Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 8x10/MFDB Comparison  (Read 41843 times)
harlemshooter
Guest
« on: July 31, 2009, 08:52:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I have read articles by Michael and others comparing drum scanned 4x5 film with MFDB.  The consensus seems to be they are "about" equal.

But has anyone compared 8x10 film (of course with a top Schneider lens, or like) to MFDB?  I'd like to see a large print comparison between the P65 by Phase One (or like) with an 8x10.  For artists who must print 40x50 inches, or larger, this kind of study would be most illuminating.

Does such a study exist?  

Thank you!

PS.  Not really interested in articles comparing prints  (or digital equivalents) smaller than ~40x50 inches, as the differences between 8x10, 4x5 and MFDB seem minimal.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 09:20:37 AM by harlemshooter » Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2009, 09:49:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: harlemshooter
I have read articles by Michael and others comparing drum scanned 4x5 film with MFDB.  The consensus seems to be they are "about" equal.

But has anyone compared 8x10 film (of course with a top Schneider lens, or like) to MFDB?  I'd like to see a large print comparison between the P65 by Phase One (or like) with an 8x10.  For artists who must print 40x50 inches, or larger, this kind of study would be most illuminating.

Does such a study exist?  

Thank you!

PS.  Not really interested in articles comparing prints  (or digital equivalents) smaller than ~40x50 inches, as the differences between 8x10, 4x5 and MFDB seem minimal.
With the Hasselblad H3D11-50, at 8175 * 6132 pixels, you get 34 * 45"  at 180 original camera pixels per inch,
42.58 * 56 .78 " 144 ppi, which should look OK if not scrutinized too closely...

I am thinking of getting a 60 inch printer, but I would shift and stitch to get a 100 Mpx + file for 60"

Are you assuming slow, fine grain film in the 10 * 8?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2009, 10:53:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: harlemshooter
I have read articles by Michael and others comparing drum scanned 4x5 film with MFDB.  The consensus seems to be they are "about" equal.

But has anyone compared 8x10 film (of course with a top Schneider lens, or like) to MFDB?  I'd like to see a large print comparison between the P65 by Phase One (or like) with an 8x10.  For artists who must print 40x50 inches, or larger, this kind of study would be most illuminating.

Does such a study exist?  

Thank you!

PS.  Not really interested in articles comparing prints  (or digital equivalents) smaller than ~40x50 inches, as the differences between 8x10, 4x5 and MFDB seem minimal.

Well of course you say "MFDB" but it will vary wildly according to which back you are talking about. The highest resolution system available is the Phase One P65+. Normally the difference between 50 and 60 megapixels is small but when going up against 8x10 film at huge print sizes every pixel counts. Plus the 65+ mates with a tech camera with much greater ease than a H3D-50.

We've had several P65+ purchasers run this test (8x10 vs 65+) themselves (not for public use - just for their purchase decision). The most meaningful statement I can make is that each person who did this test ended up buying a 65+ including one of the best known of the remaining 8x10 shooters.

A single shot of the P65+ holds up well compared to drum scanned slide film on an 8x10 with proper technique used on both systems. Using a tech camera like a Cambo Wide RS and stitching 2 vertical shots* to a 4:3 horizontal (netting 100+ megapixels) takes the 65+ to an entirely new level.

The other thing is that, as hard as it is to get a 100% image on a P65+ (good tripod, mirror up, cable release etc) it is much harder to do so with 8x10 film where issues of film flatness, squaring up the standards, finding 8x10 lenses which are in perfect condition etc make getting a perfect exposure in the field VERY hard (most 8x10 shooters don't notice because it takes much more time to compare the 100% "pixel" view of 8x10 film compared to zooming in on a digital capture). Moreover 8x10 cameras turn into parasails when there is any wind and are very difficult to carry out into the field for any meaningful distance (a few pieces of film in film holders can weigh many pounds). Finally the need for f/32 on an 8x10 camera versus e.g. f/11.5 on a Cambo Wide RS with a P65+ further exacerbates the difference in the variety of situations in which each platform can be used.

*On a tech camera you stitch WITHIN one continuous image circle from a large format lens so there is no mathematical distortion when you "stitch" the two images together.

If you're anywhere near Atlanta or Miami we'd be happy to work with you on such a test in person (no cost) or rent+ship you the system for your testing (greatly discounted rental).

Note that we do have an older test of an Phase One H25 vs. 4x5 film: http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/archive/

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 10:57:31 AM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2009, 10:53:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting.  I do not like sub 200 ppi as it starts looking flat at 40x50...at least with my work.

Very fine grain film indeed.



Quote from: Dick Roadnight
With the Hasselblad H3D11-50, at 8175 * 6132 pixels, you get 34 * 45"  at 180 original camera pixels per inch,
42.58 * 56 .78 " 144 ppi, which should look OK if not scrutinized too closely...

I am thinking of getting a 60 inch printer, but I would shift and stitch to get a 100 Mpx + file for 60"

Are you assuming slow, fine grain film in the 10 * 8?
Logged
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2009, 11:01:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I know of Crewdson's purchase, as well as a few others.

I understand why their comparisons are confidential, but would like Phase One to publish something along these lines.  I will give you a ring before too long to run a test comparing 80x100 inch prints - my 8x10 set up against this vertically stitched P65 cambo wide method you speak of.  In the meantime, if you can arrange for this sort of test to be published and the results are favorable, it would be most appreciated.  I shoot 8x10 in nicely controlled environments with a very good lens and haven't had to deal with the issues you mentioned...fortunately.


Quote from: dougpetersonci
Well of course you say "MFDB" but it will vary wildly according to which back you are talking about. The highest resolution system available is the Phase One P65+.

We've had several P65+ purchasers run this test (8x10 vs 65+) themselves (not for public use - just for their purchase decision). The most meaningful statement I can make is that each person who did this test ended up buying a 65+ including one of the best known of the remaining 8x10 shooters.

A single shot of the P65+ holds up well compared to drum scanned slide film on an 8x10 with proper technique used on both systems. Using a tech camera like a Cambo Wide RS and stitching 2 vertical shots* to a 4:3 horizontal (netting 100+ megapixels) takes the 65+ to an entirely new level.

The other thing is that, as hard as it is to get a 100% image on a P65+ (good tripod, mirror up, cable release etc) it is much harder to do so with 8x10 film where issues of film flatness, squaring up the standards, finding 8x10 lenses which are in perfect condition etc make getting a perfect exposure in the field VERY hard (most 8x10 shooters don't notice because it takes much more time to compare the 100% "pixel" view of 8x10 film compared to zooming in on a digital capture). Moreover 8x10 cameras turn into parasails when there is any wind and are very difficult to carry out into the field for any meaningful distance (a few pieces of film in film holders can weigh many pounds).

*On a tech camera you stitch WITHIN one continuous image circle from a large format lens so there is no mathematical distortion when you "stitch" the two images together.

If you're anywhere near Atlanta or Miami we'd be happy to work with you on such a test in person (no cost) or rent+ship you the system for your testing (greatly discounted rental).

Note that we do have an older test of an Phase One H25 vs. 4x5 film: http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/archive/

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 11:05:55 AM by harlemshooter » Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2009, 11:07:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: harlemshooter
I understand why their comparisons are confidential, but would love Phase One to publish something along these lines.  Where I am currently (rural area working on a moving picture), I am unable to run the test myself or come see you.  I will give you a ring in the near future to arrange for you to ship me a P65.  If you won't publish it, I would like to.

When a customer does a test it is not up to us whether the results are published.

We would be very happy to have you run the test and publish the results yourself and/or give us permission to publish them.

Of course we hope that you would allow us to advise you before and during the test on the best techniques/settings/workflows (given our experience with this system) so that you end up with a test that shows the best real results of each system.

I was told the first day on the job here, and it has been proven over and over, that the best way to promote our products is to let people shoot them and see for themselves the quality. Our door is always open for free to photographers that wish to do such tests, and we will work very hard to provide affordable rentals (hopefully it's understandable that we can't do so for free - though we do credit rentals towards purchases) to anyone who cannot make it to our facilities in-person.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2009, 11:12:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: harlemshooter
Interesting.  I do not like sub 200 ppi as it starts looking flat at 40x50...at least with my work.

Very fine grain film indeed.

It's also the case that the finest grain black and white films capture finer detail than the typical slide film (e.g. Tech Pan versus Astia - not that you can find Tech Pan anymore). So this would be a more aggressive test.

Also there will be some matter of aesthetics concerning grain versus clean detail.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 11:12:59 AM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
filmcapture
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2009, 11:34:40 AM »
ReplyReply

In terms of resolution, you may stitch three, six or more digital captures to achieve 4x5 or 8x10 film resolution, but IMHO, it's difficult for MFDB to achieve the tonality of large size films. I had extensively compared a Phase One P25 and briefly a P45 with 4x5 early this year, and now I decide to go back to film for this particular reason. Sorry my financial capability won't allow me to try a P65+.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2009, 12:22:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
*On a tech camera you stitch WITHIN one continuous image circle from a large format lens so there is no mathematical distortion when you "stitch" the two images together.
Doug Peterson
Doug.... Most Schneider Apo-Digitar (medium format) lenses allow you to shift and stitch two or four images, getting the most out of the lenses and the digibacks.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2009, 01:07:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
Doug.... Most Schneider Apo-Digitar (medium format) lenses allow you to shift and stitch two or four images, getting the most out of the lenses and the digibacks.

Absolutely. The Schneider 47mm for instance has enough room for 4 P65+ frames with the desired amount of frame-overlap for around 205 megapixels. Again this is done without geometrically distorting the image since all four captures are part of the one continuous image circle of the lens.

From our experience one does not need 4 frames to replace an 8x10 workflow, but by all means the option is there for you.

Attached is a visualization of the four frames with overlap and how they fit into the generous image circle of the Schneider 47mm XL Digitar.

Full disclosure: we are a dealer for Schneider/Cambo/Phase-One.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 01:12:36 PM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2009, 01:10:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: filmcapture
In terms of resolution, you may stitch three, six or more digital captures to achieve 4x5 or 8x10 film resolution, but IMHO, it's difficult for MFDB to achieve the tonality of large size films. I had extensively compared a Phase One P25 and briefly a P45 with 4x5 early this year, and now I decide to go back to film for this particular reason. Sorry my financial capability won't allow me to try a P65+.

The smoothness range and natural 3D appearance of tones produced by the 40+ and 65+ is one of the points on which we are receiving the most positive feedback. This attribute was also mentioned by Michael in his first review of the 65+.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2009, 01:24:14 PM »
ReplyReply

As already said, 4x5 or oven 8x10 isn't so much limited by the film or scanning like smaller film formats but by the shooting technique. Many large format users are used to stopping down beyond f22, using instable chinese wood-cameras or historic lenses. They're not looking for the maximum in resolution, their looking for a certain "look".

While on smaller film formats practical resolutions in the scanned file at about 60lp/mm (great lenses, perfect focus, oversampling scan resolution with REAL >4000ppi) are possible, even the best lenses for large format don't deliver the same amount of detail as Leica-lenses or Digitars (40lp/mm with over 70% contrast off-axis), especially not beyond f16-f22 due diffraction.
But I think with careful work, a stable full-metal camera, modern lenses @ f11-f16 and good film holders (like Sinar adhesive holders) you should achieve 40lp/mm "easily":
40lp/mm @ 4x5inch = 8000 x 10000 pixels = 80MP ("perfect pixels", not equal to MFDB-sensor-resolution)
40lp/mm @ 8x10inch = 16000 x 20000 pixels = 320MP

I've seen some large format photography shot with great technique- I'm sorry, they were beyond every digital solution available today. But am I willing to pay, carry and wait for those results? I don't know...   But seeing a 8x10 Velvia on the light table...  
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2009, 02:26:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: georgl
But seeing a 8x10 Velvia on the light table...  

Very very true.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2009, 04:27:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
Absolutely. The Schneider 47mm for instance has enough room for 4 P65+ frames with the desired amount of frame-overlap for around 205 megapixels. Again this is done without geometrically distorting the image since all four captures are part of the one continuous image circle of the lens.

From our experience one does not need 4 frames to replace an 8x10 workflow, but by all means the option is there for you.

Attached is a visualization of the four frames with overlap and how they fit into the generous image circle of the Schneider 47mm XL Digitar.

Full disclosure: we are a dealer for Schneider/Cambo/Phase-One.

[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
Yes - I want a 47XL, it is about a 100 degree lens, and with shift-and-stitch, you can utilize the field of view.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2009, 04:50:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
Absolutely. The Schneider 47mm for instance has enough room for 4 P65+ frames with the desired amount of frame-overlap for around 205 megapixels. Again this is done without geometrically distorting the image since all four captures are part of the one continuous image circle of the lens.
Doug, but how good is the sharpness then? I use the 47XL with the P45 and with large movements the lens is the limiting factor.
So what we need are offset microlens pixels that move synchronised to the ammount of shift. Just kidding :-)
Seriously: I think 12mm shift are really great and 15-17mm are still good enough with the 47XL (but certainly with a significant loss of sharpness) with the P45. The P65+ has a smaller pixelpitch... so what would you say is the real ammount of shift one can use?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 04:51:01 PM by tho_mas » Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2009, 05:44:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tho_mas
Doug, but how good is the sharpness then? I use the 47XL with the P45 and with large movements the lens is the limiting factor.
So what we need are offset microlens pixels that move synchronised to the ammount of shift. Just kidding :-)
Seriously: I think 12mm shift are really great and 15-17mm are still good enough with the 47XL (but certainly with a significant loss of sharpness) with the P45. The P65+ has a smaller pixelpitch... so what would you say is the real ammount of shift one can use?

You mostly answer your own question here. Sharpness fall off towards the edge of the image circle is "by definition" (in other words it wouldn't be the edge of the image circle if sharpness had not started to fall off). How much you will accept is up to you. I used the 65+ a lot with the 47mm XL and I agree that 12mm is really (really) great and 15-17mm are good. I would even say 18-19mm is still ok, but it's definitely a judgment call.

It also depends on if that last bit of movement is capturing low-detail areas like water/sky or high detail areas like bark/grass. It also depends on what aspect ratio you are going to crop to since the image circle is just that - a circle, and will fall off most at the edges of a more squat horizontal image.

Whatever number you come up with I think we both would agree that a 65+ with a Schneider 47mm XL is about as good as it gets on any platform.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2009, 05:58:36 PM »
ReplyReply

To the OP:

The best 8x10 lens will generate maybe 30 LP/mm at the corners -- if you're lucky -- and closer to 50 in the center.  Even tranny film like Astia can resolve 90 line pairs, so it is doubtful film will be your limiting factor with 8x10, your lenses will be.  (4x5 is a different story -- LOT's of 4x5 lenses will do over 60 line pairs.)

Anyway, carrying on the math: 30 line pairs per mm is roughly equivalent to 760 per inch, and generating 760 pairs of lines per inch requires 1520 dots per inch.  So, assuming you scan an 8x10 sheet at anything over 1520 DPI, you are probably at the maximum for the media.  8x10 at 1520 DPI equal roughly 12,000 x 15,000 pixels or 180 MP.  Of course this is a theoretical limit, and in practice so much goes against you in generating a perfect 8x10 capture -- wind, vibrations, motion, lack of perfect focus, inability of film to be held perfectly flat, etc, etc, etc -- that I would say it's safe to assume more like 1/2 to 2/3rds that in the normal best case, so I'd call it 120 MP practical effective digital comparable in the best case, and maybe more like 90 MP in the average case.  Either way, it is clear that 8x10 will rule the ultimate resolution roost for at least a few more years.  

But from a practical standpoint, 60 MP is not all that far removed from 90, so we are getting pretty darn close with direct digital right now...  Factor in the cost per sheet to shoot, process and drum-scan 8x10, and even the best digital back starts to look like a very economical option.   Add in the workflow convenience for direct digital, and it's pretty tough to dismiss it in favor of large format analog...

PS: Yes, I have owned, shot and compared them all.  In a real-world comparison, a perfect 4x5 or 8x10 capture (they are virtually indistinguishable at 40x50) when perfectly printed is an incredible piece of art.  The problem is, for the reasons mentioned above you rarely have a perfect LF capture, and even more rarely get it perfectly scanned and printed -- so it becomes a numbers game.  On par, you will have a few frames from LF that are superior to your best high-resolution digital frames, but on average most of your direct digital frames will be technically superior to most of your sheet film frames.  And you'll definitely have more digital frames to choose from after any given shoot...  

My .02,
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 06:07:34 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2009, 06:04:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
I used the 65+ a lot with the 47mm XL and I agree that 12mm is really (really) great and 15-17mm are good. I would even say 18-19mm is still ok, but it's definitely a judgment call.
So it's virtually the same as with the P45 and the gain in resolution of the P65+ over the P45 is not limited by the lens here?
I agree: sometimes (but rarely) I use the full ammount of shift my WRS offers (+/-20mm lateral) and depending of the motif it's still okay. Though I feel resolution is roughly halved at 20mm.
Anyway - this is indeed very good info. Thank you!

Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2009, 06:12:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tho_mas
So it's virtually the same as with the P45 and the gain in resolution of the P65+ over the P45 is not limited by the lens here?
I agree: sometimes (but rarely) I use the full ammount of shift my WRS offers (+/-20mm lateral) and depending of the motif it's still okay. Though I feel resolution is roughly halved at 20mm.
Anyway - this is indeed very good info. Thank you!

Only when viewed at 100%. When printed the same size the appearance of the corners will be the same. In other words going from a 45+ to a 65+ you don't loose anything at the extreme corners (the quality there is the same); you just gain additional resolution in the 95% of the final print that is not the extreme corners. Of course this only comes into play with large shifts. With moderate shifts the 65+ is sharp from corner to corner.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2009, 06:17:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jack Flesher
so I'd call it 120 MP practical effective digital comparable in the best case, and maybe more like 90 MP in the average case.  Either way, it is clear that 8x10 will rule the ultimate resolution roost for at least a few more years.

It's very hard to argue with Jack's tremendous experience and excellent background knowledge here. The practical tests of our of our customers disagree here, but as Jack (and I earlier) explained you have to be VERY good and very careful with 8x10 to get anywhere close to the numbers stated above.

Also, 120 megapixels can be easily stitched as tho_mas and I have been back-and-forthing on and while it's not "easy" to get it perfect with a P65+ (IMO it wouldn't be fun if it was) it is cakewalk compared to doing the same thing with 8x10.

Again, in their own tests our customers are finding the 65+ to either match or surpass their own 8x10 workflows, and we are happy to help any photographer do this test on their own (see my first post).

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 06:24:49 PM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad