Will Digital match Large Format?

Hello,

 

Many say that you need at least 8mp resolution to match 35mm

film "quality", 42MP to match 6x7cm; when and will a digital system

be available that can match 4"x5" quality?

 

--- JDR

Define "quality." Rigorously. Otherwise you are asking a question that has no meaning.

 

In some respects the scanning backs are already there. In some respects, they're better.

I believe that there are already scanning backs for medium/large format, but they do have their downsides.

 

There are two things to keep in mind: First, there's a limit to how small you can make a pixel without negative consequences. Second, the cost of a sensor is tied to the size of the sensor, and it's not a linear relationship.

 

Because of those two factors, my personal opinion is that we won't see a CCD- or CMOS-based digital solution that can rival 4"x5" for a good, long time - if we ever do. It's not that it's impossible, but I don't believe that the demand is ever going to be large enough to bring such a setup into the commodity world.

 

steve

For static objects, BetterLight already argues that their high-end 4x5 scanning back produces results comparable to 8x10. The problem is, scanning backs require several minutes for a single exposure, and must be attached to a notebook computer in the field.

 

There is already some question among studio pro's about whether the next generation medium format single-shot digital backs (such as the 39mp Phase One P45) are really needed for most commercial applications. The gist I get is that most studio pro's would prefer faster frame rates, faster ISO's, lower noise, and more robust software rather than more megapixels. So it is unclear how much market pull there will be for LF-comparable resolution backs. In theory the P45 might give 4x5 a run for its money, but to a significant extent this back's actual performance will be limited by available MF optics (some folks are already reporting higher resolution results with Schneider or Rodenstock digital view camera lenses versus native Contax, Hasselblad or Fuji 645 lenses, even with current generation backs). And of course, MF digital backs are prohibitively expensive for most shooters.

 

It is already clear that 35mm class DSLR's will never approach LF resolution, due to resolution limits in 35mm class lenses. The Canon 1Ds2 already outresolves many of Canon's own lenses, especially the wide-angle types.

 

So I think it will be years before a general-purpose, cost-effective LF resolution digital solution appears on the scene. So don't give up on film just yet!

Sir OP,

 

Understood. That is why I put "quality" in parens.

 

A 6x7 slide projected, will, I believe, never be outdone by anything digital, no matter the resolution.

 

When will digital equal 4x5" printed?

 

--- JDR

I think it will one day, just for resolution. IMO a good clean E100G drumscan equals from 4-6mp of DSLR rez per sq in of film.

 

That really depends on a lot of things, when you are comparing this to that. I assume you are talking clean film, super sharp LF lens, and a drum scan.

 

This is my take on it. E100G with a super sharp lens, perfect focus, good technique, drum scanned at 2000-2500 dpi has an almost identical smoothness and pixel edge sharpness as digital.

With something like a super sharp techpan type film that goes up a bit to around 2500 dpi or may even 3000 dpi, but to get to that level takes a very square stiff camera, basically mounted on a big heavy tripod.

 

At 2000 dpi that would be 80mp. Thats roughly 4mp per sq in.

At 2500 dpi that would be 125 mp. Thats roughly 6mp per sq in.

 

That said I did talk to a very reputable person earlier this year that had gotten his hands on a Phase One P45 45mp back and he mentioned that it rivaled 4x5 film, but I would want to try one out first.

Sure, but will anyone be able to afford it? For amateurs and starving artists, the cool part of large format film is that it's pay-as-you-go after you've got a camera & lens. No need to take out a second mortgage just to make some images.

JDR - "Never" is a long time. Technology typically increases at a geometric rate, so I suspect it won't be long before digital exceeds film large format. The digital might not be the digital we are familiar with today, but I am confident, if there is a market niche to be filled and sufficient demand - currently or available to be created, that it will be accomplished. Looking back at the number of Nobel Prize winners who categorically stated that various things were "imompossible" or would "never" be done is pretty instructive....most of them were dead wrong in their assessments. After all we all know the world is flat!

<b>Here I got a 35 and 50 megapixel PhaseOne scan backs to get out of the film lab hostage/flakyness problem. </b><BR><BR>The local E6 lab just got senile, old, during their death bed phase. Scratched tranys, lost/light leaked images, E6 put in C41, or C41 in E6, usage of old chemicals became more common. Then one has to drum or flatbed scan the original.<BR><BR> A straight Large format scan gives one control, no reshoots due to lost images, or NO delays due to farming it out to a GOOD lab many states over. The scan is super clean.<BR><BR>The cost of a digital back is high, but loosing customers due to delays with labs and reshoots has a cost too. With some volume a digital back on a LF or MF does have a return on investment. <BR><BR>The break even point will vary on where you live.<BR><BR>You might just live right across the street from the best E6 LF lab and film and drum scan store, and they never screw up any of your work. With a digital LF back one can get great focus by doing several small quick cropped scans, and tweaking the focus. This drops out the film to holder to film plane tolerance. LF backs are minutes long, tethered to a computer, and mostly require a IR filter over the lens.... Thus they mostly have been used indoors with static settups, product shots, copy/repro/fine fart/painting work. Mostly they are considered obsolete since radically quicker backs came out for MF cameras. <BR><BR>LF digital scan backs have been around a decade now, and were expense then too.

<i>Understood. That is why I put "quality" in parens.</i>

<p>

I know that. Now tell me when digital will equal 4x5 in terms of "sofathagronity." Since I put it in quotes, I don't need to define it.

Digital will never match LF. And no one will ever need more than 640K of RAM in their PC ;-)

already does. i shoot regularly with a Betterlight scanning back.. all field work.. landscapes and such. scan time is anywhere from 30 seconds to about 3 min.

 

It produces more detailed prints up to 40x50" than 4x5 provia/velvia chrome and has about 12-14 stops of latitude. without the laptop, the unit is smaller and lighter than the film holders i used to carry. I get a ebony field, the betterlight setup, laptop, battery, 5 lenses, loupe, all in a small f64 backpack.

 

battery lasts an about 10 hours of pretty solid shooting. advantage is i know what i've shot before leaving the site, and i know everything that needs to be in focus, is in focus.

 

if you shoot a lot of long exposure/ flowing water type shots, then this isn't for you.

 

(btw.. 42Mp is a bit high for 6x7. i shoot dual stitched canon 1dsmk2 images, giving me about 37-38Mp, and the results end up better than 6x7 chrome.. i use a howtek 4500 drum scanner to scan both 6x7 and 4x5)

 

jim

As the others are saying, in many ways, the technology is there already. The price certainly isn't in the range of affordability for most amateurs, at multiples of $10k.

 

Example outdoor photos I have seen on the web from the Betterlight scanning back show weird color artifacts because of the scan time. The back has three color sensors which make exposures as the back scans. If there is subject motion, you get color artifacts. At least to me, it seems a step backwards for outdoor use, especially at the very high price.

The motion artifacts are there.. but really not much different than normal wind artifacts. It's an extremely easy fix to make in photoshop to remove them.

Very cool. Thanks for the replies.

 

I didn't realize that so much digital hardware was available for LF. From what I can gather, it is more an economic than technical challenge.

 

Appreciated.

 

 

--- JDR

Let's see. Can something that costs $30,000 match the quality of something that costs $300? I don't know but it damn well better.

<i>Now tell me when digital will equal 4x5 in terms of "sofathagronity."</i><p>OP, I checked with my Mum, and she reckons that probably by about May 2008.<p>How's your little boat ?

You could get enough resolution to match 4x5 film today - but you'd pay for it with a file too big to store or process, and you'd have overkilled your requirements by a large margin.

 

But "quality" doesn't mean "excellence". One definition of "quality" is "a property or attribute which distinguishes a thing or person". This is what really counts - digital and film will always be different, and the qualities that distinguish them will be useful to artists.

While scanning backs produce brilliant results under the right conditions (notably with

motionless subjects under stable or controlled lighting), they are extremely limiting for

many kinds of field work, and make relatively spontaneous shooting and capturing fleeting

light or brief motion unnecessarily difficult or impossible. Film on the other hand, is such

an excellent, simple, affordable, and elegant solution for large format field work that,

IMHO, digital will only become compelling with the advent of a sturdy, lightweight, self-

contained single-shot 100 megapixel digital back.

 

For my applications, it would have to exhibit the following characteristics to compete with

the Quickload holder/film system:

 

ﾕ Weight: no more than a quickload holder plus a box of film

ﾕ Durability: It must be able to tolerate the inevitable abuse and fumbling of regular field

work. (say, a six-foot drop onto hard ground, getting compressed in a pack, etc.)

ﾕ Waterproofness: A must. A quickload holder dropped in a creek is easily dried, and film

can easily be zip-locked while in the field.

ﾕ Internal Storage: 40+ raw images

ﾕ Power: long-life internal battery. Can I do a week-long wilderness backpacking trip

without a recharge? I love the fact that the only battery in my kit is in my spot meter, and

it lasts ages.

ﾕ Cost: low enough that a primary back and a backup could be had without obtaining a

second mortgage (say $2,500 each).

 

And, as we all know, perspective and focal plane control are at least as important to large

format photography as absolute resolution, so a 100 MP SLR wouldn't cut the mustard.

Heck, I still listen to records over CDs. So you don't want my opinion on the matter.

I recently shot an Arca Swiss 6x9 Metric with a Phase One P45 back and Schneider Digitar lens. After processing the raw file the resulting file was 250mb. The image size was about 16x20 at 360dpi. The file was easily handled by his HP Workstation with 2Gb Ram.

 

Printing at 2x or about 32x40 yielded an amazing image. Detail seemed to go on forever and the image was as sharp as I have ever gotten with film. In my opinion, this combination exceeds 4x5 film and probably gives 5x7 a real run for the money.

 

Yes this back is $28,000, but my friend is an architectural photographer pro who can easily justify the cost.

 

Just some food for thought. I found the day highly informative and opened my eyes to what is being done digitally these days. Something I though was not possible.

Justin, you the man, my thoughts exactly.

Dunno if you gonna get the waterproof on that though, if they come out with something like

that, soon ,for that price, id buy me one hell of a fancy umbrella.