Fuji GW690III = How many megapixels ?

<p>I've been wondering for a while now just how many mega-pixels in a modern DSLR do you think would give the equivalent quality that you get from a Fuji GW690 ?<br>

Any feedback much appreciated as usual.<br>

John.</p>

<p>Not really relevant! Sure you can scan in whatever number of pixels you want but the limit resolution wise will be that of the film/lens combination. Gradation and the ability to cope with a wide dynamic range are something else again! You also have the question of whether you prefer the much cleaner look of digital or not. A couple of things do however need pointing out:<br>

Medium format digital can deliver the goods but so can medium format film.<br>

Getting ultimate quality in either medium depends on your skills as a photographer.<br>

You will do your best work with the camera that you work with best- so use that and worry less about whether to use film or digital capture.<br>

End of sermon!</p>

 

<p>John,<br>

I have a 6x9 view camera (Horseman VHR) and a Nikon D300. I recently looked at the same composition made from both of these cameras. I used Velvia in the film camera. I found that looking at 100%, the digital file looked sharper. However, the Velvia image had quite a different pallet to work from. I'm now actually thinking of selling my horseman vhr. However, I haven't yet because of lens movements and the fact that sometimes I miss shooting velvia. <br>

Hugh<br>

</p></p><p><B>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per photo.net guidelines.</b></P>

<p><em>...I found that looking at 100%.....</em><br>

What did you look at? The slide with a micro?</p>

<p>Mag,<br>

I compared a 3200 dpi scan made on a Minolta Multi Pro. This was by no means a perfect test. Also differences could be due to focusing of either the camera lens or scanner???? </p>

<p>You're going to get all sorts of answers to this, because "quality" can be defined in terms of so many things: extinction resolution, MTF50 resolution, signal-to-noise, dynamic range...</p>

<p>Out of these, I presume you meant resolution. You can get massive megapixel equivalents for film if you consider extinction resolution with high contrast black & white target patterns, on slow film. It's much more practical to consider "viewer impressions" of resolution - the holistic impressions that you get when you compare a large print from film to a large print from a digital sensor. There is a good correlation between perceived sharpness in this sense and measures of resolution at normal contrast, like MTF50. Film has a much lower megapixel equivalent when the comparison is done this way.</p>

<p>So I rate the perceived sharpness of my 16.7 MP square digital back (without an anti-aliasing filter) as similar to what I've obtained with 6x6 film. People who use the 22 MP, 4:3 aspect-ratio backs would probably agree that they're comparable to 6x7 or 6x8 film. If there were a 25MP, 3:2 aspect-ratio back without AA filter, that should be comparable to 6x9 film. (Pixel size = 9 microns in all these examples, so just as 6x9 film is the same film as 6x6 but just more of it, that 25MP back would be the same underlying quality as my 16.7 MP back but just more of it).</p>

<p>Now it's a little different if you're comparing 6x9 film to a 35mm-format DSLR, as they all use anti-aliasing filters, which reduce resolution somewhat. That pushes up the megapixel equivalent from 25MP to probably something more like 40 MP (ballpark guesstimate - based on assuming that the AA filter decreases linear resolution by about 25%). The 35mm lenses will also have to have inherently better MTF than the medium format lenses, as the pixels are smaller.</p>

<p>I have also observed that my 21 MP Canon 5DII results are subjectively comparable to my 645 film results. Doubling 645 (41.5 x 56 mm) gives you 6x9 film (84 x 56mm), so doubling the 5DII gives you 42MP - again ending up in the 40MP ballpark for a DSLR with an AA filter, but via a different route.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No one's going to agree on this question. That said, with current technology, I don't think you could get enough megapixels on, say, a full-frame, 35mm-film-sized chip to equal a 6x9cm piece of film. I believe you'd need to jump up to a medium format digital back.</p>

<p>While you could use any 6x9cm camera's film, I happen to have some scans from a GW690II camera. Using a Nikon LS 8000 scanner at full 4000 d.p.i. resolution and full bit depth, from a 6x9 cm piece of film I shot at ISO 200 with a GW690II, I get a 637 megabyte scan. I can comfortably make 16-inch prints from these scans that have bottomless detail from any viewing distance. Press your nose up against these prints and the image shows no sign of breaking up or digital artifact.</p>

<p>Opening a RAW image from a Nikon D700 shot at ISO 200, full bit depth, I get a 69 magabyte file. In a 12x18-inch print from a D700 image, I can see digital artifact.</p>

<p>Long story short, if I know I'm going to make an 11-inch or larger print from an image, I'll shoot medium format film and scan it. For making big prints, there's just no way a FF-35mm-sized digital camera is going to compete with a well-executed scan from a piece of medium format film.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>how many mega-pixels in a modern DSLR do you think would give the equivalent quality that you get from a Fuji GW690 ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends on final use. Anyone can make scans and claims that one is better than the other but in reality, if they both give you the results you want in the application you want, then they are equivalent (which is what you asked for).</p>

<p>There are all kinds of theoretical responses to this question. But there is one practical response. How good a scan can you get from the Fuji's 6x9 negative? And do you want to pay for it?<br>

From my GW690 I can get 6mp images cheaply, in an hour. My local lab uses a Noritsu and produces very nice scans at 3000x2000 pixels. Compared to the output of a 6mp DSLR, I prefer the film. I like the colour and dynamic range, but I also find that 6mp originated from film can be blown up slightly larger than 6mp from digital. Cost = $11 per roll, processing and scanning included.<br>

Some labs are offering even bigger minilab scans -- about 16mp size. I hear they are fantastic, and offer all the same advantages I just listed. I expect the cost to be incrementally greater and you have to find a lab that does this. (I hear that North Coast and Richard Photo Lab do these in the U.S.)<br>

If I'm willing to spend more per frame, I can walk to a lab that offers Flextight scanning. Not fast, and not cheap. But with an output of about 60mp, these scans are pretty jaw dropping.<br>

The point of this is to say, the limits of your Fuji GW690 are not the camera or film. The Fuji lens is fantastically sharp, the camera uses a leaf shutter which eliminates the resolution-robbing mirror slap and focal plane shutter bounce. A 6x9 piece of film is huge and inherently carries massive amounts of resolution - spatial, light and colour resolution.<br>

But there are real limits to a how good a film workflow can be, once it passes through a scanner. Objectively that means I can make my GW690 a really good 6mp, 16mp, or 60mp camera. Until scanners improve.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But there are real limits to a how good a film workflow can be, <strong>once it passes through a scanner.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

Take the scanner out of the equation and it's even better.</p>

Hear! Hear!<br><br>But even when considering the scan results as well... I'm with Eric on this.

I own the Fuji, a 5dmk1, and a nikon scanner.

 

Last year I happened to shoot a photo whtih each, tripod mounted and compared them.

 

Keep in mind that I shot iso 160 color neg film.

 

And the winner?...almost a tie. The film was a hair more detailed, but fell apart due to grain structure. The 5d was super clean. A

higher res scan would not have extracted any more usable detail from the film.

 

A 5d II would proabably give a slight edge to the digital file, albeit with a little bit less dynamic range. The Fuji costs between 1 and 2

dollars per frame to shoot, so factor that in. The scanner, would be about $1500 used today, I think.

 

Of course the film purists will disagree...by I stand by my observations:)

<p>I recall reading that the FBI a few years ago figured out they would have to have somewhere around 14 to 16MP or so to equal a 35mm film camera. So, since the 6 x 9 has--just a quick estimate--maybe 5 time the area of 35mm, then that would put us in the ballpark of around 75MP. I'll assume we are comparing with a film of fairly high resolving power, such as TMax 100 or Delta 100 Pro.</p>

<p>Here's another idea: Film has better dynamic range than digital. Digital camera with the best resolution may not have the highest pixel count, since larger pixel sensors have better dynamic range than smaller ones. So what if we wanted a digital camera with the dynamic range of Tri-X? Our pixel guess must then be lower. To be comparable to a 6 X 9, I'll guess we might be looking at something like--what? Maybe 14MP to 20MP? Just as the Epson R-D1 with "only" 6MP outperforms the DR of the Leica M8 with twice the pixels.</p>

<p>We all agree: there's no exact answer. No one right answer, either. But it's interesting to think about what a reasonable ballpark figure might be. And even that depends on what aspect of the problem we think is important. </p>

<p>I'm not a "film purist." A completely digital workflow is much less time-intensive, and allows opportunities like HDR and for color correction that are very difficult or impossible to execute with film and scanners. </p>

<p>Certainly, if I had an extra $75K lying around, I'd buy a high-end Hasselblad digital kit with four or five lenses, and I'd sell my MF film gear. Also, if the largest print I ever made was 8x12 inches, I'd work exclusively with my Nikon D700s.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I like biggish prints and I'm not independently wealthy. As such, I still shoot and scan medium format film. With all due respect, if you can't make a more detailed large print from a 6x9 negative than any 35mm-SLR-styled-FF-digital camera, something is wrong with your film-shooting or scanning technique. A competent 600-plus megabyte scan from a well-shot 54-sq-cm piece of film is so much more detailed than a sub-100 megabyte capture from a six-times-smaller digital sensor, it isn't close when looking at jumbo prints. </p>

<p>B G, I respectfully disagree when you say "A higher res scan would not have extracted any more usable detail from the film." I have made this mistake in the past.<br>

It is easy to look at a scan of any resolution (including low-res scans from poor scanners) and see grain. The natural assumption is that it would be a waste of resolution to increase the quality/resolution of the scan because you have already extracted all of the detail "down to the grain."<br>

But I have never seen an example where scanning a piece of film with a better scanner at a higher resolution does not extract more detail and a better image. The Nikon scanner you are using is pretty good, the best of the consumer desktop scanners. But seek out comparisons to an Imacon scan, or a drum scan, and you will find that scanning "down to the grain" means something different to each scanner.<br>

I suspect that part of the reason film offers up better and better image quality from better scanners is because of the fractal nature of the silver or dye clouds. You can quickly resolve the largest individual grains/clouds, but with increasing magnification you reveal progressively smaller grains/clouds. Each magnitude of grain carries some infitessimal amount of real image data - after all, grain is not something overlaid on top of the "real image." When you are seeing grain, you are seeing the building blocks of how the image is formed itself.<br>

To take an analogy, imagine the whole photography is a cathedral. Magnify your view of the catherdral and you quickly can resolve large stone blocks. Magnify more and you see small blocks and bricks. Magnify enough and you can see the grains of sand that make up the structure of the blocks themselves. Each of which are a valid part of the structure of the cathedral.</p>

<p>I run a lab and exhibition printing service. I use film, 35mm digital and 37.5mp digital medium format. I use a Hasselblad X5 scanner and Epson 9900 printer. I only say this to indicate that I see a lot of different types of files, and work on all sorts of film and digital originals. Fundamentally, you are comparing apples and oranges to compare digital and film. They behave completely differently with respect to their resolution. For example, film has lots of resolution, but it is shrouded in a lot of noise (the grain). Digital often does not have as much resolution, but it has a much higher APPARENT resolution up to its 100% detail. In this sense, digital often looks sharper in normal sized prints, but if you push it much past about double its standard resolution, it tends to look rather poor. Film on the other hand will look soft, but the way the detail softens tends to give the appearance of more resolution, so you can push the enlargement a bit further than with digital of the same "resolution". <br>

So, when it comes to 6x9? If I were to scan it at 3200dpi on the X5, you could print it to 1mX1.5m or so and it would still look very good. In order to take a digital file and make the same sized print, 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. The M9 at 18mp with no AA filter looks very good at 1mX80cm, but perhaps not quite as good as 6x7 or 6x9 film. It has a bit sharper resolution of fine detail, the but the film picks up a few tinier details that makes it look a little better. As you see, it is not an exact science. But I would say that the top of the line digital cameras today and medium format film both output so well as to make these sort of questions more the realm of pedantry than utility. Use what you like, it is all good enough these days! </p>

<p>Pixel counts are not an accurate measure of quality so it's hard to know how to answer the question. Just look at modern digital cameras and you will see rather quickly that more pixels does not equal better image quality. Each sensor has different capabilities and each software app varies too. I just bought a 24mp digital camera and the image quality is clearly not twice as good as its predecessor, which was 12mp.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...how many mega-pixels in a modern DSLR do you think would give the equivalent quality that you get from a Fuji GW690 ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably a lot less than you think!</p>

<p>There've been some really unfounded assertions made here. Notably by David and Rob. Film is not some magical and totally analogue system that can be infinitely magnified to get more and more detail. The dye clouds of colour film have a finite size of around 3 microns diameter, and an average clumping or cluster size of around 9 microns. This roughly equates to 3000 pixels/inch and there really truly is no more useable detail to be got below that "resolution" level. Furthermore those dye clouds are fairly uniform in colour density, making the colour depth per equivalent unit area of film far lower than the 16.7 million colours per pixel of digital capture. Black and White film fares hardly any better in its resolving power, and can be a lot worse in its ability to render tone smoothly. And if you're going to champion film, forget the scanning process altogether and compare wet-printed prints with digital. At least that gives film a fighting chance.</p>

<p>Dynamic range is also ridiculously overestimated by film enthusiasts. A good DSLR can currently encompass a dynamic range of over 12 stops, and lens and camera flare will conspire against anything much above that being meaningfully translated onto either film or a digital sensor.</p>

<p>I'm not anti-film myself, but every time there's one of these threads the pro-film lobby trots out some totally usupportable nonsense as "evidence". If film really is that much better, <em>show us</em>. Post some comparison pictures to prove your point instead of all the hyperbole.</p>

<p>My own comparisons are NOT favourable to film, as shown below.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm with Steve Smith on this. If you can, just print directly through the negative onto photographic paper.</p>

<p>I'm limited by my darkroom to an 11" by 14" print, which looks splendid when mounted and framed.</p>

<p>I'm with Rodeo Joe on this :) Here's my examples below. This is a 4000dpi scan vs. 13mp digital capture. I think a few more megapixels for the 5d and it just might come out ahead. Notice that while the film image is more detailed, the crack in the wall gets lost in the film grain, but not in the digital version.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14767853-lg.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="347" /><br>

fuji 6x9 full image<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14767852-lg.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /><br>

5d full image<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14767855-lg.jpg" alt="" width="345" height="329" /><br>

fuji 6x9 detail<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14767854-lg.jpg" alt="" width="345" height="307" /><br>

5d detail</p>

Hugh, when you scanned the 6x9 frame at 3200 PPI you made an 85 mp image. If you compare that to a 12 mp

image, both at 100%, the 85 mp image can look a lot less sharp but actually contain more detail. The real test is what

the images look like printed at some size that's large enough that pixels in excess of 12 mp are relevant.

 

B G, same comment, but you have a 133 mp image from your film scan. Even at this size you can see that your film

scan has way more detail than your DSLR image.

<p>Yes Andy, more detail. But to see that detail, you also need to see all that noise/grain. Some detail gets hidden in the grain, so it's a judgement call for the photographer which he/she prefers I think.<br /> The color rendition from the digital camera is superior in this instance, in my opinion though. Of course choice of film will make a bit of difference here, as might processing.<br /> Reversal film will look less grainy, but it's just too contrasty for my style.</p>

<p>You can't judge by scanned film. The real test would be in a final traditional print from Velvia (or at least a drumscan) versus print from DSLR . My guesstimate, from experience with 120 format Velvia, 4x5 Velvia, 35mm Velvia and 42 MP stitched images from a 5D II and Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E would be at least 80 MP and more likely 120 MP.</p>

<p>I have not yet taken the time to directly compare my stitched 5D II images to my Velvia 120 format enlargements and transparencies but my impression so far is that this is very close to 35mm and 645 format Velvia. So, above I have simply interpolated from 36mm x 48mm (stitched image size from 5D II) to 56mm x 84mm, to get to 114 MP and I threw in a few more MP for good measure.</p>

<p>Yes, this could come down without an AA filter, but I used a Kodak SLRn which was driven from the marketplace due to the lack of an AA filter and I can't understand how medium format is getting away with it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, this could come down without an AA filter, but I used a Kodak SLRn which was driven from the marketplace due to the lack of an AA filter and I can't understand how medium format is getting away with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From what I've read, the SLRn & SLRc were driven from the market place primarily because of issues with their Fill Factory CMOS sensors: their very poor performance above base ISO (high readout noise), and very limited long exposure capability (high dark noise). Their predecessor (Kodak 14n) had even worse sensor issues, and that sort of reputational damage was hard to shift; and by the time the improved SLRn & SLRc came along, the full-frame Canon 1ds had already set new benchmarks for low-noise high-ISO performance, and long exposure performance, and the Kodaks just could not come close. Nikon did not have a full-frame camera to compete with the Nikon-mount SLR/n, but the overall package they offered with their contemporary APS-C cameras (D100 and D2H) was still winning more customers.</p>

<p>I have a thing for the older Kodak DSLRs; I love the concept of the F5-based ones with the interchangeable viewfinders and user-changeable IR/AA filters, so I picked up a DCS720x not so long ago. The RGB filters on Kodak CCDs deliver beautiful colour (I can attest with my DCS645M digital back; and there are all those other Kodak-chipped medium format digital backs and cameras, and the various digital Leicas), and each generation has significantly improved on long exposure noise.</p>

<p>Just imagine if Kodak hadn't shut their DCS division in 2004: we could now have a "Kodak DCS1800" with the same Kodak 18MP full-frame CCD as the Leica M9, in a fully modular F5 (or better) body, with modern batteries, a modern user interface and a big 3" LCD!<br>

Ah, but now I'm day-dreaming...and WAY off-topic!</p>

 

<p>I think for 6x6-6x9 format film a practical scanning resolution is 2000-3000ppi (I use an LS-9000). Going higher than that although you can get slightly increased sharpness the grain will be more obvious. So, at 3000 ppi you get approx. 65 megapixel resulting scan. I'm not suggesting this number is some kind of absolute truth but it's what I find practical (sometimes a smaller file, a few times I have used the full resolution of my scanner leading to 600MB files...). If you want comparable results in digital you need a larger sensor than FX / 24x36mm but exactly how large (i.e. what type of MF digital system; is 40MP sufficient, or do you need full frame 645 digital) I cannot say.</p>

<p>I recently sold my 6x7 camera (Mamiya 7) and got a 24MP FX camera in its place, and while sharpness is satisfactory (for my purposes), the richness of the tonality is not quite there (when comparing to 6x7 black and white film).</p>