alexo

<p>I did look at the site. It was helpful, but I am still not sure if the resolution of the projector plays a role and how big a role it plays. I have looked at various sites talking about the projectors and the opinions are all over the place, although everyone agrees about staying away from DLP. <br /><br />So, let's say we take an Epson 1024x768 projector at around $400 with a good screen (naturally). We'll color calibrate it and profile it. We'll display in a dark room. What are we going to get? Is the image going to rival a projected slide?</p>

<p>Thanks, Supriyo. That was extremely helpful. That's the type of a thing that I've been looking for: Someone who can give me a comparison of what a digital projection would look like compared to a slide projection.</p>

<p>I believe that a Kiev 88 finder will fit the Hassy 1000F. They can be had pretty cheaply for about $100 or so, if not less.</p>

<p>Would you say something like this will do the trick? <br /><br />http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1010843-REG/epson_v11h555220_vs330_multimedia_projector.html<br /><br />Would something like that give me that pop of a 35mm or better yet, of a medium format projected slide?</p>

<p>Thank you for your help.</p>

<p>How important is it to get the higher resolution projector? The color luminance makes sense. Would a higher resolution projector make as much difference as the one with a higher color luminance? Would there be a dramatic difference with a higher resolution projector vs zooming out with a lower res one?<br>

<br />Thanks for your help</p>

<p>Let's assume that the room can be totally or almost totally dark, assuming a 60"-100" projection. What is the highest resolution file that I should project? Meaning, at which point does the resolution of the projector becomes the limiting factor? Are you saying that a 1024x768 image file is sufficient and not bother projecting a 5500x3800 image file?</p>

<p>What about resolution of the projector? Does that play a role? Is it a waste of time projecting TIFFs and RAW files? Should I simply project JPEGs? How would projecting via an LCD projector compare to projecting a slide?</p>

 

<p>I used to shoot slide film before I had gone digital and there was nothing like a projected slide (especially med format). I was wondering if it's possible to recreate the same experience with digital projection (I'm not interested in converting digital files to slide film). If so, what hardware would you recommend? Any specific techniques? Anything to be aware of?<br>

<br />Thanks</p>

<p>Thanks Dave! That's the one. I'll look for the remaining pages.</p>

<p>Does anyone remember the URL for a really good and a very comprehensive site that used to be around 15 years ago. It was something like med8k.com or something to that effect. It had information on anything and everything related to medium format. I did a search on google and I couldn't find it. If anyone remembers the site or if it's still around, please let me know.<br>

Thanks<br>

Alexander</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18000345-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /></p>

<p>CubismCubism</p>

 

<p>I wouldn't sweat it too much. I guarantee you that it won't be long before Nikons announces a 55mp or a 60mp FF camera. Then, all the Canon guys will be selling their Canons and getting the Nikon gear. <br /><br />I agree with you as well that it's nice having MF type of resolution in a 35mm package. I shot MF when I was shooting film and I always wanted a MF camera with the bright viewfinder, lightweight and flexibility of a 35mm. I guess if you live long enough, you wind up literally seeing everything. :D</p>

<p>I don't engage in the sort of nitpicking that I see people engaging in on the Internet where they try to split hairs with regard to sharpness, bokeh, etc. It's important for me to know that there is going to be enough resolution provided by the camera/lens combo to ensure a beautiful, large print. I'm not going to adjust my photography based on the aperture that provides the optimal sharpness. Rather, my aperture choice will be based on the circumstances and the subject that I'm shooting. It'll be based upon whether or not I want to isolate the background or keep the entire image in focus. Artistic expression has very little, if anything to do with optimal sharpness.</p>

<p>That's precisely the point: an inexpensive lens holds up really well at 36mp. I doubt that a tripod would have helped much given that you shot at such a high shutter speed.</p>

<p>Fantastic! There's an incredible amount of detail within your crop and given it's such a small area of the overall image, the resolution is out of this world! I can certainly see how a beautiful 30x40" print can be produced with even a 36mp 810. The lenses hold up beautifully. Awesome!</p>

 

<p>I use various FD lenses reverse mounted on my FD auto bellows with 5D MkII. I find the setup quite good. No sharpness, color rendering, or distortion issues. I'm quite happy with the rig. </p>

<p>That's just great! Thanks, Landrum. I see the the color fringing as being a bigger issue with the lens than resolution. However, color fringing will always be an issue regardless of the camera's resolution.<br /><br />I think you're right 100% that given the test shots you've posted using the 36mp Nikon, the current set of lenses, even inexpensive ones should be able to do the job.</p>

<p>Thank you! </p>

<p>That's just incredible! This is the type of detail you'd get from med format film. I used to have two sets of systems when I shot film: I had the Canon FD for my walk around, portable type of photography and then I had the Mamiya 645 and Mamiya C220 for studio and macro related work. Even though it cost quite a bit of money to buy the cameras and lenses, and accessories, it was NOTHING compared to springing for $40k for a digital back, which is bound to be obsolete 5 years from now. <br /><br />So, I'm happy to see that perhaps I won't need to keep 2 systems, I won't have to spend a small fortune on super expensive lenses and that for around $4k, I'll be able to get a camera that will probably last me 10-15 years, while still maintaining my current set of lenses! Super!</p>

<p>NICE! That's good to know. That photo is tack sharp with nice colors and contrast. It's always good to know that you don't have to spend a fortune on super expensive lenses, that a decent lens will give you great results.</p>

<p>David,<br /><br />That's fantastic! I wish I could see those for myself. Why did you need to have prints that big? Did you exhibit? They must have blown everyone away.<br /><br />Landrum,<br /><br />When I first read the announcement that Canon was going to come out with a high res 5D, I thought that was going to be a gimmick in order to sell ultra expensive lenses to folks who already bought the current set of ultra expensive lenses. Upon further investigation, I'm beginning to think that the 5Ds will actually be a useful tool, a camera that will allow photographers to stay within the Canon system, rather than go through the huge expense of medium format. Sort of like MF on a budget. I hope that the new camera delivers and that even the current set of lenses will be able to meet the challenge of 50mp on a 24x36 format</p>

<p>Wow! 50"! That's below 200dpi. How did they look? I thought my 20x30 was on the borderline and I figured that the 5ds would be good for about 30x45". </p>

<p>I had a jaw dropping experience when I first got my Canon 5DII. It was my first digital SLR (I shot film before then) I thought it was as sharp as a tack, the resolution was incredible and I've made 20x30 inch prints with it, although I thought that was pushing it just a touch. More importantly, the dynamic range and the color fidelity were top notch. <br /><br />I was afraid that the introduction of 5Ds would mean just another salvo in the pixel wars at the expense of color fidelity, dynamic range and tonality. However, having seen the comparisons, as imperfect as they are, I figure that the 5Ds would be just what the doctor ordered so that I wouldn't feel that a 20x30" print is "pushing it a bit".<br /><br />Granted, it's not often that one finds the need to print that large, but I had a few exhibitions and I always thought that I could make a bigger impact with bigger prints.</p>

<p>I'm not concerned about the high ISO dynamic range because I don't do a lot of low light photography. So, most of the discussion here revolves around the low ISO.<br /><br />From what I could see, the current set of lenses do ok with 36mp, so I expect they'll be ok with 50 as well, since as you said, the difference between 36 and 50 is less than the difference between 24 and 36mp. <br /><br />I thought that given that Canon is trying to pack 50mp onto a 24x36mm sensor, the pixel density would be great enough to impact the dynamic range. From what I can see, that's probably not going to be the case.<br /><br />The Phase I IQ80 seems the way to go, as there seems to be an appreciable difference in image quality as compared to Nikon 810, Canon 5d III and Pentax 645z. Alas, it costs a small fortune, so that's not in the cards.<br /><br />So, from what I've been able to gather, it seems that 5dS should be a good camera for those needing to print large, exhibition quality prints.</p>

<p>Just checked out DPreview and looked at the RAW comparisons among Phase 1 IQ180 digital back, Nikon 810, Pentax 645Z and Canon 5D MKII and III<br /><br />http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_645z&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=phaseone_iq180&attr13_3=sony_a7r&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=35&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0<br /><br />From what I can see, there is some gain from greater resolution. I don't see much dynamic range penalty from Nikon 810 vs the lower res Canons. Pentax 645z doesn't seem to be worth the money based on the sample images. So, all of this leads me to believe that the Canon 5dS may wind up to be a good camera to get if 50mp is required and there doesn't seem to be a payoff to going to a med format sensor unless it's a true 645.<br /><br />Any thoughts?</p>