Velvia vs. Sensors

<p>erm... not sure I'm with you Alan. Which ones are you looking at? There are multiple formats and multiple film types</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Didn't someone post an often referenced test about an 11mp DSLR beating 6x7 film? Maybe people can stop linking to it all the time now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />There have been all sorts of silly claims over the years. When DSLRs were 6MP, people claimed they were equal to 35mm<br>

<br />The silliest claim is on Luminous Landscape where it was suggested that the IQ180 was as good as 8x10 film. With a resolution of 80MP, that's a suggested resolution of 1MP per square inch.</p>

<p>If that were true, a 35mm frame would be equal to 1.33MP. I think even the most pro digital, anti film person would disagree with that.</p>

<p><em>When DSLRs were 6MP, people claimed they were equal to 35mm</em></p>

<p>IMO most (probably all) 6 MP DSLR's equal, and indeed beat, 35mm film--in overall image quality, which considers not only resolution but also noise / grain, color accuracy, etc., and considers not only what you get with Ektar 25 or a DSLR at ISO 100, but also what you get with Superia 1600 or a DSLR at ISO 1600 or even 3200. IMOPO / IME, for most viewers and most images, noise / grain is a more important limit on how large a print they think looks good than resolution is.</p>

<p>Pure resolution is a different matter. Many 35mm films can deliver more resolution than any 6 MP DSLR--in some cases (e.g., T-Max 100), way more resolution.</p>

<p>But you <em><strong>absolutely</strong><strong> cann</strong><strong>ot</strong></em> simply say that the effective resolution of an 8x10 film camera is 58x (or whatever image size ratio you calculate) the resolution of a 35mm film camera--effectively, it is nowhere near that. Resolution is a function of the system. All else being equal, as lenses have to cover more area, their resolution per unit area goes down. All else being equal, the larger the piece of film, the bigger the problem keeping it flat (while you expose it, and also while you optically print or scan it, unless you use a glass carrier, which introduces other issues). A 35mm camera body / lens mount is usually quite rigid; an 8x10 camera usually has some flexibility. Etc. In short, as film size goes up, resolution goes up, but it is in no way linear.</p>

We tested the megapixel equivalents of various systems. 10x8 at f/22 is approx 600 megapixels. Or about 8mp per square inch. Whereas

a good 35mm at f/4 gets about 16mp or 12mp per square inch. Interestingly large format lenses are pretty damned good.

 

However when you stop down to f/64 to get some depth of field you lose lots of detail and end up with about 120mp or 70mp if you stop

down to f/90.

 

Also people's tolerance of grain is commonly quite the opposite of what you'd think. I've done tests adding grain to very large digital

enlargements and it has improved the aesthetic reaction (i.e. It was preferred in a blind a/b comparison)

<blockquote>

<p> Whereas a good 35mm at f/4 gets about 16mp or 12mp per square inch. Interestingly large format lenses are pretty damned good. However when you stop down to f/64 to get some depth of field you lose lots of detail and end up with about 120mp or 70mp if you stop down to f/90.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you looked at detail with medium format lenses rwhen stopped down such as for the Mamiya?</p>

<p>we did bracket the medium format shots but I haven't tested them for megapixellage :-) I'll have a scan of them when I get a chance. From what I've seen I would expect for smaller apertures we'd see a similar reduction in resolution. We shot our tests at f/8 so I would expect at f/16 we'd be getting 40mp equivalent... I'm intrigued now - back to the scanner!</p>

<p>The reason I ask, Tim, is because I shoot Velvia with a Mamiya RB67 6x7. Lenses: 50mm, 90mm, 180mm, and 360mm. Mostly landscapes. So I'm often using smaller apertures because of the need for greater DOF. Of course, the smaller apertures, the less ability to get sharp shots due to refraction. So I was interested in what your tests would reveal. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Ok, had a peak at this thread after avoiding it assuming it would be the usual digital/film unsupported shouting match, but what a surprise!</p>

<p>Tim Parkin - where were you with your drum-scanning equipment and rigorous method back in the days when dpreview concluded the Nikon D1 equalled or bettered scanned film (I noticed they've 'updated' their review conclusion since then - hmmm)?! It's really nice to see this kind of comparison.</p>

<p>Back to the thread's original question:</p>

<p>I went with film (back in the Canon 5D days - i.e 2008) because it gave me excellent results. Even with the improvements in digital, with resolution now caught up/overtaking film, that if you take image quality holistically - and consider dynamic range, colour, highlight control, tonality etc... film is still superior in many respects, and artistically, I like it.</p>

<p>Of course, film also has its disadvantages - convenience & cost are obvious, as is high-ISO ability, and colour neg shadows are worse than digital. These disadvantages don't really apply to the kind of photography I like to do, but they become an issue when doing things like weddings, or taking photos of small children indoors!</p>

<p>PS Tim - do you have any more links to drum scans - specifically any for 35mm film as that is what I use. Thanks.</p>

<p>Duncan, this thread may have started as 35mm Fuji against full-frame sensor, but it's gone way beyond that with examples of the incredible resolution possible with MF and larger film. I doubt that many full-frame digital shooters are going to run out and move to 6x7 film, or something even larger, given costs, inconvenience, etc., but it's nice to know. Perhaps a few will develop a hobby within a hobby</p>

<p>David - to go back to your original question - I'm not sure what it would take to remove me from film.</p>

<p>One aspect of digital is that every year someone says that the latest digital is better than film. My most recent disappointment in this regard was when I was shooting a D3 against Portra 160 at a wedding. Even though I found the resolution to be plenty, the handling of highlights was not as good as the film (although better in RAW), which gave terrific results without any more bother than sending off the film and getting it back. I recently shot a D4 alongside Fuji 400H, and think the digital did better, but I wished I'd shot the Portra.</p>

<p>Another aspect of shooting film is that you can stop worrying about the latest models, the differences between them, whether you should upgrade etc etc - I just relax and shoot my F6 content that the image quality I get from it is enough for my needs :)</p>

<p>You don't shoot digital the same was as film and, if the shots matter, like a wedding, you don't shoot JPEG.</p>

<p>What is better? An oil painting or a silkscreen? Who cares? Digital is pretty good and will get a lot better. I personally have reservations about the quality of large-size digital photo prints but they will improve.</p>

<p>A loaded question.<br>

You will have to try until satisfied!<br>

The answer for me at this point in my life:<br>

Film (Hasselblad 503cw and 903swc medium format 6x6 cameras)+ Scan with the best (Hasselblad Flextight X5 scanner). I am fully satisfied and can say that the output of this combination is stunning.<br>

If however I was shooting commercially, the gear would probably be different.<br>

Best to you and Good Luck.</p>

 

<p>I love blown highlights, inky blacks and intensely saturated and smooth accurately exposed mid-tones.<br>

So you know what my vote is. <br>

Medium Format, of course.<br>

:-)<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17687330&size=lg</p>

 

<p>When velvia 50 is equiv. of 180MP and when you can buy much Velvia and a good scanner for for a good digi cam ie Nikon D810, then??</p>

<p>According to a pro/scientist who invented the color chip for digital, Velvia is 185MP resolution. Dynamic range is only approached with HDR. Colors not yet, maybe by Foveon in Sigma.</p>