Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Digiatl vs. film another comparison  (Read 11058 times)
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2009, 12:53:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Good question Rob. It's not included simply because the time commitment is similar between the two.  In our studio shooting all photo sorting had to be done on the light table and negatives had to be mounted and cropped before shipping to the lab, which was in fact much more time consuming than review of positives on the monitor and subsequent digital image processing.  We're also able to transmit files directly to our lab rather than mailing negatives for further cost savings as well as faster turn around.  Those shipping savings are not in the $27k either.  

We also aren't scanning, then processing for digital uses.  In fact, in our experience the comparison of scanned film files versus original digital capture makes film cameras suitable for use as boat anchors in our business.  Without a heckuvalotta work on the scanned files from a very high end scanner, film capture just doesn't measure up.  And with our commercial/industrial/scientific/aerial clients, we're able to get the photos into their hands in hours rather than the sometimes weeks required for them to wait for us to ship out the film for processing (we're in a remote location), get it back and mount it in sheets, then ship it out to them.  That capability alone has increased our contracting in those venues.  With the capability of onsite review rather than waiting for film, we also bracket less and have experienced almost no reshoots which we have to pay for... a HUGE savings in worst cases.

And from a purely business standpoint, the lag we used to experience between original film capture and portfolio review with the client was hugely costly.  In the interim they lost the "spirit" generated in the session and had time to consider their print purchases a week or more "in the cold hard light of day," and make much more conservative purchases.  With digital capture we reserve time between sessions for immediate portfolio review and on-the-spot ordering, which has resulted in much freer spending.  Call it "impulse buying" and you'd be accurate, but the switch to digital capture punched up our print sales the first year by about 35% for the same volume of shoots.  Online viewing of private portfolios has probably quadrupled our "aftermarket" sales to distant family members too.  When working with albums of printed proofs which family members mailed to Aunt Susie in Susquehanna, it was almost not worth our effort, much less the long waits.  Yet we had to do it at client request.  On average we now generate aftermarket sales adding up to around 30% on top of the original print orders by the initial client.  It seems "sexy" or hi-tech to clients to email the site address and password to distant family and friends for their viewing pleasure and print purchases, I guess.  But they love being able to do it and it generates significant additional income to us for the small effort and expense of posting and maintaining the online portfolios at a host site.

We had a funny (odd) experience last year in the shaky economy.  Even though our client load was down around 20%, our gross only dropped 3%.  Sales were fewer, but almost without exception the clients we did have come through the door spent more.  I can't explain it.  But if you delve a little deeper and look at our net last year, per-client income using digital capture was still up more than 50% over our best-ever year in 15 years of film capture.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 12:54:57 PM by Hank » Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2009, 01:08:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hank
Good question Rob. It's not included simply because the time commitment is similar between the two.  In our studio shooting all photo sorting had to be done on the light table and negatives had to be mounted and cropped before shipping to the lab, which was in fact much more time consuming than review of positives on the monitor and subsequent digital image processing.  We're also able to transmit files directly to our lab rather than mailing negatives for further cost savings as well as faster turn around.  Those shipping savings are not in the $27k either.  

We also aren't scanning, then processing for digital uses.  In fact, in our experience the comparison of scanned film files versus original digital capture makes film cameras suitable for use as boat anchors in our business.  Without a heckuvalotta work on the scanned files from a very high end scanner, film capture just doesn't measure up.  And with our commercial/industrial/scientific/aerial clients, we're able to get the photos into their hands in hours rather than the sometimes weeks required for them to wait for us to ship out the film for processing (we're in a remote location), get it back and mount it in sheets, then ship it out to them.  That capability alone has increased our contracting in those venues.  With the capability of onsite review rather than waiting for film, we also bracket less and have experienced almost no reshoots which we have to pay for... a HUGE savings in worst cases.

And from a purely business standpoint, the lag we used to experience between original film capture and portfolio review with the client was hugely costly.  In the interim they lost the "spirit" generated in the session and had time to consider their print purchases a week or more "in the cold hard light of day," and make much more conservative purchases.  With digital capture we reserve time between sessions for immediate portfolio review and on-the-spot ordering, which has resulted in much freer spending.  Call it "impulse buying" and you'd be accurate, but the switch to digital capture punched up our print sales the first year by about 35% for the same volume of shoots.  Online viewing of private portfolios has probably quadrupled our "aftermarket" sales to distant family members too.  When working with albums of printed proofs which family members mailed to Aunt Susie in Susquehanna, it was almost not worth our effort, much less the long waits.  Yet we had to do it at client request.  On average we now generate aftermarket sales adding up to around 30% on top of the original print orders by the initial client.  It seems "sexy" or hi-tech to clients to email the site address and password to distant family and friends for their viewing pleasure and print purchases, I guess.  But they love being able to do it and it generates significant additional income to us for the small effort and expense of posting and maintaining the online portfolios at a host site.

We had a funny (odd) experience last year in the shaky economy.  Even though our client load was down around 20%, our gross only dropped 3%.  Sales were fewer, but almost without exception the clients we did have come through the door spent more.  I can't explain it.  But if you delve a little deeper and look at our net last year, per-client income using digital capture was still up more than 50% over our best-ever year in 15 years of film capture.

That is perhaps the most intriguing look at the business side of high-volume photography business I've read here. It's nice to see some pros in the business seeing financial benefits from digital.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2009, 02:27:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

And you even save some nickles on Polaroids...

Erik

Quote from: Hank
Good question Rob. It's not included simply because the time commitment is similar between the two.  In our studio shooting all photo sorting had to be done on the light table and negatives had to be mounted and cropped before shipping to the lab, which was in fact much more time consuming than review of positives on the monitor and subsequent digital image processing.  We're also able to transmit files directly to our lab rather than mailing negatives for further cost savings as well as faster turn around.  Those shipping savings are not in the $27k either.  

We also aren't scanning, then processing for digital uses.  In fact, in our experience the comparison of scanned film files versus original digital capture makes film cameras suitable for use as boat anchors in our business.  Without a heckuvalotta work on the scanned files from a very high end scanner, film capture just doesn't measure up.  And with our commercial/industrial/scientific/aerial clients, we're able to get the photos into their hands in hours rather than the sometimes weeks required for them to wait for us to ship out the film for processing (we're in a remote location), get it back and mount it in sheets, then ship it out to them.  That capability alone has increased our contracting in those venues.  With the capability of onsite review rather than waiting for film, we also bracket less and have experienced almost no reshoots which we have to pay for... a HUGE savings in worst cases.

And from a purely business standpoint, the lag we used to experience between original film capture and portfolio review with the client was hugely costly.  In the interim they lost the "spirit" generated in the session and had time to consider their print purchases a week or more "in the cold hard light of day," and make much more conservative purchases.  With digital capture we reserve time between sessions for immediate portfolio review and on-the-spot ordering, which has resulted in much freer spending.  Call it "impulse buying" and you'd be accurate, but the switch to digital capture punched up our print sales the first year by about 35% for the same volume of shoots.  Online viewing of private portfolios has probably quadrupled our "aftermarket" sales to distant family members too.  When working with albums of printed proofs which family members mailed to Aunt Susie in Susquehanna, it was almost not worth our effort, much less the long waits.  Yet we had to do it at client request.  On average we now generate aftermarket sales adding up to around 30% on top of the original print orders by the initial client.  It seems "sexy" or hi-tech to clients to email the site address and password to distant family and friends for their viewing pleasure and print purchases, I guess.  But they love being able to do it and it generates significant additional income to us for the small effort and expense of posting and maintaining the online portfolios at a host site.

We had a funny (odd) experience last year in the shaky economy.  Even though our client load was down around 20%, our gross only dropped 3%.  Sales were fewer, but almost without exception the clients we did have come through the door spent more.  I can't explain it.  But if you delve a little deeper and look at our net last year, per-client income using digital capture was still up more than 50% over our best-ever year in 15 years of film capture.
Logged

Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2009, 02:32:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
That is perhaps the most intriguing look at the business side of high-volume photography business I've read here. It's nice to see some pros in the business seeing financial benefits from digital.

Thanks.  My wife would probably spank my hands for saying so much if she read this.  And I guess that's the point, since she's the professional business manager.

In her words:  "A photography business is 5% photography and 95% business."  

Those boring things such as business plans, cost analysis, investment strategies, amortization schedules, advertising budgets, and service to client needs have a much greater impact on business success than your sentiment and the brand label on your gear.  We're in business, and the venue happens to require use of cameras.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2009, 02:57:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hank
Thanks.  My wife would probably spank my hands for saying so much if she read this.  And I guess that's the point, since she's the professional business manager.

In her words:  "A photography business is 5% photography and 95% business."  

Those boring things such as business plans, cost analysis, investment strategies, amortization schedules, advertising budgets, and service to client needs have a much greater impact on business success than your sentiment and the brand label on your gear.  We're in business, and the venue happens to require use of cameras.

That's what I've gathered over the years. And that's why I don't seriously consider going pro - photography is a way to occasionally get away from business, which as a finance pro is my daily work life.

Of course having someone else to do the business side would be an option...
Logged

Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2009, 03:57:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Of course having someone else to do the business side would be an option...




That is unless they have veto power!  You should hear our discussions when I tell my wife we need the latest Jones-pacing camera, lens, car or computer.  I've grown to hate those "business" discussions, even as I fully appreciate their financial benefits.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 03:58:02 PM by Hank » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2009, 04:28:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hank
Those boring things such as business plans, cost analysis, investment strategies, amortization schedules, advertising budgets, and service to client needs have a much greater impact on business success than your sentiment and the brand label on your gear.  We're in business, and the venue happens to require use of cameras.




And that, Hank, has been my ruination ever since 1966!

Accepted all the above points you made - even if from within my film context - but the heart simply refused to listen to the head. I lived in a whisky-producing culture but took to shooting girls. Even I canīt go figure, as they say. Others took to shooting bottles etc. but strangely, most of them went down a long time before I retired (the people, not the bottles). There doesnīt seem to be much logic about that, other than the fact that a one-man show can weather some types of storm that a large studio canīt. Perhaps the worst option is a medium-sized outfit.

Thanks for you considered response; nice when those come along!

Rob C
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2009, 05:15:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hank
That is unless they have veto power!  You should hear our discussions when I tell my wife we need the latest Jones-pacing camera, lens, car or computer.  I've grown to hate those "business" discussions, even as I fully appreciate their financial benefits.

Oh, I can imagine fully. My dayjob is doing exactly that in a bit different business environment. But I used to be a fincance controller / producer at an ad agency, so I was the guy telling the director "no, we can't build a custom rig to flip the stuntman 360 degrees since it costs twice as much as the budget for the entire ad," while keeping the professional (and personal) relationship healthy. For the record, I managed to do that.

Being at the receiving end of such discussions would be... a humbling experience.
Logged

Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 890


« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2009, 12:03:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
I'd almost rather see a 1:1 crop of each, because I've found that sharpening and tweaking in most programs does far more harm than good.  That said, I wish there was a way to turn it all off on the Sony, but as mentioned in previous threads, there is some software AA going on as well as a fairly heavy AA filter as well.  The photos out of the A900 look smooth and clean.  Very much so.  But it's because it's effectively down-sampling/glossing over resolution until you get about the same results as a 16MP or so DB.

Now, for a use and forget about it camera, that's great.  Less processing and tweaking - just drop in a raw converter and tweak the levels a bit - done and off to the client or emailed off to the editing department.  For speed and production work, this is probably a great thing.  But for artist types, where we're squeezing every pixel, it's a bit of a letdown.

Thats a strange claim. What do you have to back it up?

Imaging Resource gave it a very high resolution. Even that was done with in camera JPG.

"The chart above shows consolidated results from spatial frequency response measurements in both the horizontal and vertical axes. The "MTF 50" numbers tend to correlate best with visual perceptions of sharpness, so those are what I focus on here. The uncorrected resolution figures are 2,340 line widths per picture height in the horizontal direction (corresponding to the vertically-oriented edge), and 2,298 lines along the vertical axis (corresponding to the horizontally-oriented edge), for a combined average of 2,319 LW/PH. Correcting to a "standardized" sharpening with a one-pixel radius increased both vertical and horizontal resolution significantly, resulting in an average of 3,397 LW/PH, one of the highest resolutions we've seen yet.

To see what's going on, refer to the plots below, which show the actual edge profiles for both horizontal and vertical edges, in both their original and corrected forms. Here, you can see that there is fairly conservative in-camera sharpening applied (only slight bumps at the top ends, and no noticeable bumps at the bottom ends of the black edge profile curves). Imatest reports that the horizontal direction (vertical edge) is "undersharpened" by 15.4% while the vertical direction (horizontal edge) is undersharpened by 14.5%. Professionals and serious amateurs prefer this to oversharpening, and the A900's images respond very well to the use of strong/tight sharpening post-exposure in Photoshop or some other image editor. (That said, you should be able to extract still more fine detail if you begin with a RAW file, rather than a JPEG.)"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900IMATEST.HTM
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2009, 12:17:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Fine_Art
"The chart above shows consolidated results from spatial frequency response measurements in both the horizontal and vertical axes. The "MTF 50" numbers tend to correlate best with visual perceptions of sharpness, so those are what I focus on here. The uncorrected resolution figures are 2,340 line widths per picture height in the horizontal direction (corresponding to the vertically-oriented edge), and 2,298 lines along the vertical axis (corresponding to the horizontally-oriented edge), for a combined average of 2,319 LW/PH. Correcting to a "standardized" sharpening with a one-pixel radius increased both vertical and horizontal resolution significantly, resulting in an average of 3,397 LW/PH, one of the highest resolutions we've seen yet.

The problem is that despite artificial "sharpness" being applied, it looks like the whole thing is a tiny smidge out of focus due to the processing and filter that's built *into the camera*.  IIRC, there was a thread about this a long time ago here and how the A900 really wasn't turning off the AA even when you told it to do so.
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 890


« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2009, 12:43:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
The problem is that despite artificial "sharpness" being applied, it looks like the whole thing is a tiny smidge out of focus due to the processing and filter that's built *into the camera*.  IIRC, there was a thread about this a long time ago here and how the A900 really wasn't turning off the AA even when you told it to do so.

Thanks for the reply. I was fairly sure you were mistaken based on reading the following before in the D3x review at Popphoto.

"IMAGE QUALITY

The D3X produces truly stunning pictures. Let's start with resolution, the chief benefit of that full-frame 24.5MP Sony-made CMOS sensor. At its lowest standard sensitivity of ISO 100, the D3X captured an off-the-charts Excellent 3180 lines. The only DSLR to beat it: Sony's own Alpha 900, whose 24.6MP sensor tested at 3230 lines. In real-life shooting, you'll barely see the difference."

I couldnt find where I read it. Here it is.
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Ni...D3X-Camera-Test

DPR also rates the A900 over the D3x at low ISO. D3x takes it at high ISO.


3 sites couldnt rate the resolution so high if there was a strong AA filter. I dont think you can turn off the AA filter. Its a physical thing attached to the sensor. I think you are referring o the noise processing. Yes the Sony high ISO NR sucks. Im sure you can turn it off though. I have turned it of on my A350.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2009, 06:49:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

AA is an actual physical device, normally a double bifringent crystal, you cannot turn it off. Regarding noise reduction there is some spacial noise reduction above 1600 ISO, than can be turned off. Now Gabor (Panopeeper) has found some phenomena which is present at low ISOs, the effect is there for sure, but it is not clear that it is noise reduction. Anyway NR has very little to do with AA-filtering. The thing Gabor found shows up as blochiness, not softness or unsharpness.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: Plekto
The problem is that despite artificial "sharpness" being applied, it looks like the whole thing is a tiny smidge out of focus due to the processing and filter that's built *into the camera*.  IIRC, there was a thread about this a long time ago here and how the A900 really wasn't turning off the AA even when you told it to do so.
Logged

Gandalf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2009, 01:16:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Getting back to the original question, I definitely prefer the MF film capture and I personally have never see a DSLR capture that can match a MF film capture. MF digital can. It's not about 100% crops, it is about overall tonality and prints. I recently moved to the Sony A900 and the captures are very good, but far from MF.

@Fine_Art I'm guessing Plekto's claim comes from use. I would say the Sony may be about on par with an older 12-bit 16 MP MFDB like the Kodak. A more modern back that shoots a 16-bit capture will wipe the floor with the Sony, regardless of megapixles. There is a lot more to digital capture than pixels. Sensors are important, but IMO ADCs are real story.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2009, 02:43:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

How are you comparing MF and digital? Are you comparing scanned film or prints? If you compare with scanned film, what scanner do you use? What is your workflow?

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Gandalf
Getting back to the original question, I definitely prefer the MF film capture and I personally have never see a DSLR capture that can match a MF film capture. MF digital can. It's not about 100% crops, it is about overall tonality and prints. I recently moved to the Sony A900 and the captures are very good, but far from MF.

@Fine_Art I'm guessing Plekto's claim comes from use. I would say the Sony may be about on par with an older 12-bit 16 MP MFDB like the Kodak. A more modern back that shoots a 16-bit capture will wipe the floor with the Sony, regardless of megapixles. There is a lot more to digital capture than pixels. Sensors are important, but IMO ADCs are real story.
Logged

Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 890


« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2009, 06:50:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gandalf
Getting back to the original question, I definitely prefer the MF film capture and I personally have never see a DSLR capture that can match a MF film capture. MF digital can. It's not about 100% crops, it is about overall tonality and prints. I recently moved to the Sony A900 and the captures are very good, but far from MF.

@Fine_Art I'm guessing Plekto's claim comes from use. I would say the Sony may be about on par with an older 12-bit 16 MP MFDB like the Kodak. A more modern back that shoots a 16-bit capture will wipe the floor with the Sony, regardless of megapixles. There is a lot more to digital capture than pixels. Sensors are important, but IMO ADCs are real story.

I agree. I still use film myself. The 16 bit scanning is a big part of why.

Im sure the manufactures will dole out the 16bit, HDR, etc in dribs and drabs to get more money each time.
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2009, 07:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gandalf
I personally have never see a DSLR capture that can match a MF film capture. MF digital can. It's not about 100% crops, it is about overall tonality and prints.

Shooting both MF digital and MF film I have to disagree. They are different medias with a different look. It all depends on what we shoot and prefer.

Regards
Anders
Logged
ashley
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 20, 2009, 01:24:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Both of them look pretty close to me in real terms. I'd give the edge here to the 6x7 film for detail, but I suspect the smoother feel of the digital would probably render a more pleasing final image in print. It's pretty subjective though. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this discussion though is just how far digital has come in a few short years bearing in mind that we are comparing a 35mm DSLR here against a 6x7 film camera. Several years ago when I was shooting film just about every job was shot on the Hasselblad because clients demanded the extra quality of medium format but we can now match that with a relatively compact DSLR and see the results in minutes.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 01:25:48 PM by ashley » Logged

georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #37 on: August 20, 2009, 02:23:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Never had a Pentax 67, but these 6x7-scans look awful and I don't think they do the mdium film justice! A 6x7-slide/negative has to resolve only about 40lp/mm to match a 24MP-DSLR!
This one looks better: http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/

"...the D3X captured an off-the-charts Excellent 3180 lines. The only DSLR to beat it: Sony's own Alpha 900, whose 24.6MP sensor tested at 3230 lines...an average of 3,397 LW/PH..."

What are they measuring here?    

P.S. The theoretical (unreachable) max. resolution of the D3X/A900 is 3024 linepairs!!!
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 02:49:47 PM by georgl » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 20, 2009, 03:35:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

You may stop thinking about resolution and start thinking about sharpness. These terms are loosely related. The reason is that what human eye and brain perceive as sharpness is the difference in dark and light on tiny details. A good measure for that is MTF. It seems that much research suggest that an MTF of around 50% is pretty relevant of for our perception of sharpness.

Now, according to data from Fuji and others Fujichrome Velvia (which happens to be the sharpest slide film for common use ever made) achieves about 50 lp/mm at 50% MTF, this is pretty close to the 40 lp/mm you mention. Now, multiply this with MTF for the lens. Leica has a design  target 50% MTF at 50 lp/mm. If we multiply 50% with 50% we get just 25%. So we could suggest that a well designed Leica lens achieves at least 25% MTF at 50 lp/mm, because MTF drops rapidly with increasing lp/mm we may assume that a Leica lens may achieve 50% MTF at 40 lp/mm. So if you take the best lenses, designed for 135 and the best slide film you may get to 40lp/mm. A medium format lens designed for film may not get even close!

Sorry this is simple math.


You may check Norman Koren's website for more information, it's really excellent: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

The situation may be somewhat different with print film or black and white. Especially T-MAX 100 has excellent MTF characteristics and T-MAX 100 with the very best lenses may achieve phnatastic sharpness. But this comparison is Velvia on a Pentax 67 agains full format digital.

Now, that awful scan will probably enlarge just fine to something at 70x100 cm, I know because I have done it. It's good enough to impress professionals who have worked with every format from 135 to 8x12". (I have two good friends who have worked at two of Swedens top professional photo labs and they are impressed). The print I made were printed on Durst Lambda at 200 LPI, which the lab recommends above A3 size prints.

The scanner I use is known for a bit harsh reproduction characteristics. There is a special adapter made to make it softer.

Regarding 3180 lines I don't know. If you are looking at resolution charts they can have something called false resolution, or contrast inversion wich give to high values. This is related to aliasing. If a program like Imatest is used it may indicate that MTF is above 50% at the Nyquist limit. the figures I have achieved are:

Sony Alpha 900, with SONY SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA at f/8 and 100 ISO:  2890 LW/PH at 50% MTF
Pentax 67 with Pentax 90/2.8 at f/8 on Velvia with Vuescan and sharpening: 2127 at 50% MTF

Based on film characteristics and MTF data on MF lenses it seems that the 67 figure is in the ballpark. That calculation ignores MTF in scanner and shrapening, however.

Here are my complete findings: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-sony-alpha-900

Please note that the above are based on a different shot with Velvia 100.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr


Quote from: georgl
Never had a Pentax 67, but these 6x7-scans look awful and I don't think they do the mdium film justice! A 6x7-slide/negative has to resolve only about 40lp/mm to match a 24MP-DSLR!
This one looks better: http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/

"...the D3X captured an off-the-charts Excellent 3180 lines. The only DSLR to beat it: Sony's own Alpha 900, whose 24.6MP sensor tested at 3230 lines...an average of 3,397 LW/PH..."

What are they measuring here?    

P.S. The theoretical (unreachable) max. resolution of the D3X/A900 is 3024 linepairs!!!
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 04:02:40 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #39 on: August 20, 2009, 04:26:12 PM »
ReplyReply

High contrast up to high frequencies is one of the biggest advantages of digital and therefore sharpness perception. But these 6x7 don't seem to contain much information at all, not even at low contrast!

Very problematic for those comparisons is the fact that the negative/slide itself isn't usable, you need another optical/chemical process to create a print or a "digital camera" like a scanner. It's MTF is multiplied with the source-MTF in results in a lower MTF in the end.

But when properly done and processed, a scan from modern film is capable of much more than 6MP @ 24x36mm or 24MP @ 6x7, which is well shown in several scans also available on the net.

Here is one of those (but done with a tiny Minolta-lens): http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_..._resolution.htm
40lp/mm easily resolved!

Modern Leica-lenses resolve about 80% contrast at 40lp/mm, high-quality medium-format lenses a little bit less (60-70%) but as I said, I have no idea what this Pentax is capable of!? But we should be careful making general assumptions "film vs. digital", it's sad to see that powerful tools like medium-format-cameras aren't appreciated because of that.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad