Resolution: Velvia 50 and Astia 100F

Sorry for the annoying question:

Does Velvia ISO 50 or Astia 100F have higher resolution? MTF, etc.

I know Astia 100F has much lower grain, 7 vs. 9, and know that

Velvia's contrast may make it look sharper. What about Velvia 100F?

I checked the fuji website and they only have spec. sheets for the

outdated films Provia 100 and 400 non-F.

Also, do you agree with the Film vs. Digital website's

(http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html) conclusion that the

EOS-1Ds and Kodak DCS-14n have more resolution than 35mm? He only

tests Provia 100F(?). How would his findings change if he used

Velvia ISO 50 or Astia 100F?

Many thanks for your help!!

Matthew

Astia 100F has better resolution, about 10% better. About 5% better than

RVP100F.<P>And yes imagfes made with the Eos 1Ds and Kodak 14n,when set to ISO

100 and run through good capture sharpening routines (see <a href = http://

www.pixelgenius.com>PixelGenius</a> ) and set to a high bit RAW capture mode,

have better resolution than 35mm film, there is mounting evidence that they will out

perform a 6 x 4.5cm film camera as well. the downside? the cost ofthe cameras and

the amount of work you have to do. when you shoot digital you not only are the

photographer but are also the processing lab and to a large extent the "film

manufacturer" as well. it isn't just plug and play the way it is with slide film.<P>Don't

forget that film needs to be scanned so that the scan is a second generation.

1. Velvia is generally sharper than the new Astia:

http://creekin.net/films.htm

2. Yes, with two qualifications, the EOS-1Ds and Kodak DCS-14n have more resolution than 35mm film. I wouldn't have believed it, but I've seen enough results now to draw that conclusion. Qualifications:

A. The results would be closer if the digital cameras were compared to a fine grain color print film, like Fuji Reala. Print films are a bit sharper than slide films.

B. A more interesting result for people who like prints would be to compare a digital print from a digital camera to an optical print made directly from a negative. A slide (or negative), which is scanned for comparison, will loose image quality. However, even where Mike Reichman and others compare the output of a 1Ds to a drum scan, the digital image is sharper.

Ellis-

I'll defer to you, since you doubtless shoot a ton of transpariencies, but Bill Tuthill's chart based on Fuji's product data finds that new Fuji Astia 100F yields 60 lpm at 1.6:1 contrast and 140 lpm at 1000:1 contrast. The chart finds that Fuji Velvia 50 yeilds under 80 lpm at 1.6:1 contrast and 160 lpm at 1000:1 contrast. As such, it would appear that Velvia would have slightly better resolution than the new Astia.

Regards

Eric & Matthew,<P>I'm looking at film, not numbers. But yes those numbers are

correct. For landscape work & general subjects I'd choose Velvia, either flavor. For

portraits and studio work I choose Astia 100F.<P>

re Eric's qualification about color negative film: The problem is we don't look directly

at color negatives (at least I don't); we look at prints from color negatives. so you

would have to judge those against the color transparency or a print from the digital

cameras.<P>

"The problem is we don't look directly at color negatives (at least I don't); we look at prints from color negatives."

"I know a guy who's ugly. He married an ugly woman. And they had two ugly kids. In fact, these people are so ugly, the keep the negatives in the family album."- Rodney Dangerfield

"(S)o you would have to judge those against the color transparency or a print from the digital cameras."

Exactly so. If the end result you desire is a print, I would argue that there is less difference in resolution between a well-made optical print from a color negative v. a digital print made with an 11MP digital camera there is between a digital print made from a scanned transparency v. a digital print made with an 11MP digital camera.

The 1Ds has a maximum resolution of 4064 x 2704 pixels and a full frame sensor size of 35.8mm x 23.8mm. It appears that simple arithmetic would have the maximum number of pairs of lines of pixels would be half of the maximum resolution or 2032 x 1352 AND, if we divide the number of line pairs (lp) by the sensor size in mm,should be able to determine the MAXIMUM possible number of linepairs/mm (lpmm) that this sensor can physically produce!

To me it looks like 56 lpmm for the Canon 1Ds...pretty close to what the Astia can deliver at 1:6 contrast but nowhere close to either Astia or Velvia at 1:1000.

However, I am told by the mavens over at dpreview.com that 56 lpmm is overly optimistic for a digital sensor because the actual maximum resolution is significantly LOWER than that because of 'aliasing'. I do realize that the laws of optics and physics don't apply to digital cameras and there will be those who will maintain resolution physically impossible for the sensor to achieve.

<I>However, I am told by the mavens over at dpreview.com that 56 lpmm is overly

optimistic for a digital sensor because the actual maximum resolution is significantly

LOWER than that because of 'aliasing'. I do realize that the laws of optics and physics

don't apply to digital cameras and there will be those who will maintain resolution

physically impossible for the sensor to achieve.<P>

-- Meryl Arbing , September 08, 2003; 02:39 P.M. Eastern </I><P>

"One test is worth a thousand experts' opinions." -

Capt. Alan Bean, Astronaut

Thanks for the 5% and 10% comparison numbers, Ellis. Velvia's 80 lp/mm

resolution number was wildly optimistic. If true, lens testers would

have used Velvia instead of TMX, rated 63 lp/mm. With the lowest grain

of any current film and 10% more resolution than Velvia, I've gotta

try Astia 100F! I wonder if Fuji underrates its sharpness also.

> Astia 100F has better resolution, about 10% better. About 5% better than RVP100F.<br>

> I'm looking at film, not numbers.<br>

<P>

Ellis, would you mind explaining your methods?

<P>

Im really cheered by your findings! Partly because of creekin.net's official disappointing numbers, Astia 100F has so far been sitting in my refrigerator. Can't wait to try it out now.

<P>

Thanks<br>

Anand

Thanks for all your very helpful responses!!

So Velvia 100F has better resolution than Velvia 50. Why would you still use this film?

Thanks!!

Matthew

I have used most slide films, as well as B&W films like TMX, and regarding resolution Velvia 50 is the winner in the slide film category. A recent test by Zeiss (available at their homepage) showed that TMX has slightly higher resolution than Velvia 50, and that E100VS (which is about as sharp a 100Iso slide film you will find) had significantly lower resolution. If you look at the technical information on Fuji slide films Velvia 50 comes in first, followed by Provia and Velvia 100F, and Astia 100F on last place. In my experience the three numbers that gives best information about a film's SHARPNESS are: low contrast resolution (1:1,6), resolution at 100% MTF, and MTF at 50 lp/mm. Just compare the information from the producers (with some skepticism).

Best regards

Marc Holmström