Medium format back prices ludicrous

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-01-27 12:21:45 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:57:31 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , George Kerby
says...
It's not for fools like you. That is a PROFESSIONAL piece of equipment.

The intended market users will soon pay for it in their day to day
work.

Just curious, what are 80MP images used for? For magazines or brochures
less resolution is more than sufficient, so this must be for something
larger.

I'm not entirely sure that you are right. I remember some years ago
reading an article by professional landscape and nature photographer
in which he said his customers wanted a minimum of 48 Mp quality. I
can't remember the details of how he achieved this other than that it
entailed a special back on a conventional medium format camera.



Eric Stevens

If you want a 48MP image there is always mosaicing.

Not on a fashion shoot, there isn't!

BugBear

Originally Posted by peter

On 1/27/2011 4:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-01-27 12:21:45 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:57:31 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , George Kerby
says...
It's not for fools like you. That is a PROFESSIONAL piece of equipment.

The intended market users will soon pay for it in their day to day
work.

Just curious, what are 80MP images used for? For magazines or brochures
less resolution is more than sufficient, so this must be for something
larger.

I'm not entirely sure that you are right. I remember some years ago
reading an article by professional landscape and nature photographer
in which he said his customers wanted a minimum of 48 Mp quality. I
can't remember the details of how he achieved this other than that it
entailed a special back on a conventional medium format camera.



Eric Stevens

If you want a 48MP image there is always mosaicing.


Ah! A new definition for an old word, that formerly had been used in
connection with map making. I'm sure it will do better than "siskerize."

Maybe we ought to change the name of this group to alt.new.wordsand
meanings.


--
Peter

Actually the resolution of most outdoor graphics is much lower than 300 dpi. They are closer to 90 or usually less so your MP are going a much longer distance.

On 2011.01.27 20:53 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 2011.01.27 18:37 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In articleRcidnVSTH4DOa9zQnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews. com, Alan Browne
says...
That's correct - however the same art on billboards may also appear on
large poster work for various needs related to the same campaign.

Ok, and before the launch of this new 80MP camera what were people
using? Medium format film?

And LF.

When I scan MF @ 4000 dpi I get about 78 Mpix. (56 x 4000 / 25.4 )^2

A drum scan of MF or LF will yield a lot more...

But they're crap pixels.

They were the best pixels available at the time. Wet scanning yields
cleaner scans. There is a tray kit for the Nikon 9000D for wet scanning
but I've been reluctant to get into that.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 2011.01.28 15:27 , shiva das wrote:
In ,
savantcreativesavantcreative.788a358@photobanter. com wrote:


Actually the resolution of most outdoor graphics is much lower than 300
dpi. They are closer to 90 or usually less so your MP are going a much
longer distance.

Even assuming you are correct on the resolution, a 20' x 24' billboard
at 90dpi would be 560MP.

Doesn't need to be that good.

Imagine a billboard at some distance away that would look like a 5 x 6
inch print held in your hands.

All it needs is 1500 x 1200 "dots" on it.

20' = 240" // 1500 / 240 = 6.25 dots per inch.

It would look pretty coarse to those putting it up - but from the road
just like a postcard.

I don't know what actual screen they use for large billboards - but I'd
bet a lot of it is just repeating neighbors.


--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 2011.01.27 20:53 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 2011.01.27 18:37 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In articleRcidnVSTH4DOa9zQnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews. com, Alan Browne
says...
That's correct - however the same art on billboards may also appear on
large poster work for various needs related to the same campaign.

Ok, and before the launch of this new 80MP camera what were people
using? Medium format film?

And LF.

When I scan MF @ 4000 dpi I get about 78 Mpix. (56 x 4000 / 25.4 )^2

A drum scan of MF or LF will yield a lot more...

But they're crap pixels.

They were the best pixels available at the time.

Well, no. The best pixels available at the time were dSLR pixels; you just
didn't get enough of them to outdo the far larger number of pixels you get
from scanning MF film.

My point is very simply that comparing pixel counts isn't meaningful because
the information quantity per pixel is lower in scans than in Bayer dSLR
images.

Wet scanning yields cleaner scans. There is a tray kit for the Nikon
9000D for wet scanning but I've been reluctant to get into that.

Only marginally. The problem isn't in the scan, it's in the film. It does
make sense to scan with too many pixels, use wet mounting and the like to
get the best you can. But there's no way you can make 645 produce better
quality prints than the 5D2. And there's no way in hell you can make a
snippet of a 4000 ppi film scan look as anywhere near as good as a snippet
with the same number of pixels from any dSLR ever made.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 2011.01.27 20:53 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 2011.01.27 18:37 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In articleRcidnVSTH4DOa9zQnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews. com, Alan
Browne
says...
That's correct - however the same art on billboards may also appear
on
large poster work for various needs related to the same campaign.

Ok, and before the launch of this new 80MP camera what were people
using? Medium format film?

And LF.

When I scan MF @ 4000 dpi I get about 78 Mpix. (56 x 4000 / 25.4 )^2

A drum scan of MF or LF will yield a lot more...

But they're crap pixels.

They were the best pixels available at the time.

"At the time"? At _what_ time? 1999 for the Nikon D1? Drum scanners with
photomultiplier tubes have been around since the National Bureau of
Standards' model built in 1957.


Well, no. The best pixels available at the time were dSLR pixels; you
just
didn't get enough of them to outdo the far larger number of pixels you
get
from scanning MF film.

My point is very simply that comparing pixel counts isn't meaningful
because
the information quantity per pixel is lower in scans than in Bayer dSLR
images.

Wet scanning yields cleaner scans. There is a tray kit for the Nikon
9000D for wet scanning but I've been reluctant to get into that.

Only marginally. The problem isn't in the scan, it's in the film. It does
make sense to scan with too many pixels, use wet mounting and the like to
get the best you can. But there's no way you can make 645 produce better
quality prints than the 5D2. And there's no way in hell you can make a
snippet of a 4000 ppi film scan look as anywhere near as good as a
snippet
with the same number of pixels from any dSLR ever made.

"One of the unique features of drum scanners is the ability to control
sample area and aperture size independently. The sample size is the area
that the scanner encoder reads to create an individual pixel. The
aperture is the actual opening that allows light into the optical bench
of the scanner. The ability to control aperture and sample size
separately is particularly useful for smoothing film grain when scanning
black-and white and color negative originals." --Wiki

So? Drum scans are only slightly marginally better than Nikon 9000 scans, if
that.

Nikon 8000: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis...velvia_645.jpg
Drum scan:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis...dpi_velvia.jpg

Again, the problem isn't the scanner, it's the film. 4000 ppi scanned pixels
are grody bad compared to dSLR pixels because there isn't that much
information on the film. By the way, 5D2 pixels are almost exactly 4000 ppi
at the sensor plane, and they look worlds better than that.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

See the "If film were perfect" samples. That's what _real_ pixels look like.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 1/27/2011 12:23 PM, shiva das wrote:
In . com,
Alfred wrote:

In , George Kerby
says...
snip all content
I don't know who the OP is (I would have to guess a certain Canadian
whose first name hardly fits his many posts about prices) but I have 2
suggestions for him/her/it:

1. If it's too expensive DON'T BUY IT.
2. Kwichyerbitchin.

Allen

On 2011.01.28 20:24 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 2011.01.27 20:53 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 2011.01.27 18:37 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In articleRcidnVSTH4DOa9zQnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews. com, Alan Browne
says...
That's correct - however the same art on billboards may also appear on
large poster work for various needs related to the same campaign.

Ok, and before the launch of this new 80MP camera what were people
using? Medium format film?

And LF.

When I scan MF @ 4000 dpi I get about 78 Mpix. (56 x 4000 / 25.4 )^2

A drum scan of MF or LF will yield a lot more...

But they're crap pixels.

They were the best pixels available at the time.

Well, no. The best pixels available at the time were dSLR pixels; you just

No DSLR pixels were better than a 6x6 cm slide in 2000.


--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2011.01.28 20:24 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 2011.01.27 20:53 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 2011.01.27 18:37 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In articleRcidnVSTH4DOa9zQnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews. com, Alan
Browne
says...
That's correct - however the same art on billboards may also appear
on
large poster work for various needs related to the same campaign.

Ok, and before the launch of this new 80MP camera what were people
using? Medium format film?

And LF.

When I scan MF @ 4000 dpi I get about 78 Mpix. (56 x 4000 / 25.4 )^2

A drum scan of MF or LF will yield a lot more...

But they're crap pixels.

They were the best pixels available at the time.

Well, no. The best pixels available at the time were dSLR pixels; you
just

No DSLR pixels were better than a 6x6 cm slide in 2000.

Are you being purposely dense? My point remains that on a _per pixel basis_,
4000 ppi scans are crap .

Why is that so hard to understand?

Print a 900 x 900 snippet of a 4000 ppi scan at 300 ppi. Print a 600 x 600
snippet dSLR image at 200 ppi. Same size print, many fewer dSLR pixels, dSLR
print looks way better.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 2011.01.29 22:06 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
On 2011.01.28 20:24 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 2011.01.27 20:53 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 2011.01.27 18:37 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In articleRcidnVSTH4DOa9zQnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews. com, Alan
Browne
says...
That's correct - however the same art on billboards may also appear
on
large poster work for various needs related to the same campaign.

Ok, and before the launch of this new 80MP camera what were people
using? Medium format film?

And LF.

When I scan MF @ 4000 dpi I get about 78 Mpix. (56 x 4000 / 25.4 )^2

A drum scan of MF or LF will yield a lot more...

But they're crap pixels.

They were the best pixels available at the time.

Well, no. The best pixels available at the time were dSLR pixels; you
just

No DSLR pixels were better than a 6x6 cm slide in 2000.

Are you being purposely dense?

Ad hominem is it?

Are you being deliberately time warped? Did your DSLR exist in 2000?

The line of questioning is "what were people using before the world was
blessed with digital?".

And people managed to print large and otherwise get on with life.

I can still print to 24 x 24 inches from a 6x6 slide and unless you get
stupidly cozy with it you can't see grain detail at all.

I never claimed that a late model DSLR wasn't better than a given size
of film, but nobody really cares when the print is viewed at an
appropriate distance.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.