Fuji GW690III = How many megapixels ?

<blockquote>

<p>I would want about 25-30mp of non AA filtered digital. Medium format digital would do the job no problem. It would likely do better too.<br>

The M9 at 18mp with no AA filter looks very good at 1mX80cm, but perhaps not quite as good as 6x7 or 6x9 film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stuart, your figures agree very well with mine above: I reckoned 6x9 film at around 25 MP of non AA filtered digital; you say 25-30mp. I put 6x6 film at around my 16.7 non AA filtered digital back; you say that the 18MP non AA filtered M9 is not quite as good as 6x7 [from which I infer that your 18 MP is about as good as 6x6]. Perhaps we're onto something.</p>

<p>It is commonly stated that a good 12-24MP DSLR image is, for all practical purposes for most people, as good as, or better than, a conventional (silver/"analog") medium format print of the same size up to 16x20, and this is my observation too. There are sometimes differences noted between the two media. The upside of digital is its ease of producing excellent output. I feel obliged to say that I like film too!</p>

<p>The lens on my Fujifilm 6x9, although quite good, is admittedly inferior to a comparable lens (approx. 28mm) on a Leica M9, but Ilkka makes a point that I tend to agree with, although without having at hand any images to prove it. The tonality and gradation possible with B&W film and the Fuji are likely better than that which the M9 (or another high megapixel FF 35mm digital camera) can produce, even if resolution appears similar at 16 x 20 or 20 x 24 (cropped) prints. One should look at prints to gauge it. Color may be another thing, but I am hesitating to trade up from an M8 to an M9 (might have to sell something to do it), as much of my work is in B&W and I am less critical when it comes to color digital work. Perhaps if the FF 35mm (a possible higher MP M10?) starts to compare with the better MF digital cameras in terms of tonality and resolution of details I may make the leap.</p>

<p>This reminds me of when audiophiles abandoned vinyl in favor of CD's because they thought they heard more detail, etc... Before that they abandoned tube amplifiers in favor of solid state. No one tusted their ears, they believed the "golden ears" and succumbed to marketing. Now there are people willing to spend thousands of dollars on a turntable and tube amplification, etc...<br>

I love shooting digital, it's convenient and it's good enough and it keeps getting better.<br>

But if I look at enough digital photos on Flickr, full frame stuff and then look at pictures shot from a Mamiya7 or Pentax67, etc.. there is the "Wow" factor that I never see with digital. Same as listening to music from a CD and then listening to the same on vinyl.<br>

But a poorly scanned negative is going to result in a poorly scanned photo just as vinyl played on poor equipment is going to sound awful.<br>

And I would guess that many of the comparisons that people are making are not from the same lens, etc... I'm finding that lenses make a huge difference with digital. Look at images from the Epson RD1 with low megapixel count but usually used with fantastic lenses.<br>

I have on a calibrated monitor, rangefinderforum.com/forums/printthread.php?t=76371&pp=40. Scroll through pages from there.<br>

Making judgements based on resolving a crack in a wall is hardly a defining moment. Quality of scan. Different lenses. Someone might use the same test to compare lenses on the same digital camera and see the similar differences. Lot's of detail because there are things missing.<br>

CD's offer a lot of detail with music because things are missing.<br>

We look at specs and decide what we want to see or hear. Instead of trusting our ears and eyes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lots of comparisons of scanned res, MTF and other techie issues...That I do not pretend to know a lot about.<br /><br />Strictly from the dimension driven math of this comparison, I figure a 96Mpxl sensor would be the right physical dimensions for a Full Frame 6x9 image area.<br /><br />How is that you say?...MF digital backs today have a pixel pitch of about 7 microns (.007mm). The 6X9 image area is 84mm X 56mm, that comes out to 12,000 pixels X 8,000 pixels = 96 Mpxls.<br>

A nice round number...and not on the market yet at any price!<br>

Wait... I believe the Iranian's capture of the RQ-170 stealth drone has some mighty fine huge Mpxl optical digital sensors in it for sale to highest bidder right now! :-)</p>

<p>So show us <em>your</em> "vinyl versus CD" samples Faustin. It seems to me that those people that are posting samples and trusting their eyes are getting unwarranted criticism for doing so, while everyone else is just theorising and making meaningless analogies.</p>

<p>It's strange that so many professional photographers who spent years working with film were so happy to abandon it so quickly. And strangely, most professional electronic engineers, who had the equipment to closely examine the quality of output of tubes against solid state, were so ready to abandon tubes to the dustbin of history where they belong.</p>

<p>Speaking to vinyl, I prefer my VPI table and the LP versions to my Krell CD player and the CD versions. That's just me.</p>

<p>As to film vs digital, if you're scanning the 6x9 on a flatbed, then most 15mp DSLRs and up will match it in detail. On a good scanner, I agree with about a 30mp figure on print. Ya, you'll see the film having more detail at 100% on screen...but on print, where it counts, the digital will look sharper even though is has less absolute resolution.</p>

<p>It's pretty amazing what even the Sony A900 and Nikon D3X can do when compared with MF film.</p>

<p>As to dynamic range, every DSLR on the market has more dynamic range than the best scans of any chrome film available. For color neg, the best DSLR with 12-14 stops can pretty much equal it. For B&W film, processed in dilute concentrations and metered for shadows, one can achieve about 15-18 stops....and no DSLR or digital back can touch it. That said, a 3 exposure bracket on the DSLR and combined to HDR will get you that 15-18 stops.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And strangely, most professional electronic engineers, who had the equipment to closely examine the quality of output of tubes against solid state, were so ready to abandon tubes to the dustbin of history where they belong</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, many recording musicians and most guitarists keep using valves (tubes) because they prefer the sound.</p>

<p>Technically, solid state is much better than valve but musically, the valve sound wins out. To me, the same is true with film. It might not be as perfect as digital but I prefer it.</p>

Indeed.<br>But don't be to quick to give in on the "technical bit" of the argument when saying you prefer film.<br>Both, because it's by no means so that digital is technically better (whatever "better" may be), and because there's a technical reason too why the (technical) quality of both tubes and film is prefered by many.<br>(And yes, may do not. But that may be because many do not even know tubes, or film.)

<p>155.7 mega-pixels on a 4625.6 square mm sensor</p>

 

<p>First off, tubes are far from having been left in the dustbin. To the contrary, someone needs to get up to speed. Most of your high end amplifiers are tube, not solid state. Vinyl has come back strongly and with the younger generation. In the last few years, tube guitar amplifers have become more and more important. Guitar entusiasts have learned to improve and modify tube circuits. After tubes were sent to the audio dustbin, it was an engineer who reconsidered and decided that people were measuring for the wrong things and weren't listening with their ears. That was probably 25 - 30 years ago and tube popularity has grown over that time. Now the guitar people have started to pile on and some never left. There were some audiophiles and gutiar players that didn't buy into the hype and trusted their ears. When CD's first came out they players were horrible by any standard and still people were tossing their vinyl and turntables.<br>

When I see postings of the same scene posted for both digital and film and comparisons made I think that we could see the same differences between two film cameras or two digital camers, or two different lenses. While the comparisons might be valid they need to be qualified.<br>

A few years ago I turned in a Cibachrome that I had printed maybe 25 years ago to a competition and it won. For those that don't remember or are two young a Cibachrome is done in a darkroom using a slide instead of a negative. Less expensive and far more efficient than digital. Of course, everything else turned in were inkjets. It was amazing how many people came up to me wanting to know about the printer and paper that I used. I really hesitated to turn in the Cibachrome because I knew it would so change the playing field and no one knew until after the competition. It used to be uncomplicated and inexpensive. A camera that you would keep for years, some slide film and a relaxed hour or two in the darkroom. Of course, we are now all posting our pictures on the internet and we mostly all have a computer anyway.<br>

Also when comaring film to digital images when they both come out of a computer is not always a level playing field. So many people are not clued into workflow.<br>

I know someone locally that has a lab and she does photo work for photographers all over the country and she demonstrated to me the differences on a monitor between a quality film scan and a digital image. It was easy to see how much more film could be enlarged without falling apart. This where I learned the importance of good workflow. The scanner is one extra element in the mix. The quality of my work improved dramatically when I got this all together. All the good equipment in the world doesn't assure anyone of quality work. There will always be someone out there that will produce better images with an Olympus XA than someone with the most expensive full frame digital camera and two thousand dollar lens.<br>

That said, I'm into the digital thing, considering the Sony A850 to use with some of the old Pentax M42 lenses that I collected years ago. Though I wish someone would come out with something in digital like the Hexar AF. Instead of the GW690III I would consider the Mamiya 6 or 7. I think for medium format film there are some affordable choices. The Fuji GA645 would be something simple and inexpensive to consider.<br>

I didn't mean to be critical toward anyone that wants to see things through the technical side, whatever works.</p>

<p>Just one last thing :)</p>

<p>In my example comparison on p2, I think I made my detail crops a little bit too big because they are the size of a 60x40in print. I think that might be bigger than John Dowle might like to print (but of course, I don't know)</p>

<p>I tried reducing them in size (to a 30x20in print equivalent) and it's really hard to tell them apart from a viewing distance of 18in. This magnification also reduces the appearance of grain in the film image to a more pleasing amount too.</p>

<p>So, if you want to experiment, download the little detail images, reduce the size by 50% and see for yourself what a 30x20in print would look like.</p>

<p><strong>I just bought a 24mp digital camera and the image quality is clearly not twice as good as its predecessor, which was 12mp.</strong></p>

<p>That's only because you did the math wrong. In order to obtain twice the resolution, you have to double both X and Y axes, not total resolution. So you'd need something like 48 mp to double resolution from 12 mp.</p>

<p>Still not seeing any side-by-side examples from you filmophiles! We can all make spurious claims with nothing to back them up, and Faustin, there will always be believers of those spurious claims that will spend a fortune on an Emperor's tailoring.</p>

<p>Most people who use at least a Coolscan 9000 or a Flexitight X5 scanner and actually print large routinely can confirm that 35mm film (I use Velvia or Tmax) gives you similar or higher detail (visible) than the highest end DSLR today. 6x7 or 6x9 film will give you at least five tome the detail as a top end DSLR.</p>

<p>I own and use:<br /> - Scanner: Coolscan 9000<br /> - Printers: 44"-Epson 9890, 24"Epson-7880, 17"-Epson 3800<br /> - Cameras: Mamiya 7II and Mamiya RZ67II<br /> - Most used papers: Epson USFA, Epson VFA, Epson EW Canvas Satin, Ilford Fibre Gold</p>

<p>I have posted plenty of test and anyone interested can email me to request them.</p>

<p>Those who argue that MF film and glass do not provide several orders of magnitude of the detailed captured by an AA 35mm DSLR either have a problem with their camera, their lenses, their scanner or their printer.</p>

<p>Grain can be removed from scans if desired the same as a camera removes digital noise. Sharpening can be applied at will.<br>

DSLRs have higher acutance (contrast at pixel level) and abrupt detail extinction.</p>

<p>The vast majority of landscapes will contain high frequency of medium/high contrast detail. (eg, branches, hay, grass, etc).<br>

A 35mm DSLR (today) is IMO inadequate for prints larger than 16x20 and I print 24x30 and 30x40 routinely. </p>

<p>A direct answer to the OP is difficult to provide but instead I can give a range from 40MP to 200MP depending on film and scanner.</p>

<p>Here I tested 4 lenses and 2 camera systems. This will give you an idea of the resolution you can get from 6x7 lenses, film, and the limitations of my Coolscan 9000.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Most people who use at least a Coolscan 9000 or a Flexitight X5 scanner and actually print large routinely can confirm that 35mm film (I use Velvia or Tmax) gives you similar or higher detail (visible) than the highest end DSLR today. <br>

Those who argue that MF film and glass do not provide several orders of magnitude of the detailed captured by an AA 35mm DSLR either have a problem with their camera, their lenses, their scanner or their printer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok, show us your comparison. I did. In fact, I was surprised a little at the results. I'll admit, I don't shoot Velvia, but 35mm Velvia vs. 24mp DSLR? I would be very, very surprised to see a more pleasing large print from 35mm Velvia scan. But I don't really know, show us since you say you have the tools to do so. Thanks!</p>

<p>Maruo, a test chart is not a real continuous tone photograph. Show us a real photographic comparison please :) With Digital Capture vs. Film / Scan capture. Yes, I know that if I put film under a microscope, I'll see more detail. But what about the quality of a large print of the same subject by digital and film? That is what we need to see.</p>

<p>These are the progressive bottleneck's in my workflow (fromwhich I can directly speak):</p>

<p>In order of resolving power:</p>

<p>- On a 6x7 frame, my Mamiya lenses project over 300 megapixels of true detail. (measured on fresnel and 100x microscope)<br>

<br /> - On a 6x7 frame of TMAX there are more 150 megapixels of true detail. (light table and 100x microscope)<br>

<br />- The Coolscan effectively captures 90 MP (3850 effective resolution). (above)<br>

<br />- The V500 effectively captures 23 MP (1950 effective resolution). (tested separately)<br>

<br />- For comparison a 20MP DSLR effectively captures approximately 15MP. (see everywhere ~ dpreview tests)</p>

 

<p>Mauro, you've never used a DSLR have you? I was really surprised to see how much detail a 13mp DSLR captured compared to 6x9 color negative film. But detail isn't everything, I think we need to look more closely at an "overall" "image to noise" ratio. </p>

<p>I think Maruo, if you're making such large prints routinely, you should seriously look at a MF digital camera. I think you'll like it more than scanned Velvia.</p>

 

<p>Mauro, I use a Coolscan LS 8000 with the same resolution as the LS 9000, and have scanned all types of fine-grained 35mm negative and transparency films at the scanner's full resolution, 4000 d.p.i. Without getting into an argument about the resolution math, if you told me I'd need to make an 11x14 inch, or larger, print, and gave me a choice of shooting a Nikon F6 with the whatever you think is the best film for detail OR shooting a Nikon D3x, I'd choose the D3x any day of the week.</p>

<p>I've been clear that I believe MF film beats 35mm-style DSLRs for biggish enlargments. However, IMHO, if you're comparing any 35mm piece of film with a FF 24MP chip, the film is going to lose that battle if the end game is detailed big prints. </p>

 

<p>BG, "But what about the quality of a large print of the same subject by digital and film?"</p>

<p>Here is how I print film large (It is hard to show you the direct prints unless you live near Atlanta).</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>The following test was done with Velvia and a 10MP DSLR. The film was scanned with an Imacon at 8,000dpi and a Coolscan 9000 at 4,000dpi.</p>

<p>Both the Coolscan scan and the 10MP DSLR shot were upsized to match the size of the 8,000 dpi scan.</p>

<p>Note that a 24MP DSLR will give you aprox 50% more linear resolution than a 10MP DSLR.</p><div></div>

<p>Also using the DSLR and 35 mm Velvia I shot an assortment similar of objects. Velvia was scanned with the Coolscan.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>