A challenge for 8x10 film users

<p>Scott, in addition, the Bayer pattern will rob some of the resolution captured. Phase Ones Achromatic 39 megapixels far outresolves a P45 back and it is closer to the P65 back.</p>

<p>Phase One's own R&D agrees with this.</p>

<p>That leaves the new 80MP back resolving around 70% of its nominal resolution.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/achromatic.shtml</p>

<p>Scroll down to the watches comparison where Capture One's VP of R&D points at the loss in resolution from a color patterned Phase One back.</p>

<p>An 8,000 dpi drum scan of 6x7 Velvia, TMAX or Tech Pan will comfortably out resolve it in my opinion.</p>

<p>And that unfortunately, Mauro, is the problem, your opinion is unwavering. I remember being told in a MF thread that a 21mp 135 format digital camera could not produce a 170kb inline image that had the texture, tonality and all around "film" quality that a MF image could.</p>

<p>Enjoy your opinion.</p>

<p>Same here.</p>

<p>Michael R. tested the P45 against the 645 film (just over half 6x7) and with sharpening leveled you cannot tell any differences in detail bcs he downsized the scan to match the P45. Now Phase One is doubling the pixel count, against almost doubling the film area.</p>

<p>I have performed loads of tests myself (many posted) so little of what I know doesn't come from direct experience. Comparing the new 80MP camera to scanned medium format film is a valid and interesting exercise.</p>

<p>I hope Michael can embrace the test even though the results may be hard to reconcile with his previous articles.</p>

<p>8x10 film to 80 MP digital is the same ratio as 35mm vs a 1MP digital camera.</p>

<p>Film is vastly superior, this excessive would only be testing his lenses and scanner. That is obviously clear I hope.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>8x10 film to 80 MP digital is the same ratio as 35mm vs a 1MP digital camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nearly. A 35mm frame is 1.33 square inches so if 8x10 film is equivalent to 80MP then 35mm is equivalent to 1.33MP...... Much better!</p>

<p>LOL.</p>

<p>Hmmmm.... Let's run a test of what can hold more detail, 35mm film or a 1.33MP bayer sensor.... Challenge is on!</p>

<p>Or,</p>

<p>Test what is available.</p>

<p>Use what works for you, be that 24" polaroid or a P&S.</p>

<p>The argument about the quality that can be got out of a current 135 format digital sensor has been well covered. Anybody that can't get more detail out of a 20+ MP 135 format sensor image than a film image the same size is either inept or in denial, most who use both agree that the 135 format digital can equal 645 film too, but that is up to each user to decide. But if you like film, for any reason, real or imagined, then just use it.</p>

<p> "most who use both agree that the 135 format digital can equal 645 film ".</p>

<p>Scott, who is most of us? Show me a single test you run were you concluded this. </p>

<p>Any statement without pictures to support it is just an uneducated opinion.</p>

<p>You should try testing your 6x7 MF film against something like Pentax 645D. Against IQ180 it doesn't stand a chance. I can understand LL's reluctance in accepting your challenge. Their interest is in the latest MFDB vs LF, not MF, film.</p>

<p>I can certainly understand LL's reluctance. It would not look good for them compared to their previous articles. Any of the films I use just in 35mm (especially drum scanned as he challenges) outresolves 18-20 DSLRs on LL's bill test. 6x7 is almost 5 times larger than 35mm. In addition, the 80mp back is just a crop sensor when used on a 6x7 system.</p>

<p>The results would certainly not look good for LLs evolution of articles. But the results would be out there and he can rectify his position to the readers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>I never saw a photographer with such a big fishing pole! Use what works for you. I own 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5 and 135 format digital. Trying to prove this is better than that is fairly pointless, particularly when you resort to comparisons like low level light film images against digital ones, but, you use flash on the film ones and say there is more detail! Your methodology is so flawed and biased it makes your conclusions pointless.</p>

<p>I use what I need for a job, simple as that.</p>

<p>And most times it comes to a matter of taste. Your preference on the final result as well as the workflow. Although film (you pick the format) will trump digital in resolution, resolution is not the most important factor.</p>

<p>"I own 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5 and 135 format digital"</p>

<p>What scanner do you have?</p>

<p>Mauro, care to tell us what LL guy has to say when you want to 'challenge' with the puny 6x7 :) ? Did you get shoved to one side and been asked to save your breath since he and 1 million other with 1000 millennium worth of 'professional' experience confirmed his finding?</p>

<p>To respect for Michael R (or any other) I would not share specifics of private emails, but pretty much he said he was not interested in testing 6x7 film vs 645 digital as that was old news in his mind.</p>

<p>You may consider renting the IQ180 when it comes out and conduct your own test.</p>

<p>I think I will. The exercise will be interesting to post in parallel to Michael's.</p>

<p>Seriously I think LL just want to throw out ridiculous head lines everytime a new digital back was introduced. Isn't it the best way to draw the most attention without any investment in publicity? Still remember the (in)famous "D30 3MP is greater than 135 provia 'test'" done by them? I remember he did mentioned something like on a larger print the 135 wins, while at lower print size the D30 wins, which means 135 provia certainly contain more than what a 3MP can capture when viewing in larger size. Judging from that, and we extrapolate the potential outcome of the result of IQ180 vs 8x10, (we 'enlarged' the 135 size to 1.5 square inch to give him some handicap) (8x10/1.5)x3=160MP! This is assuming the IQ 180 is PERFECT where all 80Million pixels translate to actual 80 million pieces of correct information! In retrospect, the D30 can NEVER capture more than 1.5MP of useful pixel. Does anyone seriously think either of this is true? I thought there are plenty of his followers say D30 was a god send and again must be near perfect. How could it only capture less than 1.5 MP? Or maybe the IQ180 80MP is a miracle tool that 1 pixel can behave like 2? LOL When you do not have a solid background and just throw out claims after claims, one day you'll find that many of them are just, well, unqualified 'claims' and some will even bite you back... I think MR is just fooling himself and his loyal cult followers.... :) LOL Or is he just trying come out with the same silly conclusion like " in a 'small' print size the IQ180 wins, and in larger print size the 8x10 wins"? Shooting himself in the foot for the 'n'th time...</p>

<p>Whatever happened to photography that was about what the result was and what it meant to the viewers? There seems to be a group of people who regularly think it's about materials science. I don't know anyone in the general art viewing public who wants to look at technical tests. But from many of the people posting here, I see nothing but. What's going on? It has nothing to do with photography, just materials.</p>

<p>If experienced photographers think IQ180 reaches a new level in image quality then it is useful to know how good it really is. If it can be as good as 8x10 film then digital imaging will have reached a new milestone. What is truly a waste of time is the other thread going on about 35mm film and FF digital in low light.</p>

<p>Or how about the so call 'experienced photographers' are incompetent enough to obtain the max out of 8 x 10? Do you seriously think it is even, err, remotely possible? My limited experience in 4x5 showed to me that HD39 can only smell the smoke trail left behind by it. I don't know how good the IQ180 is when you have 2 x the pixel count of HD39. 8x10 does have 4 times the surface of a 4x5... Funny how the HD39 (not mine) consistently produced 'plasticky' prints when printed with a Dursk printer (again not mine but an ultra rich studio owner who said he can never recover the cost of the printer from his photographic business) on true photographic paper(not any low end Epson ink jet). When shooting landscape it fared much worse due to the extra high resolution needed on leaves and fern. LL is a sponsored site, remember? </p>

<p>OTH, I do agree that Mauro picked a wrong title in the other thread. It should have been 'High ISO performance of various FILMS' or something to avoid over reaction from digital crusaders.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It should have been 'High ISO performance of various FILMS' or something to avoid over reaction from digital crusaders.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it should have been "Yet Another Thread About Materials and Equipment Rather Than Photography.?</p>

<p>Funny how Jeff didn't leave the above remark to <strong>ALL</strong> the <strong>equipment vs equipment</strong> threads in <strong>ALL</strong> the forums, digital or otherwise? :) Materials and Equipment yield no photograph, but it certainly HELPS to produce higher quality photographs. Granted a great photo is a great photo, but if Ansel Adam were to shoot his B+W masterpiece with my 640x480 VGA camera phone, it won't be that 'great'... Or in that case I'll just wish he shot it with 4x5, isn't it that easy to understand?</p>