Digital not even close yet!

[BJN]

Of course the Better Light back mops the floor with the competition, but this is a scanning back. Try this with a moving subject and see what interesting results you get. Just do studio shots? Try shooting beer in a glass. The back is amazing, but its capabilities are limited.

DSLRs can't match high quality 4x5 scans. Wow. Frankly, I'm surprised the DSLRs came in as close as they did. Especially when suffering the artifacts Genuine Fractals introduces. The technical clumsiness of the image handling matches the silliness of even bothering with the test.

Now, let's go shoot some candids and actions shots with our view cameras...

--
BJN

 

[Scrubber]

Hi Bob, A question (probably a naive one...)

if the S2 resolution is 1322 PIXELS / cm (hence 132.2 mm) - how can you compare this to LINES/mm. Surely at the minimum, 130 lines would require 260 pixels to recreate (and this does not include the optical diffraction regarding any movement of that lined grid relative to the pixels).

I would guess that 132 pixels/mm compares at best to 66 lines/mm which is a fair way down on lens limitations.

Kind regards

Steve.

Hi All

According to most authorities, if you use slow (100ASA or lower)
emulsions, the resolution of modern 35mm film cameras is limited by
the lens not the film. The absolute best lenses tested by Amateur
Photographer (a UK journal) have fallen just short of 140 lines/mm
for both central and edge definition at their optimum aperture.
Anything above 130 lines/mm can be regarded as outstanding and 120
is perhaps what the average very good lens would achieve.

Our S2Pros have - if the Exif data is to be believed - a focal
plane resolution of 1322 pixels/cm. That is equivalent to 132
lines/mm, BUT since the "negative" is only 23mm wide the effective
resolution compared to a 35mm film camera is 23/36 times that or 84
lines/mm. So, unless you have one of the best lenses in the world,
your S2Pro can - in theory - resolve more than it is given by your
lens. But because of its small format it still equates to a very
mediocre - or truth be told poor - traditional 35mm outfit. Of
course, the results can be made to look outstanding with judicious
application of sharpening, but so could those from a scanned
negative from that mediocre film outfit.

While the S2Pro is a fantastic piece of gear, let us not kid
ourselves about its abilities. Compared to 5"x4", or even 6cm x
6cm, there is simply no contest when it comes to resolution.
Whether you need the ultimate in resolution, however, depends upon
how big you are going to print. Despite all the circle of confusion
calculations, I doubt anyone could tell the difference between any
size film and an S2Pro digital file at A3 (roughly 16.5" x 12").
Viewing a raw file at 100% on a 17" monitor at 1024 x 768 is
equivalent to printing at roughly 52" x 35", and the best Fuji
files look pretty good even then. What more do we want? - lots!

Bob Venning

 

[Bob Venning]

Hi Steve

There is quite a lot of confusion over this one even in the journals. It all depends whether you think of a standard black and white test pattern as alternating black and white lines or as black lines on a white background. So a line can mean either (a) any single line,whether black or white, or (b) only a black line, with the white spaces between them not counting. I follow most of the British journals in using "line" in sense (a) so that 132 lines/mm is 66 black ones plus 66 white ones - for which you need a minimum of 132 pixels to represent them accurately. Sense (b) is often called "line pairs/mm" - because you are effectively treating one black plus one white as a single line. I don't know if that is standard usage elsewhere or not.

I quite agree about practice being rather different. You could only record 132 lines/mm with 132 pixels/mm if the alignment was fairly good. Worst case would be exactly 50% misalignment, in which case every single pixel would at least in theory record the same level of grey!

The figures do however indicate the ball-park we are in, which is really all I was trying to do.

Yours

Bob Venning

Hi Bob, A question (probably a naive one...)
if the S2 resolution is 1322 PIXELS / cm (hence 132.2 mm) - how
can you compare this to LINES/mm. Surely at the minimum, 130 lines
would require 260 pixels to recreate (and this does not include the
optical diffraction regarding any movement of that lined grid
relative to the pixels).

I would guess that 132 pixels/mm compares at best to 66 lines/mm
which is a fair way down on lens limitations.

Kind regards

Steve.

 

[tony field]

if this is the quality from any digital equipment no one even will
talk about buying any digital camera he he:

Although the current crop of digital cameras can do an outstanding job and give negative / positive film a run for the money, I personally find that digital cameras (in my case the Fuji S1 and S2) have a significant edge at ISO 1600 (and possibly ISO 800). The printed results on photographic "real paper" are smoother and better overall. Apparent sharpness can be increased by adding a bit of artifical grain in Photoshop.

At ISO 100 - 400, I guess it is a matter of religion - in some cases, I prefer film and others digital.....

tony