If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format versus digital sharpness
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:04:43 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote: I agree that there are at least those explanations for the breadth of examples on your site. I didn't see any snippets from Kennedy McEwen, for example. I'm sure he's aware of your site and I think you would agree that it would be hard to discount his ability to submit quality scans, should he have felt it a worthwhile endeavor (I don't know whether or what he thought about doing so). How about yourself, Neil? This is my third request, you seem to studiously ignore them... Haven't heard from Kennedy in a long time. Last I head he'd bought himself a Canon 5D. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format versus digital sharpness
Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:04:43 GMT, "Neil Gould" wrote: I agree that there are at least those explanations for the breadth of examples on your site. I didn't see any snippets from Kennedy McEwen, for example. I'm sure he's aware of your site and I think you would agree that it would be hard to discount his ability to submit quality scans, should he have felt it a worthwhile endeavor (I don't know whether or what he thought about doing so). How about yourself, Neil? This is my third request, you seem to studiously ignore them... 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... Haven't heard from Kennedy in a long time. Last I head he'd bought himself a Canon 5D. No reason not to get something one likes. I'm waiting to see the Leica R10 to replace my Nikon digital because rumors about it are quite enticing and it will be compatible with my Leica R lenses. Neil |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format versus digital sharpness
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:11:11 GMT, "Neil Gould"
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 |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format versus digital sharpness
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:01:03 -0600, "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. Does that clear it up? Yeah sure, whatever. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format versus digital sharpness
Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:11:11 GMT, "Neil Gould" 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 |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format versus digital sharpness
Recently, Scott W 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 |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format versus digital sharpness
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:32:36 GMT, "Neil Gould"
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 |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
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" wrote: "Robert Montgomery" 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Medium format digital is so expensive | nathantw | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 37 | May 15th 07 06:14 PM |
Homemade Digital Back Medium Format | EA | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 10 | April 27th 06 04:26 PM |
digital vs. medium format | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 463 | April 27th 05 07:33 PM |
digital vs. medium format | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 102 | April 25th 05 12:24 AM |
Digital Medium Format | Charles Dickens | Digital Photography | 29 | November 13th 04 09:01 PM |