Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:21:12 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

There are a number of full res images posted on the web,
from the Canon 1Ds. A few from Canon's web site, many
more from various review sites.

Now, take one of these and compare it to your 6x6 image,
scanned on the 4870. You'll need to compare at the same
resolution, which means either upsampling the 1Ds
images or downsampling the film scans, or some
combination thereof.. and then viewing them side by
side at 100% in Photoshop.

So... your rationale is to compare scanners to digital cameras; cripple
the output of the 6x6 so that it doesn't look as good as it can; and then
add sample conversion artifacts to the mix?


What Dave L says, and what David Muench says.

I'd be honored to trade prints with you, Neil.

But so far -- nobody's taken my "challenge"
so it looks like so much hot air from the film
and wet-print Luddites.

I contend that scanned film plus digital
print (either LightJet or Epson) can match
anything that you, Neil, can do in your wet
darkroom with an enlarger from the same
film format at 6x enlargement or greater.


I think you'll see that the 1Ds provides a whole lot more
information per pixel. It's startling. 11 million pixels from
the 1Ds produce an image nearly as sharp and detailed
as a 55 million-pixel scan of 645 made on my LS-8000.

So, get a drum scan, and see how that compares to your LS-8000. The fact
is that the LS-8000, as good as it is, isn't pulling all one can get off
the film, though it might be pulling all *you* can get off *your* film.
;-)


I'm not convinced that drum scans would pull a
whole lot more out of my films than the 8000 does.
I have quite a few scan samples and real A:B
comparisons on which I base that statement.

I would enjoy scanning my 4x5 at the same
resolution but that would require a significant
boost in computing resources. (Even now, I'm
dealing with 330 Mbyte files.)


And yet, the pixel count ratio is 5:1 in favor of film.
The image surface area ratio is 3:1 in favor of film.

Pixel-for-pixel, or per square mm, the 1Ds capture is
returning far more useful information than the film scan.

It's a Good Thing that one has far more square mm to work with in MF.

Right, which is why I use film... or digital, based
on about a hundred different factors, among
which are whim, mood, and fancy.

For the ultimate in pixels and detail, I shoot
4x5 and scan it. If I'm looking to make miles
deep in the backcountry, I take the G2.

The difficulty and cost of scaling silicon sensors is
the only thing keeping large film formats alive.

I don't think so. Digital MF makes little sense for many reasons. Even
small-format high-res direct digital is a pain compared to 35 mm *for many
uses*, and today's image quality is in the same ballpark.

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


If the thread's getting too complex for you,
find another ;-)

Why do things have to be so black and
white? So binary? I swing both ways, and
enjoy multiple shades of gray.


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

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

. . . . . . . . . .
I think you'll see that the 1Ds provides a whole lot more
information per pixel. It's startling. 11 million pixels from
the 1Ds produce an image nearly as sharp and detailed
as a 55 million-pixel scan of 645 made on my LS-8000.

So, get a drum scan, and see how that compares to your LS-8000. The fact
is that the LS-8000, as good as it is, isn't pulling all one can get off
the film, though it might be pulling all *you* can get off *your* film.
;-)

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.

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? If so, then I agree that scanning medium format
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.


. . . . . . . . . .

The difficulty and cost of scaling silicon sensors is
the only thing keeping large film formats alive.

I don't think so. Digital MF makes little sense for many reasons. Even
small-format high-res direct digital is a pain compared to 35 mm *for many
uses*, and today's image quality is in the same ballpark.

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?



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.



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.

****, why don't you slam me for using oil paints, and still making paintings on
canvas? Obviously I should get with the modern times and do everything on a
computer using Adobe Illustrator.

Ciao!

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

re investments from mf/semipro.html

The top of the profession sales figures of the Advertising Photographers
of America, with average sales of $378,223 (and median sales rather lower
at $243,000) reported for 1999:



Replacement Value:
$ 9,900 35mm gear (SLR, Rangefinders..)
$13,250 120 rollfilm gear (medium format SLR/RF..)
$16,150 4x5 large format
$ 8,800 digital cameras

end-quote

Given that most LF camera users have only a few lenses, I find the $16k
for LF gear fairly surprising. Perhaps they are charging off the studio
strobes and tripods against LF? But then, $13k for MF doesn't leave much
for buying new hasselblad lenses or a superwide 38mm? And with $6k for a
pro fast 600mm f/4 on many 35mm, $10k is fairly modest for a high end pro
too? And these guys are the top 1% of the profession in income (top 10% in
USA are just above $50k per labor dept stats). Presumably the median wage
$25k+/yr photographer has rather less invested?

Yes, the $200-ish SLR was with a lens with leaf shutter too ;-) Should I
note that $300-ish hassy 500 C/ELM kits with WLF, 80mm, and back have
recently been advertised on certain related mailing lists? ;-) Then again,
I bought my hassy 500c kit with accessories for $400 back in early-1980s.

What has really distorted the used gear price levels was the higher than
inflation period in 1980s when European and then Japanese made camera gear
prices rose (partly due to strengthening local currencies) year after year
at rates up to 15% annually, far higher than inflation. Used gear prices
also went up dramatically, e.g., for used hassy C lenses, which could
often be used on the same bodies with little loss in on-film performance.

A study of EBAY would be useful, but they block access to older listings,
so it would have to be an on-going analysis. It is also problematic in
that you would have to factor out the same folks listing the same camera
again and again at too high a price? ;-) Perhaps limiting to just cameras
sold would show the extent of EBAY's impact on used MF gear sales. But
then, you would have to factor out if this was a new MF user sale or not
(user survey by email?). It could be a few of us on this NG buying up all
these cameras at current low prices? ;-) ;-)

grins bobm

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

quoting rafe:
The digital sensor is still capturing far more
useful image data per square mm than film
could ever dream of. In terms of resolution,
the only advantage left for film capture is
surface area, and lots of it.
end-quote:

this is hard to understand, since the digital sensor's area is ten to
fifty times larger than many sub-micron film grains, yes? Shouldn't
something much smaller (like film grains) capture MORE information, rather
than less as you contend? ;-) Esp. since film is an analog medium, and
often features stacked emulsions (e.g., for color films) and so on? ;-)

quoting a photo lab report:
"As we've reported in the past and have deduced from our own tests, a
tripod mounted, high end SLR with a superb lens and ISO 100 color print
film can capture the equivalent of a 40 megapixel sensor. That's an order
of magnitude more than a 3.3 or even 4MP sensor..." - Popular Photography,
March 2001, page 55. end-quote:

Kodak's estimate for mid-speed print film in 35mm format is "at least" 24
megapixel equiv. - and they should know, they make both the film and the
digital cameras, right? ;-) Do you know something that Kodak doesn't? ;-)

So I don't find it convincing when the film mfger tells me how much larger
the megapixel equivalents of film are versus current DSLRs, and a photo
mag test lab (which magazine heavily promotes digital, just as kodak makes
a lot of digital cameras, so both should not have an anti-digital bias)
also confirms 40 megapixel equivalence for 35mm films, and then somebody
tells me based on their results that digital beats film by a factor of
ten?

I am willing to agree that _your_ results may be so, and that current
consumer film scanners may cause the loss of fine detail from film, but
the lab tests by kodak and popphoto seem far more compelling standards on
which to decide what the true film vs. digital sensor megapixel
equivalents really are. Why do you think Kodak and Pop-Photo's lab tests
are wrong, and you are right in dis'sing film? ;-)

Of course, MF films have 3.8+ the area of 35mm, so should be 4x as good
;-)

If you can't achieve these equivalent megapixels, it isn't because they
aren't there, per Kodak and PopPhoto. In the future, with better film
scanners, results will hopefully continue to improve. In the meantime, my
choice is shooting with a MF camera at 100+ megapixel equiv., and when the
scanning technology improves, I will be able to get far more quality from
my scanned film images than those stuck with 5 MP or 8 MP DSLRs of today.

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

"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.

And there isn't anything there.

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

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

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.

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."

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).

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.

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...

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.

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.)

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...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

quoting rafe:
The digital sensor is still capturing far more
useful image data per square mm than film
could ever dream of. In terms of resolution,
the only advantage left for film capture is
surface area, and lots of it.
end-quote:

this is hard to understand, since the digital sensor's area is ten to
fifty times larger than many sub-micron film grains, yes? Shouldn't
something much smaller (like film grains) capture MORE information, rather
than less as you contend? ;-)

Everyone who has actually looked at 10D images finds them slightly worse
than 24x36mm of Provia 100F, but a lot better than 17x23mm of Provia 100F
would. If you print a 17x23 mm frame at 8.24 x 11.5 inches, it'll look
seriously gross, but 10D images look pretty good at A4.

Similarly, everyone who has looked at 1Ds images finds them a lot closer to
645 than 35mm.

So your counting angels on the heads of pins gives a result that is in
disagreement with objective reality.

I am willing to agree that _your_ results may be so, and that current
consumer film scanners may cause the loss of fine detail from film,

Bob, 35mm looks like cr@p at A4, so how do you expect 17x23 to look decent.
But guess what? 6MP images look very nice at A4.

If you can't achieve these equivalent megapixels, it isn't because they
aren't there, per Kodak and PopPhoto.

No, it's because they aren't there.

Simple reality. 6MP looks good at A4, 17x23 film looks like cr@p.

It's not news that 1/2 frame 35 is soft at A4. But you seem to have
forgotten objective reality...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

Now, take one of these and compare it to your 6x6 image,
scanned on the 4870. You'll need to compare at the same
resolution, which means either upsampling the 1Ds
images or downsampling the film scans, or some
combination thereof.. and then viewing them side by
side at 100% in Photoshop.

So... your rationale is to compare scanners to digital cameras;
cripple the output of the 6x6 so that it doesn't look as good as it
can; and then add sample conversion artifacts to the mix?

As has been said befo if I look at my slides with a 60x
microscope, I do not see a lot that the scanner doesn't get. I can
take my scans to a pro lab and get just as good prints as people who
hand the lab film. (Better since it's cropped and twiddled to my
taste.)

The idea that scanning "cripples" MF looks dead wrong to me.

Not to me, when comparing scanned film to wet prints. Perhaps you just
like that "look" better than I do. They don't look at all the same to me,
but then, I've been looking at pixels since the mid '70s, so perhaps I'm
just overly sensitive to the artifacts and limitations.

So, get a drum scan, and see how that compares to your LS-8000. The
fact is that the LS-8000, as good as it is, isn't pulling all one
can get off the film, though it might be pulling all *you* can get
off *your* film. ;-)

Drum scans are only a tiny improvement over 4000 dpi scans. One
really has to eyeball them at insane magnifications to see any
difference. The difference is miniscule compared to even the
difference between even 6x7 and 6x9 (for those of us printing to the
A4 aspect ratio.)

For someone satisfied with ink jet prints, perhaps that's so. I can
readily see the difference between a drum scan and a CCD scan, and it
doesn't take big magnifications to do so.

I don't think so. Digital MF makes little sense for many reasons.
Even small-format high-res direct digital is a pain compared to 35
mm *for many uses*, and today's image quality is in the same
ballpark.

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.

What are the others???

(1) Being able to predict when the image is actually being captured. It's
a constant rather than some unknown variable. (2) Not having to wait until
the image is written to disc to be able to take the next shot. I can
*easily* shoot 2:1 with a non-motorized 35 mm vs. digital camera at full
resolution. With MF, that could be a *really long* wait. (3) Having a
*much* higher quality image than any digital format available today. (4)
Not having Bayer pattern artifacts. Need more?

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???

I"m not a "film Luddite"... I own and shoot digital as well. I just see it
as a different media with its own peculiarities, and find no reason to
rave about how it's as good as MF film. Or even 35 mm film for that
matter. But, my point was that comparisons based on downsampled film scans
or upsampled direct digital images are ludicrous, and belie the fact that
someone doesn't know very much about resampling algorithms.

Neil

well, the market would be those who want to shoot digital at very high
megapixels using their current MF and LF gear without spending $25k for a
mere 16MP sensor, but for $1k could use a film/photo scanner sensor
instead (with static subjects anyway, which would be a lot of the LF
market and much of the MF market for some users ;-)

see http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-figures/scanner-11.jpg for infrared
panoramic image made with a scanner and see article on $50 scanner hacks
at http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-demo-scanner-cam.html

the cost of modifying a film scanner which moves the sensor past the film
should be similar? from there, you need a way to put it on a back and
provide the power needed to make the scanner go and somewhere to put
the data ;-)

grins bobm

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

Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"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.

Hmm. So, not only do you want to introduce artifacts by scanning and
resampling, you want to depend on a monitor with its *greatly* reduced
color and dynamic range (not to mention changing color spaces from
reflective to transmissive) for comparison? No wonder you don't think film
vs. direct digital makes a lot of difference.

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.

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.

Neil