Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does the size of the film capture affect dynamic range?  (Read 2129 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8012



WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2014, 04:50:49 PM »
ReplyReply

This could explain it also. Larger or better lenses give the idea of more dynamic range. I remember when I just started using my Canon 17TS in lieu of a 17-40, I could swear my 5D2 gained in dynamic range.
But that's not possible, is it?

What makes you think so? How does this additional DR manifests itself?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 1000


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2014, 06:42:58 PM »
ReplyReply

By seeing more tonality separation and detail in both shadows and HL's. But it's possible that it was only a resolution's trick. As I'm not the scientific type of guy, I never conducted any controlled comparo test.

Greetings
Eduardo

What makes you think so? How does this additional DR manifests itself?

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged
melchiorpavone
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 255


« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2014, 07:30:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Would exposure latitude be a better term?

Yes, of course.
Logged
melchiorpavone
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 255


« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2014, 07:31:40 PM »
ReplyReply

An incorrect assumption here is that as format increases the film, as coated, remains the same ie it is simply scaled up.
In fact 120 film and larger is different than 35mm. They have different bases and anti-halation properties, which will affect captured "dynamic range" or "latitude" or whatever you wish to call it.

Nope, completely false. B&W 35mm films have a grey base which helps to reduce halation, which in roll film is accomplished by the paper backing. 35mm film bases are also thicker. But the emulsions are identical. TXP (ISO 320) though is different from Tri-X Pan (ISO 400). Both are available in 120 size.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf
« Last Edit: August 17, 2014, 07:42:19 PM by melchiorpavone » Logged
Chris Livsey
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274



« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2014, 01:29:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Nope, completely false. B&W 35mm films have a grey base which helps to reduce halation, which in roll film is accomplished by the paper backing. 35mm film bases are also thicker. But the emulsions are identical. TXP (ISO 320) though is different from Tri-X Pan (ISO 400). Both are available in 120 size.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf

Nope? Completely false?
You confirm exactly what I said:

The films have a different base, I said that.
The emulsions are identical Nowhere did I say they were different.

What exactly do you find in error?

My point was, and is, that there are differences in both the film used in 35mm still, and movie stock, and larger formats even when the same emulsion is coated due to both the film itself, base, which is not identical and the properties of the lenses and cameras used so a direct comparison is not accurate.
Do you disagree with that statement?
If so how is it in error or false?



And BTW not all 35m (edit - now that is LARGE format  Grin) 35mm  still films have a grey base, some are coated on a clear base and can be reversed processed for B/W transparencies and incorporate anti-halation as a coating layer.
I recently shot some of the cine-still stock, (rem-jet removed BEFORE exposure) and the halation was significant, as expected.




« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 01:57:53 AM by Chris Livsey » Logged

ATB
Chris Livsey
http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

Photographer- not a job description, a diagnosis.
melchiorpavone
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 255


« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2014, 08:36:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Nope? Completely false?
You confirm exactly what I said:

The films have a different base, I said that.
The emulsions are identical Nowhere did I say they were different.

What exactly do you find in error?

My point was, and is, that there are differences in both the film used in 35mm still, and movie stock, and larger formats even when the same emulsion is coated due to both the film itself, base, which is not identical and the properties of the lenses and cameras used so a direct comparison is not accurate.
Do you disagree with that statement?
If so how is it in error or false?



And BTW not all 35m (edit - now that is LARGE format  Grin) 35mm  still films have a grey base, some are coated on a clear base and can be reversed processed for B/W transparencies and incorporate anti-halation as a coating layer.
I recently shot some of the cine-still stock, (rem-jet removed BEFORE exposure) and the halation was significant, as expected.



Conventional 35mm films are coated on a thicker base than 120 roll films. Sheet films are thicker yet. The emulsions are identical when offered in all formats (T-Max 100, for instance). Image characteristics are identical across the board. Yes, films intended for reversal often have a clear base. Kodachrome and some motion-picture films have had a different anti-halation backing that must be removed with a special process. This is one of the reasons that Kodachrome was so sharp compared to other films.   
Logged
melchiorpavone
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 255


« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2014, 08:38:04 AM »
ReplyReply

An incorrect assumption here is that as format increases the film, as coated, remains the same ie it is simply scaled up.

Yes, they are the same emulsions, coated on a different thickness of base, which does not in any way affect the photographic properties (graininess, speed, sharpness, etc.). Your statement is incorrect.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 08:41:41 AM by melchiorpavone » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad