Provia 100F (in 6x7) ain't bad!

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
Where I was going with that is really the upsampling. No need, and I
thought that had exaggerated the moire. Looking at the rest of the 5D
image, there were probably other "fair" places for comparison where I
suspect the 5D would have matched the 6x7 close enough.

This is something I've said at other places and times; that 6x7 film needs
high-contast detail to beat out 12MP digital. Given how blatant the
difference is here though, I'm thinking that there may be more difference
than I had thought.

Film, if scanned at high enough resolution (and 4000 dpi is usually more
than sufficient), is not subject to moire whereas digital cams will
always have a line frequency that they cannot escape... you just
happened on that moire in that shot. How often does that happen?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:

Where I was going with that is really the upsampling. No need, and I
thought that had exaggerated the moire. Looking at the rest of the
5D image, there were probably other "fair" places for comparison
where I suspect the 5D would have matched the 6x7 close enough.

This is something I've said at other places and times; that 6x7 film
needs high-contast detail to beat out 12MP digital. Given how blatant
the difference is here though, I'm thinking that there may be more
difference than I had thought.

You don't know how pleased I am to hear you say such things, David! ;-)

Neil

"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
Where I was going with that is really the upsampling. No need, and I
thought that had exaggerated the moire. Looking at the rest of the 5D
image, there were probably other "fair" places for comparison where I
suspect the 5D would have matched the 6x7 close enough.

This is something I've said at other places and times; that 6x7 film
needs high-contast detail to beat out 12MP digital. Given how blatant the
difference is here though, I'm thinking that there may be more difference
than I had thought.

Film, if scanned at high enough resolution (and 4000 dpi is usually more
than sufficient), is not subject to moire whereas digital cams will always
have a line frequency that they cannot escape... you just happened on that
moire in that shot. How often does that happen?

It happens more often on test charts than in real lifeg.

In real life, it's rare. I don't see it in landscapes and shots of
traditional buildings and gardens; only in ugly modern things. Also,
Lightroom keeps it better under control than, for example, RSP did.

The 5D's Nyquist frequency is 60 lp/mm. When there's high contrast detail at
60 to 70 lp/mm on 24x36, that will be 30 to 35 lp/mm on 6x7, and the 6x7
will render that quite nicely, thank you.

FWIW, at 12x18" (the largest prints I make), 5D images print at 9.4 pixels
per mm. Given the AA filter and Bayer matrix, 4 lp/mm on the print is all
you get. But that looks quite nice at 10" or further away.

The question, though, is how to make that performance be useful in the
landscapes and shots of traditional buildings and gardens and surfaces with
texture. I'm still working on this. Film for socialist realism and digital
for everything else isn't a very satisfying answer for the film fans.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
Where I was going with that is really the upsampling. No need, and I
thought that had exaggerated the moire. Looking at the rest of the 5D
image, there were probably other "fair" places for comparison where I
suspect the 5D would have matched the 6x7 close enough.
This is something I've said at other places and times; that 6x7 film
needs high-contast detail to beat out 12MP digital. Given how blatant the
difference is here though, I'm thinking that there may be more difference
than I had thought.
Film, if scanned at high enough resolution (and 4000 dpi is usually more
than sufficient), is not subject to moire whereas digital cams will always
have a line frequency that they cannot escape... you just happened on that
moire in that shot. How often does that happen?

It happens more often on test charts than in real lifeg.

I almost said the same thing (or at least was prepared to say, "nudes
are not test charts.")

In real life, it's rare. I don't see it in landscapes and shots of
traditional buildings and gardens; only in ugly modern things. Also,
Lightroom keeps it better under control than, for example, RSP did.

The 5D's Nyquist frequency is 60 lp/mm. When there's high contrast detail at
60 to 70 lp/mm on 24x36, that will be 30 to 35 lp/mm on 6x7, and the 6x7
will render that quite nicely, thank you.

FWIW, at 12x18" (the largest prints I make), 5D images print at 9.4 pixels
per mm. Given the AA filter and Bayer matrix, 4 lp/mm on the print is all
you get. But that looks quite nice at 10" or further away.

I occasionally do 15" x 10" off of a 6 Mpix camera and they look quite
nice from a few feet away... it's all in the viewing.

The question, though, is how to make that performance be useful in the
landscapes and shots of traditional buildings and gardens and surfaces with
texture. I'm still working on this. Film for socialist realism and digital
for everything else isn't a very satisfying answer for the film fans.

Sometimes ya just have to shoot film ... 'cause you like it...

I'm on a scanning blitz right now. 12 rolls (120) from a recent trip...
discovered that the MAC OS X v. of Nikon scan has some weird flaws (such
as inability to offset the film position reliably). So scanning on the
WinXP machine and PSing on the Mac.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

David J. Littleboy wrote,on my timestamp of 31/08/2008 12:33 AM:

killer fine grain as TMX100, might not be all that much better than 12MP
digital. But it is.

http://www.pbase.com/image/102380922/original

ouch!...
then again, that must be an *extreme* case against the 5D!
mind you, I find a very similar problem on greenery detail with
any dslr, not just the 5D.


The bad news is that I haven't figured out how to persuade the Epson V700 to
capture enough more detail than the 5D to be able to justify shooting film.

Thought the V700 had more rez than the 4990? What
most of these flatbeds miss out on is proper focusing.
First flatbed maker to realize that at a reasonable
price will make an absolute killing!

Sigh. (The Nikon 8000 is old and dying, and probably won't be resurrectable,
so I need an alternative.)

Try to have it serviced: surprising what a good service shop
can do to otherwise 'unrecoverable" equipment. I just had
one service my 4990 and it came back better than new!
Hope you can fix it, it's an excellent piece of gear.

BTW, found out what was ticking with my 9000 and its
speed: a vpn device driver didn't quite like the network
connection through my firewire driver.
Uninstalled it and the firewire net driver and all
is back to normal!

David J. Littleboy wrote:

(I'm really going to want the new Fuji 6x7 folder if it actually appears
in the stores,

Oops, a NEW 6x7 folder camera from Fuji?

Googled around, and it seems there is a prototype.
Personally, I prefer the 6*9 format (I *love* my GW690 III, less the GSW690
III).

Come on, Fuji, when will you make a telephoto in 6*9?
I am still waiting for a 200mm lens on a GT690... (OK, a 180mm reissue with
modern glass from the old G690 would be OK with me)

Anyway, I will keep my eyes open for this gem (if it ever seens the light of
day in a low price...)

Cheers,
N.Fotis

"Nick Fotis" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

(I'm really going to want the new Fuji 6x7 folder if it actually appears
in the stores,

Oops, a NEW 6x7 folder camera from Fuji?

Googled around, and it seems there is a prototype.

Yep. I saw a Japanese article that insisted that it was likely to appear, so
I'm working on my 6x7 scanning again.

Personally, I prefer the 6*9 format (I *love* my GW690 III, less the
GSW690
III).

I do too. But it's a bit overkill for my needs. (I barely have the space for
a 13x19 printer, and insist on making my own prints.) Since I thought
that I might get the 43/4.5 I went with the M7.

Anyway, I will keep my eyes open for this gem (if it ever sees the light
of
day in a low price...)

I don't know what "low price" means to you, but I can't imagine it going for
anything less than the new price of the G(S)W690III when they were
discontinued, which was about US$1500.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:

I don't know what "low price" means to you, but I can't imagine it going for
anything less than the new price of the G(S)W690III when they were
discontinued, which was about US$1500.


I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff, but really, given the choice I
think I'd go with a Pentax 67 or a Mamiya RB/Z67. At least I'd have
lens options.

I mean, don't get me wrong, this Fuji folder is cool as hell, but...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

I don't know what "low price" means to you, but I can't imagine it going
for
anything less than the new price of the G(S)W690III when they were
discontinued, which was about US$1500.

I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff, but really, given the choice I think
I'd go with a Pentax 67 or a Mamiya RB/Z67. At least I'd have lens
options.

I mean, don't get me wrong, this Fuji folder is cool as hell, but...

My theory is that I'd carry the Mamiya 7 with the 43/4.5 plus the folder.
Together, they'd weigh less than a P67/RB/RZ with one lens.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

I don't know what "low price" means to you, but I can't imagine it going
for
anything less than the new price of the G(S)W690III when they were
discontinued, which was about US$1500.

I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff, but really, given the choice I think
I'd go with a Pentax 67 or a Mamiya RB/Z67. At least I'd have lens
options.

I mean, don't get me wrong, this Fuji folder is cool as hell, but...

My theory is that I'd carry the Mamiya 7 with the 43/4.5 plus the folder.
Together, they'd weigh less than a P67/RB/RZ with one lens.

I often have to come up with convoluted chains of thought too before I
buy something...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.