Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

On 16 Jun 2004 00:04:51 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


Ooops! Do your decades of experience with film and lenses tell you they
are limited to less than 42 lpmm in actual photo-taking? Sounds to me more
like your scanning and other techniques are losing at least 60% of the
potential of film, as suggested by PopPhoto's pro lab tests. And yes, lots
of us probably believe Kodak film specs more than we believe posters on
NGs ;-) As a matter of fact, many scanners have nyquist limits close to 40
lpmm, as I have noted in past postings etc. ;-) And lots of digicams have
anti-aliasing or low pass filters which limit them to 40 to 50+ lpmm max.
So it is no surprise that 6MP clocks in at 40+ lpmm either, right?


My experience shows that film scans of 35 mm
slides reveal the same, or better detail, than
wet (Ciba) prints made from those same slides
in a home darkroom. And the tonality of the scans
easily beats that of my Ciba prints. (see link below.)

That's one level of comparison.

Comparing 10D images to 35 mm film scans --
is less clear. Some images work better on
one media than another. Occasionally I am
amazed at how well the 10D images hold up
in large prints. Occasionally I'm disappointed.

At A4 both work quite well, IMO.

I'll happily admit that scanned 35 mm film may
have more potential than a 10D capture, but is
the extra effort and bother worth it? No easy
or universal answer there. Yes indeed,
convenience plays a huge role.

In any case, my comments and observations
are based on what I see -- both on screen
and in print. I don't start these divisive threads,
bob -- that seems to be your self-appointed role.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
scan comparisons
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:10:26 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


What we have said is that:
(a) for the same sensor area, digital is a lot better.
(b) at ISO 400 and 800, 6MP looks better to us (well, me, dunno Rafe's
position on this) than 24x36 films of the same ISO. Gordon disagrees with
this.


Both film and digital capture fall down in low light.

An extended A:B comparison (Nikon/Reala vs.
Canon G2) at the Grand Canyon made this clear
to me. I had the G2 set for 100 ISO.

Both the Reala and the G2 fall down in exactly
the same places -- the canyon walls in shadow
are a grainy mess (on film) and a noisy mess
(in the G2 images.) In midtones and highlights,
both did well. Reala had the edge in keeping
highlights from blowing out.


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

"Fil Ament" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

The difference now is that digital provides a significant improvement
_per
square mm of sensor_ in image quality.

So the 1Ds is a lot better than 35mm. A lot. To the point that 645 isn't
going to be worth bothering with.

Yeah all you have to do is spend 7k on the camera.

This year. But not 3 years from now.

That leaves MF film squeezed between LF and 24x36mm digital.

For 7k lets see I can buy alot of film for 7k.

But things will be different 3 years from now. How much did the first 6MP
Kodak dSLR cost when it first came out? (And when did it come out?)

An application that really needs better quality than 24x36mm digital
probably needs LF. 30x50 posters, glossy calendars. The cheap 30x50
posters
and smaller calendars can be digital, the better posters LF (in Japan, I
see
posters that can be grain sniffed and hold up) and larger calendars need
LF.

Few people want to hand hold a 4x5 to take studio shots of models and
living subjects
for those posters.

If they want quality 30x50, they figure out how to do it. Hand holding 4x5
used to be standard practice.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:14:16 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


And, those of us who have been involved in the "fiddling with images in
the digital domain" since the mid '70s have heard these same claims of
quality equivalence made for the last 25 years, and contend that "we still
aren't really there, yet".


What sorts of digital imaging did you do in
the mid 1970's, Neil?

As I recall, memory was around $100K per
megabyte back then.

Yes, I took a course in digital graphics
(as an EE undergrad) in 1975 or so.
We produced ASCII art with FORTRAN
programs and were chided by our
instructors if we used too much CPU time
on any given assignment.

I remember spending several hundred $ to
upgrade my PC to 384K... around 1983 or so.

I remember specifically buying my PC with
monochrome screen and Hercules graphics
adapter, because the VGA color standard
was so god-awful back then.

The technology for making good images
with affordable computers is less than ten
years old.

For me, the sea change occurred in 1998,
when I saw a photo printed on an Epson 600.


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

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:14:16 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


Kudos to your wife! She has correctly realized that it really boils
down to *the subject*. Some subjects may look *better* with digital
than with film. That's due to those elusive qualities that we call
"pop", for example, are not dependent on the technical capabilities
or limitations of a medium, and may in fact be *enhanced* by those
limitations (That's one reason why manufacturers can sell soft-focus
filters). BobM, Gordon and I are of the opinion that not *all*
subjects will look better with digital than with film, which is the
claim that you and David are making by challenging on the basis of
the technical capabilities of the media.


I don't believe I ever claimed that "all subjects will look
better with digital than with film."

That is the direct implication of claiming that direct digital captures
better image quality per mm than film. Did you not make that claim?

I'm neither a film Luddite or digital visionary. I'd have
hoped that was clear by now.

I'm not accusing you (or anyone else for that matter) of being either, and
find such accusations to be of very presumptous, to put it kindly.

I also note that my print challenge continues to go
unanswered. Why is that, do you suppose?

Because it's expensive and pointless. "Prints" are not generic; subject
matter is important. A pro-quality wet print costs a lot of money, even if
you do it yourself. I have a 20"x20" shot on my wall that cost me well
over $100 to have printed at a pro lab I use. I also have lightjet prints
of the same image, and know for a fact that they don't compare. So, if you
need the proof, cough up the bucks and buy the wet prints yourself, then
compare.

Neil

nyquist limits

Excuse me, but what are "nyquist limits"? That's the first time I've heard the
term, except for a fellow high school classmate with the name Arill Nyquist.

Dieter Zakas
Moniker, NJ

"Neil Gould" wrote:

I don't believe I ever claimed that "all subjects will look
better with digital than with film."

That is the direct implication of claiming that direct digital captures
better image quality per mm than film. Did you not make that claim?

I personally don't like the way film fails at higher magnifications, so for
my tastes, as soon as digital is not cr@pping out at a given print size, it
is better than film of the largest size that is getting noticeably soft at
that print size. For all subjects.

Figuring out how many MP it takes to beat film of a given size is then an
empirical exercise for the reader.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
nk.net...
Recently, Jack posted:

More likely they will just make Hasselblad-branded digital cameras
(with panasonic guts) and sell them for twice the going rate for
digicams.

And, the difference between Panasonic and Fuji guts would be...?

At least Panasonic has a history as a primary manufacturer of
pro-quality sensors and interface circuitry in the video world.

Neil

Nothing. I have nothing against Panasonic. They make fine stuff. Good
enough for Leica. They just don't have the same top end brand
recognition as Hasselblad or Leica. Zeiss and Kyocera would be
another example. All branding.

My point is that they *do* have good brand recognition in pro video. As
digital still cameras are derivative of that technology, and as Panasonic
is one of very few primary manufacturers of digital sensors, their name
*should* be more of a draw than Fuji. So, it's marketing. Good enough for
Leica, indeed.

Neil

I guess I'm a little uncertain how Fuji plays into this at all.

-Jack

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

If they want quality 30x50, they figure out how to do it. Hand holding 4x5
used to be standard practice.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

They don't make cameras like that anymore ;-)
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.

Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:

I don't believe I ever claimed that "all subjects will look
better with digital than with film."

That is the direct implication of claiming that direct digital
captures better image quality per mm than film. Did you not make
that claim?

I personally don't like the way film fails at higher magnifications,
so for my tastes, as soon as digital is not cr@pping out at a given
print size, it is better than film of the largest size that is
getting noticeably soft at that print size. For all subjects.

I hope that you don't take my comments as challenging your personal
tastes! They are not meant as such. ;-)

Figuring out how many MP it takes to beat film of a given size is
then an empirical exercise for the reader.

Given your comments, it would appear that figuring this out is a
_subjective_ exercise for the reader. The empirical data makes that rather
clear.

Neil