-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D2x vs scanned MF film - any comparisons?
- Thread starter james b norman
- Start date
monte12345
Veteran Member
And I also use a 50x "grain Focuser" with my enlarger when I am making prints. I wish that Kodak still made Panatomic-X. I have some portraits of a 3 year old that I did for a neighbor and under the grain magnifier you can clearly see the fine down on her cheeks. It wasn't visible in the 11x14 prints that I gave the neighbor (unless you used a loupe) but the quality of that combination is amazing.
BTW, the cameras are Mamiya C-220 and C-330 TLR's. I like the interchangeable lens feature and can testify that Mamiya builds lenses as good as anyone. Currently I have 65mm, 80mm, and 135mm lens sets. I am looking for a 180 Super, but they are a bit rare and can be "pricey". I woudl also like to get the 250mm lens set but they are very hard to find.
BTW, the cameras are Mamiya C-220 and C-330 TLR's. I like the interchangeable lens feature and can testify that Mamiya builds lenses as good as anyone. Currently I have 65mm, 80mm, and 135mm lens sets. I am looking for a 180 Super, but they are a bit rare and can be "pricey". I woudl also like to get the 250mm lens set but they are very hard to find.
Scanning the soft grain of film and all of its surface and scratches and pumping the file to 40MB at some crazy 4000 dpi is NOT what I call "resolution". Wake up!
Forget the numbers: You see the pictures and a 6mp camera beats or equals 35mm film in too many ways.
I've worked in a dark room wayyy too long to actually believe some crazy "20.96 equals 35mm film" statement! Sorry...
Richard C
Leading Member
The school photography company I have done some work for used to do its groups with Mamiya 645 cameras. When the D1X came out they moved completely to digital, using D100s for the individual shots and the D1Xs for groups. They kept a couple of Mamiyas for emergencies and on the odd couple of occasions that they were used the results, at 10" X8", were noticeably inferior to the D1Xs, particularly in the areas of edge acuity and colour fidelity and colour resolution (luminance resolution is not usually an issue at thet print size). That's in the real world of professional photography, with desktop scanners at 2700 dpi used for the input.
I'm sure you could have got a bit more out of the Mamiyas with drum scans but I doubt very strongly whether you'd have gone far past a D1X image and D2X image quality would be right out of reach.
--
Richard C. South Australia
Richard C
Leading Member
A full page of what?
A D2X image is 14.293 X 9.493 inches at 300 dpi
--
Richard C. South Australia
glacierpete
Veteran Member
Some MF lenses are better as their 35mm counterparts. Look into Mamiya 7 lenses, Schneider Digitar Lenses, and many more.
Medium format rangefinder cameras have no mirror and less shutter vibration than a SLR and allow for true wide-angle design (not retrofocus) lenses.
There is 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17cm in MF.
Medium format rangefinder cameras have no mirror and less shutter vibration than a SLR and allow for true wide-angle design (not retrofocus) lenses.
There is 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17cm in MF.
Ed Leys20479
Veteran Member
Sorry Norwen,
Clearly you didn't look at the Clark link and what he is presenting.
Just as clearly you didn't follow my analysis. Sorry you've had problems with scratches. They do happen sometimes, but only sometimes.
Clark's primary numbers were in fact based on his truly looking at D60 images and 4000 ppi scanned Fuji Velvia 50. And he shows anyone looking with open eyes and an open mind what is going on.
It sounds like you've had miserable darkroom luck, my sympathies go out to you. If digital is picking up the slack, cool!
I assume you think I haven't seen 6 megapixel digital camera images. Pretty much wrong on your part. I have, have worked with them, have postprocessed them. Okay, okay, they've actually been Fuji S2 and S3 interpolated 12 megapixel output. I also own a Polaroid SprintScan 120 4000ppi filmscanner.
Here's some actual pixels 4000ppi scanner output (Fuji Provia 100F, exposed and processed for ISO 200):
http://www.blackmallard.com/film/section.jpg
Here's the same thing with a bit of Photoshop sharpening for screen:
(Amount 350%, Radius 0.3, Threshold 0)
http://www.blackmallard.com/film/sharpnd.jpg
From this photograph:
http://www.blackmallard.com/film/frame.jpg
Hell, smoking a 6 megapixel digital SLR image at 12" x 18" print size is so not a sweat, it ain't even funny. Though, I admit you do have to know what you're doing with both (film and digital) machines.
My best,
Ed
--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure
http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
there's only 2 things I really know.
1) I implicitly trust Norman Koren. I'm never going to understand even half of the technical formulas Norman does, so when he says 35mm equals about 8MP in terms of resolution alone, I believe him.
2) The numbers Norman claims JIVES with what we all see. Plain and simple, whatever fancy formula you truss out there, people still think that 11-12 MP is MF quality, and 6MP is 35mm quality. what, are we all stupid or something? Can we not see properly? if 35mm is "really" 15MP, then how are so many people "tricked" into thinking 6MP is just as good? If the D2x or 1ds isnt even "as good" as 35, then how and/or why are wedding guys, portrait guys and down the list using these cameras for the same jobs they formerly shot MF?
whatver the actual formulas, the fact that these bodies are being used AS MF cameras tells u that about 12 MP is very approximate, one way or another, to MF.
MF, is and always was, by its inherent nature, a compromise format. the fact that former MF pros now consider it "good enough" is the exact same kind of compromise they made in the good old film days to ignore LF and shoot 6x6.
In Norman, and popular consensus, (I at least) trust.
1) I implicitly trust Norman Koren. I'm never going to understand even half of the technical formulas Norman does, so when he says 35mm equals about 8MP in terms of resolution alone, I believe him.
2) The numbers Norman claims JIVES with what we all see. Plain and simple, whatever fancy formula you truss out there, people still think that 11-12 MP is MF quality, and 6MP is 35mm quality. what, are we all stupid or something? Can we not see properly? if 35mm is "really" 15MP, then how are so many people "tricked" into thinking 6MP is just as good? If the D2x or 1ds isnt even "as good" as 35, then how and/or why are wedding guys, portrait guys and down the list using these cameras for the same jobs they formerly shot MF?
whatver the actual formulas, the fact that these bodies are being used AS MF cameras tells u that about 12 MP is very approximate, one way or another, to MF.
MF, is and always was, by its inherent nature, a compromise format. the fact that former MF pros now consider it "good enough" is the exact same kind of compromise they made in the good old film days to ignore LF and shoot 6x6.
In Norman, and popular consensus, (I at least) trust.
Ed Leys20479
Veteran Member
Yep, Norman's okay.
Since you're familiar with him, you must have seen the bottom of this page:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html
Specifically, where he says, "R. N. Clark's scanner detail page is required reading for anyone interested in image sharpness. It presents much of the material covered here from a different viewpoint: real images."
Sorry if I cut out the middle man. My very first link was to a page of R. N. Clark's...where he is concluding things based on real images. That's why he concludes a D60 has the same resolution as Fuji Velvia 50 at the film/sensor surface . And his examples show it. Take a look, trust your own eyes, not the eyes of some consensus. He just doesn't account for rotation out of the absolute best digital camera orientation (and Norman doesn't seem to either), so I applied an extremely modest correction factor. Increasing from 6 megapixels to 8 megapixels is only a 15.47% increase in linear resolution. My assumption was that would make rotation losses average out to be a close match as for his perfect target orientation results at the film/sensor surface .
You name "wedding guys, portrait guys" specifically. Sorry, I do believe these people are perfectly happy with digital, and certainly so are the popular consensus guys. For wedding and portrait work you don't want particularly high resolution...certainly not for portraits.
Where high resolution makes its mark is with high frequency elements of a photograph. Typically, these are more of a factor in "landscape" photography than for other types. Have you seen digital tend to turn high frequency repeating vegitation into something akin to blurry cotton candy? I have, though I admit most people aren't paying appropriate attention.
Digital is "Good enough"? Yep, film was always way overkill for what most people used it for. :^)
I'm hardly saying you shouldn't be happy with whatever digital camera you are using. I use them myself. But I have also looked at zillions of digital images over the last six years or so, many of them my own. And I think about what I see, and I look to see if what I look at verifies what I think. That is, I make my own decisions--based on looking at a lot of different stuff. Digital works, no question. But it isn't perfect, nothing is. And as even Norman Koren points out, R. N. Clark needs to be paid attention to. And with your own eyes, nothing more complicated than that, you can verify his results.
Never argue from a consensus...not unless all you are interested in is finding the most popular toothpaste.
My best,
Ed
--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure
http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
okephoto
Well-known member
I have wondered about this mytself and having bought a D2X one month ago have my own perspective. I made some prints from ASA 100 Kodak Gold and they were very similar in feel to prints made from my D100. Made me feel good about the move to digital as I shoot about 20,000 photos a year and this meant a real money savings. Last week I made some 16x20 prints from D2X files. Very impressive. I don't know if they quite meet the quality of my 6x7 Pentax but they sure beat anything I've ever done with 35mm by far, in fact, in many ways they blow away the medium format work when it comes to tonal qualities and density range. My 6x7 equipment is now for sale. No heading back for me.
--
Kevin Oke
http://www.pbase.com/islaguy
--
Kevin Oke
http://www.pbase.com/islaguy
DavidMillier
Veteran Member
Well, I have a bronica 645 and a Fuji 690 6X9 rangefinder and I certainly wouldn't say they offer a noticeable advantage over my 14n. That's not to say there isn't one; it's just that I don't notice it in practice.
KAllen
Veteran Member
I just answered another thread, I think the same applies here so I have cut and pasted
"Why I would pick pixels, I did a test recently with film and a drum scanner, shot 6x7 Provia alongside a 1dsmkII. The film realy did not hold anymore detail, I scanned at about 50 meg, I was surprised at the extra detail in the shadow end of the Canon file. Film gained when you scanned at much higher resolution, even scanning a small section at 8000dpi the film looked pretty good, the detail still looked sharp.Using GF to upsize the digital file to equal size the digital struggled to keep it looking real. I don't think more mp's will give us more detail, but I do think it will enlarge better even with lens resolution as it stands now. This is important to me with my subjects, I like the choice for part enlargments."
As for the amount MF is better than 35mm, I never liked 35mm as a general pro format, fine for sport and press. But anything else I thought it looked rather lacking, even at 10x8, I also thought if shooting B&W 645 was not quite as good as it ought to be compared to 35mm. 6x7 and up is so much better than 35mm. I have no idea how the maths works out, but to me 35mm was for holiday makers and projectors, MF was for clients and repro.
Yes I know great ad campaigns have been shot on 35mm and exceptions can be quoted, but in general MF is pro 35mm is not.
Kevin.
"Why I would pick pixels, I did a test recently with film and a drum scanner, shot 6x7 Provia alongside a 1dsmkII. The film realy did not hold anymore detail, I scanned at about 50 meg, I was surprised at the extra detail in the shadow end of the Canon file. Film gained when you scanned at much higher resolution, even scanning a small section at 8000dpi the film looked pretty good, the detail still looked sharp.Using GF to upsize the digital file to equal size the digital struggled to keep it looking real. I don't think more mp's will give us more detail, but I do think it will enlarge better even with lens resolution as it stands now. This is important to me with my subjects, I like the choice for part enlargments."
As for the amount MF is better than 35mm, I never liked 35mm as a general pro format, fine for sport and press. But anything else I thought it looked rather lacking, even at 10x8, I also thought if shooting B&W 645 was not quite as good as it ought to be compared to 35mm. 6x7 and up is so much better than 35mm. I have no idea how the maths works out, but to me 35mm was for holiday makers and projectors, MF was for clients and repro.
Yes I know great ad campaigns have been shot on 35mm and exceptions can be quoted, but in general MF is pro 35mm is not.
Kevin.
uk102
Veteran Member
Hi,
Double page A4 being around 16" by 11.5".
Double page A4 being around 16" by 11.5".
john-photoguy
Forum Enthusiast
I did a comparison with my D2x, D70, N90s and my Beronica. I did not scan the film, as I wanted as realistic a test as possible, so I had custom 8x10's made of the center section from about the equivalent of a 24x30. I also tested the fastest film I could find as well as the slowest I could find.
I found that the D2x holds more sharpness and resolution than the Beronica with slow film. the D70 not far behind. 35mm Yuck.
the surprising results were at 1600. the D2x image looked horrible. the 35mm looked even worse. the Beronica with 800 speed film, the fastest available did not look to bad, but the real winner was the D70. It looked Great!
Most customers I show these too don't want to believe that digital is as good as film. These prints prove otherwise, as they always chose the D2x as the best looking print (I usually only share the low speed test) which will dispel any thought that film is still superior. I would share the test here, but I feel it would be useless as the grain, and sharpness would not look the same online as it does in these prints.
Hope that helps!
John
I found that the D2x holds more sharpness and resolution than the Beronica with slow film. the D70 not far behind. 35mm Yuck.
the surprising results were at 1600. the D2x image looked horrible. the 35mm looked even worse. the Beronica with 800 speed film, the fastest available did not look to bad, but the real winner was the D70. It looked Great!
Most customers I show these too don't want to believe that digital is as good as film. These prints prove otherwise, as they always chose the D2x as the best looking print (I usually only share the low speed test) which will dispel any thought that film is still superior. I would share the test here, but I feel it would be useless as the grain, and sharpness would not look the same online as it does in these prints.
Hope that helps!
John
GagBagger
Veteran Member
It really seems to be nip-and-tuck with the awesome D2x.
A very impressive little camera -- especially for $1,250.
Brendan
--
Things that make you go, hmmmm...
A very impressive little camera -- especially for $1,250.
Brendan
--
Things that make you go, hmmmm...
fabgo
Veteran Member
I think what Ed is saying is very thoughtful and correct. And Clark's results pretty much match my own.
Let me just add this one point: most stock agencies reject images from 6MP digital cameras, except for editorial use. The same agencies have no problem accepting sharp and properly scanned 35mm slides. There is a perfectly good reason for this: 35mm carries much more image information.
--
Fabian Gonzales
http://www.goldengateimages.com/
Let me just add this one point: most stock agencies reject images from 6MP digital cameras, except for editorial use. The same agencies have no problem accepting sharp and properly scanned 35mm slides. There is a perfectly good reason for this: 35mm carries much more image information.
--
Fabian Gonzales
http://www.goldengateimages.com/
DrSnuggles
Leading Member
Interesting, I guess we can see here the loss of colour information from the bayer sensor.
Daniel.
--
http://www.pbase.com/snaggs
Daniel.
--
http://www.pbase.com/snaggs
glacierpete
Veteran Member
You are right, the difference is not big, and you need a drum scan. I hope that sensor prices go down and we might see a digital mf rangefinder one day.
KAllen
Veteran Member
Yes the more I look at the two the more obvious this becomes. I cant quite put it into words, there's just a thicker colour with film, it's not brighter or more accurate etc but just more robust, more depth.
Kevin.
Kevin.
Bernie Ess
Veteran Member
I remember that years ago Norman Korens website claimed that, to match MF resolution, you'd need almost 100MP, this is far from the truth of course.
I did a Fuji S3/ Pentax 67 comparision (Pentax with the sharp 55mm lens), and although the film was low ISO film, the effect of grain was really disturbing, specially in the shadows where it became much, much more difficult to pull out any useable detail in the film scan.
In the end the Scan did not carry that much more of real fine detail. It was there, yes, but it was not a world of difference, again.
I would judge the true detail of 6-8MP camera clowe to 35mm film. 12MP is better than 35mm, and quite close to MF 6x7. HOwever the advantages of digital can easily outweigh the disadvantages in resolution.
On the other hand: I believe that a good MF darkroom print can quite easily outresolve both the digitla file and the scan.
Here in Berlin there is a photographer who sells nature scenes printed in the darkroom. SOme of them are really big, like 30x30" and even larger, and it is absolutely amazing how good they look. Someone has explained me once that the final effective resolution of a scanning system is about 50% of its actual optical scanning resolution. Plus, it will enhance grain etc...
regards, Bernie
I did a Fuji S3/ Pentax 67 comparision (Pentax with the sharp 55mm lens), and although the film was low ISO film, the effect of grain was really disturbing, specially in the shadows where it became much, much more difficult to pull out any useable detail in the film scan.
In the end the Scan did not carry that much more of real fine detail. It was there, yes, but it was not a world of difference, again.
I would judge the true detail of 6-8MP camera clowe to 35mm film. 12MP is better than 35mm, and quite close to MF 6x7. HOwever the advantages of digital can easily outweigh the disadvantages in resolution.
On the other hand: I believe that a good MF darkroom print can quite easily outresolve both the digitla file and the scan.
Here in Berlin there is a photographer who sells nature scenes printed in the darkroom. SOme of them are really big, like 30x30" and even larger, and it is absolutely amazing how good they look. Someone has explained me once that the final effective resolution of a scanning system is about 50% of its actual optical scanning resolution. Plus, it will enhance grain etc...
regards, Bernie
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum