645 or 35mm... scanning?

"Lassi Hippeläinen" wrote in message
...
keith taylor wrote:
...
the difference between 35mm at 5400dpi and mf at 4000dpi and i don't
think there is a huge amount in it.

If the scans are as sharp as their nominal values, a 35mm frame at
5400dpi is the eqiuvalent of a 32x48mm at 400dpi. Not that far from the
42x56mm of a 645 frame.

But that has the reality-check problem that a 450 dpi print of 645 scanned
at 4000 dpi looks a lot better than a 13x19 from 35mm could possibly look no
matter how you print it.

Another way to look at this is:

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeo...t_results.html

While the Minolta scans had the best MTFs, they were only slightly better
(in terms of MTF50) than the best from the Nikon 8000 and LS50. The 5400
seems to have 35% more resolution, but it really only has slightly more.
(Actually, I think the numbers on that page are flaky: they don't correspond
to the apparent sharpness of the scans, and they should.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Lassi Hippeläinen" wrote in message
...
keith taylor wrote:
...
the difference between 35mm at 5400dpi and mf at 4000dpi and i don't
think there is a huge amount in it.

If the scans are as sharp as their nominal values, a 35mm frame at
5400dpi is the eqiuvalent of a 32x48mm at 400dpi. Not that far from the
42x56mm of a 645 frame.

But that has the reality-check problem that a 450 dpi print of 645 scanned
at 4000 dpi looks a lot better than a 13x19 from 35mm could possibly look no
matter how you print it.

Another way to look at this is:

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeo...t_results.html

While the Minolta scans had the best MTFs, they were only slightly better
(in terms of MTF50) than the best from the Nikon 8000 and LS50. The 5400
seems to have 35% more resolution, but it really only has slightly more.
(Actually, I think the numbers on that page are flaky: they don't correspond
to the apparent sharpness of the scans, and they should.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

keith taylor wrote:
i recently bought a bronica 645 because i wanted to get a bit more
detail than i could with 35mm. i can't afford a decent medium format
film scanner so i sent some transparencies off to be scanned. i wasn't
overly impressed with the colours when they cam back, but have tried to
do my best in photo shop. however, i was a little disappointed that
there was not a bit more detail in the scans....

i've posted a 35mm example scanned at home with my minolta 5400 @
5400dpi and a 645 example scanned by an agency on a nikon 9000 @
4000dpi. both were taken using velvia 50.

yes the 645 scan is cleaner, but there isn't a whole amount more detail.
i have to say i'm a bit disappointed and will probably be reverting
to 35mm!

http://www.marona.co.uk/vuescan/medium.html

keith


Hi Keith,

I also have a RF645 and scan my slides on an Epson 3170. I use a leica M
for 35mm and these are scanned on a Minolta dual 3. Both are not the
best scanners around but at least the Bronica slides blow away the 35mm.
Also when printed the difference is clear. I'm so happy with MF and the
quality that I now also use a Mamiya RB and a Mamiya universal on 6X9
for landscapes. The Bronica is for travel and street shooting. I hardly
use the Leica's anymore.

Michiel Fokkema

keith taylor wrote:
i recently bought a bronica 645 because i wanted to get a bit more
detail than i could with 35mm. i can't afford a decent medium format
film scanner so i sent some transparencies off to be scanned. i wasn't
overly impressed with the colours when they cam back, but have tried to
do my best in photo shop. however, i was a little disappointed that
there was not a bit more detail in the scans....

i've posted a 35mm example scanned at home with my minolta 5400 @
5400dpi and a 645 example scanned by an agency on a nikon 9000 @
4000dpi. both were taken using velvia 50.

yes the 645 scan is cleaner, but there isn't a whole amount more detail.
i have to say i'm a bit disappointed and will probably be reverting
to 35mm!

http://www.marona.co.uk/vuescan/medium.html

keith


Hi Keith,

I also have a RF645 and scan my slides on an Epson 3170. I use a leica M
for 35mm and these are scanned on a Minolta dual 3. Both are not the
best scanners around but at least the Bronica slides blow away the 35mm.
Also when printed the difference is clear. I'm so happy with MF and the
quality that I now also use a Mamiya RB and a Mamiya universal on 6X9
for landscapes. The Bronica is for travel and street shooting. I hardly
use the Leica's anymore.

Michiel Fokkema

Look at the water, not the leaves.

-j


"keith taylor" wrote in message
...
i've posted another example. the rock with leaves on in the middle of
the river. both examples are unsharpened.

http://www.marona.co.uk/vuescan/medium.html

don't get me wrong i'm not criticising mf, i'm sure without a doubt that
there is far more information in the 645 trans, but my problem is
getting at that information. i don't have a mf scanner at my disposal,
whereas i do have a 35mm one. i don't doubt that if i could scan mf at
5400 dpi there would be no competition at all. but i'm merely looking at
the difference between 35mm at 5400dpi and mf at 4000dpi and i don't
think there is a huge amount in it.

keith


RolandRB wrote:
keith taylor wrote:

i don't think dof is an issue, if i remember correctly the 645 was

taken

at f16. what concerns me more is that i'm not actually getting any

more

data out of the 120 film than i am out of 35mm, for my purposes

anyway.

currently i've only just dipped my toe into mf having bought a etrsi
with 75mm pe lens. if i were to continue i would want to buy an ae3
viewfinder, 40mm lens and possibly something round a 150mm. all this
will set me back quite a bit and for the perceived increase in

quality i

don't think it's worth it.

perhaps in a few years time i may consider 6x7, but i don't see much
point continuing with 645.


Do a similar blowup of that rock in the middle of the stream that looks
to have leaves on it. I am guessing that will be more in focus and
hopefully the Bronica image will have more detail. Just picking on one
part of the image that might not be fully in focus is not a good
comparison and no sound basis for making a major decision.

David J. Littleboy wrote:



A cheap 6x6 TLR should blow 35mm out of the water.


Exactly. Even the old foders with the 4 element lenses beat almost any 35mm
image I've seen. Something's wrong if you can't see any difference.
Probably why we see these "digital is as good as medium format" posts?
--

Stacey

keith taylor wrote:

i've posted another example. the rock with leaves on in the middle of
the river. both examples are unsharpened.

http://www.marona.co.uk/vuescan/medium.html

don't get me wrong i'm not criticising mf, i'm sure without a doubt that
there is far more information in the 645 trans, but my problem is
getting at that information. i don't have a mf scanner at my disposal,
whereas i do have a 35mm one. i don't doubt that if i could scan mf at
5400 dpi there would be no competition at all. but i'm merely looking at
the difference between 35mm at 5400dpi and mf at 4000dpi and i don't
think there is a huge amount in it.


Look at the water behind the rock in both scans and notice how noisy the
35mm scan is. Lots more detail as well. I'm sure when you sharpen the 35mm
scan, the noise levels rise as well. IMHO there is no comparison between
the trwo as far as quality. I'm not sure what you're not seeing?

--

Stacey

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:52:13 +0000, keith taylor
wrote:

i've posted another example. the rock with leaves on in the middle of
the river. both examples are unsharpened.

http://www.marona.co.uk/vuescan/medium.html

don't get me wrong i'm not criticising mf, i'm sure without a doubt that
there is far more information in the 645 trans, but my problem is
getting at that information. i don't have a mf scanner at my disposal,
whereas i do have a 35mm one. i don't doubt that if i could scan mf at
5400 dpi there would be no competition at all. but i'm merely looking at
the difference between 35mm at 5400dpi and mf at 4000dpi and i don't
think there is a huge amount in it.


Your 645 frame has roughly 3x the area
of a 35 mm frame. Even if the MF lens
is a bit less sharp, there should be
a huge gain in detail and tonality going
from 35 mm to 645.

I shoot both formats (as well as digital
and 4x5.) I scan MF and 35 mm on a
Nikon LS-8000.

The Nikon LS-8000 and LS-9000 are fussy
with regard to focus, and that's a fact.

There are glass carriers for the LS-8000/
LS-9000 that will help in this regard,
and one or two of these can even be used
with wet mounting.

Bottom line, though -- unless you're
paying top dollar, or have developed a
good working relationship, I wouldn't be
surprised if a service bureau delivered
scans with sub-optimal focus.

Dave Littleboy spends probably ten
minutes or more per frame on focusing.
Me, I spend about 60 seconds. Dave's
standards in this regard are certainly
more stringent than mine -- but I know
a sharp scan when I see one.


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

Camera shake, incorrect focusing/DOF could have a lot to do with it. The
magnification you chose is what, like 2000mm lens equivalent?

Considering that 645 is only a factor of 3 'better' than 35mm, there could
be a number of things that account for the similar outcomes. Were you using
equivalent focal lengths? Were the exposures truly the same (on the film,
not at the camera). Did the light change a bit? Finally, I wouldn't expect
the Bronica lens to be as good as the Nikon - generally speaking.