Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?  (Read 14115 times)
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2014, 03:28:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that Erik spent 15K to be able to understand the difference between MFD and smaller formats. That is a completely different perspective and, in my opinion, entirely legitimate.
trying to understand something is not only legitimate... it is in fact desirable.
Trying to convince people from one's own view again and again is.... well... intrusive.
Especially when this "view" is based on pseudo-scientific findings.

Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2014, 03:37:04 PM »
ReplyReply

trying to understand something is not only legitimate... it is in fact desirable.
Trying to convince people from one's own view again and again is.... well... intrusive.
Especially when this "view" is based on pseudo-scientific findings.

Yes, this is exactly my point of view. 
Logged

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

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2014, 04:24:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

SQF is not related to MP but to MTF of the sensor and the lens. It is calculated from the MTF integrated (summed) over the angular sensivity of the eye.

So you need to measure the MTF of the lens, camera and conversion chain. I would calculate the MTF of the IQ-250 if I had a shot of a slanted edge.

MTF is much affected by sharpening, I used the same sharpening on both images. I did the test with an IQ-180 and that would give an SQF around 98, visibly better than either the Pentax 645D or the Sony.

The IQ-180 image was coming from Tim Parkin.

Sharpening is a real joker in the context. I should have mentioned it before.

Best regards
Erik


http://www.imatest.com/docs/sqf/

What is the sqf rating of the IQ250/260 shots in imatest?

What is the correlation of MP to print size? Your 24MP gives you a 90 at 17" diagonal, what about 16MP (90), 36MP (90)?
Logged

synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 398



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2014, 04:36:49 PM »
ReplyReply

:-) maybe. maybe not. I don't know. I don't care about those comparision tools.
What I do know is that this forum is completely polluted with too much theoretical talk (scientific and pseudo scientific talk). In every thread I get explained that my DBs show aliasing, moire and pseudo details (as f I wouldn't know it...). 2 posts later someone talks about AA filters and deconvultion sharpening. In the third post a completely unexperienced user finds out that C1 doesn't produce accurate colors (based on a color checker passport shot with mixed lights). In the 5th post someone is talking about skin tones although he never shoots people. But he is finding flowers and/or animal hair compares quite good to skin. And in the 6th post we talk about the D800 or D800E or the A7R.
In EVERY thread, 3 times a day.
That's all fine... but it gets really, really old. Not a particular issue is getting old... but the way and the style things get discussed here. Erik invested 15K just to be able to talk about MFD. Now, this is an issue that should be treated seriously... I really think he needs professional help. But, please, let's not discuss this on this forum...
Bart, sorry, maybe the method implemented in the said SQF thing is great. But I simply don't care (anymore).


I remember the animal hair skin tone post. One of the most hilarious things I have ever seen on the internet.

@Erik: I sincerely hope that some day, you will ask yourself " why are other people shooting better  images than me with better AND worse gear.

Unfortunately,there is no lab test in the world that can answer that question.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2014, 04:43:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik, if your experience is essentially that you see no difference between your P45+ and your Sony SLT99 in A2 size prints then use your Sony for the A2 prints and your P45+ for your larger prints.

certainly logical ... but I rarely know when shooting when those cases will be.  So I must always assume I will be wanting to make a big print...
Logged

Joe Towner
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2014, 04:45:45 PM »
ReplyReply

To make it simple, it depends on what you call a 'small print'.  Then you toss in what printer you're dealing with, and what paper/material you're printing on.  Top it off with the viewing environment and the viewing distance, and there are lots of variables.  Then you have the person viewing the image, what level of detail can they discern, and how is their eyes' color spectrum.  Too many variables, too much thinking.

Take the same question at the paper size (16.5 x 23.4 in) and do it just in DSLR's and compare crop to full frame.  Can you tell a difference?  It comes down to you, the observer.

MFD won't shine as much in smaller sizes, but the bigger the print, the bigger the improvement.
Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2014, 04:53:29 PM »
ReplyReply

certainly logical ... but I rarely know when shooting when those cases will be.  So I must always assume I will be wanting to make a big print...


+1, that states it very well.

Paul C.
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2014, 05:02:49 PM »
ReplyReply

certainly logical ... but I rarely know when shooting when those cases will be.  So I must always assume I will be wanting to make a big print...
herewith you are indirectly saying you don't know what you shoot.
Think while you shoot. Have a plan. Have a concept. (Also a concept of presentation.) Never (never!) take snapshots.
Sometimes I go "shooting" (2, 3, 4 days tours...) and don't even take the camera out of my case at all because the respective motifs are not worth shooting ...
Photography is not about touching or handling the gear and pressing knobs... it is about the final image. It is about vision.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 05:06:44 PM by tho_mas » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2014, 05:10:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi

This was the original post, and I feel it deserves an honest answer. I interpreted the question as a resolution thing, and I have really found that most of my cameras were good enough for A2. I also did some extra checking with Bart van der Bart's tool and checked the Bruce Fraser/Jeff Schewe book and also measured SQF on two samples.

Regarding the colour question I cannot say much, as I don't own a Nikon and don't shoot portraits, but colour does not relate to print size.

Best regards
Erik





To make it simple, it depends on what you call a 'small print'.  Then you toss in what printer you're dealing with, and what paper/material you're printing on.  Top it off with the viewing environment and the viewing distance, and there are lots of variables.  Then you have the person viewing the image, what level of detail can they discern, and how is their eyes' color spectrum.  Too many variables, too much thinking.

Take the same question at the paper size (16.5 x 23.4 in) and do it just in DSLR's and compare crop to full frame.  Can you tell a difference?  It comes down to you, the observer.

MFD won't shine as much in smaller sizes, but the bigger the print, the bigger the improvement.
Logged

Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2014, 06:04:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

SQF is not related to MP but to MTF of the sensor and the lens. It is calculated from the MTF integrated (summed) over the angular sensivity of the eye.

So you need to measure the MTF of the lens, camera and conversion chain. I would calculate the MTF of the IQ-250 if I had a shot of a slanted edge.

MTF is much affected by sharpening, I used the same sharpening on both images. I did the test with an IQ-180 and that would give an SQF around 98, visibly better than either the Pentax 645D or the Sony.

The IQ-180 image was coming from Tim Parkin.

Sharpening is a real joker in the context. I should have mentioned it before.

Best regards
Erik



That is why I used the word correlation. I do not expect a precise function.

Personally I find Super B (13x19 in) is good from a 16-24MP camera. Consumers can usually get that size printer and paper easily.
If I want a shot to frame in C or D size I expect to stitch 2x2 or 3x3 shots.



I bet people bitching about the thread would not be out shooting every day either if they lived as far north as Erik.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2014, 06:30:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Photography is not about touching or handling the gear and pressing knobs... it is about the final image. It is about vision.

Exactly, the camera is clearly the least important thing in photography (and I totally mean this).

But these threads are not about photography, they are about cameras.  Wink

The good news is that it is totally possible for one person to be interested in both subjects since they happen to be vaguely related.  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 398



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2014, 06:31:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I once compared the same pastry made by two different chefs by reading up the recipe. I even used prescription glasses.

They tasted the same to me.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2014, 06:33:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I once compared the same pastry made by two different chefs by reading up the recipe. I even used prescription glasses.

They tasted the same to me.

Wrong analogy. You should have said that you tasted the lab analysis results.

Please concentrate!  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 06:41:12 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 398



WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2014, 09:57:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Wrong analogy. You should have said that you tasted the lab analysis results.

Please concentrate!  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard


Indeed, that's what I tasted.
...and both of them were awful and therefore, every pastry in the world must be the same.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 12:22:58 AM by synn » Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2014, 12:32:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Some folks would say that 12 or 25 MP is enough. The folks at Outbackphoto used to say that 12 MP is enough, I don't know if it is still their opinion. The reasoning is that larger print sizes are normally viewed at a longer distance.

My experience is that 12 MP was quite enough for A2 size prints. I found this out when I started looking at 24MP full frame compared to 12 MP MPS-C. The files from the 24 MP camera were much better, but the difference in A2 size prints was very small. Bruce and Jeff's book mention 180 PPI as a reasonable limit and my 12 MP camera would give 16.8" on the short dimension at 180PPI. The 180 PPI is based on 20/20 vision at 50 cm / 20 inches. Once you get to the 180PPI limit resolution plays a lesser role and fine detail contrast dominates, which is much effected by sharpening.

A couple of years ago I found an autumn subject I really liked. The problem I had was that it was windy, and I was quite concerned about subject motion. I initially tried with my Sony Alpha 900 but figured I could use the SLT 55 I also had at the time. The SLT would allow me to use a shorter lens, focus accurately, open up one more stop and use an EV step higher ISO.

I ended up with printing both images in A2, it was the 16 MP image that made on to the wall, but they very pretty close.

I think this discussion is meaningful, the OP was really asking if he would gain benefits with MF stating that he prints mostly A3 and up to A2 (if I recall correctly).

Best regards
Erik





That is why I used the word correlation. I do not expect a precise function.

Personally I find Super B (13x19 in) is good from a 16-24MP camera. Consumers can usually get that size printer and paper easily.
If I want a shot to frame in C or D size I expect to stitch 2x2 or 3x3 shots.



I bet people bitching about the thread would not be out shooting every day either if they lived as far north as Erik.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2014, 02:53:26 AM »
ReplyReply

certainly logical ... but I rarely know when shooting when those cases will be.  So I must always assume I will be wanting to make a big print...

Erik, that's a persuasive argument for using your P45+ wherever possible.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2014, 03:03:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

That is what I do now, I mostly carry a dual kit, but most shooting is with the P45+, I actually enjoy it.

But this thread was started to give a good response from some one making A3 up to A2 size prints and asking if there was a a gain at that size.

Best regards
Erik



05:44 PM

Erik, that's a persuasive argument for using your P45+ wherever possible.
Logged

leeonmaui
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2014, 07:48:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Aloha,

I think after about 40 inches getting solid prints from 35mm is a crap shoot, and depends a lot on how perfect the shot was and the subject matter, I also think a lot of the problems from big 35mm prints comes from lens choice. But again I think sometimes you can get really nice big prints from 35mm

I don't shoot 35mm anymore, I do tons of printing but all to developed film using lightjet, this in itself probably makes big 35mm prints seem nicer, but everything I shoot now has the potential to be done as a big print, so I don't risk shooting 35mm.

I also feel the quality of the gear in MF to be much better than 35mm and a lot of the lenses superior in every way.
I think in the print size of 36 to 72 inches MF will just shine against 35mm in a more consistent manor, in that more of your shoots will look great big.

After 72 inches I don't know how even MF will hold up when examined critically, as you are starting to up sample a lot by then, and things start to smooth out, a couple of my friends start to add noise on really big prints to counter balance this.

I guess there are so many variables depending on camera, subject, post work, etc...         
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3855



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2014, 09:20:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I remember the animal hair skin tone post. One of the most hilarious things I have ever seen on the internet.

@Erik: I sincerely hope that some day, you will ask yourself " why are other people shooting better  images than me with better AND worse gear.

Erik,

 I am sorry you are on the receiving end of these comments. Kindergarten behavior.

Edmund
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 09:54:42 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2014, 10:52:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Some folks would say that 12 or 25 MP is enough. The folks at Outbackphoto used to say that 12 MP is enough, I don't know if it is still their opinion. The reasoning is that larger print sizes are normally viewed at a longer distance.

My experience is that 12 MP was quite enough for A2 size prints. I found this out when I started looking at 24MP full frame compared to 12 MP MPS-C. The files from the 24 MP camera were much better, but the difference in A2 size prints was very small. Bruce and Jeff's book mention 180 PPI as a reasonable limit and my 12 MP camera would give 16.8" on the short dimension at 180PPI. The 180 PPI is based on 20/20 vision at 50 cm / 20 inches. Once you get to the 180PPI limit resolution plays a lesser role and fine detail contrast dominates, which is much effected by sharpening.


That may be A logic, it is not what I do. If I see a nice image in a gallery I position to a normal viewing distance, take in the whole thing, if I like it I will lean in or move closer. If it still has quality detail I will be impressed. If it does not I will be disappointed.

Only images that survive impressing someone may get bought.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad