If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MF resolution question
Hello,
I have a question for the folks using medium format. My question is, does 35mm give identical result to MF up to 8R (8x10) prints? The math seems to point that way - here's how: 35mm frame size = 24x36 mm sq = 1.339203 sq inch Given, a 300 dpi print is considered to be a "museum quality" print. 8x10 print = 8x10x(300)^2 = 7,200,000 Therefore, scan dpi for 35 mm film = sqrt (7,200,000 / 1.339203) = 2319 dpi Now, 35mm film is supposed to have a theoretical resolution of 4000 dpi. That may be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more then 2319 dpi. So is there any justification for using MF if 8R is the maximum size you print? I've read MF guys claiming that old Yashica TLRs outperforming Nikon SLRs, so I'd like to see some hard evidence behind this. Feel free to point out any errors I've made – I'm new at this :-) Also, is film grain a factor? About me: beginner, shooting b&w in Minolta X-700, I make my own prints. Eying MF (esp. TLRs) gear recently. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
MF resolution question
Faisal Bhua wrote:
Hello, I have a question for the folks using medium format. My question is, does 35mm give identical result to MF up to 8R (8x10) prints? The math seems to point that way - here's how: 35mm frame size = 24x36 mm sq = 1.339203 sq inch Given, a 300 dpi print is considered to be a "museum quality" print. 8x10 print = 8x10x(300)^2 = 7,200,000 Therefore, scan dpi for 35 mm film = sqrt (7,200,000 / 1.339203) = 2319 dpi Now, 35mm film is supposed to have a theoretical resolution of 4000 dpi. That may be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more then 2319 dpi. Kodak claims 35mm film contains 28meg of data. Not only does a MF negative create a better 8x10 but a bigger negative will make a better print then a MF negative. Size does matter. Nick |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
MF resolution question
Even if nothing else, a bigger negative gives you smoother distribution of
grain. Remember that even when the grain is not visible, irregularities in the grain still have some effect. Smaller formats, on the other hand, give you more depth of field with a given angle of view. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
MF resolution question
There's no need to waste time trying to analyze this mathematically. I've
seen prints using the same film from both formats printed the same size, and MF wins every time, hands-down. Math be damned, there's no substitute for viewing prints. Besides, there a huge flaw in the math. You make the leap from analog to digital with no consideration for whether or not there actually can be equivilances. Also, some films print nicely but don't scan well, so where's the equivilancy? "Faisal Bhua" wrote in message om... Hello, I have a question for the folks using medium format. My question is, does 35mm give identical result to MF up to 8R (8x10) prints? The math seems to point that way - here's how: 35mm frame size = 24x36 mm sq = 1.339203 sq inch Given, a 300 dpi print is considered to be a "museum quality" print. 8x10 print = 8x10x(300)^2 = 7,200,000 Therefore, scan dpi for 35 mm film = sqrt (7,200,000 / 1.339203) = 2319 dpi Now, 35mm film is supposed to have a theoretical resolution of 4000 dpi. That may be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more then 2319 dpi. So is there any justification for using MF if 8R is the maximum size you print? I've read MF guys claiming that old Yashica TLRs outperforming Nikon SLRs, so I'd like to see some hard evidence behind this. Feel free to point out any errors I've made - I'm new at this :-) Also, is film grain a factor? About me: beginner, shooting b&w in Minolta X-700, I make my own prints. Eying MF (esp. TLRs) gear recently. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MF resolution question
Nick Zentena wrote in message ...
Not only does a MF negative create a better 8x10 but a bigger negative will make a better print then a MF negative. Yes, this seems to be the common opinion. That does not answer my question: why? If 300 dpi is enough for everybody, how can I possibly gain any advantage? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
MF resolution question
Well, the hard math says that the larger negative (whichever two formats
you're comparing) will yield the better-looking image, from 8x10 upward. However, as a longtime 35mm adherent, I'll also propose that it's not just the format used, but *how* it's typically used. With few exceptions, MF shooters are typically more deliberate in setting-up for a shot, as opposed to a typical 35mm shooter, who is more likely to photograph off-the-cuff; in the latter case, the format practically invites this sort of spontaneity (further aided and abetted over the years by AE and AF), which is a good deal harder to pull off in any other "serious" format. However, with care and attention, onew can get quite a bit out of that 24x36mm frame (I've had more than a few 16x20" prints where I was asked if the picture was taken with a MF camera). The point, to me, isn't whether 35mm can go toe-to-toe with MF in all measures (it can't); the question should be which format suits your photographic goals. The fact that neither format has killed the other off should be a hint that each has its unique strengths. - Barrett In article , (Faisal Bhua) wrote: Hello, I have a question for the folks using medium format. My question is, does 35mm give identical result to MF up to 8R (8x10) prints? The math seems to point that way - here's how: 35mm frame size = 24x36 mm sq = 1.339203 sq inch Given, a 300 dpi print is considered to be a "museum quality" print. 8x10 print = 8x10x(300)^2 = 7,200,000 Therefore, scan dpi for 35 mm film = sqrt (7,200,000 / 1.339203) = 2319 dpi Now, 35mm film is supposed to have a theoretical resolution of 4000 dpi. That may be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more then 2319 dpi. So is there any justification for using MF if 8R is the maximum size you print? I've read MF guys claiming that old Yashica TLRs outperforming Nikon SLRs, so I'd like to see some hard evidence behind this. Feel free to point out any errors I've made – I'm new at this :-) Also, is film grain a factor? About me: beginner, shooting b&w in Minolta X-700, I make my own prints. Eying MF (esp. TLRs) gear recently. -- BWB _______________________ Impatience is virtual |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MF resolution question
"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message ...
Even if nothing else, a bigger negative gives you smoother distribution of grain. Remember that even when the grain is not visible, irregularities in the grain still have some effect. OK... the only factor in this case is film then grain. From what I understand, film is made of microscopic dots. As film area gets larger, we can allocate more "dots" to capture a certain scene. Hence, these dots can be far apart, which results in grain being less visible. Overall, this makes the picture looks better in terms of continuous tones, but does not affect resolution in general (up to a certain print size). Is this correct or there's more to it? F.B. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
MF resolution question
Faisal Bhua wrote:
Nick Zentena wrote in message ... Not only does a MF negative create a better 8x10 but a bigger negative will make a better print then a MF negative. Yes, this seems to be the common opinion. That does not answer my question: why? If 300 dpi is enough for everybody, how can I possibly gain any advantage? Go an look. Only way to really believe. Nick |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
MF resolution question
"Faisal Bhua" wrote in message om... "Michael A. Covington" wrote in message ... Even if nothing else, a bigger negative gives you smoother distribution of grain. Remember that even when the grain is not visible, irregularities in the grain still have some effect. OK... the only factor in this case is film then grain. From what I understand, film is made of microscopic dots. As film area gets larger, we can allocate more "dots" to capture a certain scene. Hence, these dots can be far apart, which results in grain being less visible. Overall, this makes the picture looks better in terms of continuous tones, but does not affect resolution in general (up to a certain print size). Is this correct or there's more to it? That's basically right. Remember that the dots themselves are not uniformly distributed (the film is not a pixel array). Even when the format is large enough that no grain is visible as such, there are still subtle effects from the uneven, random distribution of the grain. These effects diminish as the format gets even larger. At least that's how I understand it, and it fits the available mathematical models. Clear skies, Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
program/plug-in to upsample or increase resolution? | peter | Digital Photography | 9 | July 2nd 04 09:27 AM |
Starting out with developing question. | Jerry | In The Darkroom | 6 | May 28th 04 05:52 PM |
D76 developer question | Goor | In The Darkroom | 6 | March 9th 04 10:23 PM |
Omega D2 Enlarger Question | T R | In The Darkroom | 3 | March 4th 04 03:48 PM |
HELP! Dry Mount, PMA QUESTION | Michael Bonnycastle | In The Darkroom | 2 | February 23rd 04 01:45 PM |