Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: why not 6x7  (Read 16100 times)
diax
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: May 18, 2006, 06:39:07 AM »
ReplyReply

a wonderful test. One i waited long for. I understand that the purpose of the test is to demonstrate the quality of digital back. They are indeed very good. However for a comparison of the 'old' world analog cameras i feel that not enough work is done to show their quality.

- the 645 shot was not taken on the same size as the digital shots
- the 4x5 was drum scanned at only 1600 dpi. That's not enough. 2400 or 3000 would be better.

I wonder also why the analog scans where not made smoother with a grain/ noise removal program like Neat software. The grain from analog film hides a lot of details.  Removing it shows a much more digital smooth picture.  

I also wonder why the 6x7 format was not included, surely a format a lot of professionals use. And why not a Mamiya 6x7 which has nice lenses, no mirror vibration and a nice flat film compartment.

I will not say i can do this test better but when you are interested in 6x7 quality take a look at my testpages. There are also very seriously made.
The test i did myself, probably known here, shows very high resolutions for the 6x7. In the test the Mamiya 7 has much higher resolutions than the Nikon D2x. The difference i see in my test is more than the difference i see here in comparison with the 645 / Canon 1Ds. So this may lead to the conclusion that the 645 resolution seen here is not what 645 is capable of.

So...
When scanned at 3000 dpi the 4x5 velvia would probably be much sharper than the P45.
A mamiya 6x7 would probably come close  to a p45 digital back (let's be fait, it will not be the same, i think 6x7 will not exceed 25-30 mpixel)

testpage mamiya 7 compared to D2x
« Last Edit: May 18, 2006, 06:47:53 AM by diax » Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2006, 07:16:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
a wonderful test. One i waited long for. I understand that the purpose of the test is to demonstrate the quality of digital back. They are indeed very good. However for a comparison of the 'old' world analog cameras i feel that not enough work is done to show their quality.

- the 645 shot was not taken on the same size as the digital shots
- the 4x5 was drum scanned at only 1600 dpi. That's not enough. 2400 or 3000 would be better.

I wonder also why the analog scans where not made smoother with a grain/ noise removal program like Neat software. The grain from analog film hides a lot of details.  Removing it shows a much more digital smooth picture. 

I also wonder why the 6x7 format was not included, surely a format a lot of professionals use. And why not a Mamiya 6x7 which has nice lenses, no mirror vibration and a nice flat film compartment.

I will not say i can do this test better but when you are interested in 6x7 quality take a look at my testpages. There are also very seriously made.
The test i did myself, probably known here, shows very high resolutions for the 6x7. In the test the Mamiya 7 has much higher resolutions than the Nikon D2x. The difference i see in my test is more than the difference i see here in comparison with the 645 / Canon 1Ds. So this may lead to the conclusion that the 645 resolution seen here is not what 645 is capable of.

So...
When scanned at 3000 dpi the 4x5 velvia would probably be much sharper than the P45.
A mamiya 6x7 would probably come close  to a p45 digital back (let's be fait, it will not be the same, i think 6x7 will not exceed 25-30 mpixel)

testpage mamiya 7 compared to D2x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the article was clear that the testers could only shoot with what they could readily get their hands on (mostly their own equipment). There were many popular systems missing from the test.

Secondly, the RZ67 is a great system for film but there is no 67 digital back. You have to adapt a much smaller sensor which makes it impractical to do a film v digital comparison with the 67.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2006, 07:19:19 AM by foto-z » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2007, 01:53:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I understand your point and knew the M7/D2X comparison you mention. Keep in mind that an M7 system + the kind of scanner used in that test costs much more than an equivalent D2X system. For that kind of budget you're in the medium format digital cameras and then the comparison is totally different.
Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

hankg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2007, 12:47:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I understand your point and knew the M7/D2X comparison you mention. Keep in mind that an M7 system + the kind of scanner used in that test costs much more than an equivalent D2X system. For that kind of budget you're in the medium format digital cameras and then the comparison is totally different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No one includes the cost of a drum scanner or the price of having all your transparencies drum scanned when comparing digital to analogue. If your work is winding up digital at the end the cost of everything from capture to final client-ready digital image should be considered. When you do that digital, even medium format digital (a high end scanner will cost as much as a medium format digital back) is by far the cheaper solution.
Logged

mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2007, 09:18:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If your work is winding up digital at the end the cost of everything from capture to final client-ready digital image should be considered.

Exactly!  You have to take a real world look at how many images you make and what you can afford.

I was shooting a Mamiya 7II with 6x7 and a Pentax 645 in 1998 when I started scanning. 6x7 costs about $1 per frame. I was spending $5,000 a year on film and developing alone for my personal work.

Then I bought a Minolta Scan Multi for $2,500.  Trips to lab, negative files, time toi scan and spot.

In comparison, my Canon 1DsII cost about $1,500 a year to own for the first two years.  I took 34K shots during that period, about $.10 a shot.  A medium format back would cost about $5K a year for depreciation ....

Reading the post (without looking at the images), my conclusion would be that the Nikon is as good as the Imacon, which is all I could really afford anyway. At $5K per year for film, plus the Imacon, or $300 per year for the Nikon, that is a no brainer. ;>)
Logged
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2007, 01:48:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No one includes the cost of a drum scanner or the price of having all your transparencies drum scanned when comparing digital to analogue. If your work is winding up digital at the end the cost of everything from capture to final client-ready digital image should be considered. When you do that digital, even medium format digital (a high end scanner will cost as much as a medium format digital back) is by far the cheaper solution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can pick up drum scanners for less than the cost of a Nikon Coolscan. I have bought a Linhof 612 with 2 lenses, a 6x7 Corfield and a 5x4 Razzle, also a Dainippon Screen drum scanner and mounting station all for a lot less than the cost of my 1DsmkII. I also have a Coolscan 8000 which producers results easily comparable (I think better) with the Canon. Provia scanned has next to nothing in the way of grain, scanned at any resolution. I even like the texture and wonderful colours of 400 iso colour neg.

Kevin.
Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2007, 10:23:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Kevin,

I still shoot some 4x5 for personal work.  I am using an Epson v700 that I bought used, for  about $365.

But the question really underlying this is "how *much* film"?   At $4 a sheet for 4x5, it adds up pretty quickly.

Don't worry about the purchase price for equipment. The true cost is the depreciation - the amount of the tool that you have used up.

At $4 a sheet, my breakeven with a 1DsII over the next year - about $1,000 in depreciation - is 250 sheets.  I really have to limit my 4x5.  I may just go back and stitch with the 1DsII.

Best,
Michael
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 10:24:21 PM by mmurph » Logged
diax
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2007, 09:36:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Some observations i did the last years.

With film and a good -drum- scanner it is possible to obtain really very good results. 6x7 and 4x5 deliver much more detail than a 12megapixel camera. However it is  difficult to extract that quality out of the film and get it on a print.

Drumscanned, a 6x7 delivered by a Mamiya 7 will be around 25-30 megapixel and i think the difference with a 45mpix back is not too big. I really would test a Mamiya 7 and a P45 back but the 600 euro /day price for the rent is a little too much.
A drumscanned 4x5 inch made with good sharp lenses is something around 80-120 megapixel.

Only very fine detail objects (landscapes) can show the differences between 12 and 30 megapixel. With objects with bigger structures it is very difficult to see the differences. Skin with 12 mp is almost the same as a skin with 30 mp on a 12x16 print.

Both observations are for color slides with about 50-60 lp/mm maximum resolution. With black and white film with 90-100 lp/mm it should be possible to get 2-3x that resolution. In reality it would be very difficult due to less than perfect situations, lens,  used aperture, tripod, wind, scanning etc etc.

Scanning is a crucial step to get the quality out of the film.
The often used Epson scanners will effectively give you not much more than 1500dpi scanresolution. Your 6x7 slides will effectively be downscaled to a mediocre 12-14 megapixel. The difference with a Canon 5D, Nikon D2x will be gone.
Probably the digital camera will look better in most cases. However, a 4x5 inch scanned with a flatbed will still give you around 40 megapixel, a lot of pixels but less than half of the 100 megapixel a 4x5 can hold. The Flatbed scanner will still make it look soft due to the ccd blooming and chromatic aberrations of the lens system.
CCD based scanners deliver a completely different scan than drumscanners. I think  probably the blooming of the ccd's makes the scans soft which can't be repaired with USM.
Look at this wonderful site for the differences between well known scanners.
very good compare of various drum ccd scanners.
Even not all drumscans are the same. The best are the ICG's and the Aztec premier.

An (Epson?) flatbed should be used for first impressions and quality judgment of medium or large format film should not be based on it.

Not all printers show you the differences.
 I send 12 megapixel D2x and 30 megapixel Mamiya 7 files for 12x16 inch (30x40cm) prints to several printers.  
Durst lambda, Durst Theta, Frontier 3xx and Frontier 550 printers and Epson  2100 inktjet.
The results are disappointing.
 The only printer capable of showing a clear difference is the Frontier 550. Even at this relatively small size the Mamiya 7 prints are clearly much sharper than the 12 mpix Dslr prints.
With the Frontier 550 the 12 mpix prints of the D2x are very clear and nice but the Mamiya 7 prints give you the strange impression to be there again. They are really unbelievable, very sharp. Very small details can be seen on the prints. I went back to  the place where the photo was made with the print in my hand and with the naked eye i could not see more detail than i could see on the print.
 
The Durst Lambda was very disappointing. Almost no difference between D2x and Mamiya 7. I don't know if all Lambda's are the same but i was told the laser had to travel a long distance and that could explain the relatively bad performance for small (12x16) prints. Durst theta is also a very sharp printer. I did no comparisons but the print results show very clear very sharp prints. I am still not convinced an Epson 2100 or alike (3.5 / 4 pico liter) can deliver the same print quality as a new generation laser printers like the Frontier 550. My initial test shows a maximum resolution of about 250 dpi of the 2100.

So i still think that especially for fine work, landscape, b/w the mediumformat and largeformat is unbeatable but  in the whole process from scanning to printing only the best products must be used to get good results. Even using the wrong printer can make  the results less convincing.

Still even at a small print size of 12x16 inch a well drumscanned mediumformat 6x7 slide of a good camera like a Mamiya 7 and printed with a really sharp printer like a Frontier 550 (570) can look much sharper than a 12 megapixel dslr. The difference is still there.

Mamiya 7 compared to Nikon D2x
Logged
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2007, 08:49:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Kevin,

I still shoot some 4x5 for personal work.  I am using an Epson v700 that I bought used, for  about $365.

But the question really underlying this is "how *much* film"?   At $4 a sheet for 4x5, it adds up pretty quickly.

Don't worry about the purchase price for equipment. The true cost is the depreciation - the amount of the tool that you have used up.

At $4 a sheet, my breakeven with a 1DsII over the next year - about $1,000 in depreciation - is 250 sheets.  I really have to limit my 4x5.  I may just go back and stitch with the 1DsII.

Best,
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130225\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know what you mean. But at the end of the day, one you end up with a 48meg digital file and the other a sheet of 5x4 film. if I could wave a wand and all my 1DsmkII files turn into 5x4 or 6x7 film I'd do it.
What would be the spell for that? exdigialous! Anyone got Harry's number?

Kevin.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2007, 08:50:03 AM by KAP » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad