Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

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?

Strictly digital, working in video.

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

Back then, a megabyte was an unimaginable amount of memory for most of us.
For more information, Google "Quantel Paintbox".

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

Around that time, I added 1.5 mb to my PC (Intel Above Board) at a cost of
a couple thousand $.

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

I had a Targa board in mine; a dual monitor setup with 16 bit graphics
which folks were touting as being "imperceptably different from live
video" and Targa output to film recorders as being "as good as 35 mm".
And, the same pseudo-techobabble was being spouted to support such claims.
They were as wrong then as they are now.

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

My point is that the bar keeps getting raised. To make images on the level
of Pixar animations is still exhorbitantly expensive. And, good as they
are, they still don't fool me. ;-)

Regards,

Neil

Recently, Jack posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
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.

They've partnered with Hasselblad to manufacture the H1.

Neil

"Hzakas" wrote in message
...
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.

The highest spatial frequency (finest detail) that can be reliably
represented in a sampled (~digitized) image. Named after Harry Nyquist.
See figure 1. in http://www.geocities.com/bioelectroc...ry/nyquist.htm

Bart

Bart

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
Drum scans are only a tiny improvement over 4000 dpi scans. One really
has
to eyeball them at insane magnifications to see any difference.

Sounds like you are judging images on a computer monitor, so obviously it
would
be tough to see a difference. However, I have many kilos of printed
samples and
work that show the (commercial) printed differences of drum scanning.

A monitor is clearly a _better_ way to compa you can adjust the
magnification to see what's really there.

Okay, so your choice of "quality" is a 72 dpi monitor with an RGB colour space.
Wow, I am impressed . . . such wonders of technology . . . have you considered
becoming an imaging professional . . . oh, the miracles of modern science . . .
.. . . . . . .



And there isn't anything there.

I am suspecting there is another place where there isn't anything . . . . . . .
.. . ;-)



What you are probably seeing is a better calibrated overall system.

Obviously, since this is my profession. I would not expect the average amateur
to even begin to comprehend what it takes to develop that kind of a working
system. Of course, I should mention that many people could probably guess, and
get close to being right about 90% of the time. The problem for professionals,
is that 10% of the time being wrong would put you out of a job.



But if you look at the actual files, the differences are simply miniscule.


I don't place my final trust in monitors, even well calibrated monitors. There
is still a need for having proofing done prior to publication.


The
difference is miniscule compared to even the difference between even 6x7
and 6x9 (for those of us printing to the A4 aspect ratio.)

Is that only for inkjet prints?

No, it's a matter of percentages. Maybe drums scrape a tad more off the
film. But it's a miniscule difference. Arguing that it's anything more than
that is seriously untenable.

It is noticeable with some images, and at some print sizes, though also
noticeable upon comparison. The reality is that drum scans are rarely used,
since the price/performance/time/file managing are other factors. Also, film
scanners have been very good for the last four years, and still are improving.



My claim above is equivalent to saying "Nikon 8000 scans of 56x79 will look
better printed at 16x20 than any drum scan of (the same film, same lens,
detailed subject from a bit further away) 49 x 69."

Printed how? On inkjet? I think a Heidleberg (or similar) CTP system would
allow a better judgement on printed quality. I should add that a poorly done
drum scan could be worse than a well done film scan. Scanning is a skill, and
just using the defaults will rarely yield the best results.



If you thing that's wrong, prove it. I'll send you a 5-pack of Velvia 100
120 (not
100F) (that you probably can;t get where you are) if you can come up with a
fair proof that drums get more from n x m than the Nikon gets from (n x 1.1)
x (m x 1.1).

I already have an great example from some brochures Epson sent me for their
high end scanners. They compare a scan done on their gear to a Howtek drum
scan. It is obvious that the drum scan has better detail rendition, tonality,
and has greater apparent sharpness. The funny thing about the comparison is
that I still like the image in either form, so when one technology looses a
little to the other, as long as the image is compelling, the difference is
purely academic.



film in any machine is a waste of effort over scanned 35 mm, or even
direct
digital. Inkjet printers have far too much dot gain to show good results
at
anything other than large poster size.

I don't see any dots in the R800. Even with my nose 4" from the paper.

Of course you don't, and that is how dot gain works. Dot Gain refers to the
spreading of ink, and in inkjet printers this mimics a continuous tone
behaviour. Specifically the definition of Dot Gain is: a defect in which dots
of ink print larger than they should, causing darker tones, or stronger
colours. The other properties of inks are colour, viscosity, tack, body,
length, and drying. Inkjet inks are very soft (body), long, low tack, and slow
drying in comparison to inks used in presses. Combined with an infinitely
greater choice of papers for commercial printing, these systems easily show the
limitations of inkjet printing, by comparison. I have several printers loupes,
which are similar to photographers loupes, yet show a scale calibration; these
printers loupes are what is used for comparison, not sticking your nose close
to the paper. ;-)



The only places I know of that film has any advantage are (1)
projecting,
and (2) when some nut thinks s/he wants to see film.

Whoa there David! Now you are stating that someone who uses film is a nut?
Care
to explain that one?

A paying customer who insists that images be delivered on film, not in
digital format, obviously...

You mean prints? I have a couple charity organizations that I do work for that
want photographic prints of their events, though that is a rare form of output
for me. Is that what you mean?



What are the others???

Anything near pure Yellow, or pure Cyan, though obviously you cannot see
those
on a monitor. Until the move is away from the Bayer pattern, direct
digital is
stuck with those limitations. Many films are not stuck with those colour
response limitations.

The comparisons I've seen show digital having less hue shift throughout the
spectrum than film.

When I photographed Yellow Ferrari autos, and old blue (almost pure Cyan)
Bugatti autos, my film choices allowed those colours to come out accurately.
One job included using a rented PhaseOne back, and the Yellow was off, no
matter what adjustments I did. In fact, the digital captures would have
required greater time post processing than just scanning the transparencies.
The Bugatti blue was rendered almost purple blue by the PhaseOne.

At another automotive session, I tried out a Sony F717 as a proofing device,
alongside my Polaroid proofer. The assistant I used for that session had a
Nikon direct digital SLR along (forgot which model). I had brought along a
PowerBook to allow better viewing of the digital images. The reality is that
colour picker readings of the digital images failed to properly capture
anything near Yellow or Cyan, and even did a worse job with red automobiles. At
least the film had the correct information, which made scanning and post
processing quite easy.

Anyway, I felt that highlighting a specific situation would better express my
words. Obviously, if you are just photographing people, the colour ranges are
restrictive enough that direct digital should work well enough.



I think that you misunderstand Bayer demosaicing. Bayer results in lower
_resolution_ in the color information, but that has nothing to do with the
quality of the color rendition of the system. In terms of color rendition,
film is very similar to digital, since they're both recording R, G, and B
channels. (Bayer systems have trouble with test charts that are cyan against
magenta, but then the human eye does too.)

The RGB colour space used for direct digital is limited in range, as it must be
by the design. There are real world conditions in which cyan and magenta
coloured objects appear, and there are some films that do a great job at
capturing those colours. There can still be difficulties scanning to capture
those colour ranges, though at least when you can see it on the light table,
you know what the colours should be, and how they should print.

I thought I should include one article on Bayer filtering:

http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/Bayer/bayer2.html Please feel free to
comment.



Why don't you just enjoy your digicam, Rafe? It would make matters
sooo
much simpler! ;-)

Why don't film Luddites stop saying silly wrong things about digital???

What about those of us who use both technologies? Are we "nuts" as well?
Why is
it too many people argue about this has to be an "either/or" exclusionary
choice.

I don't see anyone saying seriously stupid negative things about film. I do
see a lot of insane overestimates of the ability of film systems to resolve
detail and color...

Obviously, not all of us do all our shots well stepped down, and with the
camera locked onto a tripod, nor do many of us ever want to photograph only
test charts. Colour films are capable of near 100 lpmm under somewhat realistic
conditions, and better under highly controlled conditions. Direct digital SLRs
are (theoretically) limited to the maximum resolution of their chip dimension
and maximum file sizes, with the best systems so far giving a possible 50 to 67
lpmm, under ideal controlled conditions. At many printed sizes, and some
printing methods, it would be tough to see much difference.

It is now entirely viable and accepted to make compelling images with nearly
anything, direct digital, film, Polaroids, pin hole images, or even without a
camera. Do we dismiss the images of the past because they were captured on
film? (Oh, shame that was not a digital camera, he could have done such a
better job . . . or some other nonsense). There are reasons behind choices, and
even more reasons for combined approaches. Some of the people who post here
seem to imply there is only "one" answer to all imaging . . . and I do think
that is wrong.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote:

I don't see any dots in the R800. Even with my nose 4" from the paper.

So. You also believe that your R800 is producing a finer screen than, say,
a ~3600 lpi imagesetter? Or, a 15,000 lpi film recorder? Curious, indeed.

My eyes don't resolve 3600 dpi. They just don't. And neither do anyone
elses.

I can take my scans to a lab, or I can take my film to a lab, or I can R800.
For enlargements of 10X or so, I really don't see a big difference. (Other
than all I get is a crop from the R800.)

What I hear from you and Gordon is a denial of the reality that amateurs
have access to imaging technology that is, for all practical purposes,
indistinguishable from what you all as pros have.

As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets. That is okay
for amateurs, but far from the realm of commercial printing. Obviously,
commercial printing is not cost effective for very short runs, individual
outputs, nor for home usage.

I urge you to go to a printing industry trade show, or just to get more
information on this industry. It is much further beyond inkjet than most people
could ever imagine. You can also contact International Paper, and get a copy of
the Pocket Pal Graphic Arts Production Handbook, and read up on the various
commercial printing technologies. Creo also have some great white papers on
this technology, including their new patented Staccato printing method. AGFA
also have a great deal of printed information and books about the Graphic Arts
and Printing industries. Pantone are another company with many publications
about colour issues and printing.

Until you are knowledgeable of my industry, you have no basis to criticize it,
nor to dismiss the available technology. I am well aware of inkjet systems, and
I know of many printing systems that can deliver greater resolution, greater
colour range, and even create prints not possible on inkjet systems (metallics
are just one example).

If you want to discuss printing technologies, I am happy to do so. However, I
urge you to expand your knowledge prior to attempting to make all encompassing
statements.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

MikeWhy wrote:

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
Are modern lenses with 100 ISO films able to reach 100+ lpmm (bob is
right), or are modern high quality lenses with 100 ISO films unable to
reach even 42 lpmm (6 MP equiv., and rafe is right)?

Let's just say neither, and I now regret my "arses" comment earlier.
However, film's 100+ lpmm isn't making it onto paper, and I take nothing
else back.

dpreview publishes resolution figures for digitals in their camera reviews.
Depending on the numbers you accept, the 10D yields 57 lpmm to 75 lpmm (1450
lpi or 1900 lpi). This is through a real world lens, shooting a test chart.
This detail can be printed, since there is no subsequent loss in the digital
chain.

The specifications for the 10D indicate a CMOS sensor of 22.7 mm by 15.1 mm.
Taking the maximum possible file output size of 3072 by 2048 pixels, gives a
maximum possible resolution of 67.7 lpmm by 67.8 lpmm. While I can almost
believe the 57 lpmm figure, since that would account for losses due to the
anti-aliasing filter, that figure of 75 lpmm seems impossible. How could they
possibly capture more resolution in lpmm than the sensor is capable of
recording?



For film's 100 lpmm to match the 10D's performance in print, the enlarger
and paper resolution combined cannot be worse than 132 lpmm. (1/57 = 1/100 +
1/132). Using Bob's number, 42 lpmm for digital, we get a more realistic
figure for the enlarger and paper: 67 lpmm (1/41.5 = 1/108 + 1/67), subject
to focusing and alignment errors in addition to printing lens resolution.

It's a pretty close match, wouldn't you say, Bob? Not the 2:1 advantage some
would have us believe.

It is definitely getting close. There are very few published reports of tests
done on resolution targets for direct digital cameras. The few reports that
have appeared are often subject to a great deal of criticism. My contention is
that it is entirely viable to create compelling images with either technology,
and I do not find one to be exclusionary in usage to the other.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets. That is okay
for amateurs, but far from the realm of commercial printing.

Yeah, just check out this cheap amateurish desktop inkjet stuff:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-update.shtml

Just one question - how many amateurs have their own forklift, do you suppose?

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote:

I don't see any dots in the R800. Even with my nose 4" from the
paper.

So. You also believe that your R800 is producing a finer screen than,
say,
a ~3600 lpi imagesetter? Or, a 15,000 lpi film recorder? Curious,
indeed.

My eyes don't resolve 3600 dpi. They just don't. And neither do anyone
elses.

I can take my scans to a lab, or I can take my film to a lab, or I can
R800.
For enlargements of 10X or so, I really don't see a big difference.
(Other
than all I get is a crop from the R800.)

This remains the bottom line here. The printing isn't the limiting factor
for making 13x19s: the imaging system is. For the landscapey things I'm
trying to do, even 645 is thinking about getting to be a bit iffy at 13x19*.

If at some time my eyes get educated and I comprehend the infinite cosmic
beauty of pro prints, I can take my film or digital originals to the lab.
Until then, the R800 is better than most magazine reproduction.

*: One thing your ranting has me thinking about, though, is that maybe I
should forget 13x19, and concentrating on getting the most possible out of
the R800 at A4.

As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets.

You're missing a great way to make prints. Your loss.

But you are also missing the point that the printing technology is
irrelevant to the questions at hand.

I urge you to go to a printing industry trade show, or just to get more
information on this industry.

Why? I like the quality of inkjets. At A4, the R800 provides good color and
great sharpness. I've got a lot to learn to provide originals up to R800
capabilities (well, 645 + 8000 has the detail bit overkilled). If I ever get
to the state of needing better, I know who to ask.

But, more significantly, at A4 it provides better detail than 35mm (I think)
or 6MP digital (I know). In terms of detail rendered, the A4 inkjets seem a
good match for the 1Ds.

Until you are knowledgeable of my industry, you have no basis to criticize
it,

I'm not criticizing it, I'm criticizing your claim that it's relevant. 13x19
from 35mm is soft because of the 35mm, not because of the printer. And I can
tell the difference between the amount of detail rendered with any of these
tools (screen, inkjet, whatever) by adjusting the magnification.

If you want to discuss printing technologies, I am happy to do so.

I don't. I never intended to. You're the one who claims they're relevant*.
Since I can take my originals to a lab, they're irrelevant to the question
at hand.

*: Every time I claim "A is better than B" (where A and B are imaging
technologies), you go off on a rant on how either my scanner or printer is a
dog. You're wrong every time, simply because even if they are dogs, it
either is irrelevant (printer) or isn't a large enough difference (scanner)
to affect the claim.

This was supposed to be a thread about MF vs. digital.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
Are modern lenses with 100 ISO films able to reach 100+ lpmm (bob is
right), or are modern high quality lenses with 100 ISO films unable to
reach even 42 lpmm (6 MP equiv., and rafe is right)?

Let's just say neither, and I now regret my "arses" comment earlier.
However, film's 100+ lpmm isn't making it onto paper, and I take nothing
else back.

dpreview publishes resolution figures for digitals in their camera
reviews.
Depending on the numbers you accept, the 10D yields 57 lpmm to 75 lpmm
(1450
lpi or 1900 lpi). This is through a real world lens, shooting a test
chart.
This detail can be printed, since there is no subsequent loss in the
digital
chain.

The specifications for the 10D indicate a CMOS sensor of 22.7 mm by 15.1
mm.
Taking the maximum possible file output size of 3072 by 2048 pixels, gives
a
maximum possible resolution of 67.7 lpmm by 67.8 lpmm. While I can almost
believe the 57 lpmm figure, since that would account for losses due to the
anti-aliasing filter, that figure of 75 lpmm seems impossible. How could
they
possibly capture more resolution in lpmm than the sensor is capable of
recording?

I'll second this. Dpreview calls the vertical resolution of the 10D to be
1450 lph which is 725/14 = 48 lp/mm.

For film's 100 lpmm to match the 10D's performance in print, the
enlarger
and paper resolution combined cannot be worse than 132 lpmm. (1/57 =
1/100 +
1/132). Using Bob's number, 42 lpmm for digital, we get a more realistic
figure for the enlarger and paper: 67 lpmm (1/41.5 = 1/108 + 1/67),
subject
to focusing and alignment errors in addition to printing lens
resolution.

It's a pretty close match, wouldn't you say, Bob? Not the 2:1 advantage
some
would have us believe.

It is definitely getting close. There are very few published reports of
tests
done on resolution targets for direct digital cameras.

Both Dpreview and Imaging Resource report test charts. You can eyeball them
yourself if you don't like what the reviews say. The only significant
"cameras" missing from these tests are the digital backs.

The few reports that
have appeared are often subject to a great deal of criticism. My
contention is
that it is entirely viable to create compelling images with either
technology,
and I do not find one to be exclusionary in usage to the other.

Not yet...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets. That is okay
for amateurs, but far from the realm of commercial printing.

Yeah, just check out this cheap amateurish desktop inkjet stuff:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-update.shtml

Fairly small compared to a Roland or Encad, or even the larger Epson Printers.
Still inkjet, so what is your point?



Just one question - how many amateurs have their own forklift, do you suppose?

Yeah, I would term Michael Reichmann and Luminous Landscape examples of the
typical amateur.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!