Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

My intuition is that it should be over two orders of magnitude.

You lost me on the math term, but it looks to me like barely 1% of total
cameras new sales each year go to medium format gear. Probably even less
goes
to large format. Lack of any future new sales increases, or just status
quo,
could make medium format a cottage industry within two years.

Perhaps, but due to the higher complexity of your typical modern MF camera,
as soon as parts start to disappear, people are going to give up. LF has a
better chance because fixing a bellows, lens board, ground glass or even a
mechanical shutter is pretty easy compared to repairing a broken AF module,
or building one from scratch. Sure, cameras will last a while, but
eventually a Rolleiflex will be a more attractive purchase than a clapped
out 6008.AF.

Without the influx of money it will become hard for MF companies to keep
things going.

-Jack

see
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/
48D8F331DF48EE72C1256CEF002B0240 (why do they need such a looong string?)

quoting the article:

In contrast, our procedure is based on typical photo conditions like
outside sunlight, exposures controlled by normal camera shutters, focusing
done with the normal focusing aids of the camera, standard film developing
by a normal photo finisher, and of course, using normal Carl Zeiss
photographic camera lenses. In other words: we use equipment and
techniques which are readily accessible and our results are therefore
relevant to every photographer.
endquote:

so contrary to David's complaint, these 200 lpmm resolution levels were
achieved under "typical photo conditions" as outlined above and "our
results are therefore relevant to every photographer" ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

quoting David L.:
Again, for a plethora of reasons, real photography isn't about 100 lp/mm
resolution, it's about 30 lp/mm. Maybe. If your technique is very good.
endquote:

Hmmm? p;-) I think your technique would NOT have to be very good to do
"real photography", most consumers are able to get a decent 5x7" print,
and at a reduced printing standard of 6 lpmm (cf. "photo-realistic" 300
dpi prints), that 30 lpmm would only support 30/6 or 5X enlargement or a
5x7" print from 35mm, or 11x11" print from 6x6cm MF?

Erwin Puts has noted that many photographers are stuck below 40 lpmm
limit; I have used 50 lpmm as my "barrier" between casual results and what
film and good lenses with good technique can deliver (i.e., 100 lpmm..).
(http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/limits.html ) Few digital types can get past 50
lpmm either, since the anti-aliasing low pass filter in front of the
sensor, and sensor spacing and other system constraints make typical DSLR
resolutions limits around 40 to 50+ lpmm.

again, fairly conservative, because Zeiss' "real-world" tests with their
lenses, photo finishing lab, sundry films, and daylight photos often
reached 150 lpmm and 200 lpmm with finest grain films at ISO 25, see
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/
48D8F331DF48EE72C1256CEF002B0240 for test details etc.

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Hi again Mike, ;-)

Yes, I have previously posted on the "sweet spot" where digital will be
"good enough" for most 35mm and many MF needs and users, and suggested
that 16MP seemed to be likely value for such a "sweet spot". At 64MP, you
have lots more data, upload times get longer, and larger sensors will
likely mean larger lenses (unless lenslets become lots cheaper ;-).

I am not sure if you feel the optical image degradation in going from 35mm
to 6x6cm enlargements is the cause of the need to have 64MP for MF film vs
24 MP for digital (4*6.3MP)? That seems a rather large factor, and many MF
enlarger lenses are no slouches when it comes to performance.

the best study (1991 by Harris) I have seen compared 35mm pentax 50mm
f/2.8 macro lens against hassy 80mm f/2.8 T* and 210mm f/5.6 Symmar S; he
found enlargeability factors were 14X, 12X and 9X respectively.

bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
quoting David L.:
Again, for a plethora of reasons, real photography isn't about 100 lp/mm
resolution, it's about 30 lp/mm. Maybe. If your technique is very good.
endquote:

Hmmm? p;-) I think your technique would NOT have to be very good to do
"real photography", most consumers are able to get a decent 5x7" print,
and at a reduced printing standard of 6 lpmm (cf. "photo-realistic" 300
dpi prints), that 30 lpmm would only support 30/6 or 5X enlargement or a
5x7" print from 35mm, or 11x11" print from 6x6cm MF?

The problem with this discussion is that I am talking about imaging with
decent contrast, and you are talking about imaging at 10% or lower MTF.
IMHO, talking about anything less than 25% MTF or so is completely
ridiculous. Completely. 10%MTF isn't enough to make a significant
contribution to edge sharpness*, and isn't enough to be useful for quality
imaging.

*: I bet somewhere on the net there's a discussion of Fourier series that
shows what contribution to edge quality upper harmonics make when attenuated
to 50% and 10%.

10% MTF images are not adequate to show to people, so talking about
"resolving" at 10% MTF is silly. The mythical "Leica 8 lp/mm" print smells
to me to be more of the same: that's simply not possible _with decent
contrast_ with the films people are really using at 9x enlargement. Provia
100F is down to 50% MTF at 40 lp/mm.

IMHO, the reason the 1Ds appears to be closer to 645 than 35mm is exactly
that. Provia 100F is down to 50% MTF at 40 lp/mm, and most real lenses are
as well (especially wide open or stopped down for DOF, or anything wider
than normal even slightly off axis). We are taking images that have
artistic/compositional requirements, right? On-axis at f/8 at the plane of
focus with Zeiss' best lens isn't where most photography happens.)

Erwin Puts has noted that many photographers are stuck below 40 lpmm
limit; I have used 50 lpmm as my "barrier" between casual results and what
film and good lenses with good technique can deliver (i.e., 100 lpmm..).

Not at even 25% MTF. You are talking about meaningless laboratory phenomena:
nothing that's useful or meaningful in practical photography.

(http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/limits.html ) Few digital types can get past 50
lpmm either, since the anti-aliasing low pass filter in front of the
sensor, and sensor spacing and other system constraints make typical DSLR
resolutions limits around 40 to 50+ lpmm.

Yes. The 1Ds' limiting resolution is about 40 lp/mm (from eyeballing the
test charts).

But when people look at the images, they see near 645 quality, not 35mm
quality, images.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

a) some MF makers have already dropped models, i.e., fuji, bronica, and
others may do so shortly too (Pentax?..). So the remaining new MF sales
have to be split among fewer players, yes? An industry shakeout should
ideally leave the better products and/or stronger players standing at the
end (its only a theory though ;-)...

b) my calculations on pro MF ownership rates (~1 per 1,000) in the
West/Japan was only meant to show how small a number 5,000 or 10,000 MF
cameras might be against the unmet pent-up demand for MF cameras and other
"luxury" goods in a rapidly expanding economy in China and Japan. It would
take only 1% of that 1.25 million potential sales (to reach western pro
MF ownership levels) to create those 10,000 pro MF new sales per year in
China and India combined.

c) the big MF players are already in china, with Hasselblad owned by a
Hong Kong firm and Mamiya producing MF 645 cameras and lenses in China


So QGdeB is not right in suggesting that I think millions of chinese are
going to replicate our MF history, starting with folders and TLRs and
finally 6x6cm and then 645/67 MF kits ;-) I do think there are many
thousands of pro photographers in China and India who will want MF kits
(as well as digital etc.) as the WTO tariffs kick in and drop the price of
imports by 2/3rds or more.

The infrastructure problem is still key to why MF and why many won't be
able to simply jump to digital. As I noted, you can shoot film and carry
or mail it to developers and clients. With digital, you need a lot more
support infrastructure which isn't going to be readily available outside
of a few big cities.

my $.02 ;-)

bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

On 24 Jun 2004 22:19:15 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


The infrastructure problem is still key to why MF and why many won't be
able to simply jump to digital. As I noted, you can shoot film and carry
or mail it to developers and clients. With digital, you need a lot more
support infrastructure which isn't going to be readily available outside
of a few big cities.


Run that by me again?

In what way does digital require a more extensive
infrastructure than film?

What sort of infrastructure do you have in mind?

Are you talking about fixing the cameras, or what?

How does that square with your prediction of
16 MP Foveon cell phones?


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

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
How has Fuji duped people into thinking that Frontier prints are the
"gold"
standard of digitial printing? Inkjets look better.

There's really not a lot to choose between the Frontier and inkjet prints
I
have, to be honest. The Frontier stuff is probably on better paper, but
the
image quality doesn't seem to be a whole lot different. Having said that,
my
inkjet (Espon 1290) is getting a bit long in the tooth now.

Personally, I like the look of the 16x20 that I get when I rack the enlarger
head all the way to the top and turn out the lights. That aside...
I've got an advertisement for Kodak Endura paper (color) that gives the life
as 100 years in the light, 200 years in dark storage. I've got another
advertisement for Kodak inkjet printer paper that gives the life as 100
years _for_the_paper_ (not the image).
When a manufacturer rates two of their own products with widely different
specs, that seems to say something.
Ken Hart

Hi Bill ;-)

Yes, Foveon has two sensor designs out in mass marketed products. But as I
noted, the foveon 16MP 22x22mm CMOS sensor was NOT X3 technology, but a
conventional Bayer array with 16+ million sensors on the 22x22mm die. The
X3 stuff was a later development. Some of Foveon's other sensor designs
are also used in sundry multi-sensor arrays with beam splitters, with RGB
filtering on each array and combined imagery for color use. The X3 is only
one of Foveon's product developments, and not the only one in market ;-)

Foveon did have working 16MP CMOS chips, and moreover, developed prototype
camera products which were displayed and demo'd by photographers etc. The
key point here is that using CMOS memory chip style technology and
production techniques they were able to produce a 16MP sensor design.
National Semiconductor's CEO noted the production economics, viz. millions
will need to be produced, but at those volumes prices will drop under $10
per 16 MP CMOS sensor chip. You are right this was hype, but unlike many
silicon valley projects, this one had both the silicon and working
prototypes demonstrated successfully at the announcement. If kodak has
gone in as hoped, we would probably be using 16MP foveon DSLRS now ;-)

Now if Foveon and National Semiconductor can produce a 16 MP device and
demo it four+ years ago, how long before they or somebody else starts
making production volumes of 16MP sensors? Fuji is making 22 MP sensors
now, though at small volumes.

The main answer is when will there be a market for millions of cheap 16MP
sensors to drive production to the millions of devices/month needed to get
costs down into the under $10 per chip range? Again, I think the camera
cell-phone market has opened up a huge market for sensors, and embedded
sensors in PCs etc. will not be far behind. They were .3 MP at first, are
now at 3 MP in Japan and 2MP in other markets. Will the market stop there,
or will demand for more MP continue? Stay tuned ;-)

As to when these 16MP chips might hit volume production, ask the Koreans.
They are the ones with the new fabs and with the capability to flood the
market with cheap 16MP sensors, if they decide to dedicate some high $ fab
time to that project. There are a number of other independent fab houses
out there which are also producing optical sensor devices who may also use
that experience as a step up into the 16 MP sensor market. And who knows,
it might even be Foveon's proven 16 MP sensor design that gets made? ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Bob, I'm absolutely speechless, still groping for words. :-) OK. Zeiss
really did manage to do this with their lenses, but just didn't bother to
publish the details. It's not as though Rodenstocks and Schneiders are
better lenses simply because their graphs look more learned and believable.
I accept for now, provisionally, that the Zeiss film resolution report is
reasonable and accurate. The trouble is reconciling it against everything
else I think I know about lenses: MTF, captured image resolution, and every
other whozits and whatnots. There maybe isn't a conflict here after all.
It's not as though they claimed to actually image 200 lpmm on film...

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
see
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/
48D8F331DF48EE72C1256CEF002B0240 (why do they need such a looong string?)

quoting the article:

In contrast, our procedure is based on typical photo conditions like
outside sunlight, exposures controlled by normal camera shutters, focusing
done with the normal focusing aids of the camera, standard film developing
by a normal photo finisher, and of course, using normal Carl Zeiss
photographic camera lenses. In other words: we use equipment and
techniques which are readily accessible and our results are therefore
relevant to every photographer.
endquote:

so contrary to David's complaint, these 200 lpmm resolution levels were
achieved under "typical photo conditions" as outlined above and "our
results are therefore relevant to every photographer" ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************