 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 200647 MP Hybrid SLR
I'm still looking for a DSLR to replace my medium format gear, but in the mean time wanted to share a 47MP image generated with my hybrid film/digital workflow. I use a Pentax 6x7 camera, scan the slides or negatives at 4000 DPI, use Photoshop & sometimes Neat Image and make big prints with an Epson 7600. If you'd like to see what a 47MP image looks like, visit http://chasfs.com/fireman.py. The reason that I still use this film/digital hybrid approach is it offers the best price performance ratio for making large prints. Medium format film gear is relatively inexpensive at KEH (great service!) and on ebay, but of course you have the extra delay and expense from developing the film. Peace, -chasfs I must be missing something. It is hardly news that a medium format film image can be easily scanned at astronomically high DPIs. The sun came up this morning and I am fairly certain it will set this evening. It also hardly news that these cameras are huge, heavy, ungainly, inefficient and slow to handle. There is a reason why medium format has been a niche product since, say, the 1950s . . . . . Most images for most uses never required the film area of medium format and do not require 47mps of data and the overhead to handle that amount of data. Particularly pictures of hungry firemen . . . > I must be missing something. > It is hardly news that a medium format film image can be easily scanned at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > do not require 47mps of data and the overhead to handle that amount of data. > Particularly pictures of hungry firemen . . . I have to disagree, I have seen a lot of prints from 35mm what were enlarged way to much and looked pretty bad. 35mm is ok if you are not printing larger then 8 x 12 but much larger then that and it begins to fall apart. Even at 8 x 12 it is going to be a lot easier to get a good looking print from MF then 35mm. If you want a really sharp looking 20 x 30 print you want something in the range of 37.5MP to 54MP, 250 ppi to 300ppi. This is not to say that a 20 x 30 inch print made from an 8MP camera might not look good, but it would look better with more pixels. Of course just scanning film at very high resolution to get the needed pixel count will not produce a sharp print. 2400 ppi is pretty much the limit of what you can scan at and have pixels that are at all sharp. BTW how do you know the fireman is hungry? Scott Thanks for looking! I encourage you to have a hearty laugh at my expense! No news here - just confirmation that there is more information available from medium format film than there is from DSLRs. I used to scan at 3000 DPI but find the results are a bit better in large prints when I scan at 4000. The fireman image wasn't chosen for its artistic merit, but rather to show what medium format film can do at 1600 ASA. I still use scanned MF because I do make large prints and the DSLR images aren't quite there yet, especially taking cost into account. Peace, -chasfs > I must be missing something. > It is hardly news that a medium format film image can be easily scanned at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > do not require 47mps of data and the overhead to handle that amount of data. > Particularly pictures of hungry firemen . . . > Thanks for looking! I encourage you to have a hearty laugh at my > expense! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Peace, > -chasfs Not if you do this: http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics Roger >> Thanks for looking! I encourage you to have a hearty laugh at my >> expense! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Roger heh I was expecting you to post that - and you didn't disappoint. But a stitched mosaic of the fireman? OTOH - who would want a high res image of a fireman? The answer is probably a commercial enterprise for whom the cost of a phaseone P45 wouldn't be a concern. >>> Thanks for looking! I encourage you to have a hearty laugh at my >>> expense! [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > probably a commercial enterprise for whom the cost of a phaseone P45 > wouldn't be a concern. Well, one could image the fireman first, then the region around him, so one can do some mosaics with moving subjects, but not all. I did discuss that on my web page, and that is also the reason I will keep my large format gear. Check this web site out: http://www.charliebrownphotos.com The images are stunning and I have seen many 4-foot enlargements. Many images were done with a Canon 10D hand held (Charlie has sat beside me doing hand held mosaics). Go to the image gallery, then "wild ones" of animals. Charlie shoots many (maybe all) hand held. If you see the "kids on top" image, it appears to be one he shot sitting next to me (I gotta dig out mine and make a mosaic). I first encountered Charlie's images in a gallery; I thought they were 6x17, or large format. Really stunning. I find digital mosaics a freeing feeling. With large format I was hampered by the bulk and weight, and did not realize how constrained I was by aspect ratio. With digital mosaics, I can use the aspect ratio ideal for the subject, and use wider angles than I ever did with one frame (like greater than 180 degrees, square, pano), customizing for the subject. Roger > Well, one could image the fireman first, then the region around > him, so one can do some mosaics with moving subjects, but not all. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Roger I like Charlie's work a lot, but for me I just haven't gotten into mosaics. The last time I tried doing a mosaic, I discovered that my Pentax 6x7's shutter wasn't good over 1/250th and had to decide whether to have it fixed or get a DSLR. The camera's been fixed and seems to be working well, but I still haven't attempted another mosaic. Imagine what a medium format mosaic might look like! Peace, chasfs > I like Charlie's work a lot, but for me I just haven't gotten into > mosaics. The last time I tried doing a mosaic, I discovered that my > Pentax 6x7's shutter wasn't good over 1/250th and had to decide whether > to have it fixed or get a DSLR. The camera's been fixed and seems to > be working well, but I still haven't attempted another mosaic. Imagine > what a medium format mosaic might look like! How about large format mosaic (4x5 on iso 50 Velvia): http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/colorado.fall.c10. 01.2003.L4.9536.a+b.c.700.html The thing about mosaics these days is software makes it very easy. See: http://www.ptgui.com Roger > > I like Charlie's work a lot, but for me I just haven't gotten into > > mosaics. The last time I tried doing a mosaic, I discovered that my [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Roger Very cool! > Thanks for looking! I encourage you to have a hearty laugh at my > expense! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Peace, > -chasfs Why 1600, if you are going to show a process, use your best result not a worst case scenario (or both). Also show a picture that has some sharpness. No excuses, the 300 on a Pentax 6x7 is a reasonably sharp lens. This picture certainly isn't going to get me to take out my Rolleiflex 2.8 and put away my digital. Cause I know my digital can do better. If you are going to keep up with this you need a heavier tripod. Also a little sharpening might help. Pushing negative film up to its max doesn't help with tonality either. Sorry to be so negative. Tom Your comment about the tripod made me laugh! This was handheld & shot at 1/500th. Also, if you look at the Danger signs on the firetruck, you'll see that its well focused, but this lens has a narrow depth of field. Of course it can be sharpened, but I didn't sharpen this image, adjust the colors, or clone out the thread in the sidewalk near his feet. I do all of that and more when I make a big print. The intent here is not to convince people to switch back to medium format, though I suspect that your old Rolleiflex can do better than you think, but it takes time to learn the how to get results. I still want to know, how do the DSLRs compare at 1600? Can someone put a 125mm lens on their DSLR, take a shot at 1/500th at 1600 and put the image up on the web? Peace, -chasfs http://chasfs.com > Why 1600, if you are going to show a process, use your best result not > a worst case scenario (or both). Also show a picture that has some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tom > Your comment about the tripod made me laugh! This was handheld & shot > at 1/500th. Also, if you look at the Danger signs on the firetruck, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > put a 125mm lens on their DSLR, take a shot at 1/500th at 1600 and put > the image up on the web? We all could, but why? Way too many variables to make a meaningful statement or draw firm conclusions. Why 1600 in daylight?? Just what is it you are trying to say or ask?  SignatureJohn McWilliams > Your comment about the tripod made me laugh! This was handheld & shot > at 1/500th. Also, if you look at the Danger signs on the firetruck, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > put a 125mm lens on their DSLR, take a shot at 1/500th at 1600 and put > the image up on the web? Well this is close to 125mm, I put on a zoom and got it close. At ISO 1600 /500 was far to slow a shutter speed, I would have been shooting at something like f/25, which is not good. So I set the f/number at f/10 and got 1/3200 second. I did this on the 20D http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71886807/original Scott >> Your comment about the tripod made me laugh! This was handheld & shot >> at 1/500th. Also, if you look at the Danger signs on the firetruck, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I did this on the 20D > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71886807/original That road is starting to look familiar! <s.> Unrelated q., Scott. The glacier pix- name? I saw a show in HD last evening with a "daredevil" photographer who was shooting what might have been the same 'berg. It was on an HD only channel, and usually repeats, so I will try to catch the name later. The show spent far too much time on this photographer's ego and obsession with dangerous shooting locations. In the final segment, he repelled down an open (to the sea) crevice (probably wrong word), but didn't take a lock, and so his arms and hands became exhausted, and he had to abort. I guess he was planning to take photos while dangling above, but it all seemed to stupid photographically; it was all about ego. SignatureJohn McWilliams /71886807/original > That road is starting to look familiar! <s.> Yup, it is what I shoot when I need a quick test shot. > Unrelated q., Scott. The glacier pix- name? I saw a show in HD last > evening with a "daredevil" photographer who was shooting what might have > been the same 'berg. It was on an HD only channel, and usually repeats, > so I will try to catch the name later. Shoot I don't recall its name, is was in Alaska. My wife most likely will remember I will ask her when she gets home from work. Scott > Well this is close to 125mm, I put on a zoom and got it close. At ISO > 1600 /500 was far to slow a shutter speed, I would have been shooting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Scott Scott, thank you very much! I really appreciate this! The lack of noise of the 20D at 1600 is very impressive. The problem I have is that in order to get enough detail (for me) in a 24"x30" print, I need a bunch more pixels than the 20D has. It looks like that picture would make a tolerable 16x20, but that's about it. Several folks have suggested stitching together multiple exposures - but that would change the way I shoot too much. Others have suggested a 5D or 1DS-ii, but I just don't have that kind of money. Peace, -chasfs > > Well this is close to 125mm, I put on a zoom and got it close. At ISO > > 1600 /500 was far to slow a shutter speed, I would have been shooting [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > but that would change the way I shoot too much. Others have suggested a > 5D or 1DS-ii, but I just don't have that kind of money. The 20D can make a pretty good looking 12 x 18 inch print but even there it is just a bit soft compared to a 8 x 12. I think 16 x 20 would be pushing it, but then I know people who will print just about any size with any image size so in the end it comes down to tastes. Scott > Your comment about the tripod made me laugh! This was handheld & shot > at 1/500th. Also, if you look at the Danger signs on the firetruck, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Peace, > -chasfshttp://chasfs.com Folks do it all the time, check DPreview, any camera sections, Nikon and Canon would get you the most samples. Frankly I would have had the camera at ISO 400 with the lens set at 80mm (125 eq) and shot at 1/125 to get better results. Also as I said no excuses, your main subject was the fireman, that is where the focus should have been, not on a sign on the back of the truck. Yes a tripod would have helped. I know what my Rollei can do, have been using it for 30 year or so. The fact is in most cases digital is better, as I said before use your Pentax with 100 speed film, then you will have the better camera. The strength of large format is in the details it provides. Tom > I'm still looking for a DSLR to replace my medium format gear, but in > the mean time wanted to share a 47MP image generated with my hybrid [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Peace, > -chasfs The image is pretty soft, and this is what I would expect from trying to get 47MP out of a film area that is smaller then 645. Now if you had used the full area of the 6 x 7 frame I think you could have gotten between 25 to 35MP of good pixels. And for those of use that followed the story behind that photo we know it was pushed pretty hard and the grain shows it. Scott The image is a bit soft, but it is a 300mm lens, so the depth of field isn't that great. "Good pixels" are a bit of a nebulous concept, perhaps. I find that scanning at 4000DPI gives slightly better results - I'm not sure exactly why this is. It is the native resolution of my scanner, and I do see pixel to pixel differences at that resolution. But there is also more grain noise, so its more work to deal with that. In my experience up-rezzing before adjusting curves or contrast or applying USM give better results than up-rezzing last. I am curious - how do the various 10 MP DSLRs do at 1600 ASA, in comparison to the pushed Fuji Provia 400? Thanks! -chasfs > The image is pretty soft, and this is what I would expect from trying > to get 47MP out of a film area that is smaller then 645. Now if you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Scott > The image is a bit soft, but it is a 300mm lens, so the depth of field > isn't that great. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am curious - how do the various 10 MP DSLRs do at 1600 ASA, in > comparison to the pushed Fuji Provia 400? Far batter than film. In fact, the signal-to-noise ratio of DSLRs at ISO 800 to 1600 is similar to that of ISO 100 slide film. The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images and Comparison to Film http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise The high SNR of digital allows more up-rezzing than film. The high digital SNR helps with perceived image quality. See AIQ at: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html I agree that medium format fine-grained film (NOT ISO 1600) is about 45 megapixels, but those pixels are quite noisy. Some medium format photographers have switched to 16 megapixel DSLRs, and rate the image quality similar to medium format. (see AIQ above) Roger > I'm still looking for a DSLR to replace my medium format gear, but in > the mean time wanted to share a 47MP image generated with my hybrid > film/digital workflow. I use a Pentax 6x7 camera, scan the slides or > negatives at 4000 DPI, use Photoshop & sometimes Neat Image and make > big prints with an Epson 7600. If you'd like to see what a 47MP image > looks like, visit http://chasfs.com/fireman.py. I'm prepared to believe you can get some striking results, but I think the photo you show makes a weak case for your method. The photo is soft. The fireman's skin-tone looks off. The full-size, pixel-for-pixel view is terrible. There's color fringing, notably at the back of the man's right hand -- even though it not all that far from the center. ASA 1600 is fast, but why show it with what looks to be a slow-moving subject in daylight? I understand this is made from a half-frame crop, but if you're talking about 6x7, why show half that? > The reason that I > still use this film/digital hybrid approach is it offers the best price > performance ratio for making large prints. Medium format film gear is > relatively inexpensive at KEH (great service!) and on ebay, but of > course you have the extra delay and expense from developing the film. Sorry to be so negative -- I'm just like that. Thanks for telling what works for you and showing your photo. Signature--Bryan OK, here's another example - http://chasfs.com/mega.py - using Fuji Astia ASA 100. The image on the website has not been sharpened - so it will still seem soft at 100%, and I do sharpen them before I print. On my screen 33% matches printed size of 24"x30" pretty well. Peace, -chasfs > > I'm still looking for a DSLR to replace my medium format gear, but in > > the mean time wanted to share a 47MP image generated with my hybrid [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Sorry to be so negative -- I'm just like that. Thanks for telling > what works for you and showing your photo. > OK, here's another example - http://chasfs.com/mega.py - using Fuji > Astia ASA 100. The image on the website has not been sharpened - so it > will still seem soft at 100%, and I do sharpen them before I print. On > my screen 33% matches printed size of 24"x30" pretty well. Thanks, I think this one's more impressive. Signature--Bryan > I'm still looking for a DSLR to replace my medium format gear, but in > the mean time wanted to share a 47MP image generated with my hybrid [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Peace, > -chasfs Clean your sensor, errr, whatever it's called in that MF! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.