 |
 | 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 / Film Photography / Medium format / February 2005Film resolution
I found an interesting site where it talks about the resolution of slide film though not directly the subject. I use Provia 100F roll film and the resolution was less than I expected. http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/vitale/digital-projection/ It seems to me that the only high resolution film is some B+W films. Is that correct? Is there a definitive list of films and their maximum resolution somewhere? And if so then what contrast difference is it for. >I found an interesting site where it talks about the resolution of > slide film though not directly the subject. I use Provia 100F roll film > and the resolution was less than I expected. Are you certain you can rule out camera shake, possible focusing errors and so forth? > I found an interesting site where it talks about the resolution of > slide film though not directly the subject. I use Provia 100F roll film > and the resolution was less than I expected. Hi Roland, I have many Provia100F slides featuring resolution charts shots, on both 35mm and 120 (a residual of my lens tests). Some of them (you guessed it: the ones shot with the better lenses/apertures ;D ) shows patterns up to 90lp/mm (the maximum resolution of my charts, at that time), when examined through a microscope. So I'd say Provia100F to be pretty sharp. My new tests are done on Velvia 100F, and on a couple lenses I got 100lp/mm on 35mm. But this does not necessarily means Velvia 100F is sharper than Provia100F: I used a finer chart this time, and different lenses. Bye, Fernando Thanks, I am amazed at the differences I read on the Internet. I know its not the best place to look, though, but the differences still amaze me. I can understand your frustration. Since I never found properly-conducted tests and comparisons (that's just because Bart Van der Wolf doesn't test equipment as a daytime job! His tests are excellent), I decided long ago I needed to do it myself. So I compared scanners, films, digital cameras (also vs. scanned film), and so on. I'm amazed at how much my tests are different from the one I looked at, in disconcert, on the web. To conduct a proper test, is a royal pain. That's why so many people use shortcuts, and put up poor test setups; yes, including Luminous Landscape in more than a time (the infamous "1Ds vs. medium format" comes to mind). I can understand that, but hey, they should at least describe very clearly which were the conditions of the test, and hopefully explain the setup shortcomings, too... Fernando >To conduct a proper test, is a royal pain. That's why so many people >use shortcuts, and put up poor test setups; yes, including Luminous >Landscape in more than a time (the infamous "1Ds vs. medium format" >comes to mind). The thing is, several of us have more or less come to the same conclusions from our own film scans. And I consider myself reasonably competent with a film scanner. No, I couldn't compare the same image done both ways (645 film scan vs. 1Ds) but a gut level check says the 1Ds is too damn close for comfort. And "by rights" it should not be so, when the film scan has five times as many pixels. For the short term, it's entirely academic. I can't afford anything like a 1Ds so I'll go on shooting and scanning MF. It's the devil I know... rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >The thing is, several of us have more or less >come to the same conclusions from our own film >scans. And I consider myself reasonably >competent with a film scanner. Rafe, on my honour, I was not referring to you... Sorry if it sounded like that! Besides, there's obviously a large difference between "which picture has more details" and "which picture looks better". For some kind of subjects, prints my 10D look better than prints from my scanned slides (notwithstanding the latters have more details). Fernando >>The thing is, several of us have more or less >>come to the same conclusions from our own film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Rafe, on my honour, I was not referring to you... >Sorry if it sounded like that! I never took it that way. >Besides, there's obviously a large difference between "which picture >has more details" and "which picture looks better". >For some kind of subjects, prints my 10D look better than prints from >my scanned slides (notwithstanding the latters have more details). Strange days. Even Stacey's gone to the Dark Side. Meantime I'm combing eBay for a scanner that will do "justice" to my LF film without a second mortgage. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >Strange days. Even Stacey's gone to >the Dark Side. LOL! Initially, I honestly thought the poster was not him. :) >Meantime I'm combing eBay for a scanner >that will do "justice" to my LF film without >a second mortgage. If you happen to find two, let me know! :) Me, if Minolta won't come out with a rewamped Scan Multi Pro, I'll buy an LS-9000 plus an Atzek Kami glass carrier; at least it should do some justice to my MF film, now that the SS120 is leaving me. Fernando >>Strange days. Even Stacey's gone to >>the Dark Side. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >an LS-9000 plus an Atzek Kami glass carrier; at least it should do >some justice to my MF film, now that the SS120 is leaving me. The good news is that interesting machines occasionally appear on the used market. The bad news is essentially no new research or product development in this field. And nobody around to service the machines that do exist. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >>Strange days. Even Stacey's gone to > >>the Dark Side. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > machines occasionally appear on the > used market. Check Linotype-Hell, but only if it comes with Nexscan 4000 or LinoColor Elite software. The colour accuracy, and the workflow benefits of the software, are tough to match with newer gear. > The bad news is essentially no new > research or product development in > this field. And nobody around to > service the machines that do exist. Actually, the newest developments are coming from Imacon and creo. If you look at the creo line of scanners, they have a new iQSmart1 out at a much lower price point. While the pricing is near Imacon levels, there are some other benefits. Unfortunately, getting into the latest, high end, means a commitment to becoming a business, since these are well above consumer level equipment in price. At the consumer level, Epson and Canon are doing more to push technology. Combine the latest from either with SilverFast Ai, and you have a near professional quality scanning system. I think Minolta are also making great strides with CCD film scanners, though I have only limited exposure to those, so I am not in a position to make more comments. Service on some older machines could be a problem. There are places that provide service and spare parts. Umax are on company that have a rebuild service, and some very good flat bed scanners. Higher priced machines like from creo are serviceable, and have many user accessible replacement parts, like the lamps. I don't see these things as static, though if one only looks at the low end of gear, or only consumer gear, then it might seem that way. The high end previews the technology that will eventually make it to the low and mid range. It might mean you wait a bit for something you really want, though there are also some good used choices. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > >To conduct a proper test, is a royal pain. That's why so many people > >use shortcuts, and put up poor test setups; yes, including Luminous [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be so, when the film scan has five times as > many pixels. Yep. Someone is pointing out that the Kodak 13MP produces 16x24 prints at 188 dpi. dSLR quality images at 188 dpi don't look bad at all. I have an A4 snapshot that was cropped slightly from 6MP to 200 dpi on the wall, and it looks great if you stay 15 or 18" away. At 8" it's soft. Which is to say, no matter how much detail you can squeeze from a 6x7 frame, the range of print sizes where it makes sense to use 6x7 is squeezed very tightly between 16.7MP digital at 200 dpi (16x24) and 4x5. We're 16.7MP affordable, there would be much call for 6x7. > For the short term, it's entirely academic. > I can't afford anything like a 1Ds so I'll go > on shooting and scanning MF. It's the devil > I know... But, it's not going to stay academic, I think. If you assume that sensor costs increase geometrically with area, and you observe that (1)the new generation of MF backs are claiming to come in at around US$10,000, (2) an APS sensor camera lists for US$900, and (3) the geometric mean of 900 and 10,000 is $3,000, the obvious conclusion is that current technology is capable of producing a US$3,000 full-frame dSLR. Or of not current, then next year's technology. Which means that spending US$2,000 on the Mamiya 7II + 65/4.0 sitting in Map Camera in Shinjuku (and expecting to spend another US$1500 on the 43/4.5 and then another US$800 on the 150/4.5) may be a really dumb idea. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >Which means that spending US$2,000 on the Mamiya 7II + 65/4.0 sitting in Map >Camera in Shinjuku (and expecting to spend another US$1500 on the 43/4.5 and >then another US$800 on the 150/4.5) may be a really dumb idea. In one regard it's not a dumb idea at all. And that is, you have some really excellent and relatively affordable scanning technology to use with it. The same can't be said for LF, unfortunately. The choices just aren't all that pleasing. It's a sad state of affairs to admit that, for under $5,000, there isn't any current product that's going to beat the Epson 4870 at scanning LF. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > Which means that spending US$2,000 on the Mamiya 7II + 65/4.0 sitting in Map > Camera in Shinjuku (and expecting to spend another US$1500 on the 43/4.5 and > then another US$800 on the 150/4.5) may be a really dumb idea. HEHE! :D I guess you're loosing some sleep, don't you? ;) Very nice camera and lenses. Would be my own kit choice, as well. :) Maybe those cameras will drop down abruptly in the next 2 years, but then, in 2 years Canon could finally show a 16mp FF low-noise camera that a human being could actually buy, and carry. :) Fernando > I can understand your frustration. > Since I never found properly-conducted tests and comparisons (that's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Fernando Erwn Puts is the only reviewer I know of who has a description of his test procedures on his web site. Comparing that to Ludicrous Landscape really makes the later site look inferior. However, I think some of the ergonomic and usability comments are valid. There is no "one" source, and the educated individual will seek out as many as can be found, and base a judgement on many sources. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> |
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
|
©2008 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.