120 processing

[leonard_malkin]

<p>I'm thinking of moving to 120 film in the hope of getting better resolution than my Canon 40D or 7D. I looked at local scanning services and the best I could find was 3637x2433. My 7D has a resolution of ca. 5000x3500. Is it possible to get higher scanning resolution and if so, where and with what scanner?<br>

I see that North Coast Photo will scan 6x7 to 4815x5902. I'm wondering if one would see a large difference compared to the 7D.<br>

Also, scanning 6x4.5 gives only 4824x3533 or less than the 7D. I guess I don't understand how a relatively large film size would produce less resolution than a 7D whose sensor is less than "full" size.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>The thing thats certain is that you can buy higher resolution scans than the 2000 ppi that you seem to have come across so far. You can in fact get double that quite comfortably. What you need is a lab which uses one of the following, in ascending order of likely cost.</p>

<p>A Nikon Coolscan at 4000 ppi- about 9000 x 9000 from 6x6</p>

<p>An Imacon at 3200ppi from MF film</p>

<p>A drum scanner which might drag more than 4000ppi depending on what you put in the MF original and how good the lab is. </p>

<p>I have no idea where you are and so with the exception of "national" labs like West Coast Imaging who use drum scanners its hard to make a reccommendation. That said it won't be hard to find this stuff if you're happy to do mail order.</p>

<p>Now all of these will give you more pixels than your digital cameras, but is that the same as better? There's a character to film and digital images that sits alongside the quantified stuff. And you might find that the "answer" varies between films and between photographs. On balance I think I can get bigger prints from scanned MF film than I can get from my 5D . </p>

[john_a5]

<p>Some digital houses have the Hasselblad Scanners (which I have) and they will do a 6x45 somewhere around 6950x5183. So, a 6x7 would be probably around 7600x6200 or so. These scan at about 3200 dpi and I believe there is a Nikon that does 4000dpi(?), but I don't know if the scans are quite as good as the Hasselblad scanners (don't know, not dissing!). Many of the print houses, specializing in digital output, have the Hasselblad/Imacon scanners in my experience and there are other sources that can give you higher scans if you look around.</p>

<p>I haven't compared a 7d or a 40d to a MF film scan, but my own tests with the 1dsmkIII would lead me to believe that using a fine grain film would probably give you better results than the digital camera. In my tests, which were comparing iso400 film, the digital file came close to the Hasselblad H2 (maybe did better overall due to lack of grain), so I am sure that it wouldn't quite be as good with a solid 100 or 160 speed film (since my tests, the 400 film has been improved, so it might be noticeably better with the newer film--just a guess). The art director I showed the tests to, in contemplation of switching to digital, still preferred the film whereas I was more in favor of the digital for this use--fine line. He liked the color better, which I understand, in the film but the images were not worked at all--the film had slightly better acuity IMO but the grain was an overriding issue for me--as well as the time scanning and proofing hundreds of negs from each of our shoots! I would prefer the film if I thought it was markedly better, but I just don't think it was.</p>

<p>I should also say that not all MF cameras are created equal and the H series lenses are maybe the finest I have ever used (Compared to several Mamiya systems and the Hasselblad V series lenses).</p>

[janne_moren]

Remember that pixel numbers don't really tell you what resolution you actually get. The whole chain, from subject and forward, matters - and that goes for the digital camera as much as for scanned film. Saying that "this scan gives me X times Y" or "this camera gives me X times Y" is really a little misleading. Unless you're using high quality lenses properly stopped down to their optimal aperture, on a tripod, with still subjects, you are going to have a somewhat degraded image before it's ever recorded on the film or sensor. Then, if you have high iso sensor or film you're losing detail; and of course with the film you need to worry about film flatness whereas the digital sensor has an AA filter and Bayer grid that both reduce your real resolution down from the nominal one.

 

The best way forward for you is really to go the other way: determine what level of detail you really need, and then - and only then - go backwards along the chain of influences to determine what you need to do to achieve that resolution. Chances are that you don't need nearly as much detail as you think, and other image quality characteristics are actually more important (color fidelity, dynamic range, depth of field and so on).

[stuart_richardson]

<p>I agree with David -- I run a small custom lab and as such, I see a lot of different types of files. I use a Hasselblad X5 scanner, which scans medium format at 3200 dpi. For 6x6 that is about 7200x7200. The numbers don't tell the whole story though. The look of the files really differs, as does their behavior. In my experience, film holds up better under enlargement than digital. Digital will look sharper up to the point where it runs out of resolution. After that, the character of the film grain reacts differently to enlargement -- the gradual loss of resolution in film grain actually makes the files look better at large sizes. But if you can shoot digital without up-rezzing, it looks fantastic.<br>

To give you an example: Here are two shots taken on the same camera, lens and aperture and same tripod position. One with a 22mp sinar back, and the other with 645 film. There is a 1.1x crop on digital, so it appears a bit closer. The film was acros 100, one of the finest grained available and it was scanned at 3200dpi on the X5. <br>

Digital whole image:<br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/22mp-whole-image.jpg" alt="" /> <br>

Film whole image:<br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/fuji-acros-whole-image.jpg" alt="" /> <br>

Film crop:<br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/fuji-acros-100crop.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Digital crop:<br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/22mp-100crop.jpg" alt="" /><br>

The digital clearly outresolves the film, and is significantly sharper. It has a very different look as well. I have 40x40" prints posted from both this 22mp camera and from 6x6 in the studio. In a large print, the film actually gives the nicer impression. So I would say the issue is quite complex and depends on what you intend to do! If you just want sheer resolution, I would get some excellent lenses (like the ZE 50mm f/2 and 100mm f/2) for your Canon system and find a 5D Mk II, but if you want to make really large prints, I would suggest renting an 6x7 camera and having the best scans you can made, then see how they hold up in prints for you. </p>

[leonard_malkin]

<p>To Stuart - it would be interesting to compare the 645 to a 5DII.<br>

My reason for interest in MF (and 4x5) stems from a cover of the NY Times magazine a few weeks back, showing a village in Yemen. As soon as I saw it, I said this must be a 4x5 and in fact it was (by Simon Norfolk). My point is that even with a relatively small enlargement, one can see the difference compared to a 35, a view supported by others at dpreview. Of course, maybe this was because of Simon, a pretty good photographer. His equipment, by the way, is not too expensive - Ebony SV454 with Schneider Apo Symmar 150 f5.6.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Leonard -- I think you would find that if you used a very good lens, the detail impression would be similar. The digital back I made the shots above with does not have an anti-aliasing filter, and the sensor is 48x36mm, so much larger than the 5D. The combination of those things should give it a sharper presentation at 100% than the 5D. That said, you are correct that there is no absolute parity between 35mm and larger formats. The different character of the lenses and formats themselves are drawn onto the images. You get a very different look taking someone's portrait with a 150mm apo symmar on 4x5 than you do with a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, no matter how many megapixels it might have. This is probably the biggest reason I still like to shoot medium and large formats -- the look of the lenses is just more pleasing to my eye than the look from most 35mm shots.</p>