Medium Format & Imacon Scanner

[Arthur Li]

This is a long message, please bear with me.

I shoot mainly landscapes, portraits and still life and use a tripod when I shoot with the RZ67. My question is simple but I haven't really found the answer despite some searching on various sites and my maths is not that good:

If I have a sharp 6x7 Fuji Velvia transparency scanned by an Imacon scanner at 5750 dpi:

1. What will be the likely file size in terms of megabytes? And what is that expressed in megapixels length/width-wise for the file?

2. How big a print can I get from the above file before grain becomes "intrusive", assuming normal viewing distances? I know this is subjective but is 60" x 50" a problem or can it be bigger? (I have a 36" x 30" portrait of my children and I love the sharpness of the eyelashes!)

3. Will I be able to match the big print above (whatever the perceived maximum size before grain becomes intrusive) with what comes out of the 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds?

4. Will I notice any material difference between prints of the same subject from the 1Ds and RZ67 scanned Velvia slide if they are only printed at my "usual" size of 19" x 13" and viewed from normal distances?

5. In terms of image quality, how would the Kodak Pro Back Plus compared to the 1Ds apart from the headline megapixel count of 16 mp against 11 mp?

I am familiar with the digital workflow and I like the instant gratification and checking I can have with my D60. I appreciate the wait I have to endure for slides to come back from the lab and then sent off again for scanning. But having said that, I have a lot more spare time once the slides have gone off and I don't need to spend hours in front of the PC to convert dozens of raw files and apply sharpening etc to the keepers. I find viewing slides on a light box and choosing one or two for printing is less time consuming.

Yes I have a lot of gear to carry but I only take what is intended or appropriate for a shoot and rarely carry all three cameras, eg RZ for landscape/portraits/still life, 1V for action or B/W shots and D60 for everything other than those mentioned!

I guess I am trying hard not to spend the money on the 1Ds now and instead save up for the Kodak Proback Plus!!!??

Any response from people owning MF and digital cameras or have used the Pro Back Plus would be hugely appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

 

[Joseph Larson]

If I have a sharp 6x7 Fuji Velvia transparency scanned by an Imacon
scanner at 5750 dpi:

1. What will be the likely file size in terms of megabytes? And
what is that expressed in megapixels length/width-wise for the file?

This of course depends on wheather you scan the chrome at the greatest rez that the scanner can allow. Assuming that this scanner will scan at the top rez mentioned, it would make about a 613 Mbyte file in 8 bit mode (assuming my math is correct).

Your next question is confusing, because I thought you said you owned a D60. It's difficult to express film in "megapixels" which is a digital term describing the number of photosite sensors. By now in using your digicam you probably have come to realize that you don't need a 204 megapixel camera to produce an image comparable to the abovementioned film produced file. In large part because of the "noise" produced by the film grain and the scanner. Exactly what would be a comparable megapixel amount is hotly discussed on these forums. I have tested using the PhaseOne H20, and I found it's files (about 48 Mbyte) from a 16 megapixel back (using a Kodak chip), were much superior to drum scanned (scanned at it's Max setting) 6x6cm film from my Hasselblad. So I'm guessing it would also beat out the 6x7 images also.

2. How big a print can I get from the above file before grain
becomes "intrusive", assuming normal viewing distances? I know
this is subjective but is 60" x 50" a problem or can it be bigger?
(I have a 36" x 30" portrait of my children and I love the
sharpness of the eyelashes!)

It would depend on how closely you viewed the print.

3. Will I be able to match the big print above (whatever the
perceived maximum size before grain becomes intrusive) with what
comes out of the 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds?

Don't know yet. But a starting comparison was done at the outbackphoto.com site comparing 1Ds to 4x5film and 4x5 scanning back.

4. Will I notice any material difference between prints of the same
subject from the 1Ds and RZ67 scanned Velvia slide if they are only
printed at my "usual" size of 19" x 13" and viewed from normal
distances?

Doubtful.

5. In terms of image quality, how would the Kodak Pro Back Plus
compared to the 1Ds apart from the headline megapixel count of 16
mp against 11 mp?

Hard to say yet. Even though most people say the PhaseOne back is considerably sharper than Kodak's version using the same chip, the Kodak is still an expensive separate "Pro" digital back. So it (Kodak) might perform better than a "Pro" 35mm sized all in one camera solution (1Ds or the Kodak 14n)

I am familiar with the digital workflow and I like the instant
gratification and checking I can have with my D60. I appreciate
the wait I have to endure for slides to come back from the lab and
then sent off again for scanning. But having said that, I have a
lot more spare time once the slides have gone off and I don't need
to spend hours in front of the PC to convert dozens of raw files
and apply sharpening etc to the keepers. I find viewing slides on a
light box and choosing one or two for printing is less time
consuming.

Yes I have a lot of gear to carry but I only take what is intended
or appropriate for a shoot and rarely carry all three cameras, eg
RZ for landscape/portraits/still life, 1V for action or B/W shots
and D60 for everything other than those mentioned!

I guess I am trying hard not to spend the money on the 1Ds now and
instead save up for the Kodak Proback Plus!!!??

Depending on how long you wait, and how much you are willing to spend, you might consider the new back(s) using Kodak's new 22 megapixel 645cm sized chip from Sinar and PhaseOne (and who knows who else by the time your read to buy), or even a scanning back for you RZ or a 4x5 camera. Bottom line is how much you can justify to spend, and/or if your making money from these toys, because there is always going to be a higher quality alternate option.

How this helps.

---JLarson

 

[Arthur Li]

Hi JLarson!!

Thank you for your helpful reply and pointers, I think I understand most of it!

--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

 

[David Phipps]

This is a long message, please bear with me.

I shoot mainly landscapes, portraits and still life and use a
tripod when I shoot with the RZ67. My question is simple but I
haven't really found the answer despite some searching on various
sites and my maths is not that good:

If I have a sharp 6x7 Fuji Velvia transparency scanned by an Imacon
scanner at 5750 dpi:

1. What will be the likely file size in terms of megabytes? And
what is that expressed in megapixels length/width-wise for the file?

2. How big a print can I get from the above file before grain
becomes "intrusive", assuming normal viewing distances? I know
this is subjective but is 60" x 50" a problem or can it be bigger?
(I have a 36" x 30" portrait of my children and I love the
sharpness of the eyelashes!)

3. Will I be able to match the big print above (whatever the
perceived maximum size before grain becomes intrusive) with what
comes out of the 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds?

4. Will I notice any material difference between prints of the same
subject from the 1Ds and RZ67 scanned Velvia slide if they are only
printed at my "usual" size of 19" x 13" and viewed from normal
distances?

5. In terms of image quality, how would the Kodak Pro Back Plus
compared to the 1Ds apart from the headline megapixel count of 16
mp against 11 mp?

This may not help much but amongst my equipt I own a RZ and Imacon scanner plus a Fuji S2 . I can only give my impressions and how I do things since I have not done actual side by side technical comparisons.

I find that I still capture a bit more information scanning RZ negs then shooting the S2. Also I don't believe the imacon scanner will scan 6x7 at the resolution you mention (at least without interpolation) But for instance, If I am making a large print (24x30 or larger) if it's of 1 person or if it's a product shot without very fine detail I use the S2 if it's of many people or very fine detail I use the RZ and scan. By fine detail I mean like eye lashes on a group shot being sharp. also the digital cameras can produce APPARANTLY sharper images at normal viewing distances then film but up close they appear soft. so it is kind of a toss up. at the distances that size of print is meant to be viewed most people think the digi is sharper. but if you have them look at the prints at a few inches then they think the film image is sharper.

as I said this is only my non technical take on it but I believe you will find the same thing. it may not answer your questions completely but there may not be one right answer. Only you can decide what is best for you. Test test test.

 

[Arthur Li]

--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Arthur,

You might want to read the 1Ds review posted by Michael Reichmann on his Luminous Landscape web site. He also produces a quartely DVD called the Video Journal, and in the latest issue, he compares the 1Ds with Pentax 645 film scanned on an Imacon Photo scanner. He concludes that the 1Ds is slightly better than the 645 scans. OK, it's not 67, but it gives you an idea of how good the 1Ds is.

The max resolution any Imacon scanner can scan 67 film is 3,200 dpi (the higher resolution figures only apply to smaller formats). You can scrape more detail using (as I now do) a drum scanner at 4,000dpi.

My experience with a Fuji S2 is that it blows away my olf 6x6 portrait system. If portraits are your thing, then I would strongly recommend the 1Ds. Your D60 should already show you the way on this.

Looks like we share not only a profession, but also an appreciation of digital technology

RIL

This is a long message, please bear with me.

I shoot mainly landscapes, portraits and still life and use a
tripod when I shoot with the RZ67. My question is simple but I
haven't really found the answer despite some searching on various
sites and my maths is not that good:

If I have a sharp 6x7 Fuji Velvia transparency scanned by an Imacon
scanner at 5750 dpi:

1. What will be the likely file size in terms of megabytes? And
what is that expressed in megapixels length/width-wise for the file?

2. How big a print can I get from the above file before grain
becomes "intrusive", assuming normal viewing distances? I know
this is subjective but is 60" x 50" a problem or can it be bigger?
(I have a 36" x 30" portrait of my children and I love the
sharpness of the eyelashes!)

3. Will I be able to match the big print above (whatever the
perceived maximum size before grain becomes intrusive) with what
comes out of the 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds?

4. Will I notice any material difference between prints of the same
subject from the 1Ds and RZ67 scanned Velvia slide if they are only
printed at my "usual" size of 19" x 13" and viewed from normal
distances?

5. In terms of image quality, how would the Kodak Pro Back Plus
compared to the 1Ds apart from the headline megapixel count of 16
mp against 11 mp?

I am familiar with the digital workflow and I like the instant
gratification and checking I can have with my D60. I appreciate
the wait I have to endure for slides to come back from the lab and
then sent off again for scanning. But having said that, I have a
lot more spare time once the slides have gone off and I don't need
to spend hours in front of the PC to convert dozens of raw files
and apply sharpening etc to the keepers. I find viewing slides on a
light box and choosing one or two for printing is less time
consuming.

Yes I have a lot of gear to carry but I only take what is intended
or appropriate for a shoot and rarely carry all three cameras, eg
RZ for landscape/portraits/still life, 1V for action or B/W shots
and D60 for everything other than those mentioned!

I guess I am trying hard not to spend the money on the 1Ds now and
instead save up for the Kodak Proback Plus!!!??

Any response from people owning MF and digital cameras or have used
the Pro Back Plus would be hugely appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

 

[Arthur Li]

Looks like we share not only a profession, but also an appreciation

of digital technology

RIL

I am indebted to my learned friend, the LL review "speaks for itself" indeed

--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

 

[jim collum]

responses inline below...

1. What will be the likely file size in terms of megabytes? And
what is that expressed in megapixels length/width-wise for the file?

3200 dpi is the best optical scan that the Flextight will do.. that's a 190MB file at 8 bit, and twice that at 16bit (i'd recommend getting the 16 bit if you are going to do any color or contrast balance. of course i have a 4GB dual pentium 4 system, so the size isn't that much of an issue)

the image will be about 7560 x 8820 pixels

2. How big a print can I get from the above file before grain
becomes "intrusive", assuming normal viewing distances? I know
this is subjective but is 60" x 50" a problem or can it be bigger?
(I have a 36" x 30" portrait of my children and I love the
sharpness of the eyelashes!)

i scan Provia F6x7, and grain hasn't been an issue. which means at 3200 dpi, you aren't getting the grain detail scanned yet. i imagine a drum scan will get that though.

as far as print size, that's about 32x36" at 240 dpi. you can get away with a little interpolation without getting artifacts, about 40x50" image from my experience. at 60x50, then you see a bit of artifacting (or if use a drum scan, then grain becomes apparent)

3. Will I be able to match the big print above (whatever the
perceived maximum size before grain becomes intrusive) with what
comes out of the 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds?

no. neither the D60 or the 1Ds will match the detail from the 6x7 scanned from an Imacon scanner at those print sizes. see

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/45_film_1ds.html

for what a D100 and a 1Ds interpolation to about a 30x40" print would look like

4. Will I notice any material difference between prints of the same
subject from the 1Ds and RZ67 scanned Velvia slide if they are only
printed at my "usual" size of 19" x 13" and viewed from normal
distances?

no, these look pretty close

5. In terms of image quality, how would the Kodak Pro Back Plus
compared to the 1Ds apart from the headline megapixel count of 16
mp against 11 mp?

you get a little extra resolution (obviously).. but i think the 1ds has less noise and better color (subjective on my part)

I am familiar with the digital workflow and I like the instant
gratification and checking I can have with my D60. I appreciate
the wait I have to endure for slides to come back from the lab and
then sent off again for scanning. But having said that, I have a
lot more spare time once the slides have gone off and I don't need
to spend hours in front of the PC to convert dozens of raw files
and apply sharpening etc to the keepers. I find viewing slides on a
light box and choosing one or two for printing is less time
consuming.

Yes I have a lot of gear to carry but I only take what is intended
or appropriate for a shoot and rarely carry all three cameras, eg
RZ for landscape/portraits/still life, 1V for action or B/W shots
and D60 for everything other than those mentioned!

I guess I am trying hard not to spend the money on the 1Ds now and
instead save up for the Kodak Proback Plus!!!??

i've shot with the ProBack, and have worked with someone using the 1Ds (just try to pry that camera out of Uwe's hands...). i'd prefer the Canon 1Ds at this point. the new 22MP chip is another story.. (and a lot more money)

again, my opinion, and it only applies to landscape photography.

6x7 film still has the edge for large images (> 12x18), but digital is approaching. if large format prints of landscape images are what you want, then film is still the way to go (unless you want to use scanning back technology). i understand the 'viewing distance' arguement given for large prints of interpolated digital camera images.. but that doesn't work for landscape photography. part of the experience of large landscape prints is to get close (no loupe necessary.. but nose to the print ...yes). if the print doesn't hold the detail and any viewable distance, then it will not stand up to expectations of images hanging in galleries. (if the intention is for the images to hang on your own wall, and you don't mind the lack of detail at large sizes.. then everything above can be disregarded). The viewing distance and detail have also been the reason most landscape photograhers have moved from 35mm to medium or large format.

--
jim collum
http://www.jcollum.com

 

[Arthur Li]

jim collum wrote:
... snip.. The viewing distance and detail have also been the

reason most landscape photograhers have moved from 35mm to medium
or large format.

--
jim collum
http://www.jcollum.com

Jim

You have my grateful thanks for your enlightening comments. I am conscious when it comes to landscapes ("nose to print" is a good expression!!) so just your last paragraph above alone has convinced me I should pass on the 1Ds when it comes my way and stick with my RZ for a while longer.

Thank you.
--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

 

[David Phipps]

--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

What does that mean?

 

[jim collum]

well.. i don't mean to sour you on digital.. i'm a very strong advocate of it..

everyone has different expectations on what their final output is... i'd love to get a 1ds for 12x18 images or smaller, at least for landscape. i'd probably end up enlarging beyond that for people shots, or sports.

but there are plenty of landscape photographers who do shoot in 35mm and do enlarge it to 24x30 or larger. and in many of the professional's images, this can work, if it's not the detail that's carrying the image (Galen Rowell comes to mind), and i imagine there will be a number of people printing images of similar quality with the 1ds. It's a decision based on a personal style.

reason most landscape photograhers have moved from 35mm to medium
or large format.

--
jim collum
http://www.jcollum.com

Jim

You have my grateful thanks for your enlightening comments. I am
conscious when it comes to landscapes ("nose to print" is a good
expression!!) so just your last paragraph above alone has convinced
me I should pass on the 1Ds when it comes my way and stick with my
RZ for a while longer.

Thank you.
--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

--
jim collum
http://www.jcollum.com

 

[Arthur Li]

well.. i don't mean to sour you on digital.. i'm a very strong
advocate of it..
everyone has different expectations on what their final output
is... i'd love to get a 1ds for 12x18 images or smaller, at least
for landscape. i'd probably end up enlarging beyond that for people
shots, or sports.

but there are plenty of landscape photographers who do shoot in
35mm and do enlarge it to 24x30 or larger. and in many of the
professional's images, this can work, if it's not the detail that's
carrying the image (Galen Rowell comes to mind), and i imagine
there will be a number of people printing images of similar quality
with the 1ds. It's a decision based on a personal style.

Hi Jim, I agree.

My prime belief is that the PICTURE (ie its content or colour or composition or subject etc) matters more than the resolution, or grain/noise, or cost of the equipment used to take that picture. Sometimes grain (or even blur!) enhances certain pictures because it adds mood so I am not against grain per se and most of the "run of the mill" pictures I take won't be printed beyond A3+ and which are displayed in various rooms around my house.

But for good landscape pictures or good portraits, my theory is "the larger the better". Sometimes, a picture of a sunset may have a whole lot of empty sky but it is that emptiness which makes some of these pictures and they require big prints for proper display.

I suppose I am talking about redundancy , ie have the equipment which has "spare" capacity for those pictures which I want printed to, say 40x30 and beyond for the walls in the lounge and dining room (and they are more personal and cheaper alternatives to the prints I buy from art galleries )--

Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

 

[Arthur Li]

What does that mean?

--

To bump the post to the front of the forum queue when it hasn't had much response fro others.

Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

 

[David Phipps]

ahh got it, Thank you.

Sorry my post didn't have more specific answers to your questions but I am 300 miles from my studio sitting in a hotel room posting between shoots and appointments. On the Imacon scanner, when you set your negative size then go to the resolution box when you click it and all the ppi values drop down you will see some values highglighted (or with dots next to them) these values are true optical values achievable, any other PPI value will be scanned at next higher value then interpolated down to the PPI value you selected. so always pick a highlighted setting(this is what my manual says it should be but I get green dots next to the true optical settings) as you change crop guides etc the values highlighted will change. I always use the highest value highlighted (for large prints) and do any extra interpolation in PS as I feel it does a better job then letting the scanner interpolate. and this way a file is only interpolated once.

What does that mean?

--

To bump the post to the front of the forum queue when it hasn't had
much response fro others.

Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67

 

[Uwe Steinmueller]

but nose to the print ...yes

Don't put your nose on my prints!

Uwe

1. What will be the likely file size in terms of megabytes? And
what is that expressed in megapixels length/width-wise for the file?

3200 dpi is the best optical scan that the Flextight will do..
that's a 190MB file at 8 bit, and twice that at 16bit (i'd
recommend getting the 16 bit if you are going to do any color or
contrast balance. of course i have a 4GB dual pentium 4 system, so
the size isn't that much of an issue)

the image will be about 7560 x 8820 pixels

2. How big a print can I get from the above file before grain
becomes "intrusive", assuming normal viewing distances? I know
this is subjective but is 60" x 50" a problem or can it be bigger?
(I have a 36" x 30" portrait of my children and I love the
sharpness of the eyelashes!)

i scan Provia F6x7, and grain hasn't been an issue. which means at
3200 dpi, you aren't getting the grain detail scanned yet. i
imagine a drum scan will get that though.

as far as print size, that's about 32x36" at 240 dpi. you can get
away with a little interpolation without getting artifacts, about
40x50" image from my experience. at 60x50, then you see a bit of
artifacting (or if use a drum scan, then grain becomes apparent)

3. Will I be able to match the big print above (whatever the
perceived maximum size before grain becomes intrusive) with what
comes out of the 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds?

no. neither the D60 or the 1Ds will match the detail from the 6x7
scanned from an Imacon scanner at those print sizes. see

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/45_film_1ds.html

for what a D100 and a 1Ds interpolation to about a 30x40" print
would look like

4. Will I notice any material difference between prints of the same
subject from the 1Ds and RZ67 scanned Velvia slide if they are only
printed at my "usual" size of 19" x 13" and viewed from normal
distances?

no, these look pretty close

5. In terms of image quality, how would the Kodak Pro Back Plus
compared to the 1Ds apart from the headline megapixel count of 16
mp against 11 mp?

you get a little extra resolution (obviously).. but i think the 1ds
has less noise and better color (subjective on my part)

I am familiar with the digital workflow and I like the instant
gratification and checking I can have with my D60. I appreciate
the wait I have to endure for slides to come back from the lab and
then sent off again for scanning. But having said that, I have a
lot more spare time once the slides have gone off and I don't need
to spend hours in front of the PC to convert dozens of raw files
and apply sharpening etc to the keepers. I find viewing slides on a
light box and choosing one or two for printing is less time
consuming.

Yes I have a lot of gear to carry but I only take what is intended
or appropriate for a shoot and rarely carry all three cameras, eg
RZ for landscape/portraits/still life, 1V for action or B/W shots
and D60 for everything other than those mentioned!

I guess I am trying hard not to spend the money on the 1Ds now and
instead save up for the Kodak Proback Plus!!!??

i've shot with the ProBack, and have worked with someone using the
1Ds (just try to pry that camera out of Uwe's hands...). i'd prefer
the Canon 1Ds at this point. the new 22MP chip is another story..
(and a lot more money)

again, my opinion, and it only applies to landscape photography.

6x7 film still has the edge for large images (> 12x18), but digital
is approaching. if large format prints of landscape images are
what you want, then film is still the way to go (unless you want to
use scanning back technology). i understand the 'viewing distance'
arguement given for large prints of interpolated digital camera
images.. but that doesn't work for landscape photography. part of
the experience of large landscape prints is to get close (no loupe
necessary.. but nose to the print ...yes). if the print doesn't
hold the detail and any viewable distance, then it will not stand
up to expectations of images hanging in galleries. (if the
intention is for the images to hang on your own wall, and you don't
mind the lack of detail at large sizes.. then everything above can
be disregarded). The viewing distance and detail have also been the
reason most landscape photograhers have moved from 35mm to medium
or large format.

--
jim collum
http://www.jcollum.com

 

[Uwe Steinmueller]

Arthur,

Jim and I are good friends. But for him resolution is more important than for me. It very much depends what kind of photographs you make.

I think at this moment the 1Ds is close to 6x7 (we will test it soon). As I do not want the use film again 6x7 is also no option for me. But I have seen very good prints from Jim done with 6x7.

Uwe

well.. i don't mean to sour you on digital.. i'm a very strong
advocate of it..
everyone has different expectations on what their final output
is... i'd love to get a 1ds for 12x18 images or smaller, at least
for landscape. i'd probably end up enlarging beyond that for people
shots, or sports.

but there are plenty of landscape photographers who do shoot in
35mm and do enlarge it to 24x30 or larger. and in many of the
professional's images, this can work, if it's not the detail that's
carrying the image (Galen Rowell comes to mind), and i imagine
there will be a number of people printing images of similar quality
with the 1ds. It's a decision based on a personal style.

Hi Jim, I agree.

My prime belief is that the PICTURE (ie its content or colour or
composition or subject etc) matters more than the resolution, or
grain/noise, or cost of the equipment used to take that picture.
Sometimes grain (or even blur!) enhances certain pictures because
it adds mood so I am not against grain per se and most of the "run
of the mill" pictures I take won't be printed beyond A3+ and which
are displayed in various rooms around my house.

But for good landscape pictures or good portraits, my theory is
"the larger the better". Sometimes, a picture of a sunset may have
a whole lot of empty sky but it is that emptiness which makes some
of these pictures and they require big prints for proper display.

I suppose I am talking about redundancy , ie have the equipment
which has "spare" capacity for those pictures which I want printed
to, say 40x30 and beyond for the walls in the lounge and dining
room (and they are more personal and cheaper alternatives to the
prints I buy from art galleries )--

Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
EOS 1V, D60 & RZ67