Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 8x10/MFDB Comparison  (Read 44437 times)
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1697


« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2009, 06:22:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
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.
yes, that was my reading.
But... as the film plane of the P65+ is wider the shift with the P65+ is actually 2.50 millimeters more (on each side) than with the P45.
That says something for the P65+ ...
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2896


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2009, 06:24:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tho_mas
yes, that was my reading.
But... as the film plane of the P65+ is wider the shift with the P65+ is actually 2.50 millimeters more (on each side) than with the P45.
That says something for the P65+ ...

What's a millimeter here or there  .

If you're ever in Atlanta or Miami we'd be happy to loan you a 65+ for you to make up your own mind :-).

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
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1697


« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2009, 06:26:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
If you're ever in Atlanta or Miami we'd be happy to loan you a 65+ for you to make up your own mind :-).
would certainly be a pleasure!
It's a long way. And it's just a 15minutes drive to Phase One here in my hometown (...in Germany) :-)
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2009, 01:27:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: georgl
40lp/mm @ 4x5inch = 8000 x 10000 pixels = 80MP ("perfect pixels", not equal to MFDB-sensor-resolution)
40lp/mm @ 8x10inch = 16000 x 20000 pixels = 320MP

You'll note that this "perfect resolution" is a mere 2000DPI, which is why most professional DLabs just scan at 2400DPI and call it "good enough".
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2452



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2009, 03:46:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
You'll note that this "perfect resolution" is a mere 2000DPI, which is why most professional DLabs just scan at 2400DPI and call it "good enough".


I recall from somewhere the sample frequency needs to be 2X the actual to be able to accurate?
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1015


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2009, 08:42:59 PM »
ReplyReply

In my opinion , both of you are saying the same things. The difference is merely rethorical. Thanks so much for such an interesting thread.
Eduardo
Quote from: dougpetersonci
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
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2009, 02:48:52 AM »
ReplyReply

What about tonality? I only have personal experience between 4X5 and FF DSLR but the difference was somewhat like a   skyscraper and a shack. I assume that the same size ratio of imaging area would be true between the MFDB and 8X10 if not more exaggerated. Imaging area size is more than just pure resolution is it not?
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2009, 08:29:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
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).

That was my point Doug...  In the best case, you would probably see marginally better results from scanned film, but that is so difficult to achieve in reality that in most cases, the direct digital workflow at 60MP is going to snuff it.  Heck, the direct digital workflow at 39MP using MF optics snuffs the best LF film and scans most of the time .  But, *IF* (or when) you do happen to get it all just right, scanned LF film is impressive -- unfortunately, that just doesn't happen very often even when you know what you're doing.  

Cheers,
Logged

DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582


« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2009, 02:41:15 AM »
ReplyReply

sorry if this seems to be a dead horse, but I guess I have to beat it again

I was talking this over with a close friend who has just gotten a used P45+ from ebay(actually from Calumet I believe, ex-rental back)

he really enjoys shooting portraits, and has been shooting 8x10 since school(art center, here in Pasadena) some years ago. recently, he's been asked to NOT shoot film, mostly due to turnaround issues(this being for editorial work mostly), but also because the quality of and 8x10 isn't needed. the cost of film, processing, and drum scans(he won't go near a flatbed with his film) seems to be a little too much for most budgets right now. so, he picked up his back for some insanely low price(~$9000 i believe), and so far, has really liked it.

but the one thing he said that he misses the most however is the extremely shallow DOF that he gets with the 8x10 capture. now, he generally shoots on color neg, so the res. of neg's aren't as good as chromes, or b/w(he shoots 400nc), but the shallow DOF(generally working at 5.6(wide open) or f/8 to minimize the background, and bring more attention to the face of the subject.

he has stated that he JUST can't get that in MF digital capture, straight out of the camera. he's currently using a H2f with the 100mm 2.2 lens, he considered trying the Contax, cause it has the 80mm f/2, but it isn't all that different from 2.2 really....

he doesn't print big, his portfolio is only printed at 11x17, so the 8x10 res isn't all that important, MAINLY  the "look" of the extremely shallow DOF that he is able to achieve with the 8x10.

I'm just getting my feet wet with 8x10(b/w only right now, soon to be contact printing on AZO, silver chloride paper). I don't plan to shoot color for a while until I get used to the camera. Its easier though than 4x5, the bigger g/g makes things MUCH easier to focus, hell, I don't really even need a loupe most of the time!


so, its really a horses for courses thing here, some people like shooting 8x10/4x5, if it gets them WHAT THEY WANT. besides, its all about the END RESULT, right?

-Dan


merry christmas!!!!
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 02:42:50 AM by DanielStone » Logged
Robert Moore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #29 on: December 25, 2009, 07:52:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DanielStone
sorry if this seems to be a dead horse, but I guess I have to beat it again


but the one thing he said that he misses the most however is the extremely shallow DOF that he gets with the 8x10 capture. now, he generally shoots on color neg, so the res. of neg's aren't as good as chromes, or b/w(he shoots 400nc), but the shallow DOF(generally working at 5.6(wide open) or f/8 to minimize the background, and bring more attention to the face of the subject.

he has stated that he JUST can't get that in MF digital capture, straight out of the camera. he's currently using a H2f with the 100mm 2.2 lens, he considered trying the Contax, cause it has the 80mm f/2, but it isn't all that different from 2.2 really....

he doesn't print big, his portfolio is only printed at 11x17, so the 8x10 res isn't all that important, MAINLY  the "look" of the extremely shallow DOF that he is able to achieve with the 8x10.

 its all about the END RESULT, right?

-Dan


merry christmas!!!!

One wonders if he could tolerate the changed perspective that the addition of a 13mm extension tube would add to his 100. Closer to focus but essentially much more shallow apparent DOF...
without the warping that an HTS would introduce.

Bob
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8029


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 25, 2009, 08:48:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'd guess that you may be a little optimistic on 40 lp/mm. Check for instance these MTF curves:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/...rL_56_210_2.pdf

Keep in mind that the curves are for 5, 10 and 20 lp/mm. The 40 lp/mm is not normally used for large format lenses. Add to that Velvia has about 50% MTF at 50 lp/mm.

So according to the MTF data from Schneider the APO Symmar is about 60% at 20 lp/mm, I cannot guess what it would be at 40 lp/mm, but let's assume 20%. Let's assume that Velvia has something like 60 % MTF at 40 lp/mm. So MTF for lens + film would be something like 12%, that doesn't make for very high quality pixels. Add to this all the factors Doug Peterson mentioned.


The MTF curves below are for a Schneider APO Digitar 100 mm, they are for 20, 40 and 60 lp/mm. Note especially that the APO Digitar performs at a similar level (on axis) at 40 lp/mm as the APO-Symmar at 20 lp/mm. The Hasselbald HC 120 mm Macro is similar to the Digitar, MTF data here: http://www.hasselblad.com/media/6432/hc_macro_120.pdf .
On the other hand:
Shooting small volume, getting hold of a decent 8x10 camera and scanning on a decent flatbed scanner it would probably be possible to achieve first class results.



Best regards
Erik





Quote from: georgl
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

pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675


« Reply #31 on: December 25, 2009, 02:40:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I just saw an art gallery with prints 60 plus inches by Rodney Lough jr in Vegas and 3 of the 50 or so images where shot on a phase back, the rest of the images where shot on 8x10 film and printed on Fuji paper. I have to say the 8x10 blew away the digital prints. I was amazed at the difference.
Logged
Carsten W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622



WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 25, 2009, 04:08:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pixjohn
I just saw an art gallery with prints 60 plus inches by Rodney Lough jr in Vegas and 3 of the 50 or so images where shot on a phase back, the rest of the images where shot on 8x10 film and printed on Fuji paper. I have to say the 8x10 blew away the digital prints. I was amazed at the difference.

Do you know which Phase back?
Logged

Carsten W - Recent Photos
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2452



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 26, 2009, 12:16:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pixjohn
I just saw an art gallery with prints 60 plus inches by Rodney Lough jr in Vegas and 3 of the 50 or so images where shot on a phase back, the rest of the images where shot on 8x10 film and printed on Fuji paper. I have to say the 8x10 blew away the digital prints. I was amazed at the difference.


Is it possible that he was just learning to work with the back and had years of experience with film?  Maybe the next show will have 45 digital images and 5 film and the tables will be turned?
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #34 on: December 26, 2009, 02:04:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I've seen the portrait-work of Martin Schoeller shot with 8x10. Simply spectacular. It's nice to have the option for a fast technique, but I don't think you can simulate the look of 8x10 (especially low DoF) with digital yet. And it's propably one of the few things amateurs (clients/customers...) understand instead of giving them the feeling they could have done it themselves because they're private camera has the same amount of megapixels... It's not about cutting costs on film or processing but to offer something unique within the swamped market, something the clients are willing to pay for
Logged
michele
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 230


« Reply #35 on: December 26, 2009, 03:49:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: georgl
I've seen the portrait-work of Martin Schoeller shot with 8x10. Simply spectacular. It's nice to have the option for a fast technique, but I don't think you can simulate the look of 8x10 (especially low DoF) with digital yet. And it's propably one of the few things amateurs (clients/customers...) understand instead of giving them the feeling they could have done it themselves because they're private camera has the same amount of megapixels... It's not about cutting costs on film or processing but to offer something unique within the swamped market, something the clients are willing to pay for

This is the best bokeh tool i was able to find... http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 26, 2009, 12:25:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Since this thread has been revived, I'll add a couple other FWIW comments...

I would agree that 8x10 has smoother tonality than just about anything else except 11x14 ().  Also, I never mentioned the main reason I stopped shooting 8x10 -- cost.  $8 per sheet for color neg or tranny and my lab charged $8 per sheet to process it.  Now I had to scan it.  Sure, I could do it on my Epson flatbed for a decent 16x20 print, but for anything more, I needed to pay for a 2400 DPI drumscan (2400 is right at about color film grain size)...  2400 DPI on 8x10 is a HUGE file, ~~ 460MP to be exact, and at 16-bit that meant roughly 2.7 *Gigs* per image.  Working with 2.75 Gig files is not much fun, even with a big machine.

Then the hard reality was that any image quality advantages were pretty minor compared to the best direct digital options, then adding in cost and convenience, digital won hands down, at least for me.

I think if anybody today wants to shoot LF, then they should plan on processing themselves.  And then IMO a 5x7 (or 5x8) camera with a 4x5 reducing back makes a pretty compelling kit as most of the lenses cross over between the formats.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 12:31:08 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #37 on: December 26, 2009, 01:07:19 PM »
ReplyReply

BRING BACK TYPE 55!

(sorry, every now and again I have to say it)
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8029


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 26, 2009, 03:50:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Lot of good points. I'd just add that you probably need drum scans to get really good quality from slide films, and those drum scans need a skilled operator.

Those 60 MP backs are quite expensive, tough...

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Jack Flesher
That was my point Doug...  In the best case, you would probably see marginally better results from scanned film, but that is so difficult to achieve in reality that in most cases, the direct digital workflow at 60MP is going to snuff it.  Heck, the direct digital workflow at 39MP using MF optics snuffs the best LF film and scans most of the time .  But, *IF* (or when) you do happen to get it all just right, scanned LF film is impressive -- unfortunately, that just doesn't happen very often even when you know what you're doing.  

Cheers,
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8306



WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 26, 2009, 04:10:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ben Rubinstein
BRING BACK TYPE 55!

(sorry, every now and again I have to say it)
Right! If they did that, I might even get myself another view camera.

Eric


Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad