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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

"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.

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

In article , =20
says...
Hello,
=20
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:
=20
35mm frame size =3D 24x36 mm sq =3D 1.339203 sq inch
Given, a 300 dpi print is considered to be a "museum quality" print.
8x10 print =3D 8x10x(300)^2 =3D 7,200,000
Therefore, scan dpi for 35 mm film =3D sqrt (7,200,000 / 1.339203) =3D
2319 dpi
=20
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.
=20
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 =96 I'm new at this
:-) Also, is film grain a factor?
=20
About me: beginner, shooting b&w in Minolta X-700, I make my own
prints. Eying MF (esp. TLRs) gear recently.
=20
There may be a slight improvement in downsizing a higher resolution
image compared to scanning at the lower dpi to start with. I'm
continually surprised at the level of detail I can extract from 35mm
with the new Minolta 5400 scanner.
So in addition to film size (or saying it another way, less=20
magnification) you need to consider the resolution of the lens.
Beyond these theoretical issues you have the practical problems
of camera shake and misfocussing.
I think that if you limit yourself to 8x10 or so and scan at at least=20
2700 dpi you won't see significant differences with real world shooting.

--=20
Robert D Feinman

Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com

"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