Medium format versus digital sharpness

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:11:11 GMT, "Neil Gould"
<neil DeleteThis @myplaceofwork.com> wrote:


>I'm not sure that I have anything to contribute beyond yet another 120tf
>example. Don't see a lot of reason to do that...

Hmm. I thought in your last few posts you were suggesting
that one could do better...


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Medium format versus digital sharpness 

Recently, Raphael Bustin <rafeb.RemoveThis@speakeasy.net> posted:

> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:11:11 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> <neil.RemoveThis@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not sure that I have anything to contribute beyond yet another
>> 120tf example. Don't see a lot of reason to do that...
>
> Hmm. I thought in your last few posts you were suggesting
> that one could do better...
>
In my last few posts, I was suggesting that the only way to know whether
one could do better would be to eliminate the uncontrolled variables. To
compare scanners, eliminating the uncontrolled variables would mean using
the same target (film) for all scan samples. As the other snippets used
different pieces, brands, and types of film, there is no objective basis
to know which scanner did "better", and more of the same doesn't improve
on that knowledge.

Finally, the test parameters used do not address the capabilities of
film(s), a test which would require at minimum a matrix of targets scanned
on the best scanner by the best operator. Surely, you can see that there
is no way to arrive at such a conclusion from the existing technique?

The 120tf samples you already have on the site are adequate for the
ballpark subjective idea of quality that I wrote of earlier, so there
isn't much reason to add yet another sample.

Does that clear it up?

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Medium format versus digital sharpness 

Neil Gould wrote:

> The 120tf samples you already have on the site are adequate for the
> ballpark subjective idea of quality that I wrote of earlier, so there
> isn't much reason to add yet another sample.

Well now this brings us full circle, if the samples Rafe has are about
what you get from a scan then in fact film scanned at 4000 ppi is very
soft.

I mean either film is very soft at 4000 ppi, or all of the scans on
Rafe's site are way softer then what can be done with good gear and a
good operator.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Medium format versus digital sharpness 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:01:03 -0600, "Neil Gould"
<neil.DeleteThis@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:


>The 120tf samples you already have on the site are adequate for the
>ballpark subjective idea of quality that I wrote of earlier, so there
>isn't much reason to add yet another sample.
>
>Does that clear it up?


Yeah sure, whatever.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Medium format versus digital sharpness 

Recently, Scott W <biphoto.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> The 120tf samples you already have on the site are adequate for the
>> ballpark subjective idea of quality that I wrote of earlier, so there
>> isn't much reason to add yet another sample.
>
> Well now this brings us full circle, if the samples Rafe has are about
> what you get from a scan then in fact film scanned at 4000 ppi is very
> soft.
>
That is the kind of unjustifiable leap that I referred to, unless you
think the film used in that sample (Ektachrome 200, IIRC) represents the
sharpest film to use when scanning and you think that the 120tf is capable
of the sharpest imaging of all scanners and you think that there is
nothing to be gained by scanning above 4000 ppi. If you think so, you are
simply mistaken on those points. In short, the methodoolgy is not an
objective comparison of scanners and not a test of the ultimate capability
of film at all. What is the point in trying to suggest that it is
something other than what it is?

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Medium format versus digital sharpness 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:32:36 GMT, "Neil Gould"
<neil DeleteThis @myplaceofwork.com> wrote:


>That is the kind of unjustifiable leap that I referred to, unless you
>think the film used in that sample (Ektachrome 200, IIRC) represents the
>sharpest film to use when scanning and you think that the 120tf is capable
>of the sharpest imaging of all scanners and you think that there is
>nothing to be gained by scanning above 4000 ppi. If you think so, you are
>simply mistaken on those points. In short, the methodoolgy is not an
>objective comparison of scanners and not a test of the ultimate capability
>of film at all. What is the point in trying to suggest that it is
>something other than what it is?


If you have samples of any kind, on any film, any scanner,
any scan resolution, any taking lens, etc etc that beat the
samples show, I'll post them.

IOW, you keep saying the criteria are too vague; we're
calling your bluff, saying: you pick the criteria, and show
us even **one** sample that's appreciably better than
what's already posted.

You have the wherewithal, with your own 120tf, for
example, to control a whole set of criteria: you have
all those nice Leica lenses, images presumably on hi-
res film, etc. So show us that these criteria actually
make a discernable difference.

You suggest that a hi-res drum scan might make a
difference, and presumably you have such scans in
your possession. So share them... We're not asking
you to divulge state secrets, but to post 0.25" x 0.25"
of scanned film, representing the best that can be done --
with all criteria tweaked as you see fit.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Medium format versus digital sharpness 

I am looking for similar answer too. What I know is my hand print 6x7
is much better than my PS processed Kodak SLR/c (~14MP).
Don't know if I scan the 6x7 and PS it.

For hobby, 6x7 is till the way to go.


On Oct 4, 7:29 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote:
> "Robert Montgomery" <info-block.RemoveThis@stargate_tech.net> wrote:
> > How many megapixels would a digital camera image file need to equal the
> > sharpness of a six-by-seven centimeter or a four-by-five-inch
> > transparency?
>
> The short answer is that there are no affordable digital systems that
> compete with 6x7 and 4x5.
>
> Your mileage will vary, but my experience is that for practical purposes,
> 12.7MP (the Canon 5D) acts very much like 645. But 6x7 scanned on a Nikon
> 8000 is noticeably better than the 5D.
>
> So the new 21MP Canon 1DsIII should give 6x7 a run for its money. (Although
> the only Canon wide angle lens up to that is probably the new 14/2.8 II L.
> And maybe the new 16-35/2.8 when stopped way down. Maybe.)
>
> I'd guess the 39MP digital backs would be encroaching on 4x5 territory.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Medium format versus digital sharpness 

Einst Stein wrote:
> I am looking for similar answer too. What I know is my hand print 6x7
> is much better than my PS processed Kodak SLR/c (~14MP).
> Don't know if I scan the 6x7 and PS it.
>
> For hobby, 6x7 is till the way to go.
>

Wow, the old Kodak DSLR, a camera that had a number of problems but was
pretty sharp as I recall.

6x7 should beat it for resolution so I am not surprised that the 6x7
produces better prints. I

As for a scan being better it depends somewhat on the scanner used,
something like the Nikon 9000 would produce a scan with far more
resolution that the Kodak, IMO. I would believe you could get around
24MP. Even with some of the better flatbed scanners you should be able
to get in the 24MP range, any they cost a lot less.


Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Medium format versus digital sharpness