20 Mpix Canon vs film

On Aug 24, 10:33 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 24, 12:44 am, Noons wrote:



But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing
compares. As simple as that.

Blanket statements are usually simple.
And usually wrong.

Actually, blanket statements aqr ethe ones
from dslr users who haven't got a clue about
MF and what it does.

On Aug 27, 3:25 pm, Scott W wrote:

It would seem that even the 5D compared quite well against 6x4.5http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/

It does and there is no reason why it shouldn't.
However, I have a tremendous problem with all these tests
where someone just plonks an unprocessed scanned
image, source and quality unknown, as the medium format
example then proceeds to compare it with a heavily
processed 5D or 1dsm2 image, with all the trimmings
added.

No wonder it looks so good!

Has anyone put a heavily processed mf scanned
image against one from a 5D for example? No,
of course not: why should we compare apples
with apples?

6x7 should out resolve the 1Ds Mark III, but then you are left
with a film image, how much this bothers you is somewhat a personal
thing, for me I would much rather have an image from the 1Ds Mark III,
assuming a very good lens, then a 6x7 MF camera.

Well, this is where I doubt any 35mm lens
can produce better results than a 6x7 good lens.
And the 1dsm3 must use 35mm lenses.
There is such a thing as lpmm and their relation to
negative size and it ain't changing just because
someone dials up the Mps...

But we'll see plenty of "examples" soon, no doubt,
where a 22MP image will be shown to be - pick one
or mo
.. "better"
.. "sharper"
.. "cleaner"
than a 50MP unprocessed image.
:-)

"Noons" skrev i en meddelelse
ups.com...
On Aug 24, 8:56 am, Robert Feinman wrote:

Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems
about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor.

We'll have to wait and see. Maybe the Digic processor
will be able to shorten light waves and rebuild them later on?
I'm quite sure some marketeer will figure a way of fitting
that one in somewhere. Just like the "digital lenses" and
"digital filters"...


It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons.
Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several
of my cameras still have no digital equivalents...

Same here. I'm getting same quality with 35mm film
at the moment than I get with my 10mp dslr.
And that is with full access to true wide angles, not stitches.

On the other hand, the DX sensor on the dslr is nice
for making my 300 feel much longer.

But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing
compares. As simple as that.

My experience is that my prints from a 12MP SLR (A3+ size) looks
better than a perfect scanned 6x6 slide. In theory the 6x6 should hold
more information but the fine details in film is hidden in grain/noise so it
looks not nice when scanned and printed. If you use film you should work
analog all the way and maybe use Ilfochrome paper which looks very good.
But why have all the troubles with film when you can make such good prints
from e.g. a 12MP SLR?
Colors are much more precise also.....and cleaner from a DSLR.

Often you don't get the "image" when using MF because a modern SLR
is so much faster to use (AF, VR etc.). Macro/Tele/flash......SLR much
faster and the chance that you get the perfect image is much higher using
a DSLR than e.g. a 500CM Hasselblad (had one myself.....).
You can go LF (8x10") but if you don't get the "image" then who cares how
many details you could have got?

There is no technical reason to stay on MF film. It can only be a subjective
feeling that you like the film look better and that is OK. BW film can look
very
good if you do it analog all the way......and use a good fiber base paper.

I also use film from time to time to have the "retro look".....it is fun to
use some
of the old cameras (30-40-50 years old).

I have just scanned one of my Velvia slides (24x36) and cut it to square and
printed
it to fill as much as possible on a A3 paper. It looks very nice.....a bit
dark shadows
but ok.....good shadow details is also an advantage of a DSLR......at least
my experience.



Not to say it won't happen, mind you. But I'm not losing
any sleep over it. BTW: new Provia 400X is an AMAZING
film. And I'm starting to like Kodak BW CN400 a lot.

Where digital is going next is what is very attractive:
the agenda seems to be on high ISOs and less noise.
That is much better than the "I've got more MP
than you" nonsense.

On Aug 28, 6:45 am, "Max Perl" wrote:

My experience is that my prints from a 12MP SLR (A3+ size) looks
better than a perfect scanned 6x6 slide.

My experience is exactly the opposite of that.

In theory the 6x6 should hold
more information but the fine details in film is hidden in grain/noise so it
looks not nice when scanned and printed.

Of course not. Have you ever treied to directly print a
RAW file as well? No? Try it. It looks like crap.
So, if you can apply post-processing to a RAW
file to make it look good at A3, why can't
you do the same to film? Anything stopping you?
I can guarantee you nothing is stopping me.

The notion that scanned film shouldn't be post-processed
is so wrong it defies description...

If you use film you should work
analog all the way

No way!


But why have all the troubles with film when you can make such good prints
from e.g. a 12MP SLR?

Because I can't afford to retool for a 12MP dslr.
And retool again every two years or so, which is the
market life of that sort of gear.

And my mf gear does a brilliant job of taking excellent
images. And my scanner and post-processing
do an even better job than I ever did with an enlarger.

Colors are much more precise also.....and cleaner from a DSLR.

That "cleaner" bit is such a piece of crap...
There is no such thing as "cleaner", that's
subliminal marketing from the dslr brigade,
for chrissakes!



Often you don't get the "image" when using MF because a modern SLR
is so much faster to use (AF, VR etc.).

If I was after "grabbing images", I'd be using my Zeiss
rangefinder. Or my 35mm film slr. Not my mf gear.
Although with the Fuji 645s r/f, I might give you a workout...

You can go LF (8x10") but if you don't get the "image" then who cares how
many details you could have got?

Like I said: I'm not after "getting the images" when I'm using
my mf equipment. Wrong gear for that purpose. Always
has been. Nothing new there.



There is no technical reason to stay on MF film.

Disagree completely.


BW film can look
very
good if you do it analog all the way......and use a good fiber base paper.

And even better if you use a sensible scanning workflow.
Instead of just slapping it on a scanner and hoping for the best.



but ok.....good shadow details is also an advantage of a DSLR......at least
my experience.

You can also get good shadow details on film, you just
have to use the adequate film and post-processing
workflow. In fact, one of the things that I hate
with my dslr is precisely the lack of strong contrasty images
unless I start messing around with raw.

On Aug 27, 9:12 pm, Noons wrote:

Of course not. Have you ever treied to directly print a
RAW file as well? No? Try it. It looks like crap.

That would be quite a trick since a RAW file is just RAW data that
must be converted first.


The notion that scanned film shouldn't be post-processed
is so wrong it defies description...

I'm with you here. I believe any capture, whether from film or
digital, can be improved with post-processing. So since you are
going to be working in the digital medium anyway, it makes since to
start in it at capture time. Otherwise, you are handicapping yourself
with the disadvantages of film.

I think most film purists would disagree with you (and me) on this
point.
They would say that the superiority of film will only be noticed in an
analog workflow, printing large prints from the negative. With
smaller prints, you won't see much difference anyway except for the
lower noise benefits of digital. Theoretically, at some print size the
digital capture will run out of resolution compared to a print from a
large format negative or transparency. And this advantage shrinks each
year with the larger digital sensors and higher pixel counts.

Who knows? Someday we may have 8x10 digital sensors. Zero noise.
ISOs in the millions. Yeah, that'll be cool.

"Noons" skrev i en meddelelse
oups.com...
On Aug 28, 6:45 am, "Max Perl" wrote:

My experience is that my prints from a 12MP SLR (A3+ size) looks
better than a perfect scanned 6x6 slide.

My experience is exactly the opposite of that.

In theory the 6x6 should hold
more information but the fine details in film is hidden in grain/noise so
it
looks not nice when scanned and printed.

Of course not. Have you ever treied to directly print a
RAW file as well? No? Try it. It looks like crap.
So, if you can apply post-processing to a RAW
file to make it look good at A3, why can't
you do the same to film? Anything stopping you?
I can guarantee you nothing is stopping me.

The notion that scanned film shouldn't be post-processed
is so wrong it defies description...

I always post process my scanned film.....some can be done in the
scanner software and then again in Photoshop. But it was much more
time consuming as more post processing was necessary to have great
results.


If you use film you should work
analog all the way

No way!


But why have all the troubles with film when you can make such good
prints
from e.g. a 12MP SLR?

Because I can't afford to retool for a 12MP dslr.
And retool again every two years or so, which is the
market life of that sort of gear.

OK.....my 12 MP DSLR (D2x) is not 1.5 years old. I am not going for
the D3 as I am happy so far on how the D2x works. I expect 2 more years
for the D2x. And then maybe a D400. I wanted the D200 but was impossible to
get at the time I wanted it. But still some money each 3-4 years.......


And my mf gear does a brilliant job of taking excellent
images. And my scanner and post-processing
do an even better job than I ever did with an enlarger.

I agree scanning and printing can be very good. But I compare with
the Ilfochrome prints I made from Velvia and Provia a couple of years
back from 6x6 slides (using contrast masking). It was very time consuming
and expensive......and the chemicals was not very good smelling.....

Colors are much more precise also.....and cleaner from a DSLR.

That "cleaner" bit is such a piece of crap...
There is no such thing as "cleaner", that's
subliminal marketing from the dslr brigade,
for chrissakes!


The test i have seen made using a color chart......the digital colors was
much closer to the color chart than the film colors.



Often you don't get the "image" when using MF because a modern SLR
is so much faster to use (AF, VR etc.).

If I was after "grabbing images", I'd be using my Zeiss
rangefinder. Or my 35mm film slr. Not my mf gear.
Although with the Fuji 645s r/f, I might give you a workout...


What I like using digital is that I just shot.....don't have to think about
frame counts etc.
On a 4GB CF I have have about 200 RAW images. I like VR on the teles for
hand holding.
I like the auto white balance also.........

You can go LF (8x10") but if you don't get the "image" then who cares how
many details you could have got?

Like I said: I'm not after "getting the images" when I'm using
my mf equipment. Wrong gear for that purpose. Always
has been. Nothing new there.



There is no technical reason to stay on MF film.

Disagree completely.

OK! :-)



BW film can look
very
good if you do it analog all the way......and use a good fiber base
paper.

And even better if you use a sensible scanning workflow.
Instead of just slapping it on a scanner and hoping for the best.



but ok.....good shadow details is also an advantage of a DSLR......at
least
my experience.

You can also get good shadow details on film, you just
have to use the adequate film and post-processing
workflow. In fact, one of the things that I hate
with my dslr is precisely the lack of strong contrasty images
unless I start messing around with raw.


OK! .....I used mostly Velvia and Provia.....and I exosed for the
highlights....and the
the shadows got a bit heavy. Even the Coolscan 9000 can't get all the
details out of the
shadows. I see more details in the shadows if I project the slides.

One thing more about the retooling.......don't think you need to retool
every 2 years.
Let's say every 4-5 years? ......what is your film budget over a 4-5
years period?
(including processing).

You still have the expense on paper and ink (and PC hardware?) as you scan
and print on
you own inkjet?


"Noons" skrev i en meddelelse
oups.com...
On Aug 28, 6:45 am, "Max Perl" wrote:

My experience is that my prints from a 12MP SLR (A3+ size) looks
better than a perfect scanned 6x6 slide.

My experience is exactly the opposite of that.

In theory the 6x6 should hold
more information but the fine details in film is hidden in grain/noise so
it
looks not nice when scanned and printed.

Of course not. Have you ever treied to directly print a
RAW file as well? No? Try it. It looks like crap.
So, if you can apply post-processing to a RAW
file to make it look good at A3, why can't
you do the same to film? Anything stopping you?
I can guarantee you nothing is stopping me.

The notion that scanned film shouldn't be post-processed
is so wrong it defies description...

If you use film you should work
analog all the way

No way!


But why have all the troubles with film when you can make such good
prints
from e.g. a 12MP SLR?

Because I can't afford to retool for a 12MP dslr.
And retool again every two years or so, which is the
market life of that sort of gear.

And my mf gear does a brilliant job of taking excellent
images. And my scanner and post-processing
do an even better job than I ever did with an enlarger.

Colors are much more precise also.....and cleaner from a DSLR.

That "cleaner" bit is such a piece of crap...
There is no such thing as "cleaner", that's
subliminal marketing from the dslr brigade,
for chrissakes!



Often you don't get the "image" when using MF because a modern SLR
is so much faster to use (AF, VR etc.).

If I was after "grabbing images", I'd be using my Zeiss
rangefinder. Or my 35mm film slr. Not my mf gear.
Although with the Fuji 645s r/f, I might give you a workout...

You can go LF (8x10") but if you don't get the "image" then who cares how
many details you could have got?

Like I said: I'm not after "getting the images" when I'm using
my mf equipment. Wrong gear for that purpose. Always
has been. Nothing new there.



There is no technical reason to stay on MF film.

Disagree completely.


BW film can look
very
good if you do it analog all the way......and use a good fiber base
paper.

And even better if you use a sensible scanning workflow.
Instead of just slapping it on a scanner and hoping for the best.



but ok.....good shadow details is also an advantage of a DSLR......at
least
my experience.

You can also get good shadow details on film, you just
have to use the adequate film and post-processing
workflow. In fact, one of the things that I hate
with my dslr is precisely the lack of strong contrasty images
unless I start messing around with raw.

On Aug 28, 12:01 pm, Annika1980 wrote:


Of course not. Have you ever treied to directly print a
RAW file as well? No? Try it. It looks like crap.

That would be quite a trick since a RAW file is just RAW data that
must be converted first.

Exactly. That conversion in itself is already a form of
post-processing. Look at ufraw for example, and the plethora
of interpolation mechanisms it has.


The notion that scanned film shouldn't be post-processed
is so wrong it defies description...

I'm with you here. I believe any capture, whether from film or
digital, can be improved with post-processing. So since you are
going to be working in the digital medium anyway, it makes since to
start in it at capture time. Otherwise, you are handicapping yourself
with the disadvantages of film.

That's where we disagree. It doesn't make sense to me to start
in capture mode in digital just because I'm going to use digital
processing at some stage. I just take best advantage of what
I got, be it digital or analogue, whenever it can be pushed
into use. Right now for image capture I still haven't found
anything better than film, for MF.

For 35mm size, the jury is still out - but I'm starting to like
the d80 a lot. However, the other cameras still get as much
attention from me. Mostly because the d80 uses that awful
DX sensor crop size: I just can't relate to that in terms of
"which lens to use for a given expectation". But once I can
get my hands on a D3 or similar, things might well change.

Then again, a fuji f31 is always in my pocket nowadays...

I think most film purists would disagree with you (and me) on this
point.
They would say that the superiority of film will only be noticed in an
analog workflow, printing large prints from the negative.

Ah well, I don't much care for "purisms" anyway. I use
whatever makes sense to me and the "purists" -both
camps - can go jump in the lake, quite frankly.


lower noise benefits of digital. Theoretically, at some print size the
digital capture will run out of resolution compared to a print from a
large format negative or transparency. And this advantage shrinks each
year with the larger digital sensors and higher pixel counts.

Yeah, I agree entirely with that.


Who knows? Someday we may have 8x10 digital sensors. Zero noise.
ISOs in the millions. Yeah, that'll be cool.

NOW you're tawkin! :-)

Seriously: it will happen. The current trend to FF sensors
is just a symptom of that. Sensor making will evolve
like everything else in electronics and the sensors will
get bigger and cheaper.

On Aug 29, 2:11 am, "Max Perl" wrote:


I always post process my scanned film.....some can be done in the
scanner software and then again in Photoshop. But it was much more
time consuming as more post processing was necessary to have great
results.

I use the scanner software, Neat Image and
Focus Magic as well as Gimp or Irfanview.
At various stages. And with mostly full automation.

That is to say: I batch scan and then I use batch
processes to go through the lot with NI, FM and Irfan.
Only the odd nutcase gets individual attention.
It's just a matter of getting the workflow organised.

Time consuming? No way: it takes me considerably
longer to massage the RAW stuff from the d80.
Mostly because I'm new at it and still haven't got
a workflow sorted out. But film post-processing being
more time consuming once setup? Not likely.

OK.....my 12 MP DSLR (D2x) is not 1.5 years old. I am not going for
the D3 as I am happy so far on how the D2x works. I expect 2 more years
for the D2x. And then maybe a D400. I wanted the D200 but was impossible to
get at the time I wanted it. But still some money each 3-4 years.......

Well yes, that is a major problem. But it's getting
better now. dslr prices have become a lot more
sensible. My d80 didn't cost much more than it would
have cost me for a 2nd-hand F5 and less than an F6 for
sure. And it is miles better than anything else dslr
I ever tried. By the time the D4 and D400 are out,
it'll be a lot better yet.


I agree scanning and printing can be very good. But I compare with
the Ilfochrome prints I made from Velvia and Provia a couple of years
back from 6x6 slides (using contrast masking). It was very time consuming
and expensive......and the chemicals was not very good smelling.....

Yeah, that is a problem. That is why all my printing
now is electronic. I still develop at home - mostly - but
the next steps are scanner and digital.


The test i have seen made using a color chart......the digital colors was
much closer to the color chart than the film colors.

that happens for sure. All I can say is that with adequate
film and care with the exposure, I don't get that much
difference. If any. I use the colour and grey cards in
the old Kodak Pro Photo Guide.


What I like using digital is that I just shot.....don't have to think about
frame counts etc.
On a 4GB CF I have have about 200 RAW images. I like VR on the teles for
hand holding.
I like the auto white balance also.........

Yeah, that is indeed an advantage. And MF
doesn't have VR that I know of.

There is no technical reason to stay on MF film.

Disagree completely.

OK! :-)


There!
:-)



OK! .....I used mostly Velvia and Provia.....and I exosed for the
highlights....and the
the shadows got a bit heavy. Even the Coolscan 9000 can't get all the
details out of the
shadows. I see more details in the shadows if I project the slides.

I use mostly Fuji Pro 160s and other colour negative
films, as well as Astia and new Velvia. Plus various
B&W. But I don't much care about exposing for
highlights. If one or two slip by and go 255X3, that's
not a problem: the zone system clearly defines that zone
as valid and usable.

Although of course one doesn't want the ENTIRE image
in that zone! :-)
But with digital I'm finding that highlights are
critical, much more than with film.

By and large, I'm still adapting to the dslr world.
One thing was interesting: last night we had a
lunar eclipse here. Used the d80 - matrix meter - as
well as the film camera. As usual, I started with the
1/4sec@f4 setting. Nothing could be more wrong:
moon was a total washout! So I went up on the speed.

Eventually settled on 1/125@f11: gave me the best
detail at ISO100. Then I transposed that to the film
cameras. The only meter that worked fine was the
F2AS one, which is fairly "spotty" . It gave me f11
and 1/60. The others were all out. I did bracket a
few shots and am curious as to how well things will
come out.

On Aug 29, 2:19 am, "Max Perl" wrote:

One thing more about the retooling.......don't think you need to retool
every 2 years.
Let's say every 4-5 years? ......what is your film budget over a 4-5
years period?
(including processing).

Not much really. Film is quite cheap in places like ebay.
And the processing cost is not a worry. The thing to
remember here is that the approaches are vastly different:
with a dslr I don't think twice about shooting away and then
dropping shots I don't like. With film I don't do that at all,
particularly with MF.

Now, if one counts the cost of retooling for digital MF
every 2-4 years... ;-)

You still have the expense on paper and ink (and PC hardware?) as you scan
and print on
you own inkjet?

Yeah, but I don't count that. Its also used for the digital
cameras as well as a lot of other things.