It all comes down to the print

<p>If I had shot a color solution target, the differences on the print would be evident at 8x10 without effort.</p>

<p>DSLRs are great but I never understood why people think that it can look anything close to a print of film. </p>

<p>If you want to, I can run a print test including a 7D and publish it but I don't want to confuse this thread into that direction. Also, a 7D would only move the mark resolved by the 40D from 4 to 5 in the chart. There is no point. Film resolves up to mark 17 (11.5 with a desktop scanner). A comparison of a DSLR next to a print of MF film does not make sense as you can see with the print test I posted.</p>

<p>But if you decided not to invest in a scanner in the future, the 7D is still a great and enjoyable tool to use.</p>

<p>Yep nice. I printed it. In my hand at the 8x11 was pretty much as I expected not to easy to see any difference. 11x14 I can see that the 6x7 Tmax scans resolve more but at arms length the differences become harder to see. 16x20 it is easy to that MF resolves more at arms length the differences are still there. Then I blue tacked the print to the wall and stood a measured 3 ft away and found it hard to see the differences in the 16x20 inch print. The smaller print sizes were imposible at 3 ft away and the larger sizes were geting difficult with more casual viewing I would just accept what was in front of me. At 5 ft away I could not really see any differences in any of the print sizes in terms of what was resolved. Difficult for me to say how much I could see with a real world image though. I would guess it would be dependent on the content of the image good color and contrast would be more important at longer viewing distances.</p>

<p>Thank you Stuart,</p>

<p>I am very happy you have giving the exercise its intended purpose!<br>

You have made very good use of the print sheet, made conclusions on printed detail, impact of viewing distance, and explained you conclusions to everyone.</p>

<p>Can you please share the printer and paper you used as well as the type of lighting?</p>

<p>Thank you and hopefully we would see more feedback like yours coming.</p>

<p>Yep I used a HP photosmart premium plus photopaper glossy and printed with 1200dpi printer resolution. I viewed in a daylight lit room. One big problem with viewing distances is that you cannot ensure that everyone will look at the print at the indended viewing distance.</p>

<p>ADDING COLOR AND LOWER CONTRAST FEATURES:</p>

<p>I hope this helps answer the question outside just resolution.<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Resolution-and-Diffraction/6302153_PLzKe#838453231_wLMqC-O-LB<br>

If you are interested, just click on the link below, save the picture to your computer, open it in photoshop and set the image size to 360dpi (8.5x11) and print it on your printers maximum resolution.</p>

<p>Enjoy.</p><div></div>

<p>Try this link instead:</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Resolution-and-Diffraction/6302153_PLzKe#838500107_pw3f2-O-LB</p>

 

<p>Is me, or my computer monitor, my internet connection, or the kind of coffee I drank this AM, but does the film looks sharper than the digital ??</p>

<p>Gregory,<br>

Remember this is MF film. Print it as well if you can.</p>

<p><em>I like the 40D and the 7D but I'm not particularly fond of stitching.</em></p>

<p>Why? It is possible to create very large file sizes that match or surpass even large format film in terms of resolution. It's not black magic or rocket science anymore. I can do a six frame stitch from my 5dmkII that equals or surpasses large format to the average gallery viewer at a normal viewing distance and I can do it in far less time than it takes me to do a 16 bit scan on my Imacon. That's not to say you won't see differences in color balance between the digital and film print but in terms of detail, the final digital print gives up nothing.</p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

<p>Charles,</p>

<p>I just enjoy focusing on the composition and capturing the take in one shot. Without worrying about moving objects or collaging later. Also remember that your focus plane is perpendicular to the lens, so as you turn the camera for the different shot you create zones of in and out of focus of subjects at the same distance.</p>

<p>Same reason why sometimes I pick my MF film camera instead of my 35mm film. I could take the 35mm and spending time taking multiple shots and collage them later but prefer to just grab the MF.</p>

<p>Still, some other people like or don't mind stitching.</p>

<p>Stitching is sensor/scan agnostic. You can stich P&S output too but it wouldn't be germane to raise that possibility in a comparison of digital sensors.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>A comparison of a DSLR next to a print of MF film does not make sense as you can see with the print test I posted.</em></p>

<p>If you print the 7D vs MF comparison samples I posted above at 334 ppi, you're looking at the sections as they would appear if the full map were printed 27" x 40". (The 7D crop had to be enlarged 2.58x to match the MF crop in size. (2.58 x 5184) / 40 = 334.368.) Here are my observations:</p>

<p><strong>Single frame 7D vs. MF sample:</strong> aside from exposure and color differences, the first thing that stands out is that the MF crop has much more noise, something that is very apparent in the ocean area. The second thing that stands out is that the MF crop is slightly sharper. At this print size I'm confident some work in PS could make the 7D look just as sharp.</p>

<p><strong>3 frame 7D vs. MF sample:</strong> aside from exposure and color differences, again the first thing that stands out is the noise in the MF sample. This time the 7D sample is sharper and upon close inspection it's evident that the 7D sample has more detail. I'm not as confident that PS work could make the film sample as sharp because it would also emphasize the noise.</p>

<p>Above Leo said that the Howtek scan was "far better" than the single frame 7D sample, and that he would be embarrassed to display full size prints side by side. That was simply not a valid comment on the differences. The sample which stands out the most is the 3 frame stitch. The difference between the single frame 7D sample and the MF scan sample, in print at this size, is surprisingly small.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are variables at play, and I'm sure that under different conditions the difference might be larger, or might stand out more. But printing these map crops only confirmed what I've experienced in my regular work. For most subject matter and print sizes, the differences are inconsequential. If the intended print size is up to 24" I would never pick up my 7D and think "oh, I better shoot MF for the resolution." The 7D is that good and I have that much confidence in it. For challenging landscapes printed to larger sizes, I can always flip the 7D, shoot 3 frames, and have a final file that's comparable to the best MF scans. So again, I would not make my choice between the two based on resolution.</p>

<p>Your statement that the difference between a 10 MP and a 20 MP sensor would be immaterial for large prints is simply not true. Ask anyone who has moved from a 40D to a 7D or a 5D mkII. Or anyone who has moved from Nikon-whatever to the D3x. It makes a difference.</p>

<p>Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not claiming the 7D is "better than MF film." Film is a great medium and I continue to work with it. Large prints from 6x7 are excellent and, as I show above, it takes 3 stitched 7D frames to match or surpass it at larger print sizes. I'm merely pointing out that modern, top tier DSLRs do better than your test would suggest, and the differences aren't all that large at more common print sizes.</p>

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>This is what I meant with the difference between the 40D and the 7D being immaterial for a large print:<br>

The 40D resolves about mark 3 in the test, the scan of the film resolves mark 14. The film resolves mark 17! </p>

<p>The 7D only resolves mark 4.</p>

<p>The graph should give you an idea of how close the 7D is to the 40D and how far it is from the film.</p><div></div>

<p>I hope that clarifies the comment.</p>

<p>Regarding the map, if you post a 100% crop of the 7D I can compare it to the map myself on a print and make a observation. If you have the RAW even better.</p>

<p>Also Daniel,<br>

The 7D map you posted in your MF comparison shows in my eyes a huge difference next to film.</p>

<p>Here is my scan of color negative film (not even Velvia) next to the crop you posted. I took your second crop and did not alter it at all.</p>

<p>I also printed it and the difference of the film and the 7D are like night and day. </p><div></div>

<p>I perceive your conclusions are the same since you stated you would stitch several 7D shots if you wanted to match MF scanned film.</p>

<p>In the end,</p>

<p>I hope the question is answered on whether there is enough detail on MF film for large prints. </p>

 

<em>The 40D resolves about mark 3 in the test, the scan of the film resolves mark 14. The film resolves mark 17! The 7D only resolves mark 4.</em>

<p>I'm not going by projections and estimates. I have a 7D and am reporting what I see, and posting direct tests. The difference is significant for large prints.</p>

<p><em>Regarding the map, if you post a 100% crop of the 7D I can compare it to the map myself on a print and make a observation. If you have the RAW even better.</em></p>

<p>You can print the crops I posted at various resolutions to simulate various print sizes. I tested at 334 ppi (27" x 40"). The 7D had to be enlarged to match the MF crop in size, so it's already at 258%, as I explained.</p>

<p>I will post RAW files and processed files when I have a bit more free time this weekend or next week. I want to retrace my steps, make note of all settings, and include unprocessed / processed samples. This week has been very long with taxes plus work.</p>

<p><em>The 7D map you posted in your MF comparison shows in my eyes a huge difference next to film.</em></p>

<p>The view you posted is equivalent to a print 140" wide!</p>

<p><em>I also printed it and the difference of the film and the 7D are like night and day. </em></p>

<p>At 140" it better be. At 334 ppi, or 27" x 40" equivalent, there is only a small difference.</p>

<p><em>I perceive your conclusions are the same since you stated you would stitch several 7D shots if you wanted to match MF scanned film.</em></p>

<p>If I want to match MF print quality with landscapes at print sizes above 16" x 24", roughly speaking, I stitch 3 frames. Otherwise I feel the differences are inconsequential in print. Note that less challenging subjects print to larger sizes while still maintaining excellent quality, and even landscapes still look good at 30", though at 30" and above I would prefer to have a 3 frame stitch. Also note that this is working very carefully (tripod, MLU, optimum apertures, etc.).</p>

<p>Here's the 3 frame stitch side by side with your negative scan. I did apply some sharpening and LCE as it looks like you applied considerable sharpening to the scan.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's the Howtek sample vs. the single frame 7D sample scaled to the same approximate size you should see printing 334 ppi (27x40 equivalent). This will vary a bit depending on your monitor and web browser zoom setting.</p>

<p>Printers obviously have higher resolution than monitors, and both samples look better in print. But the difference, at this scale, is not night and day. In fact it's pretty small. As I said earlier, a little PS work on the 7D sample (a bit of sharpening, LCE) would close the already small gap, though the MF sample would still show a bit more detail at this print size. But also more noise.</p>

<p>Let's try that again :-)</p>

<p>Keep in mind this is scaled for screen display for those who don't want to print. If you print, grab the comparison I posted above, scale to 334 ppi (or whatever test ppi you want), and print.</p><div></div>

<p><em>I hope the question is answered on whether there is enough detail on MF film for large prints. </em></p>

<p>Last comment tonight: there's no doubt about that, and your print sample illustrates this well. You and I got into a longer discussion simply because you threw small format digital into the mix with the 40D sample, and I don't think the 40D is representative of top tier DSLRs. But yes, there's plenty of detail in MF for large prints. It's a great format, well worth exploring and using.</p>

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>by the sample you posted, it is clear that the stitching of 3 x 7d shots side by side approaches the scan of the MF film closer.</p>

<p>This is consistent with my observations as well. Since 35mm fits in MF only twice side by side, a single 7D frame approaches 35mm film scanned (but not quite there - based on my results - and here mileage may vary).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>We did get a bit off topic but it's been a good discussion.</p>

<p>While I understand you're talking about printing, but I think this graphic is also helpful to the discussion from another perspective.<br>

I'm sad film use is declining these days, but the cost of storage, processing, scanning, etc. makes it a less friendly medium for the masses.</p>

<p>http://jbcrane.zenfolio.com/p572167072/h11d13485#h11d13485</p>

<p>That is a good representation Jim. It even leaves out the two main probles 1) each scanned pixel contains full RGB information whereas a DSLR pixel contains only one color -RGB is then extrapolated and 2) the AA filtering that prevents excessive aliasing reduces a dslrs resolution below the nominal pixel count.</p>

<p>In the end film and DSLRs can produce great prints. DSLRs output can be printed satisfactory at 16x20 or larger, especially if there are no film prints hanging close for comparison.</p>