectively, a 6 MP
image printed as an 8x10" at 300 dpi equates to ~5.6 lpmm on the print
(IIRC), while a "leica standard" wet print at 8 lpmm equates to ~392 dpi
on the same sized print. And as Clark notes, there is even more info in
the film analog image which would be on the print, up to perhaps 800+ dpi
equiv. using a high end lens and technique with high resolution 35mm film.
And double that (literally ;-) for medium format and 10X for LF (at 216 MP
per Clark's scans).

I actually like some of the LightJet and Chromira generated prints I have
seen. They might be digitally generated, but they are different from inkjet
prints. I don't see anything wrong with using these technologies, as long as
each individual is happy with the results. I do still like true optical B/W
prints, yet the turnaround time and additional costs are issues (I don't
currently have darkroom access).



Finally, the printer algorithms mainly smooth or interpolate between the
supplied pixels. Finer dot dimensions and smoother contours can't add
any information or fine detail which isn't already captured in the input
file (whether from DSLR or scanner). There are other issues like ink dot
spreading

All printing technologies suffer from dot gain. Controlling paper selection
and ink properties can help minimize dot gain, and some newer technologies
are capable of almost no perceptible (under printers loupe) dot gain (see
Creo Staccato technology).

and Bayer pattern color spreading and so on which others have
raised in this interesting thread too. But the ink jet printers aren't
creating image detail or fine structure by printing smaller dots of ink,
they are just smoothing the colors around better ;-)

Actually, one strange benefit of the higher dot gain of inkjet prints is that
the ink spreading actually helps the continuous tone appearance. Many people
actually like some images that are printed on inkjet specifically because of
the continuous tone appearance. It is very noticeable on prints with large
expanses of colour, like sky, water, or a mostly monotone building or object.
While the dot gain of inkjets can work against detail rendition, it can
benefit continuous tone appearance.

Minimizing dot gain affects, or another issue like moiré patterns, is also
the reason for variable screening, frequency modulation, and screenless
printing technologies. While the costs of using these commercial printing
technologies can slightly increase a print run cost, the improvement in
output quality is easy to notice.

I should add that these technologies are often transparent to those outside
the printing industry. The average enthusiast only doing occasional prints
would be better off comparing LightJet, Chromira, Giclée, high end inkjet,
desktop inkjet, and chemical prints. There are good and bad points in all of
these, though some combination should provide avenues to compelling and
pleasing prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:33:16 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Bob Monaghan" wrote:

thanks for the interesting URL and review:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/

An aside: It might be interesting to David L. and the others who find
scanned 35mm can't beat 6 MP,

That's not what anyone's said. What we've said is that in an A/B comparison,
no one has ever found a film print anything other than inferior to a digital
print when the same area of sensor/film is used for both. Regardless of
printing technologies.


I would offer another perspective, which I
know Dave L has expressed on other occasions.

There probably is a bit more real information
in my 20 Mpixel (35 mm) film scans than in my
6 Mpixel 10D captures. But not *nearly* by a
3:1 margin, and sometimes not at all.

Question is, was the marginal improvement
(of the film scan) worth all the fuss and bother?
The film cost, the processing cost, the time
spent scanning (and getting the film to/from
the lab.)

When I need or want better images than the 10D,
it's not hard - I just reach for MF or LF film.

But compared to 35 mm, I find the 10D has
pretty much shut down my (film) Nikons.
Call me lazy. 35 mm film just isn't worth the
bother for me any more.

If I was a student or young person with lots of time
and a limited budget, it might make more sense
to explore a nice basic film SLR and a film
scanner.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

From: (Bob Monaghan)

An aside: It might be interesting to David L. and the others who find
scanned 35mm can't beat 6 MP, given that Clark's estimate equates to over
28 Megapixels delivered to the print

As an aside to the aside, Roger Clark quit shooting 35 mm film some time ago
(about 18 months, IIRC ... after the 2002 web pages you are referring to) and
switched to a 6 Mpixel Canon 10D, reserving the 4x5" for landscapes, so he
clearly feels there are compelling advantages to digital. He's an imaging
professional (he's one of the scientists working on the Cassini project that's
beaming images back from Saturn right now) and tests stuff pretty well.

And I don't think David L. (or anyone else this side of Mr. Reichmann) is
claiming 6 Mpix "beats" scanned 35 mm film, but prints from each are reasonably
close in quality, like it or not. I've done a lot of testing with my wife's
10D compared to scanned film of the same scene (mainly from eagle images shot
in Alaska) and I prefer scanned Provia 100F for larger prints, but not by much.


Once you get to 11 Mpixels from a camera like the 1Ds then 35 mm film clearly
loses.

Bill

In article , Raphael Bustin
wrote:

There probably is a bit more real information
in my 20 Mpixel (35 mm) film scans than in my
6 Mpixel 10D captures. But not *nearly* by a
3:1 margin, and sometimes not at all.

Since when has this become a digital 35mm group? Can y'all find a room or
something?

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Now what extra information do you think we need?

Film volume sales. Computer sales. Number of photography labs, and the
volume
of their businesses. Camera sales in China, with breakdown by type (P&S,
SLR,
high end, larger than 35 mm, etc.) and imaging interface (film or
digital).
Memory storage sales volumes.

I see.
You just don't believe that...

Not yet . . . . . (that might give your views some hope) . . . . . . ;-)



They are human, like us,
aren't they?

;-)

Sure, but to consider any one market to be exactly like an existing market
could be an error on the part of companies. [...]

Nobody is suggesting that one market will be exactly like any other market.

Don;t forget, we're talking about that fact (!) that people aren't different
enough for one group to accept the "garbage" disposed of by an other group
while they could have the "new stuff" anybody else wants.

Ahh . . . yes . . . . the power behind an endless marketing onslaught that
makes people think something is "garbage" or another thing is "better" . . .
trying to fake rational looking arguments posing as "facts" to convince and
opinion . . . so will the Chinese be sold on this . . . I think it is far too
early to tell about that.

You are already convinced that film is "garbage", so obviously you think you
already know this answer. I would rather wait a few months, and observe what
actually happens. Recall that people do not always choose the "better"
technology, just the one that is marketed "better". There are many examples of
this, though the most prominent are computer based technologies.




So why would you think that, given the choice, a "new" market would rather
start where we were 50 years ago instead of were we want to be tomorrow?

They have not been marketed (sold) on the idea that direct digital imaging is
"better", nor that film is "garbage". Also, they have been sold on the idea
that wireless imaging is great, which makes me think they will embrace that
technology, rather than backtrack three years to direct digital imaging. ;-)



One group could be forced to make do with less than what they would want,
yes. By economics, mostly. But that's another, albeit related, matter.

Sure, the major economic issues will only affect the mass market, not the
higher end niche markets. Thus, if we focus more on direct digital SLRs (high
end niche) and medium format cameras (high end niche too), then those areas are
not really affected by economic considerations of the low end. So a computer
imaging infrastructure would be needed to support high end digital SLR market
niche, and a roll film processing infrastructure would be needed to support
medium format film cameras. While it may be true that the roll film processing
support already exists, my guess is that an onslaught of one-hour photo places
will not make any impact on increased sales, and might actually put some former
processing places out of business. In the end, the high end of imagery could be
as common in China as a Porsche Turbo on the streets of Beijing. I am curious
and cautious enough to wait and see what happens.



Do you think they will be buying $1000 on up direct digital SLRs first?

Instead of buying $1000 worth of film equipment? Must you ask? ;-)

Silly me . . . I forget that you think film is "garbage". I should have put
that as a rhetorical question, since only history will reveal the answer.



Just to
give you a number, it has been found that the average computer purchase in
the
US brings an average expenditure of nearly $2000. So to jump directly into
direct digital imaging, one would need a computer too.

Good point. So they'll get a $500 computer (most are made in China anayway
;-)) too.
;-)

Not likely in my opinion. I think direct digital imaging will remain a high end
niche, as will medium format in China. I think the mass market will be camera
phones. I also think computer sales will only go to a very small percentage of
the population, and not nearly enough to make direct digital P&S cameras
anything more than an isolated niche.



No. The thing is, China nor any other "growth market" in photography
(India?)

Maybe India, but I do not know enough about that market to make any opinions.
Outside of a few cities, electronics are still a bit rare.

is going to set up private dark rooms and a network of one-hour and
professional wet-labs.

In China, the smaller film processing areas are already there. Just one of the
larger companies is Lucky Film, who just got a major injection of capitol by
way of Kodak. Kodak now own a portion of the company. More at:

http://www.luckyfilm.com.cn/eng/eng_about.html

While I am not sure about the density of home darkroom equipment, it does
appear that film processing is readily available in most cities in China. The
way you phrased your response leads me to believe that you think no photography
exists in China currently.


Instead, the infrastructure needed to serve gazillions of consumer's digital
cameras and a significantly less number of professional digital image
producers and consumers will be created.
You know, the thing we see happening in "the West" today.

I think it will not succeed in the ways it has in the West. Of course, we could
argue that until our fingers fall off, though neither of us will know until
next year (or possibly longer).



[...]
The bottom of digital is P&S digital, which again almost requires a
computer.

Yes. Or the digital equivalent of our one-hour photo-stores.
That's what's we see in "the West" too, right?

Sure, and in the US, very few people are printing images from digital cameras.
Look at the usage patterns, and you find most people using digital images for
e-mail, or showing "slide" shows to their friends on the back LCDs of these
digital cameras. When you look at the usage patterns in "the West", you find
these usage patterns are dominant, and can be well addressed by wireless
imaging.

Next consider that internet usage and e-mail are very restricted in China. So
the people there have not adopted the western practice of computer usage.
Camera phones perfectly address the digital imaging need in China, and are
already a hot seller. My opinion is that the introduction and establishment of
wireless imaging in mainland China has already doomed any large success in
digital imaging. To use your phrase, they are throwing out our "garbage", and
getting the latest . . . wireless imaging.



. . . . . . . . . .

So direct digital imaging will begin in a new market, and immediately
become
the only choice? The predominant choice? Or an instant niche?

The predominant choice, yes.

We differ greatly here. My opinion is that wireless imaging will be the
predominant technology.



. . . . . . . . . . .

China has an existing film infrastructure. The first high technology
alternative infrastructure already present is for wireless imaging. With
the
high cost and low computer density in China, I only see direct digital
imaging
as a niche market in China, especially because there is little to no
existing
infrastructure.

Well you've come around quite a bit. Good. ;-)

Sure, nothing wrong with niche and speciality markets. Leica is a niche player,
and so are most medium format companies. What we should wonder about is whether
or not Hasselblad and others can sell 10000 new cameras in China.



Next, you must stop saying "niche market" and start saying "growth market"!

No . . . I don't think it will ever be more than a niche market.



Things that begin can't be "big" right away. But one mustn't confuse "still
small" with "niche".

Okay, then I feel that the direct digital imaging market will remain "still
small".



It is substantially more difficult to establish infrastructures and
related
businesses in China, because their risk management infrastructure is not
established. [...]

Yes, starting new things would be easier of these things could materialize
over night, auto-magically.
And yes, insecure people would feel more at ease if there was some
security-blanket-fairy-godmother saying "there, there" every once and again.
So what's new?
;-)

What is new is that access to capitol, investments, and underwriting
(insurance) are strictly controlled by the central government in China. This is
very different to the way things function in the West, and greatly limits the
scope of large endeavours.



Have a look at the number of big and smaller "western" fims that have moved
to China the last couple of years. And those who did so before already.
They're not overly bothered.

Though the central Chinese government wishes to have Chinese businesses retain
control of industries, and not be overrun by foreign companies. China is far
from being an open market. These limitations on how business is done, and even
controls on any growth, change the way any business grows in China. Materialism
is still seen as a bad influence, which would quickly control any explosive
growths that sent money to non-Chinese companies. Thus the tight government
control of all markets in China makes this market even tougher than any other
emerging market, and especially difficult for large "growth" (or potential
growth) industries. The Chinese government could actually shut down any great
endeavour they felt either promoted materialism, or funnelled too much money to
foreign companies.



Oh, and i'll be generous about your "one conditional - you (GM) cannot win"
bet, and let you off the hook.
;-)

I will let you know on that in two years. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

"one_of_many" wrote in message
news
In article , Raphael Bustin
wrote:

There probably is a bit more real information
in my 20 Mpixel (35 mm) film scans than in my
6 Mpixel 10D captures. But not *nearly* by a
3:1 margin, and sometimes not at all.

Since when has this become a digital 35mm group? Can y'all find a room or
something?

It's been a digital 35mm group since about a year ago when people discovered
that 11MP digital provides the one thing that makes MF meaningful:
significantly better image quality than 35mm.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

thanks for the interesting URL and review:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/

An aside: It might be interesting to David L. and the others who find
scanned 35mm can't beat 6 MP, given that Clark's estimate equates to over
28 Megapixels delivered to the print (and 216 MP for 4x5" at 3200 ppi) ;-)

A few short comments on Mr. Clark's article.

1) Mr. Clark states that "in good lighting ... 600 ppi prints are noticeably
sharper" than the same image printed at 300 ppi. Nothing more and nothing
less. It doesn't mean that 1200 ppi would improve sharpness or detail still
more, and it doesn't mean that 400 ppi wouldn't also give equivalent
results. "600 ppi prints are noticeably sharper" means precisely that;
nothing more, nothing less. I accept that at face value for what it is.

2) Mr. Clark states that "A 600 ppi image at 8x10 inches is 8*600 x 10*600 =
4800 x 6000 pixels = 28.8 million pixels. Fine grained 35mm film such as
Fujichrome Velvia and sharp lenses on a steady camera are required to obtain
such sharp images."

I read this as anything but a rigorous claim to the resolving power of
Velvia. He is merely stating the level of difficulty of capturing the
required number of pixels on 35mm film. For me personally, realizing 5000+
dpi on any scanner today is anything but a foregone conclusion, as is
reliably capturing 100+ lpmm on film outside a laboratory.

Totally aside from anything else, a full frame 35mm scan at that resolution
would yield 34 MP, not 28 MP. If you want to read anything into this,
interpret it as a certain lack of technical rigor that was never intended in
his comparison of print resolutions.