PaulSchneider
4-Oct-2011, 19:51
THIS IS A CROSS-POST OF A POST ON LULA I DID IN ORDER TO BRING IN MY FINDINGS REGARDING THE 8x10 vs 80 MPX DEBATE
Hi guys,
I'm writing this because I've been eagerly following the discussing ensuing the article from Mr. Zuber on the front page.
At some point, I found the results didn't match my experience with both media. I can say that since I'm in the lucky position to both own complete 4x5, 8x10, 80 Mpx, Alpa setups as well as an IQSmart 2 scanner. I also own the arguably best lenses for these systems such as Sironar-S's and SSXLs in different focal lengths, the Phase One LS lenses, the mamiya macro lens and a SK digitar lens for the Alpa.
Basically my impression was that the supposed advantage of digital was emphasized way too much and that many members of the forum who owned significant digital outfits jumped all over the results feeling comforted in their decision to buy into such expensive systems and shoot with it. That's why I feel that I could throw in a few of my findings for what they're worth in order to maybe put another angle into this discussion.
It is important to mention that I work a lot and that photography to me is just a way of escaping and having a passionate time doing something I really like. Hence my goal with this post is to uniquely discuss the technical aspects of the media and not my photography per se which I want to keep private. I'm quite curious and I love the technical aspects of photography, which is also the reason why the article of Mr. Zuber piqued my interest to start analyzing the differences of analog and digital more profroundly. First and foremost I want to know an answer for myself and I hope my findings might be of interest for others too who do not have the means to compare both media as I do at this moment in time.
I sincerely think that this forum has a heavy pro-digital bias and that this skews the objectivity of some comments. It is clear that working professionals who shoot fashion or architecture will laud the advantages an 80 MPX kit affords; but this shouldn't detract from the fact that a well-executed LF image can yield great results that can still exceed digital in terms of feel, special something and, yes, resolution. This is my personal opinion and this being said I would like to throw in my preliminary findings for what they're worth.
WHAT I COMPARED
Equipment used:
Analog: SSXL 150 @ f22, Expired Kodak Ektachrome shot on a Linhof TA 45s
Digital: Scanned @ 4000 DPI with IQsmart 2, non-wet
Shot with Mamiya Macro 120mm @ f16 on a light-table @ 1:1 and so as to cover the whole 4x5 as an 80 Mpix shot
Digital Back: Leaf Aptus 12 @ ISO 50 with a cable release on a DF body
The comparison: I took 4x5 chrome of a night scene I had lying around and compared different means of digitzing it as well as a digital shot of a similar scene in order to visually appreciate the resolution differences.
What I found, purely subjectively:
1. Digitizing film with a 80 Mpx back on a light table is almost as good as my IQSmart! Extremely easy and fast. When buying the IQSmart I compared it to a Flextight and found the Flextight to be less good. So basically if one shoots 4x5 digitizing a a negative or chrome with a newest generation back almost completely eradicates the need for a scanner that maxes out at 2000 DPI. Attaching the back to a mac workstation would let your digitize 30-40 4x5 in an hour with great quality.
2. The IQSmart does yield higher quality overall, even compared to a 1:1 shot of the film but the advantage really is slight. If one prints a 320 MPX 4000 DPI scan at 300 DPI it is more practical to use the IQSmart, because the grain structur looks nicer, the image is slightly sharper and because you don't need to stitch. Scanning at that resolutions take long though, never counted the exact minutes.
You could stitch multiple 1:1 shots and get similar resolution, but it is more tedious.
Uprezzing the full-frame shot of the 4x5 yields, I think very, very acceptable results, especially when printed at 300 DPI.
3. The sharpness of the full-frame shot of the 4x5 is not that far off from a shot of a 80 MPX back in purely digital means. 8x10 ist twice the linear resolution, I hence sincerely believe that 8x10 still can create unsurpassed image quality.
4. I find the analog picture, the colors a lot more pleasing. I think at high enlargements the analog print would look amazing.
5. I love both media, but analog in now way is as low-rez as it has been put forht in that article.
If I find time, I will conduct a controlled test of the same scene with both 8x10 and 80 MPX and I'm sure that 8x10 will hold its own.
The images that follow are:
1. The full scene
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4853/80mpixfullframe.jpg
2. A comparison of a sharp detail of the scene digitized and sharpened pleasingly for me with the different media (scanner and macro setup)
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7479/comparison80mpxiqsmartd.jpg
3. A comparison of an 80 MPX detail shot, sharpened with a 100% crop of a full frame macro shot of a 4x5 chrome.
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2515/digitalogcomp.jpg
Shot at 2011-10-04
Kind regards
Paul
Hi guys,
I'm writing this because I've been eagerly following the discussing ensuing the article from Mr. Zuber on the front page.
At some point, I found the results didn't match my experience with both media. I can say that since I'm in the lucky position to both own complete 4x5, 8x10, 80 Mpx, Alpa setups as well as an IQSmart 2 scanner. I also own the arguably best lenses for these systems such as Sironar-S's and SSXLs in different focal lengths, the Phase One LS lenses, the mamiya macro lens and a SK digitar lens for the Alpa.
Basically my impression was that the supposed advantage of digital was emphasized way too much and that many members of the forum who owned significant digital outfits jumped all over the results feeling comforted in their decision to buy into such expensive systems and shoot with it. That's why I feel that I could throw in a few of my findings for what they're worth in order to maybe put another angle into this discussion.
It is important to mention that I work a lot and that photography to me is just a way of escaping and having a passionate time doing something I really like. Hence my goal with this post is to uniquely discuss the technical aspects of the media and not my photography per se which I want to keep private. I'm quite curious and I love the technical aspects of photography, which is also the reason why the article of Mr. Zuber piqued my interest to start analyzing the differences of analog and digital more profroundly. First and foremost I want to know an answer for myself and I hope my findings might be of interest for others too who do not have the means to compare both media as I do at this moment in time.
I sincerely think that this forum has a heavy pro-digital bias and that this skews the objectivity of some comments. It is clear that working professionals who shoot fashion or architecture will laud the advantages an 80 MPX kit affords; but this shouldn't detract from the fact that a well-executed LF image can yield great results that can still exceed digital in terms of feel, special something and, yes, resolution. This is my personal opinion and this being said I would like to throw in my preliminary findings for what they're worth.
WHAT I COMPARED
Equipment used:
Analog: SSXL 150 @ f22, Expired Kodak Ektachrome shot on a Linhof TA 45s
Digital: Scanned @ 4000 DPI with IQsmart 2, non-wet
Shot with Mamiya Macro 120mm @ f16 on a light-table @ 1:1 and so as to cover the whole 4x5 as an 80 Mpix shot
Digital Back: Leaf Aptus 12 @ ISO 50 with a cable release on a DF body
The comparison: I took 4x5 chrome of a night scene I had lying around and compared different means of digitzing it as well as a digital shot of a similar scene in order to visually appreciate the resolution differences.
What I found, purely subjectively:
1. Digitizing film with a 80 Mpx back on a light table is almost as good as my IQSmart! Extremely easy and fast. When buying the IQSmart I compared it to a Flextight and found the Flextight to be less good. So basically if one shoots 4x5 digitizing a a negative or chrome with a newest generation back almost completely eradicates the need for a scanner that maxes out at 2000 DPI. Attaching the back to a mac workstation would let your digitize 30-40 4x5 in an hour with great quality.
2. The IQSmart does yield higher quality overall, even compared to a 1:1 shot of the film but the advantage really is slight. If one prints a 320 MPX 4000 DPI scan at 300 DPI it is more practical to use the IQSmart, because the grain structur looks nicer, the image is slightly sharper and because you don't need to stitch. Scanning at that resolutions take long though, never counted the exact minutes.
You could stitch multiple 1:1 shots and get similar resolution, but it is more tedious.
Uprezzing the full-frame shot of the 4x5 yields, I think very, very acceptable results, especially when printed at 300 DPI.
3. The sharpness of the full-frame shot of the 4x5 is not that far off from a shot of a 80 MPX back in purely digital means. 8x10 ist twice the linear resolution, I hence sincerely believe that 8x10 still can create unsurpassed image quality.
4. I find the analog picture, the colors a lot more pleasing. I think at high enlargements the analog print would look amazing.
5. I love both media, but analog in now way is as low-rez as it has been put forht in that article.
If I find time, I will conduct a controlled test of the same scene with both 8x10 and 80 MPX and I'm sure that 8x10 will hold its own.
The images that follow are:
1. The full scene
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4853/80mpixfullframe.jpg
2. A comparison of a sharp detail of the scene digitized and sharpened pleasingly for me with the different media (scanner and macro setup)
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7479/comparison80mpxiqsmartd.jpg
3. A comparison of an 80 MPX detail shot, sharpened with a 100% crop of a full frame macro shot of a 4x5 chrome.
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2515/digitalogcomp.jpg
Shot at 2011-10-04
Kind regards
Paul