That MF feeling
Paul Friday
camera built into their mobile phone catch sight of something big,
mechanical and serious, with a lens that weighs more than a small child.
So where does the biggest shock come from?
Is it the strange crunches and grinding noises of a soviet special?
Is it the 250mm lens that is even bigger than the camera (didn't Pentax
make a 500mm f4 for the 6*7?)
Is it the curvature of an Arsat 30mm?
The wierdness of a Mamiya Press?
The snobbery of a Hasselblad logo?
The futzing with darkslides, meters and adjustments?
The quaint but heavy tripod?
The quaint but heavier rucksack containing a second lens and a spare
film?
What floats your boat? What gets their goat?
I confess to a strange love of Russian kit, which while large enough to
make vertebrae weep, will hopefully have nothing in common with fast
cars and long bonnets (hoods).
The reason I bring this up is the reaction I've noticed when I pop a
Kiev 60 with Sonnar and hood out of a rucksack during the school
concert. With progress inversely proportional to size (is that wee-ness
envy?), it has the same effect as collecting the kids from school in a
car with a V8, carburettors and no catalysts. And no seat belts.
There is something deeply satisfying to the soul to buck the trend, and
its epiphany must be the shock and awe of normal people with normal
cameras, faced with something like Arnie with a monocle.
Sure, we take pictures too, but what reaction have you had to
supersizing the snapshot thing?
I must add that up until now I have only shot B&W in MF. I just got my
first roll of slide film back, and I can only gibber at the quality.
Having seen a MF, let alone a LF, slide, how can picture editors bear to
look at anything less than 80mp?
--
Paul Friday
Q.G. de Bakker
> Having seen a MF, let alone a LF, slide, how can picture editors bear to
> look at anything less than 80mp?
Picture editors don't inspect slides, don't know slides, but look at things
on their computer screens.
They judge images of approximately 1.2 MP...
Scott W
First off let me say that I think MF is great, to me 35mm just does not
have the resolution to make really nice prints
Having said that I think you might be a little over optimistic about
the number of useful pixels you are going to be able to get. If you
are shooting 6 x 6 I think 20 MP is a much closer number. I don't
believe many photo editors would want a 80 MP photo, that is close to
500 Mbytes as a 48 bit tiff.
I just happen to have a 75 MP photo handy, this is the view from our
house, this level of detail is beyond what any MF camera can do, you
would need a 4 x 5 to get this level. BTW the photo is pretty large, a
20 MB jpeg so you will want high speed Internet to view it.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52075057/original
To see this photo a lot smaller you can go here
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52075057/large
Again I think MF is great but not quite up to 80 MP.
Scott
Jom
>
>I just happen to have a 75 MP photo handy, this is the view from our
>house, this level of detail is beyond what any MF camera can do, you
>would need a 4 x 5 to get this level.
Where do you get a 75 mp camera? Such a monstrosity would be far out
of the reach of nearly all consumers, and for years to come.
Dave the Guy
For me, it's looking at the film over a light box with a 10x magnifier.
Or knowing that everything is a mechanical and chemical reaction and
batteries are not needed, just a big hunk of metal and glass, a sliver
of plastic, and my brain.
Yay.
Q.G. de Bakker
> First off let me say that I think MF is great, to me 35mm just does not
> have the resolution to make really nice prints
>
> Having said that I think you might be a little over optimistic about
> the number of useful pixels you are going to be able to get. If you
> are shooting 6 x 6 I think 20 MP is a much closer number. I don't
> believe many photo editors would want a 80 MP photo, that is close to
> 500 Mbytes as a 48 bit tiff.
>
> I just happen to have a 75 MP photo handy, this is the view from our
> house, this level of detail is beyond what any MF camera can do, you
> would need a 4 x 5 to get this level. BTW the photo is pretty large, a
> 20 MB jpeg so you will want high speed Internet to view it.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52075057/original
>
> To see this photo a lot smaller you can go here
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52075057/large
>
> Again I think MF is great but not quite up to 80 MP.
I disagree.
A 4000 dpi scan of a 6x6 (which is about 80 MP) is indeed not already
producing 'empty magnification', but showing detail all the way. You might
get even more good MPs at higher sample rates.
So no, it definitely is not beyond what MF can do.
Scott W
So take a look at my photo and compare it to any from a MF camera, you
will not
even get close to it.
If you don't have the connect speed to look at the whole photo here is
a link to a 100% corp
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52093816/original
If you want to see the whole thing it is here
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52075057/original
The point is this the what you see in a real 80 (well 75) MP image.
A 80 MP scan from a MF camera is going to be incredibly soft.
Sorry guys but as good as a MF camera is it is not close to being 80 MP
good.
If you want to get an idea of just how far you are from truly having 80
MP copy a bit of my photo and paste it one for one on your 80 MP scan
and see how they compare.
Scott
Lorem Ipsum
news:6yQ$TVHnD9...@devce.demon.co.uk...
> What floats your boat? What gets their goat?
What 'floats my boat' is people leaving me alone. You seem to consider
yourself an act, rather than a photographer. Who hell cares what they think?
Q.G. de Bakker
> So take a look at my photo and compare it to any from a MF camera, you
> will not
> even get close to it.
That's what you think. Blessed are...
;-)
Scott W
And yet there is the photo :) And I can tell you that I spent less
then a good DSLR with a good lens.
I like this one better, but it is 95 MP and the OP was only claiming to
be getting 80 so I posted one closer to that size.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52094726/original
That one is compressed a lot so the sky looks a bit odd.
Scott
Scott W
Well I have showed what a photo that really has 75 MP looks like, how
about you showing a 80 MP image from a MF camera?
Scott
David J. Littleboy
Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP scan of a Mamiya 7 frame.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/original
Like every other 4000 dpi film scan ever made, it's nowhere close to what
you have in your image.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Scott W
The thing I don't get in all this is you can get a very nice looking
20 MP image using a MF camera, well maybe not a 6 x 4.5 but a 6 x 6 or
larger. Why the need to claim 80 MP? After all 20 MP is pretty good
and it takes an $8000 digital camera to get close to it. It is real
simple, there are limits to how much you can enlarge film, if there
were not the Kodak disk cameras prints would not have look so very,
very bad.
Scott
Gregory Blank
Is that a drum scan?,...I don't think so.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>> >> Scott W wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > So take a look at my photo and compare it to any from a MF camera,
>> >> > you
>> >> > will not even get close to it.
>> >>
>> >> That's what you think. Blessed are...
>> >
>> > about you showing a 80 MP image from a MF camera?
>>
>> Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP scan of a Mamiya 7 frame.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/original
>>
>> Like every other 4000 dpi film scan ever made, it's nowhere close to what
>> you have in your image.
>
Do you have a drum scan that looks significantly better? I've never seen
one.
Scott W
> In article <dl2bt6$r9p$1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> > >> Scott W wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > So take a look at my photo and compare it to any from a MF camera, you
> > >> > will not even get close to it.
> > >>
> > >> That's what you think. Blessed are...
> > >> ;-)
> > >
> > > Well I have showed what a photo that really has 75 MP looks like, how
> > > about you showing a 80 MP image from a MF camera?
> >
> > Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP scan of a Mamiya 7 frame.
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/original
> >
> > Like every other 4000 dpi film scan ever made, it's nowhere close to what
> > you have in your image.
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
>
> Is that a drum scan?,...I don't think so.
> --
is not really the point if we keep this in the context of the OP's
post. Do you really believe that he had his photos drum scanned?
But I am willing to be shown a 80 MP image that comes from a MF camera
that looks even close to as sharp as mine.
Scott
Chris Brown
Q.G. de Bakker <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>A 4000 dpi scan of a 6x6 (which is about 80 MP) is indeed not already
>producing 'empty magnification', but showing detail all the way. You might
>get even more good MPs at higher sample rates.
That's how it'll always work, because the scanner has an imperfect MTF.
Higher resolutions will always reveal more detail, but this does *not* mean
that because you are seeing more detail when you scan at 80 megapixels than
when you scan at, say, 40 megapixels, that the 6*6 image is somehow
"equivalent" to an 80 megapixel digital camera.
IME, the 6*6s I get on Provia 100F from my Rolleiflex 3.5E Xenotar are good
for 25-36 megapixels at a similar 1:1 quality to a DSLR, if everything is
done right. I can get a good 80 megapixel image from 4x5, but not from 6x6
or 6x7.
Another datapoint - in prints the 5D (12.7 megapixies) matches the image
quality I get from MF (6x6 and 6x7) at A4 and slightly bigger. At A3 the MF
prints are better, but not a lot better. On the other hand, up against 35mm,
prints, the 5D prints are winning convincingly.
Q.G. de Bakker
> That's how it'll always work, because the scanner has an imperfect MTF.
> Higher resolutions will always reveal more detail, but this does *not*
mean
> that because you are seeing more detail when you scan at 80 megapixels
than
> when you scan at, say, 40 megapixels, that the 6*6 image is somehow
> "equivalent" to an 80 megapixel digital camera.
Of course not.
Digital capture lacks grain, and uses electronics filtering to reduce the
electronic equivalent, noise.
So the images look cleaner.
But as far as detail goes, yes.
Scott W
Would you care to share a 80 MP image from a MF camera wtih us?
Scott
Robert_L
were talking about scanning MF negatives to get these massive files, I
actually thought somebody had a 80 mp camera. What I can't figure out
is why you'd want to scan a MF negative into the computer in the first
place? Most changes you might need to make can be done in the
darkroom, otherwise why not use a high end digital camera if you want
to have that much control? I've been shooting MF for years and have
never had the desire or need to scan any of my negatives into my
computer.
Scott W
Anybody doing page layout work will need the photo as a scanned image,
normally a tiff.
If you want to make prints but not mess with a darkroom then scaning is
a great way to go.
If you want to be able to adjust the photo scanning also is a good way
to go.
If you want a digital backup of the photo, in case something happens to
your film scanning is also the way to go.
As to why not use a high end camera, many pros do but an amateur is not
normally going to plop down $8,000 for a digital camera.
If you have no desire to scan that is fine, but many other do have a
need for scanning.
Scott
Scott W
Scott W
might make it easier.
http://www.sewcon.com/big/
This allows you to pan and zoom without the need to down load the whole
image.
There really is an amazing amount of detail in a 80 or even 75 MP
photo, more detail then you can ever get from a MF camera
Scott
Chris Brown
If you're getting that detail from MF scans then you are a lucky man indeed.
The rest of us will just have to live with getting a lot less.
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > --
> I don't believe a drum scan would be significantly better, but that
> is not really the point if we keep this in the context of the OP's
> post. Do you really believe that he had his photos drum scanned?
Why don't you believe they would not be significantly better?
That is better than a CCD arrayed scanner.
>
> But I am willing to be shown a 80 MP image that comes from a MF camera
> that looks even close to as sharp as mine.
How about one in print form then? That's a better test of any virtual
image that I know of. You can make your file any size you want.
I get to chose the paper size.
Gregory Blank
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have a drum scan that looks significantly better? I've never seen
> one.
Not from your film I don't,.......
You've never seen a drum scan?
Or one from that image?
Scott W
> In article <1131725597....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > --
> > I don't believe a drum scan would be significantly better, but that
> > is not really the point if we keep this in the context of the OP's
> > post. Do you really believe that he had his photos drum scanned?
>
> Why don't you believe they would not be significantly better?
> That is better than a CCD arrayed scanner.
> >
> > But I am willing to be shown a 80 MP image that comes from a MF camera
> > that looks even close to as sharp as mine.
>
> How about one in print form then? That's a better test of any virtual
> image that I know of. You can make your file any size you want.
> I get to chose the paper size.
> --
getting, not how the print looked. This is what I was responding to.
But I agree prints are a much better test, just what size print were
you thinking of?
Scott
Scott W
> In article <dl2dtt$ro7$1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do you have a drum scan that looks significantly better? I've never seen
> > one.
>
> Not from your film I don't,.......
>
> You've never seen a drum scan?
>
> Or one from that image?
Ok now I am confused, what is "that image?"
I use to get drum scans for ad photos (other people did the photography
BTW) but they were all scanned at 2000 ppi.
Scott
Lorem Ipsum
Scott W
Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> Nice work, Scott. Now get outdoors and make some pictures.
Yup, I am headed that way in just a bit.
Scott
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
David's image he posted.
48108651.A0903x.jpg
Realistically unless one is doing both scans, one from a ccd array type
scanner like the coolscan versus a pmt scanner you may not realize a
difference.
The scans would have to generated by the same person Imop.
And of course the software would have to be similar.
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
8.5 x11 would suffice, or 11x17.
Scott W
> In article <1131744584.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yet here again the OP was talking about the digital file he was
> > getting, not how the print looked. This is what I was responding to.
> >
> > But I agree prints are a much better test, just what size print were
> > you thinking of?
> >
> > Scott
>
> 8.5 x11 would suffice, or 11x17.
mp photo.
Evern 20 x 30 is only 54 MP, but would be a good size to print at.
A test print could be made of part of the image so as to smaller say 8
x 10.
Scott
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gregory Blank wrote:
> > In article <1131744584.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yet here again the OP was talking about the digital file he was
> > > getting, not how the print looked. This is what I was responding to.
> > >
> > > But I agree prints are a much better test, just what size print were
> > > you thinking of?
> > >
> > > Scott
> >
> > 8.5 x11 would suffice, or 11x17.
> a 11x17 print at 300 ppi only need 17 mp, not much of a test for a 80
> mp photo.
That remains to be seen doesn't it.
> Evern 20 x 30 is only 54 MP, but would be a good size to print at.
> A test print could be made of part of the image so as to smaller say 8
> x 10.
You can crop or make your image however you want as long as the print
size is 8.5 x11 0r 11x17.
Scott W
> In article <1131749101.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gregory Blank wrote:
> > > In article <1131744584.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yet here again the OP was talking about the digital file he was
> > > > getting, not how the print looked. This is what I was responding to.
> > > >
> > > > But I agree prints are a much better test, just what size print were
> > > > you thinking of?
> > > >
> > > > Scott
> > >
> > > 8.5 x11 would suffice, or 11x17.
> > a 11x17 print at 300 ppi only need 17 mp, not much of a test for a 80
> > mp photo.
>
> That remains to be seen doesn't it.
>
> > Evern 20 x 30 is only 54 MP, but would be a good size to print at.
> > A test print could be made of part of the image so as to smaller say 8
> > x 10.
>
> You can crop or make your image however you want as long as the print
> size is 8.5 x11 0r 11x17.
> --
So where do we get the 80 MP MF image?
Scott
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote in message
news:greg-ED19F5.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <dl2dtt$ro7$1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do you have a drum scan that looks significantly better? I've never seen
>> one.
>
> Not from your film I don't,.......
>
> You've never seen a drum scan?
I've seen drum scan/film scanner comparisons, and the differences are
minimal. And they are not in amount of detail captured: slightly less grain
noise and slightly better shadow detail. Slightly.
To the best I can tell, film fans claiming that drum scans make a
significant improvement simply haven't done the comparison. Or have compared
with sloppy film scans. As I've said before here, persuading the film to be
adequately flat in a Nikon 8000/9000 is a serious pain, and I can't imagine
a commercial operation taking the time to do that.
zeitgeist
> I'm sure we've all felt it - that sudden silence when the people with a
> camera built into their mobile phone catch sight of something big,
> mechanical and serious, with a lens that weighs more than a small child.
> So where does the biggest shock come from?
>
> Is it the strange crunches and grinding noises of a soviet special?
> Is it the 250mm lens that is even bigger than the camera (didn't Pentax
> make a 500mm f4 for the 6*7?)
> Is it the curvature of an Arsat 30mm?
> The wierdness of a Mamiya Press?
> The snobbery of a Hasselblad logo?
> The futzing with darkslides, meters and adjustments?
> The quaint but heavy tripod?
> The quaint but heavier rucksack containing a second lens and a spare
> film?
>
> What floats your boat? What gets their goat?
> I confess to a strange love of Russian kit, which while large enough to
> make vertebrae weep, will hopefully have nothing in common with fast
> cars and long bonnets (hoods).
> The reason I bring this up is the reaction I've noticed when I pop a
> Kiev 60 with Sonnar and hood out of a rucksack during the school
> concert. With progress inversely proportional to size (is that wee-ness
> envy?), it has the same effect as collecting the kids from school in a
> car with a V8, carburettors and no catalysts. And no seat belts.
> There is something deeply satisfying to the soul to buck the trend, and
> its epiphany must be the shock and awe of normal people with normal
> cameras, faced with something like Arnie with a monocle.
> Sure, we take pictures too, but what reaction have you had to
> supersizing the snapshot thing?
>
just put a big bellows shade on your camera, you'll get that ooh and ah even
if you mount it on a Diana or 'Time' 35mm.
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I never said I needed one (80mp). Nope I never said anything needed to
be cropped. How you get 8.5 x11 or 11x17 is your problem not mine.
We are only talking prints now remember?
Gregory Blank
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote in message
> news:greg-ED19F5.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article <dl2dtt$ro7$1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
> > "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you have a drum scan that looks significantly better? I've never seen
> >> one.
> >
> > Not from your film I don't,.......
> >
> > You've never seen a drum scan?
>
> I've seen drum scan/film scanner comparisons, and the differences are
> minimal. And they are not in amount of detail captured: slightly less grain
> noise and slightly better shadow detail. Slightly.
And who provided these comparisons and with what equipment?
>
> To the best I can tell, film fans claiming that drum scans make a
> significant improvement simply haven't done the comparison. Or have compared
> with sloppy film scans. As I've said before here, persuading the film to be
> adequately flat in a Nikon 8000/9000 is a serious pain, and I can't imagine
> a commercial operation taking the time to do that.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
And as I said the same operator with the same attention to detail.
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've seen drum scan/film scanner comparisons, and the differences are
>> minimal. And they are not in amount of detail captured: slightly less
>> grain
>> noise and slightly better shadow detail. Slightly.
>
> And who provided these comparisons and with what equipment?
Dave King
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20NS8K.jpg
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20SM5K.jpg
Bill Hinton
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_tango_4399dpi_velvia.jpg
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_n8000_velvia_645.jpg
Paul Graham
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/graham_nikon_silverfast.jpg
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/graham_tango.jpg
If you think there's a significant difference between any of those, we're on
different planets.
To reiterate: the idea that digital vs. film comparisons in which the film
is scanned on a 4000 ppi Nikon scanner are problematical because the film
wasn't scanned on a drum scanner is, to the best I can tell, simply wrong.
Neil Gould
> "Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> And who provided these comparisons and with what equipment?
>
> Dave King
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20NS8K.jpg
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20SM5K.jpg
>
> Bill Hinton
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_tango_4399dpi_velvia.jpg
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_n8000_velvia_645.jpg
>
> Paul Graham
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/graham_nikon_silverfast.jpg
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/graham_tango.jpg
>
> If you think there's a significant difference between any of those,
> we're on different planets.
>
Every one of those comparisons shows visible differences in sharpness and
detail, with the tango/higher res version winning out. If you can't see
those differences, therein lies the issue. Are the differences
"significant"? Well, that depends on how the photos will be used.
Neil
David J. Littleboy
I didn't say there weren't differences, I said that they were tiny compared
to the difference between scans and dSLR images.
> Are the differences
> "significant"? Well, that depends on how the photos will be used.
The differences may be significant to someone making large prints, but not
significant if the claim is that they make the scans as good as dSLR
originals on a per-pixel basis. Make an A4 print from a 6MP crop from any of
those drum scans and it'll look ridiculous and sick compared to just about
any 6MP dSLR image.
Gregory Blank
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've seen drum scan/film scanner comparisons, and the differences are
> >> minimal. And they are not in amount of detail captured: slightly less
> >> grain
> >> noise and slightly better shadow detail. Slightly.
> >
> > And who provided these comparisons and with what equipment?
>
> Dave King
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20NS8K.jpg
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20SM5K.jpg
>
> Bill Hinton
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_tango_4399dpi_velvia.jpg
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_n8000_velvia_645.jpg
>
>
> If you think there's a significant difference between any of those, we're on
> different planets.
Get your eyes checked....I am serious. I see significantly different
density and color balance in the two above sets you name .
The village scenes also are sharper even looking at them over the net.
> To reiterate: the idea that digital vs. film comparisons in which the film
> is scanned on a 4000 ppi Nikon scanner are problematical because the film
> wasn't scanned on a drum scanner is, to the best I can tell, simply wrong.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Going back to my previous statement, nothing indicates who did
the drum scans, am I supposed to believe all the people on the page
have access to and are competent at using drum scanners and own
high end MF scanners as well?
Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Take Care.
Scott W
> In article <dl4luj$gci$1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've seen drum scan/film scanner comparisons, and the differences are
> > >> minimal. And they are not in amount of detail captured: slightly less
> > >> grain
> > >> noise and slightly better shadow detail. Slightly.
> > >
> > > And who provided these comparisons and with what equipment?
> >
> > Dave King
> >
> > http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20NS8K.jpg
> > http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20SM5K.jpg
> >
> > Bill Hinton
> >
> > http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_tango_4399dpi_velvia.jpg
> > http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_n8000_velvia_645.jpg
> >
> >
> > If you think there's a significant difference between any of those, we're on
> > different planets.
>
> Get your eyes checked....I am serious. I see significantly different
> density and color balance in the two above sets you name .
>
So lets take a look at that drum scan, the one you are seeing the
detail in.
I took this photo
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20NS8K.jpg
Down sampled half to 2000 ppi and up again to 5081 and put it together
with the original
this is what I got
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52140255/original
Can you tell my which half has been down sampled?
Scott
Scott W
> Every one of those comparisons shows visible differences in sharpness and
> detail, with the tango/higher res version winning out. If you can't see
> those differences, therein lies the issue. Are the differences
> "significant"? Well, that depends on how the photos will be used.
>
> Neil
Man you guys are seeing detail where you want to see it.
Can you tell the differance between the left and right side of this
photo
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52140255/original
One side was down sampled to 2000ppi and back up that other side was
not
this is from the drum scan.
Scott
Scott W
>
> I never said I needed one (80mp). Nope I never said anything needed to
> be cropped. How you get 8.5 x11 or 11x17 is your problem not mine.
> We are only talking prints now remember?
Nope we were talking about whether a MF scan had 80 MP worth of detail.
I said
" But I am willing to be shown a 80 MP image that comes from a MF
camera
that looks even close to as sharp as mine."
to which you said
"How about one in print form then? That's a better test of any virtual
image that I know of. You can make your file any size you want.
I get to chose the paper size."
So I am waiting to be shown an 80 MP image from a MF camera that can
come even close to as sharp as mine.
By your train of though I could make a 1 inch by 1 inch print from a
kodak disk camera and claim to have the same detail as you MF camera.
What I have stated and what you seem to have taken issue with is that
you can get 80MP of useful pixels from a MF camera.
Scott
Lorem Ipsum
news:1131813808.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Man you guys are seeing detail where you want to see it.
> Can you tell the differance between the left and right side of this
Gee, Scott, if I were you in the beautiful weather shown in your earlier
photograph, I'd be pleasing myself by making pictures instead of trying to
cure people of their metric delusions.
(Where do you live? I cannot tell by the photographs, but the real-estate
sign seems to indicate ... the USA?)
Scott W
I am going out in just a bit to a canoe race, I should have some nice
photos to share by
days end.
Scott
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Get your eyes checked....I am serious. I see significantly different
> > density and color balance in the two above sets you name .
> >
>
> So lets take a look at that drum scan, the one you are seeing the
> detail in.
> I took this photo
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20NS8K.jpg
> Down sampled half to 2000 ppi and up again to 5081 and put it together
> with the original
> this is what I got
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52140255/original
> Can you tell my which half has been down sampled?
>
> Scott
My issues were with density curves, and color difference between the
two. Those two factors as you image shows over the net & I assume you
adjusted them to match for color and density, will have an impact on the
perception of each image.
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gregory Blank wrote:
> >
> > I never said I needed one (80mp). Nope I never said anything needed to
> > be cropped. How you get 8.5 x11 or 11x17 is your problem not mine.
> > We are only talking prints now remember?
>
> Nope we were talking about whether a MF scan had 80 MP worth of detail.
& why should that matter if the MF image holds more detail and
information at my given size?
> I said
> " But I am willing to be shown a 80 MP image that comes from a MF
> camera
> that looks even close to as sharp as mine."
That was not part of yours and my discussion.
> to which you said
> "How about one in print form then? That's a better test of any virtual
> image that I know of. You can make your file any size you want.
> I get to chose the paper size."
Right it was my response to your statement (at large).
> So I am waiting to be shown an 80 MP image from a MF camera that can
> come even close to as sharp as mine.
Here's were you assume I indicated that I needed to even generate such a
file or for that matter do this on a digital platform.
>
> By your train of though I could make a 1 inch by 1 inch print from a
> kodak disk camera and claim to have the same detail as you MF camera.
There's nothing to claim, either the printed hardcopy can show the
detail or it can't,.... end of discussion.
> What I have stated and what you seem to have taken issue with is that
> you can get 80MP of useful pixels from a MF camera.
Lets put this way Scott- 80 MP counts for very little in terms of on
paper resolution and I can prove it.
Lorem Ipsum
> Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> Yup we live in the USA, in Hawaii on the Big Island.
> I am going out in just a bit to a canoe race, I should have some nice
> photos to share by
> days end.
I'd be there in a heartbeat. Sounds like an opportunity to use the 'blad
w/500mm lens on a gimbaled tripod mount. Enjoy!
Gordon Moat
Take each into PhotoShop, copy one of them, then paste as a new layer on top of the
other image. Then resize to match up the images (I used the roughly square eye
highlight in the eye). After that, turn on Difference in the layers palette, and
how about that . . . there is a difference. It is more apparent at higher
magnifications, like 300% or better. It also depends upon what monitor you are
using.
Hey, if you cannot see a difference, then I suppose it doesn't matter. Those of us
who can see a difference, and to those of us whom that difference might actually
matter, are not wrong for wanting that (arguably slight) difference. The thing I
find even funnier is people claiming these things from JPEGs on low resolution
monitors. Even in your example, there was a slight difference just from JPEGs . . .
it amuses me that you still claim no difference in printing . . . you must have one
serious piece of shit printer, or someone really incompetent doing the prints.
I don't expect to change your opinion, nor convince you of anything. Honestly, I
don't really care, since you are not competition. Seth Resnick stated it correctly
a few nights ago, "no matter how you do comparisons, it is impossible to prove or
disprove any argument on the internet".
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Lorem Ipsum
of a nine-day celebration on the Big Island. I tell ya, it's almost
un-American. :) That's a good thing.
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Get your eyes checked....I am serious. I see significantly different
>> > density and color balance in the two above sets you name .
>>
>> So lets take a look at that drum scan, the one you are seeing the
>> detail in. I took this photo
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20NS8K.jpg
>> Down sampled half to 2000 ppi and up again to 5081
>> and put it together with the original
>> this is what I got
>> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52140255/original
>> Can you tell my which half has been down sampled?
>>
>> Scott
>
> My issues were with density curves, and color difference between the
> two.
That was never the question. The question has always been about detail
rendition.
> Those two factors as you image shows over the net & I assume you
> adjusted them to match for color and density, will have an impact on the
> perception of each image.
You've missed the point: Scott has shown that a drum scan has less than one
quarter the information in it you guys (well, QG) say it does.
This all started with QG claiming:
"I disagree.
A 4000 dpi scan of a 6x6 (which is about 80 MP) is indeed not already
producing 'empty magnification', but showing detail all the way"
Which is completely ridiculous. You guys chipped in with the "it's invalid
if you don't do it on a drum scanner" mantra, and Scott has pointed out here
that drum scanners are just as devoid of information as ccd scanners are.
I.e., it's not the scanner, it's the film that's lacking the information.
Gregory Blank
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> > My issues were with density curves, and color difference between the
> > two.
>
> That was never the question. The question has always been about detail
> rendition.
But the question is relevant because not only do such discrepancies make
one versus the other appear more resolute, those discrepancies indicate
flaws in the comparison that maybe harder to isolate. Therefore its best
to say the results as a whole are biased or flawed per that/those sets.
> > Those two factors as you image shows over the net & I assume you
> > adjusted them to match for color and density, will have an impact on the
> > perception of each image.
>
> You've missed the point: Scott has shown that a drum scan has less than one
> quarter the information in it you guys (well, QG) say it does.
I believe I haven't missed any thing - Scott wants to compare a stitched
image to a single film frame, am I in correct in that?
> This all started with QG claiming:
>
> "I disagree.
> A 4000 dpi scan of a 6x6 (which is about 80 MP) is indeed not already
> producing 'empty magnification', but showing detail all the way"
>
> Which is completely ridiculous. You guys chipped in with the "it's invalid
> if you don't do it on a drum scanner" mantra, and Scott has pointed out here
> that drum scanners are just as devoid of information as ccd scanners are.
> I.e., it's not the scanner, it's the film that's lacking the information.
I asked a question/questions,...I did not say a single thing was
invalid, I ask for qualification of the testing methodology. Do you have
a problem with people asking for that?
Neil Gould
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> Recently, David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> posted:
>>> "Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And who provided these comparisons and with what equipment?
>>>
>>> Dave King
>>>
>>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20NS8K.jpg
>>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/eye%20SM5K.jpg
>>>
>>> Bill Hinton
>>>
>>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_tango_4399dpi_velvia.jpg
>>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_n8000_velvia_645.jpg
>>>
>>> Paul Graham
>>>
>>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/graham_nikon_silverfast.jpg
>>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/graham_tango.jpg
>>>
>>> If you think there's a significant difference between any of those,
>>> we're on different planets.
>>>
>> Every one of those comparisons shows visible differences in
>> sharpness and detail, with the tango/higher res version winning out.
>> If you can't see those differences, therein lies the issue.
>
> I didn't say there weren't differences, I said that they were tiny
> compared to the difference between scans and dSLR images.
>
That's a bit too generic. 8x10 scans vs. 6mp dSLR images?
>> Are the differences
>> "significant"? Well, that depends on how the photos will be used.
>
> The differences may be significant to someone making large prints,
>
Exactly.
> but not significant if the claim is that they make the scans as good
> as dSLR originals on a per-pixel basis. Make an A4 print from a 6MP
> crop from any of those drum scans and it'll look ridiculous and sick
> compared to just about any 6MP dSLR image.
>
Well, that only suggests that you have a preference for the kind of images
that dSLRs produce. I prefer optical prints most of the time, and feel
that both digital camera and film scans are usually inferior.
Neil
Neil Gould
It isn't too difficult to see that your stitch job is just to the left of
the eye itself. Making such comparisons with jpegs is a fairly pointless.
So, to you, the differences are unimportant, but that doesn't mean that
they are intrinsically unimportant.
Neil
Scott W
> In article <dl61ck$t33$1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > My issues were with density curves, and color difference between the
> > > two.
> >
> > That was never the question. The question has always been about detail
> > rendition.
>
> But the question is relevant because not only do such discrepancies make
> one versus the other appear more resolute, those discrepancies indicate
> flaws in the comparison that maybe harder to isolate. Therefore its best
> to say the results as a whole are biased or flawed per that/those sets.
>
> > > Those two factors as you image shows over the net & I assume you
> > > adjusted them to match for color and density, will have an impact on the
> > > perception of each image.
> >
> > You've missed the point: Scott has shown that a drum scan has less than one
> > quarter the information in it you guys (well, QG) say it does.
>
> I believe I haven't missed any thing - Scott wants to compare a stitched
> image to a single film frame, am I in correct in that?
Yes indeed you did miss a thing. The claim was that MF had 80 MP worth
of detail, which is not true. I should have have needed to show any 80
MP photo to show how crazy thinking there is 80 MP in a MF photo but
when I look at a true 80 MP photo you can see just how much MF fall
short. It does not matter where I got the 80 MP photo, it could have
been from a 4 x 5 view camera.
Scott
Scott W
really?
They are both way soft and the drum scan has no info that need more
then 2000 ppi, or are you going to tell me you could tell which side of
the photo was down and up sampled
just by looking at it.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52140255/original
As for my examples, you claim I must have a piece of shit printer, did
you print out my sample? I kind of don't think you did, it you print
out mine at 300 ppi you will see the film scan looking very soft,
regardless of whether it was down sampled or not.
Scott
Scott W
900 sqr inches, do you beleive you can do this with a MF camera? I
believe a 6 x 6 will be limited to more on the order of 225 sqr inches,
or a print of say 15 x 15 inches, if you want it to be very sharp.
Scott
Scott W
It was a beautiful day for a canoe race, here is one photo that I took
of it.\
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52163223/original
It was our club that sponsors this race so it was a good opportunity to
try out my waterproof camera, it did very well indeed.
I will be posting a lot more photos once I have them organized it bit
better.
We did miss the parade in the Kona Coffee festival, but it was much
better to be out on the water.
Scott.
Stacey
>
> If you think there's a significant difference between any of those, we're
> on different planets.
>
If YOU can't see the difference, you don't want to see any because of what
you own and use.. I see way more difference between these than the
difference you claim to see in the various dSLR's!
These two are so very obviously different it's not even funny.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_tango_4399dpi_velvia.jpg
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/hilton_n8000_velvia_645.jpg
--
Stacey
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You just keep dragging the sharpness issue back into virtual imagery
instead of print on paper-sigh.
Your stitching to get 80mp are you not? So in theory I can use multiple
6x6 images and crop the best portion and re stitch them in
PS to get an 80mp image. Though of course I have never contended
a single frame would enlarge and be sharp beyond certain limits. It will
however make a better print within certain limits.
Chris Brown
>> as dSLR originals on a per-pixel basis. Make an A4 print from a 6MP
>> crop from any of those drum scans and it'll look ridiculous and sick
>> compared to just about any 6MP dSLR image.
>>
>Well, that only suggests that you have a preference for the kind of images
>that dSLRs produce.
I think you'll find he's not unusual in prefering images which aren't blurry.
Neil Gould
As do I. However, "blurry" is relative to many factors, mostly related to
image real estate. I see no merit in a "per-pixel" basis" in comparing
media unless the image real estate is equal. I don't shoot MF to crop to
less than 35mm dimensions. Additionally, I prefer images that have texture
and gradation in addition to sharpness. So far, the film medium meets all
three of these parameters best.
Regards,
Neil
Gregory Blank
Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
Sounds like a rather general statement on your part. I can think of many
blurred images that are great and have won wide acclaim throughout photo
history.
Scott W
Gregory Blank wrote:
> In article <1131847012.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A good 80 MP image can produce a very sharp print that is right around
> > 900 sqr inches, do you beleive you can do this with a MF camera? I
> > believe a 6 x 6 will be limited to more on the order of 225 sqr inches,
> > or a print of say 15 x 15 inches, if you want it to be very sharp.
> >
> > Scott
>
> You just keep dragging the sharpness issue back into virtual imagery
> instead of print on paper-sigh.
>
> Your stitching to get 80mp are you not? So in theory I can use multiple
> 6x6 images and crop the best portion and re stitch them in
> PS to get an 80mp image. Though of course I have never contended
> a single frame would enlarge and be sharp beyond certain limits. It will
> however make a better print within certain limits.
> --
The OP stated he was getting 80 MP from his camera, I said he was not.
Scott
Scott W
If you go back and look at the thread you will see that I question the
ability of MF for produce an image with 80 MP that are useful, a few
other jumped in to say that yes indeed MF can do that. When there has
been no evidence at all that it can they have tried to switch the
argument by saying resolution is not everything. In my original replay
to the OP I tell him that I believe he is getting closer to 20 MP.
This is a quote from my reply to the OP
"First off let me say that I think MF is great, to me 35mm just does
not
have the resolution to make really nice prints
Having said that I think you might be a little over optimistic about
the number of useful pixels you are going to be able to get. If you
are shooting 6 x 6 I think 20 MP is a much closer number. I don't
believe many photo editors would want a 80 MP photo, that is close to
500 Mbytes as a 48 bit tiff. "
Now I ask you does that sound like I be putting down MF?
Scott
Chris Brown
Gregory Blank <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
>In article <1131847012.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A good 80 MP image can produce a very sharp print that is right around
>> 900 sqr inches, do you beleive you can do this with a MF camera? I
>> believe a 6 x 6 will be limited to more on the order of 225 sqr inches,
>> or a print of say 15 x 15 inches, if you want it to be very sharp.
>>
>> Scott
>
>You just keep dragging the sharpness issue back into virtual imagery
>instead of print on paper-sigh.
Not sure where you get that impression - everything you quote above is about
making prints.
>Your stitching to get 80mp are you not? So in theory I can use multiple
>6x6 images and crop the best portion and re stitch them in
>PS to get an 80mp image.
You could, but that doesn't help support the rather dubious assertion made
by QG that a single 6*6 frame is good for 80 megapixels.
Chris Brown
Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think you'll find he's not unusual in prefering images which aren't
>> blurry.
>>
>As do I. However, "blurry" is relative to many factors, mostly related to
>image real estate. I see no merit in a "per-pixel" basis" in comparing
>media unless the image real estate is equal.
The specific point you were commenting on involved printing a 6 megapixel
crop from a 4000 dpi film scan, and comparing it to a 6 megapixel DSLR
print. It'll be blurry.
Neil Gould
> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> posted:
>>>
>>> I think you'll find he's not unusual in prefering images which
>>> aren't blurry.
>>>
>> As do I. However, "blurry" is relative to many factors, mostly
>> related to image real estate. I see no merit in a "per-pixel" basis"
>> in comparing media unless the image real estate is equal. I don't
>> shoot MF to crop to less than 35mm dimensions. Additionally, I
>> prefer images that have texture and gradation in addition to
>> sharpness. So far, the film medium meets all three of these
>> parameters best.
>
> If you go back and look at the thread you will see that I question the
> ability of MF for produce an image with 80 MP that are useful, a few
> other jumped in to say that yes indeed MF can do that. When there has
> been no evidence at all that it can they have tried to switch the
> argument by saying resolution is not everything. In my original
> replay to the OP I tell him that I believe he is getting closer to 20
> MP.
>
The difficulty that I have with this discussion is that it makes many
gross generalizations using incomparable data.
1) The use of jpegs viewed on monitors is questionable. Much information
that may be in a lossless file format of the images being compared are
tossed out, even if the jpegs are "high-quality" (which is an oxymoron in
this usage).
2) While some of us have graphics studios, with decent, calibrated
monitors, others may not, and may not be able to see the differences and
therefore conclude that there are no differences in these images.
3) The final determinant of photographic images should be what one can get
out of a print. To me, valid comparisons are between Lambda/Lightjet
output and optical printing. Inkjets just don't qualify as a valid medium
for a comparison of image quality.
> Now I ask you does that sound like I be putting down MF?
>
I haven't made any comments about your position on MF, so I'm not sure why
you are asking me this question.
Regards,
Neil
Chris Brown
Gregory Blank <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
>> I think you'll find he's not unusual in prefering images which aren't blurry.
>
>Sounds like a rather general statement on your part. I can think of many
>blurred images that are great and have won wide acclaim throughout photo
>history.
Perhaps, but it has to be said that utilising a top-flight film scanner in
order to make that blurred photo from a 7% crop of a 6*6 frame is probably
not the best way to go about getting such a photograph.
Scott W
> Sounds like a rather general statement on your part. I can think of
many
> blurred images that are great and have won wide acclaim throughout photo
> history.
Well sure.
But then it really does not take 80MP of detail to make a blurred
image.
I have never said that the amount of detail in an image is the end all
be all. What I have said is that there is not 80 MP of detail in a MF
photo, even if drum scanned.
Scott
Chris Brown
>> ability of MF for produce an image with 80 MP that are useful, a few
>> other jumped in to say that yes indeed MF can do that. When there has
>> been no evidence at all that it can they have tried to switch the
>> argument by saying resolution is not everything. In my original
>> replay to the OP I tell him that I believe he is getting closer to 20
>> MP.
>>
>The difficulty that I have with this discussion is that it makes many
>gross generalizations using incomparable data.
>
>1) The use of jpegs viewed on monitors is questionable. Much information
>that may be in a lossless file format of the images being compared are
>tossed out, even if the jpegs are "high-quality" (which is an oxymoron in
>this usage).
If you've found an 80 megapixel TIFF file that prints as well, when scaled
up in proportion to a DSLR image so that the output pixels are the same size
on paper, do feel free to point us at it, or a crop of it.
>2) While some of us have graphics studios, with decent, calibrated
>monitors, others may not, and may not be able to see the differences and
>therefore conclude that there are no differences in these images.
Just one of these 80 megapixel images will do, anywhere.
>3) The final determinant of photographic images should be what one can get
>out of a print. To me, valid comparisons are between Lambda/Lightjet
>output and optical printing. Inkjets just don't qualify as a valid medium
>for a comparison of image quality.
Can't say I've seen many photos which, through lack of resolution, are
blurry on an inkject print but not when printed using a more expensive
mechanism. If the detail isn't there, it's not going to get put there by an
expensive printer.
Scott W
> >
> The difficulty that I have with this discussion is that it makes many
> gross generalizations using incomparable data.
>
> 1) The use of jpegs viewed on monitors is questionable. Much information
> that may be in a lossless file format of the images being compared are
> tossed out, even if the jpegs are "high-quality" (which is an oxymoron in
> this usage).
>
So are you saying that the only reason all the 4000 ppi scans we have
seen from MF camera as soft is because they are jpeg?
That seems very odd to me, and I have to wonder why my photo is not
soft but is very sharp, even though it is just a jpeg.
Are you trying to tell us that you can show detail in a film scan using
jpeg?, well I do believe I can help you out there. Here is a scan of
mine, from a pretty old side in fact,
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52196250/original
This is of course a jpeg, does it look soft? Do it look blurred? No
of course not, it looks very sharp and it is a jpg image of film It
looks sharp because it is not pushing past the limits of what film can
do. If I scanned it at 4000 ppi it would look very soft, even when
scanned on a drum scanner and even if saved as a tiff.
To try and blame the softness on a 4000 ppi scan on that fact that it
is a jpeg is way silly.
Scott
Gregory Blank
Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
Actually, that should go without needing to be said. You mean- you can't
resist saying the obvious ;-)
Scott W
>
> > Perhaps, but it has to be said that utilising a top-flight film scanner in
> > order to make that blurred photo from a 7% crop of a 6*6 frame is probably
> > not the best way to go about getting such a photograph.
>
> Actually, that should go without needing to be said. You mean- you can't
> resist saying the obvious ;-)
> --
Gregory I am not sure any more just what you are trying to tell us.
Scott
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
One can make the file any size one wants that doesn't mean it makes
anything better.-That I believe we may agree on,... as its the
dimensions of the final print that matter,...I use the word print. In
the grand scheme of things virtual does not equate to on paper.
The questions back are do you think a single frame from a digital image
contain 80MP of data?
The second being do you believe there to be a lens able to resolve 80MP
of information in outdoor application within the earths atmosphere :-)
Gregory Blank
Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> Can't say I've seen many photos which, through lack of resolution, are
> blurry on an inkject print but not when printed using a more expensive
> mechanism. If the detail isn't there, it's not going to get put there by an
> expensive printer.
Your right one does not need a particularly expensive printer to see
how much better film can be than digital capture and vice versus.
Scott W
Gregory Blank wrote:
> In article <1131898304.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gregory Blank wrote:
> > > Sounds like a rather general statement on your part. I can think of
> > many
> > > blurred images that are great and have won wide acclaim throughout photo
> > > history.
> >
> > Well sure.
> > But then it really does not take 80MP of detail to make a blurred
> > image.
> >
> > I have never said that the amount of detail in an image is the end all
> > be all. What I have said is that there is not 80 MP of detail in a MF
> > photo, even if drum scanned.
> >
> > Scott
>
> One can make the file any size one wants that doesn't mean it makes
> anything better.-That I believe we may agree on,... as its the
> dimensions of the final print that matter,...I use the word print. In
> the grand scheme of things virtual does not equate to on paper.
>
>
> The questions back are do you think a single frame from a digital image
> contain 80MP of data?
>
> The second being do you believe there to be a lens able to resolve 80MP
> of information in outdoor application within the earths atmosphere :-)
http://www.gigapxl.org/project.htm
You could save us all some time if you read the begining of this
thread, it was the OP who claim he was getting 80 MP, I said I did not
believe he was getting that many. Others said I was wrong and in fact
MF can produce 80 MP of detail, do you believe it can?
Scott
Scott W
> In article <ov2k43-...@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
> Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> > Can't say I've seen many photos which, through lack of resolution, are
> > blurry on an inkject print but not when printed using a more expensive
> > mechanism. If the detail isn't there, it's not going to get put there by an
> > expensive printer.
>
> Your right one does not need a particularly expensive printer to see
> how much better film can be than digital capture and vice versus.
> --
have used a scan from a 4 x 5 camera, but I happen to have the image
that I did.
The fact is that a image that really does have 80 MP of detail,
regardless of the source will be much sharper then a MF at say a 2 by 3
foot print.
Scott
Lorem Ipsum
news:1131847012.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [...] I
> believe a 6 x 6 will be limited to more on the order of 225 sqr inches,
> or a print of say 15 x 15 inches, if you want it to be very sharp.
Okay, referring back to my question earlier, now I know where your figure
comes from: 360ppi, 8-bit - inkjet, from a scan of 56mm x 56mm at 2500ppi.
So in this case the scan is 2500ppi. Goal is an inkjet print at 360ppi.
8-bit for 15"x15".
That is NOT the same as saying an MF format (of the above) has only 80mb
(+-) information in it. The medium certainly has far, far more information.
I will assert that it has as much as 285mb if usable information - not
usable to the digital maven, perhaps, but available nonetheless to the rest
of us. That's why some of use film.
Neil Gould
> In article <3BGdf.11181$Lv....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>,
Actually, the point I commented on had to do with the images being
"ridiculous and sick" by comparison, both notions being subjective. My
response to your comment about preferring images that aren't blurry was a
separate issue.
Regards,
Neil
Lorem Ipsum
> You could save us all some time if you read the begining of this
> thread, it was the OP who claim he was getting 80 MP, I said I did not
> believe he was getting that many. Others said I was wrong and in fact
> MF can produce 80 MP of detail, do you believe it can?
Your fundamental argument is that only a 2400ppi 8-bit image can be made,
probably because the objective is a conventional inkjet print which is
limited to 8-bits. I have no problem with that at all. It is a cogent, well
bounded argument, and it works in theory and practice. Most excellent.
Now let me make a provocative assertion for purposes of discussion: there is
more detail and information in the negative that a finer resolving scan will
produce (whether it can be done today or tomorrow). When the 80mp digital
camera makes its recording, the outcome is finished. It is frozen. A
conventional negative's information is yet to be exploited: more information
will come of it. Like I said - a provocative assertion.
Scott W
Well first off we are talking about 80 MP not MB of detail, this comes
from
the OP's statement "how can picture editors bear to look at anything
less than 80mp? "
Can you show me this detail? So far not one person has been able to
but some have claimed that it is there.
Scott
Neil Gould
> Neil Gould wrote:
> > >
>> The difficulty that I have with this discussion is that it makes many
>> gross generalizations using incomparable data.
>>
>> 1) The use of jpegs viewed on monitors is questionable. Much
>> information that may be in a lossless file format of the images
>> being compared are tossed out, even if the jpegs are "high-quality"
>> (which is an oxymoron in this usage).
>>
>
> So are you saying that the only reason all the 4000 ppi scans we have
> seen from MF camera as soft is because they are jpeg?
>
That isn't what I wrote.
> Are you trying to tell us that you can show detail in a film scan
> using jpeg?
>
No, just the opposite, in fact.
> To try and blame the softness on a 4000 ppi scan on that fact that it
> is a jpeg is way silly.
>
Not if you understand what jpeg processing does. But, more to the point,
my comments are about three aspects of images, sharpness being only one,
and not always the most important.
Neil
Scott W
> Now let me make a provocative assertion for purposes of discussion:
there is
> more detail and information in the negative that a finer resolving scan will
> produce (whether it can be done today or tomorrow). When the 80mp digital
> camera makes its recording, the outcome is finished. It is frozen. A
> conventional negative's information is yet to be exploited: more information
> will come of it. Like I said - a provocative assertion.
Well first off that is BS, look at a negative with a microscope to see
the level of detail.
But it does not matter in that I was addressing the OP's statement
about the joys of an 80MP image, that he was getting from his MF film.
Scott
Scott W
> Recently, Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> > Neil Gould wrote:
> > > >
> >> The difficulty that I have with this discussion is that it makes many
> >> gross generalizations using incomparable data.
> >>
> >> 1) The use of jpegs viewed on monitors is questionable. Much
> >> information that may be in a lossless file format of the images
> >> being compared are tossed out, even if the jpegs are "high-quality"
> >> (which is an oxymoron in this usage).
> >>
> >
> > So are you saying that the only reason all the 4000 ppi scans we have
> > seen from MF camera as soft is because they are jpeg?
> >
> That isn't what I wrote.
>
> > Are you trying to tell us that you can show detail in a film scan
> > using jpeg?
> >
> No, just the opposite, in fact.
>
I miss typed, I meant to ask, Are you trying to tell us that you can't
show detail in a film scan?
It would see to be that you do in fact believe that you can't show
detail using jpeg, I then
refer you get again to this image.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52196250/original
To my eye this photo does not look soft, does it to you?
If jpeg does not soften this scan why should it soften a 4000 ppi scan?
Can you show us a tiff from a 4000 ppi scan that you feel can not be
show as a jpeg, it can be just a small crop.
Scott
Lorem Ipsum
> Well first off we are talking about 80 MP not MB of detail, this comes
> from
> the OP's statement "how can picture editors bear to look at anything
> less than 80mp? "
OOPS! MP not MB! Talk about a reading comprehension error.
Well, my figure of the 2400spi, 8-bit to 15"x15" @360ppi worked for 80mb.
Funny thing, but that was your claim, I think: 15" square print.
80mp using the same metrics yields a good 25" x 25" print.
We have to get a handle on these metrics, Scott.
> Can you show me this detail? So far not one person has been able to
> but some have claimed that it is there.
I'd like to. Let's settle the metrics first.
FWIW, and until/if I locate the file here at home to put online, I have an
image from a 56x56mm image, scanned from 100 Reala (not a great film) on my
crummy Epson 3200. It was inkjet printed to 41"x41" and looks good even at
25% the nominal normal viewing distance. I will look for it, Scott. Got to
get the drive off the shelf... more later.
Lorem Ipsum
Lorem Ipsum
Sorry about the preceding blank reply. I'm using a touchy touch-pad
computer.
A microscope shows an area of film, regardless of the format, so therefore
we must factor the observed by the film area to come to the same size
prints. Outcomes in the final print are, of course, mediated by the
intervening processes - scanning, digital or optical printing, and in those
regards more film is an advantage just as more digital sensor would be.
And go back a bit, please. 80MP (got it right that time) does seem
reasonable for a well done 56x56mm film that has detail. There are still
some MF lenses that resolve to an amazing degree, and in fact at least one
LF lens that does the same: 80lp/mm wide open.
Lorem Ipsum
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52196250/original
The picture resolves to about 1 VW Bug/cm. Is that a VW Bug?
In any event, the picture has remarkable contrast which is good for
acutance. In this case it looks sharp, but the resolution (per se) suffers
from something. It is not sharp.
NOT that I really care about grain sniffing.
Scott W
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1131907177.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Well first off we are talking about 80 MP not MB of detail, this comes
> > from
> > the OP's statement "how can picture editors bear to look at anything
> > less than 80mp? "
>
> OOPS! MP not MB! Talk about a reading comprehension error.
>
> Well, my figure of the 2400spi, 8-bit to 15"x15" @360ppi worked for 80mb.
> Funny thing, but that was your claim, I think: 15" square print.
> 80mp using the same metrics yields a good 25" x 25" print.
>
> We have to get a handle on these metrics, Scott.
>
> > Can you show me this detail? So far not one person has been able to
> > but some have claimed that it is there.
>
> I'd like to. Let's settle the metrics first.
>
> FWIW, and until/if I locate the file here at home to put online, I have an
> image from a 56x56mm image, scanned from 100 Reala (not a great film) on my
> crummy Epson 3200. It was inkjet printed to 41"x41" and looks good even at
> 25% the nominal normal viewing distance. I will look for it, Scott. Got to
> get the drive off the shelf... more later.
Compare that 41" print to a good 4 x 6 print for shapness.
I would love to see you file
Even a crop from the photo would do, if you do want to post the whole
thing you might want to try Zoomify, they have a 30 free trial.
This is one of mine.
http://www.sewcon.com/beach/
Scott
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No one crops to 7% per cent of an image for a real life use. Or lets say
its extremely rare to want or have to do so.
Lorem Ipsum
> I would love to see you file
> Even a crop from the photo would do, if you do want to post the whole
> thing you might want to try Zoomify, they have a 30 free trial.
I appreciate that. I have Zoomify, and other similar means, and I found the
file. Right now, Real Life intervenes and I have to run some errands. When I
get back, and IF I can open it on this laptop, I will put up the images.
> This is one of mine.
> http://www.sewcon.com/beach/
Wow! Talk about pictures in pictures! Lots to see there! Love the shot of
the pregnant lady with the other lady with the dog bikini bottom.
What's the tech info on that picture, Scott?
Okay.. outta here. Will be back this evening!
Gregory Blank
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Others said I was wrong and in fact
> MF can produce 80 MP of detail, do you believe it can?
I believe its an unknown because it would require hardware capable
of 8944.xxx worth of resolution at whatever size.
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Gregory Blank wrote:
>> > Sounds like a rather general statement on your part. I can think of
>> many
>> > blurred images that are great and have won wide acclaim throughout
>> > photo
>> > history.
>>
>> Well sure.
>> But then it really does not take 80MP of detail to make a blurred
>> image.
>>
>> I have never said that the amount of detail in an image is the end all
>> be all. What I have said is that there is not 80 MP of detail in a MF
>> photo, even if drum scanned.
>
> anything better.-That I believe we may agree on,... as its the
> dimensions of the final print that matter,...I use the word print. In
> the grand scheme of things virtual does not equate to on paper.
>
> The questions back are do you think a single frame from a digital image
> contain 80MP of data?
You've lost the point again.
The original claim was that a single scanned MF image had as much detail as
a _stitched_ 70MP file from digital camera multiple images.
It's hard to make sense when you've forgetten what was under discussion.
> The second being do you believe there to be a lens able to resolve 80MP
> of information in outdoor application within the earths atmosphere :-)
Good point! You've pointed out that QG's original claim was completely
ridiculous even without discussing scanners.
(Although I'd think most LF lenses wouldn't have any trouble.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
David J. Littleboy
>
> And go back a bit, please. 80MP (got it right that time) does seem
> reasonable for a well done 56x56mm film that has detail.
Seems pretty crazy to me. A 4000 ppi scan produces 77.44 MP, and we've never
seen a 4000 ppi scan that has anywhere as much detail _per pixel_ as even
the cheapest dcam produces.
DSLR images printed at 300 ppi look pretty reasonable. Even the best scans
are grossly soft printed at 300 ppi. That GB and NG can't see that
difference is rather strange.
They keep whimpering that we aren't using their favorite drum scanner or
jpeg degrades the image, but those are tiny compared to the point that these
high res scans really don't have even 2000 ppi of information.
David J. Littleboy
"Lorem Ipsum" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Now let me make a provocative assertion for purposes of discussion: there
> is more detail and information in the negative that a finer resolving scan
> will produce (whether it can be done today or tomorrow).
Yes. A finer resolution scan will _always_ extract more detail. That's
because MTFs multiply.
But the amount of detail extracted has an asymptote, and increasing the scan
density merely gets you closer. It moves the MTF of the scanning system
closer and closer to 1.0. But it never gets there.
There is not an infinite amount of resolution on the film: for starters,
diffraction (and lens abberations) puts an upper limit on the information
that even reaches the film.
> When the 80mp digital camera makes its recording,
There ain't no such thing as an 80MP camera. No one's proposed such a beast.
There are 80MP digital images, though.
> the outcome is finished. It is frozen. A conventional negative's
> information is yet to be exploited: more information will come of it.
Right, but as long as that amount exceeds the product of the lens MTF and
the film MTF, it's more information than QG's beloved 'blad can possibly
cough up.
> Like I said - a provocative assertion.
Not provacative, merely wrong.
Sander Vesik
>
> The questions back are do you think a single frame from a digital image
> contain 80MP of data?
There certainly are digital images that contain more data than that, and
digital images taken in a single shot at that.
>
> The second being do you believe there to be a lens able to resolve 80MP
> of information in outdoor application within the earths atmosphere :-)
The answer to this is obviously yes - you ido know what large catadioprtics
are capable of, right? Whetrever and what one would want a 80MP
digital camera for however is way beyond my understanding though ;-)
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++