It all comes down to the print

[mauro_franic]

<p>Jim, using your example, these are the proportions on pixel size of the format discussed in this thread:</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here:</p><div></div>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Mauro, thanks for this... I printed your second test sheet, the one with the test target and the crop of two women.</p>

<p>I look at a print first from "normal" viewing distance or arm's length, then I move right up close, about as close as I can focus my eyes without aids, about 8 inches. I like a print to be sharp enough to stand this close inspection. It's not magnifying glass or pixel peeping, but right up close.</p>

<p>My conclusions are about the same as Stuart's above. Specifically:<br>

- TMAX resolves more than the color films. I can see this up close in the test target at 11x14. At arm's length, I can see this at 24x30.<br>

- Velvia 50 resolves more than Pro100. I can see this up close in the test target at 16x20. At arm's length maybe not until 30x40.<br>

- Film resolves way more than the 40D. I can see this up close in the test target at 11x14. At arm's length, I can see this at 16x20.</p>

<p>Here's a surprise... After the above, I started looking at the little crop of two women in each block. I can see the advantage of film vs. the 40D at 8x11 looking at the women but not looking at the test pattern. I thought differences would be easier to see in the test pattern than in a real image.</p>

<p>It was worth printing this test. My specifics: I made a CostCo print, only $2.99, at 11x14, no adjustments, glossy. CostCo uses a Frontier machine, and the paper is Fuji Crystal Archive. Examined in bright window light.</p>

<p>Thanks again Mauro. Much better looking at the print than at the file on a monitor.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thank you for sharing your evaluation Richard. It coincides with my opinion and pretty much everyone has analyzed the print.</p>

<p>As a note on resolution: Velvia 50 out resolves the Coolscan by a small marking but TMAX outresolves the scanner by a large margin. TMAX's having such a wealth of oversampling versus the scanner produces that extra punch and detail resolved.</p>

<p>One of the most interesting things about this exercise was that although people generally strongly disagree during theoretical debates, everyone agrees when the have the real print for observation. Not sure why it took so long for me to share print sheets instead of 100% crops to support discussions but I hope this is adopted by other people in the forum.</p>

<p>Prints also allow for people to apply their observations directly to their particular applications and level of tolerance.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Regarding color;</p>

<p>You can also pay attention to the ladies on the print and see the differences in yellows and reds color rendition between Velvia 50, Velvia 100 and Provia. Depending on the printer and paper you may also be able to observe the extra punch in overall vibrancy Velvia 50 has over Velvia 100.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,<br>

If you compare the film scan up close next to the stitching you posted of 3 shots with the 7D you can observe:<br>

- Even with stitching 3 shots the stars onm the map are still deformed for lack of resolving power.<br>

- Color rendition is even more limited. e.g. the dot on the J on Abuja is no longer black.</p>

<p>This is consisting with my observations (after testing the 7D personally) that it approaches but does not match the resolution of 35mm film. In real life situation the gap between 35mm film and the 7D is larger when using FF lenses because 35mm film uses 260% of the information provided by the lens to the 7D. More so, when using smaller apertures the 7D will show diffraction blurriness on the print much sooner. </p>

<p>And this is comparing just to color negative. Slides or BW negative will show a wider gap.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is a crop comparing the film next to the stitching of the 7 D shots:</p>

<p>(printed at 11x14 the differences are almost imperceptible though).</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<em>If you compare the film scan up close next to the stitching you posted of 3 shots with the 7D you can observe:</em>

<p><em> - Even with stitching 3 shots the stars onm the map are still deformed for lack of resolving power.</em><br /><em> - Color rendition is even more limited. e.g. the dot on the J on Abuja is no longer black.</em></p>

<p>The stars don't look deformed to me at all. All the black ink in the stitch sample has the impression of being "thicker" or "heavier", but I can't tell if that's map differences or is post processing related. But it's not a "deformation."</p>

<p>As for the dots, there are some lines and dots which appear faded in your film scan sample to. Map differences? Effect of sharpening? I don't know, but that's really splitting hairs.<em> </em></p>

<p><em>This is consisting with my observations (after testing the 7D personally) that it approaches but does not match the resolution of 35mm film.</em></p>

<p>I think it's clear from the posted samples that the 7D out performs color 35mm film, and is a pretty good match for 35mm B&W film.</p>

<p><em>In real life situation the gap between 35mm film and the 7D is larger when using FF lenses because 35mm film uses 260% of the information provided by the lens to the 7D.</em></p>

<p>This is a false understanding of how lenses and formats interact, and the impact on resolution. (And even if it were true, why wouldn't it show up in the map test?)</p>

<p><em>More so, when using smaller apertures the 7D will show diffraction blurriness on the print much sooner. </em></p>

<p>You don't need to use those smaller apertures. Diffraction has roughly the same impact on all the formats, APS-C to large format, for a desired DoF at a desired FoV. You don't need f/16 or f/22 on APS-C, and rarely even need f/11.</p>

<p><em>And this is comparing just to color negative. Slides or BW negative will show a wider gap.</em></p>

<p>The comparison posted above was to the highest resolving color slide film on the market, and one of the highest resolving B&W pictorial films ever made. These two films have 33% higher resolution than most slow speed, high resolution films! (85+ lpmm vs. 60-65 lpmm for the next best.) It's quite obvious that the 7D out performed the Velvia sample (scanned at 5400 dpi) and held its own very well against the Tech Pan sample.</p>

<p>You say color negative film can out perform the 7D? Below is the 7D sample compared to Sarile's 35mm Ektar 100 sample. I'm sure you would agree that Ektar is one of the highest performing color negative films on the market today. Look at the comparison. There's no doubt which has higher IQ.</p>

<p>This seems to be hard for you to accept, but top tier DSLRs match and out perform the best 35mm films. The gap becomes huge when comparing to any faster or lesser films. I thought you knew and accepted that which is why we were debating how top tier DSLRs compare to MF at various print sizes.</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>"The stars don't look deformed to me at all." If you look at the top and left points, they appear to be bent inwards.</p>

<p><em>In real life situation the gap between 35mm film and the 7D is larger when using FF lenses because 35mm film uses 260% of the information provided by the lens to the 7D.</em><br>

"This is a false understanding of how lenses and formats interact, and the impact on resolution. "</p>

<p>Not a misunderstanding. It is very simple, if you use say a 50mm lens on a 7D and a 35mm camera, the 35mm camera gets 260% of the information projected on the crop sensor. The crop sensor discards the rest of the image projected by the lens.</p>

<p>"(And even if it were true, why wouldn't it show up in the map test?)"<br>

If you use your sharpest lens at the single sharpest aperture, as in the map, you can provide the crop sensor with plenty of information for 18mp but this is not true for the range of lenses and apertures you use in regular shooting.</p>

<p>"You don't need to use those smaller apertures. Diffraction has roughly the same impact on all the formats, APS-C to large format, for a desired DoF at a desired FoV. You don't need f/16 or f/22 on APS-C, and rarely even need f/11."<br>

Once again, it depends on the lens. One of the lenses I use the most on 35mm is the 70-200 4 IS. The resolution at 200mm is best at f8 (not f5.6 like primes) - on an 18MP crop sensor diffraction will have a visible impact on the print. On 20MP 35mm it will not (same COC on an area 260% larger).</p>

<p>Also with the crop sensor at f4 with this lens you can't blur the background on portraits as you can in 35mm. And obviously you can't go to f1.4.</p>

<p><em>And this is comparing just to color negative. Slides or BW negative will show a wider gap.</em><br>

<em>The scan I have been sharing is from Kodak 100 UC. I can't speak of scans made by other people.<br /></em></p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Also remember Daniel that when we talk about Velvia and TMAX for scanned with a Coolscan, we are just talking about the scan-limited output. A better scanner will do better.</p>

<p>With 35mm film (any type I use) I visibly surpass the quality obtainable with my 40D on prints. To a point I do not use the 40D for anything it will end up on a wall.</p>

<p>The 7D sensor captures the same image project by the lens on the 40D sensor with 1/3rd more linear resolution. It is with no doubt higher resolving than the 40D. And may be comparable with a 400dpi scan of 35mm film (resolution only).</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Regarding the sample from Les you posted I agree with your observation. I cannot speak to other people's scan though.</p>

<p>I always try to stick to actual experience from my own results. This is when I compared Ektar 35mm to my 40D (yes the 7D will do better than the 40D but I didn't have one for this test):</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>40D vs to Ektar 35mm scanned w/ coolscan.</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>40D vs Velvia 35mm.</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is resolution wise to show there is detail the Coolscan leaves out.</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>An here is to show even how much more detail you can obtain from Velvia 35mm with an Imacon (right) vs the Coolscan (left).</p>

<p>(here the 40D resolves mark 2 and the 7D would be below mark 3)</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I promise you 35mm (Velvia, TMX, etc) resolve far more than 20 megapixels.</p>

<p>I also promise you the 7D resolves far less than 20 megapixels.</p>

<p>The argument on average contrast of normal scenes being lower is true, but that average comes from a combination of low and high contrast combination. The high contrast fine detail elements of a scene will escape a DSLR much sooner than 35mm film.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>In real life, the 5DII would be much closer to 35mm film than the 7D. This is due to their having the same format and not discarding so much of the information provided by 35mm lenses.</p>

<p>Regarding the comment that there are inferior films to the ones I use, I'm sure it is true; but would I use inferior films where the difference in cost is probably insignificant? I see this comment often when it comes to comparing DSLRs with 35mm film and it is quite puzzling.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>(printed at 11x14 the differences are almost imperceptible though).</em></p>

<p>I thought I would come back to this. Do you have your scaling correct to print the MF comparison as if the entire map were printed 11x14? Because at that scale the crops should be postage stamps, and the stars you're referring to would be black dots.</p>

<p>Like I said earlier, when these crops are printed as if the entire map was 27x40, there's virtually nothing to choose between the MF and the 7D <em>single frame.</em> The degree to which you're zooming to try and find some difference between the MF and 3 frame stitch is...ridiculous.</p>

<p><em>"The stars don't look deformed to me at all." If you look at the top and left points, they appear to be bent inwards.</em></p>

<p>I think maybe you need to get away from the screen for a bit. (FYI, the points are not absolutely perfect copies of each other in the film sample either. But then, they probably aren't on the map. I wouldn't know because at the level you've zoomed, I would have to view the map under a loupe!)</p>

<p><em>Not a misunderstanding. It is very simple, if you use say a 50mm lens on a 7D and a 35mm camera, the 35mm camera gets 260% of the information projected on the crop sensor. The crop sensor discards the rest of the image projected by the lens.</em></p>

<p>Good lenses easily out resolve all of these materials. Which means an 18 MP FF body and an 18 MP APS-C body both receive the information they need to form an 18 MP image by a 50mm prime. The details will have slightly lower contrast on the APS-C sensor, but that's easily restored in software.</p>

<p>So it doesn't matter if the APS-C sensor "throws away" part of the 35mm light cone.</p>

<p><em>"(And even if it were true, why wouldn't it show up in the map test?)"</em><br /><em> If you use your sharpest lens at the single sharpest aperture, as in the map, you can provide the crop sensor with plenty of information for 18mp but this is not true for the range of lenses and apertures you use in regular shooting.</em></p>

<p>Every lens I own can deliver the needed resolution at a range of apertures. It's not an issue.</p>

<p><em>Once again, it depends on the lens. One of the lenses I use the most on 35mm is the 70-200 4 IS. The resolution at 200mm is best at f8 (not f5.6 like primes) - on an 18MP crop sensor diffraction will have a visible impact on the print. On 20MP 35mm it will not (same COC on an area 260% larger).</em></p>

<p>The 70-200 f/4L IS, at 200mm, peaks at f/5.6 (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/449-canon_70200_4is_50d?start=1). And diffraction is not an issue at f/8 any way.</p>

<p><em>Also with the crop sensor at f4 with this lens you can't blur the background on portraits as you can in 35mm. And obviously you can't go to f1.4.</em></p>

<p>Actually, background blur depends entirely on lens aperture width. A 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 has a 50mm aperture width on either format, so blur will be the same. DoF near the plane of focus is what will vary.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p><em>Also remember Daniel that when we talk about Velvia and TMAX for scanned with a Coolscan, we are just talking about the scan-limited output. A better scanner will do better.</em></p>

<p>I found the Imacon sample Les Sarile posted in another thread. As you can see, the 7D still does better. (TMAX is rated 20 lpmm lower than Velvia. It's not going to be better.)</p>

<p>What now? An electron microscope scan?</p>

 

<p><em> </em></p>

[danielleetaylor]

 

<p><em>I promise you 35mm (Velvia, TMX, etc) resolve far more than 20 megapixels.</em></p>

<p>On a high contrast B&W test target Velvia might resolve more than the 7D, but you'll probably need an Imacon scan to pull out the detail. Real world? Nope. T-MAX only has 2/3rds the resolution of Velvia 50. I don't know why you think it will perform better in the real world.</p>

<p><em>I also promise you the 7D resolves far less than 20 megapixels.</em></p>

<p>It resolves 2 MP less.</p>

 

 

 

<p><em>In real life, the 5DII would be much closer to 35mm film than the 7D. This is due to their having the same format and not discarding so much of the information provided by 35mm lenses.</em></p>

<p>In real life the 5D mkII and 7D have nearly identical output at low to mid ISO. You can confirm this viewing various test results at dpreview.com and imaging-resource.com. I confirmed it on my own, using 35mm lenses on both, and I assure you the 7D didn't throw anything away.</p>

<p>No offense Mauro, but you have some strange ideas about resolution (i.e. LPH vs. MP) and how lenses interact with different formats. Ideas which nobody else shares, and which are not supported by any experimental evidence.</p>

<p><em>Regarding the comment that there are inferior films to the ones I use, I'm sure it is true; but would I use inferior films where the difference in cost is probably insignificant? I see this comment often when it comes to comparing DSLRs with 35mm film and it is quite puzzling.</em></p>

<p>In color film, anything other than Velvia is inferior in terms of resolution. Do you only shoot Velvia?</p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Let me try posting the Imacon sample again.</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>No offense Mauro, but I feel like there's some bias on your part that I won't get past no matter what comparisons I show. You keep explaining to me why I shouldn't believe my own eyes. But I believe my own eyes.</p>

<p>Anyone can view and print the crops I've posted. Top tier DSLRs match or beat 35mm film in terms of fine detail. And if you're printing 16x24 or smaller, they hold their own quite well against MF. Yes MF captures more detail, and yes that becomes noticeable and important in larger prints. But if your subject is still, a simple 3 frame stitch will give you IQ comparable to top notch 6x7 scans.</p>

<p>Not to say anything bad about MF. The camera prices are good, the results are excellent, so by all means, shoot it if you've got it.</p>

<p>But I'm not going to keep going around and around about this.</p>

<p>P.S. If you look at Les Sarile's 40D sample, you'll notice that the difference between the 40D and the 7D is comparable to the difference between the 40D and Velvia in the shots you just posted. Which matches up pretty well with what I've posted and what I'm saying.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Here are two crops of the 35mm Velvia and the 7D you posted. I run a smart sharp on the Velvia, and although it is a bad JPEG you can see they look very similar.</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>I agree a top end DSLR holds very well at 16x20 and probably indistinguishably from 35mm film. (yes, for color I use Velvia most of the time although I use a lot more B&W than color). <br>

If there were a MF film print next to it, at close distance you would be able to see the difference. But the may look similar at 3 feet away. <br>

At 24x30 or larger the difference would be clear even from a few feet away.</p>

<p>Yes, you could stitch the output of a DSLR or 35mm film. That has always been the case.</p>

<p>A FF DSLR with the pixel density of the 7D will outresolve scanned 35mm film.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I also agree you can produce comparable detail to MF scanned with a Coolscan by using 3 shots of a 7D side by side. If resolution is needed with a DSLR you can obtain it. [My 35mm TMAX and Velvia definetily outresolve current DSLRs but it doen't matter either].</p>

<p>TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE:</p>

<p>I don't shoot film to outresolve digital. I shoot film because I prefer the way it looks on a print over digital.</p>

<p>Discussions about resolution are interesting from a technical sharing of information but it is not that material to my actual photography work.</p>

<p>I sell 24x36 prints from 35mm that look spectacular and although I may have the same shot in MF which looks smoother and more detail, I may prefer the look of 35mm for that particular print.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I believe we agree here;</p>

<p>I would imagine that you prefer digital also because the workflow suits you. The 7D is a fairly new camera and yet you probably migrated from film to digital before you purchased the 7D when the resolution of the DSLR you purchased was much smaller. You may have even migrated from MF film to a 10+MP DSLR. So resolution is/was not a main factor to you either.</p>