Hi there,

Very interesting results, thanks for posting.

I should be in a position to do very similar tests soon between correctly scanned Ebony 4*5 images and my Kodak SLR/n.

I am not sure about A2 based on actual results, but for sure A3+.

Regards,
Bernard

IMO we are getting to the stage of splitting hairs and there is no right or wrong here.  As a practical matter, if we print at 300PPI or 240PPI makes little difference as the prints get bigger, so it becomes an academic call...  

Plus I think the 14n/c has an advantage in the detail department over the Canon due to the AA filter.  A sharper initial file will uprez better, so you can possibly eek the next paper size in many situations.  

Regardless, as Samir alludes, we are getting to the point where the biggest image limitations in 35mm-sized digital sensor technology is lens design, not the sensors themselves.  For this same reason, MF digital will probably always outperform 35mm digital with bigger sensor sites and more sensor real-estate...

In fact, in a similar vein, it may also be true that drum-scanned 4x5 will always outperform MF digital.  But as you point out, convenience in workflow becomes an issue -- as does the per-image costs.  

Regardless, as Michael pointed out in his article, how much better does it need to be if our capture technology is already capable of output sizes that are larger than we regularly print?

Cheers,
Jack

Hi Bob:

I mentioned Q-image specifically in the article -- and yes, I have looked at it.

It does a decent job on some images and moreover has several different interpolation algoritms available to choose from.  For example, "Pyramid" does a great job with intricately detailed subject matter, though it falls down with smooth tonal regions.  I found their "Vector" to do a better all-around job with most prints, giving good detail and reasonably smooth tones.  But both methods were pretty slow by comparison to my method, and in the end did not produce meaningful differences in the final print -- at least IMO.

~~~

As for what resolution to print at, this is a topic that warrants another complete article...  And like interpolation, there is little agreement.  

Without writing an entire article, the jist is that printers print at some native print resolution, and any image you send to them at a different resolution gets interpolated to the printers native resolution by the print driver before being printed.  For Canon this is 600PPI and for Epson this is 720 or 1440 depending on the printer.  So instead of sending a 300PPI image to the printer, there is a camp that believes you should use your imaging program to interpolate to the printer's native resolution because then the print driver will not have to interpolate; the assumption is the imaging program can do a better job of interpolation than the print driver, and the user has more control over the final file.  (A corollary belief is that you should at least send even multiples of those resolutions to the printer; 300PPI to Canon and 360PPI to Epson for optimal results.)

I have done the comparisons for myself and suggest you do the same.  I printed multiple 16x24 prints and compared them directly.  The bottom line was that under the loupe, the 720PPI print may have had a tad better detail.  HOWEVER it did not have as smooth of tonal gradations.  Mind you, these differences were small, and the detail difference was NOT visible to the naked eye -- I needed the loupe to see it.  HOWEVER#2, the smoothness issue was visible to me at critical viewing distances with my naked eye -- they were subtle, but nonetheless there.  

So for me, I decided to stick with the conventional method and I size to 300PPI as standard and send it to my Epson 9600.  For a really big print, I may even go to 240 or possibly 200 to help gain some additional size.

Try it yourself with your printer and see what if any differences you detect.  I do believe that perhaps this was a worthwhile effort with older model printers (and still may be if you own such), as the print drivers were probably not as sophisticated as they are today -- but like everthing else, drivers (and printers) keep getting better too

Cheers,
Jack

This is surely nearly incontestible.  I've wondered, however, based on what we know from 1dsMKII and from MF backs, how do you think an MF DSLR with about the pixel density of 1dsMKII would do?  That would be something on the order of 35 Mpixels or so (depending on exact pixel density and sensor dimensions).  Do you think that  this would rival 4x5 transparency scans for the most demanding large print applications?  I realize you can get still bigger files from the scans, but realistically speaking (taking into account grain) do you think that MF can potentially rival 4x5 sharpness with no caveats?

Quentin, in view of the fact that you've mentioned that the noise related to no AA filter on the Kodak cameras is significant and in view of the fact that I've even got some 1ds images that are completely unsalvagable because of color artifact garbage, do you think that the extra sharpness with no AA filter is really a good tradeoff?  How much hassle has this been for you?

One other factor which needs to be considered is the actual subject matter in terms of both detail and even more importantly field of view.

Let me give you an example. Digital, by its very nature is resolution limited for enlargement potential, while film is grain limited. As we can see in the drum scan of the 4x5 grain intrusion is becoming an issue at this enlargement. Because of the low noise and relatively clean appearance, digital images may be enlarged to the point where resolution deficit begins to manifest as "marker pixels" (pixels resulting from insufficient sampling sites to properly define detail). In the case of the name plate, it's obvious that there were too few pixels with the 1DS Mark II to properly define the detail. If you look carefully at the crops of the word "GROSS" you will see that the well defined font is apparent on the 4x5 but the end curves on the "S" are missing and more or less a "blob" on the 1DS Mark II enlargement.

So there is no argument at all that the 4x5 has a decided resolution advantage - as you say, "no surprises". On the other hand, had the subject been closer and occupying a good deal less "real estate," such as a photo of a piece of computer equipment which filled the frame, enlargements from the 1DS Mark II can be made considerably larger than with the 4x5 while maintaining superior image quality.

We've discovered this by shooting computer mass storage equipment for trade shows (mid-range tape libraries) where we make full life-sized prints for trade shows from our eleven megapixel 1DS which at 96" print dimension (on the long axis) far outperform what we can do with our 4x5. The 4x5 simply has too much grain at this enlargement size to render a nice, clean image. On the other hand the 1DS with only eleven megapixels resolution produces incredibly clean and detailed prints. Why? Simply because eleven megapixels are "sufficient" to capture all relevant detail in the relatively small geography frame.

My point is that the more geography which is contained in the frame, the more resolution is "required" to render detailed enlargements. Which approach (film or digital) is best depends on the individual circumstances.

For highly detailed landscapes printed at 40x60 the 4x5 wins hands down for single frame capture. For small frame geography where resolution isn't challenged, it's another story entirely.

Best regards,

Lin

Just for fun & giggles I took a couple of shots using my Mamiya 645AFD/DCS645M with 55mm f/2.8 and Wista 45SP with 150 Schneider Symmar f/5.6. The view camera shot is nothing special and I didn't set up any movements for maximum DOF so it's a sort of fair comparison shot.

Mamiya 645/DCS 645M/55mm f/2.8 at f/16:
1k x 1k Basic Shot - not too big.
2k x 2k - 50% of full size, capture sharpened & colour matched only.
100% resolution crop
another 100% resolution crop


Wista 45SP/Symmar 150 f/5.6 at f/32:
1k x 1k basic shot.
2k x 2k - 20% of full size, capture sharpened & colour matched.
100% resolution crop of scan - capture sharpened only.
Another 100% detail.

I couldn't upload the full res versions as the DCS image is 16MB and the scan is 520MB 11k x 9k resolution!

The film is Velvia scanned on an Epson 2450 using SilverFast Ai Studio. 2400 dpi. Obviously an Imacon or drum scan would have better shadow detail and DMax. I can't vouch for the 1DsII quality but the Kodak is no slouch in this department. Film still wins in my book - but it's not by a lot.

Enjoy!

Really ? On my Epson 2100 I'm pressed to see any real difference above 240 dpi.  Colorbyte Software (makers of Image Print) claim that anything above 200 dpi is more than their RIP needs.  And I've certainly got the impression from various experts that anything over 300 is a waste of ink.

When I first got my 1Ds, I compared it to drum scans of my 645 and 6x7 MF images.  What I found there was that the 1Ds was marginally better than the scanned 645 (Contax 645 with Zeiss lenses) and was marginally lagging behind scanned 6x7 (Mamiya RZ and M7 with Mamiya lenses).  The 1Ds fell right inbetween the two, and they were pretty close to begin with.

Enter the 1DsII.  IMO it is enough better than the 1Ds that I can safely say it trumps drum-scanned 6x7.

Cheers,
Jack

Yes, but not mine since I had to sell my 1Ds before I could buy my 1DsII -- and I posted the link where you can download DNG versions of them the last time this question was asked:


http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews....II.html

Yes, and I looked at that pretty carefully too.  What stood out was that the difference between 8 Mpixels and 11 was quite large and the difference between 11 and 16.7 was rather small.  The most important differences noted in that article were at high ISO.  I still haven't seen anything as simple and clear as Akiss' two photographs showing that with a Canon f2.5 compact macro 50mm lens used at f22 there was very little difference for the detailed hard edged material he shot at ISO 100.  The only objection to the test is that it was shot at f22.  However, without seeing more test pairs, I would take this Akiss test and the fact that 8 to 11 is a big difference and 11 to 16.7 is a small one to mean that if you only shoot at ISO 100 then the money and 50% extra processing and storage overhead is nowhere near worth it for me (even if I had the money anyway).  

The article and the Akiss test quite obviously vindicate the supspicion I had right from day 1, months before the camera was released, that we would not see resolution improvement anywhere near reflecting the 50% pixel increase because lens resolution becomes too limiting, even with world class lenses.  A Canon 50mm compact macro is not exactly garbage even at f22.  I would only expect truly world class lenses shot at optimal aperture to give even a relatively minor real improvement in resolution, based on the article and the Akiss test.  I'm open to be shown differently.  It's not just about arguing or intellectualizing for fun.  If I'm shown a big enough difference in a real life type clear test, I could end up saving my pennies.  As far as what I've been show so far... no way.

The article from that link you posted mentioned about the much bigger gap between 8 and 11 than 11 and 16.  I don't have a printer, so I can't try that.  In any case, it's at this point only worth just so much hassle, since I don't have the money to buy a 1ds2 any time soon anyway.  I'm inclined to skip 1ds2 and wait for 30+ MF DSLR and then evaluate as carefully as I can whether to buy a by then cheap used 22 MF or a 30+ if the difference is worth the money.  One thing is for sure, there's no easy answers.  You have to do a lot of research and take everything with a grain of salt.

Not exactly -- the article reported that one photographer who downloaded all of them and printed them got that result.  And that photographer did not secify how he processed each image...

It took me about 3 MONTHS of playing with my 1Ds files before I got REALLY exceptional results.  The curve with the 1DII was much shorter -- weeks -- but I had several raw converters to experiment with right out of the gate.

With the 1DsII I am currently limited to DPP (totally sucks) and Bibble, which is a great interface, but I have NOTHING viable to compare its output to.  Hence my reluctance to make any concrete claims.

BUT!  In the end, the 1Ds remains a VERY fine -- no, excellent -- imaging tool.  And I expect that even when I get the 1DsII performing at its peak, the differences will not be significant until I get to 16x24 and larger prints.

You're all thinking too small.  Remember the guy that converted a big truck into a camera and made almost billboard size prints straight from the camera?  Scan and process that, you wimps.

Here is a quick and dirty comparison of the two...

First the digital specs: I shot the digital image with my 1DsII and 35mm f1.4L lens at f8, ISO 100. Exposure was 1/320th @f8. I used the 35/1.4 because it is an excellent lens, and I have a comparable focal length, and equally excellent lens for my 4x5. I shot it at its sweet-spot aperture of f8.

Film specs: I shot the film image a few hours later with my Phillips 4x5 (a high quality, rigid, 4x5 field camera), a Rodenstock 135 APO lens (equivalent FOV to 35mm lens on full-frame), and Fuji "Astia" film (ISO 100). A thin cloud had moved in and softened the harsh light, hence my comment that this is not an ideal comparison. However I think the results are pretty clear anyway. This exposure was 1/15th @f22. F22 is the sweet-spot for this LF lens. (While the exposure times are vastly different, they also represent very "real-world" exposure criteria for the two differing systems.) Obviously both cameras were mounted on a tripod for the exposures. I then scanned the 4x5 transparency on my Imacon PrecisionII at it's highest true optical resolution for 4x5, 1800PPI.

IMPORTANT NOTES: I did process both images lightly and apply what I feel was optimal sharpening for each image, but I made no attempt to color match the two images.  Also,
to give you the same size images to view, I had to downsize the 4x5 image by 1/2 in each dimension to match the final size of the "actual pixel" crop out of the 1DsII's native file. I used CS's Bicubic Sharper in one step to do this. So in effect, the scanned 4x5 image is 4 times as large as the 1DsII native image, and has even more detail than what shows here...  

Conclusion: Scanned 4x5 remains King of detail by a pretty significant margin...

Here is the album: http://jack.cameraphile.org/gallery....album06

Cheers,
Jack

I actually plan to do this comparison on Friday.  

I expect however Bernard is correct and A3 is about it -- that happens to be roughly where the native 1DsII file will print at 300PPI...

By contrast, the native 4x5 scan will print almost to full A1 at 300PPI...

Any way you cut it, there is simply a lot more detail in the scan.

Wide lenses is where I'm at and is the reason I've remained bi-lingual owning both Canon and Nikon systems.

I do like the look of my wide nikkors over my "L"'s. With film, I like what I see. It doesn't seem as clear cut with digital as more "stuff" comes into play namely unequal sensor tech.

Canons CMOS has given them a major jump ahead on the industry. Nikon may catch up in sensor tech, especially now that they have thrown their lot  in with the "big guy" (Sony) with their high end sensors.

But, I'm fairly convinced that the lens is rapidly becoming the bottleneck. 645 real estate (or larger) just makes the work for the lens easier. I saw somewhere (maybe here) where it would be possible to make a 100mpxl chip using current P&S technology in ff 35mm. But to what end! On the otherhand, being a tech type, I can forsee the day where coke bottle lens can be made to look pretty good with smart software. Good enough is the question!

I suspect we'll learn alot when the D2x hits the market. I sense it's make it or break it time for Nikon. I for one hope they show us something special. My opinion is we NEED two strong competitors in the marketplace to keep each other on their toes and to keep money in our bank accounts.

It looks like everyone else is becoming marginalized.

FYI I always print at  360 or 720 PPi (dpi) on my Epson 1270, and would not print at 300, the difference between 300 & 360 is clear...

between 360 and 720 up real cose you can see a difference but at 2ft its gone unless your an owl.


I look forward to a 1Ds and 1Ds mark II print of after rezing up the 1Ds file to match the mark II.

Matt

Do I understand you to mean that the Kodak even outperforms the 1Ds Mark 2 in terms of detail?  I realize that it will be lopsidedly the other way in high-ISO performance, autofocus speed, etc.....

D,

It is an issue.  More work is needed, and I prefer using ACR 2.3 because its colour noise slider removers 90% of the problem in 90% of cases.  Occasionally I get a problem case I can't so easily salvage.

This is one area where an AA filter makes a difference.  Kodaks decision to leave one off the 14n.SLR/n /c series was as much to do with saving costs as with sharpness, and previous Kodak dslrs had a user-removeable AA filter.

The loss of sharpness is a trade-off.  Its one I'm happy with but others are not.  

Quentin

Quentin,

Realistically, I agree with you. The digital shot results are more than 'adequate' and if I hadn't taken two shots of the almost identical scene I'd probably never want for anything more in a large print from either, at least at A2/A3 type of size. It was fun to pixel peep though.

4x5 at 2400 is pretty unmanageable even on my dual G5 with 4.5GB ram. The 4x5 ends up as a 4GB 16bit PS file which is ok once it's loaded but takes a while to load/save. It's definitely overkill.

Jack,

It's a limb I am already out on, as you'll recall my somewhat unscientific conclusions in another thread ( see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin....2;st=60 ) were that we'd need around 75mp in a medium format sensor to match scanned LF.

Quentin

Since it's pretty obvious that 4x5 film can beat a 1ds2 file, how would 6x7 medium format film compare?  I'm curious, since I don't have the tools to do any testing.  I realize Michael has done his "1ds is better than medium format film" article, but I thought that was only for prints up to 13x19, and then with the 1ds2, I believe he said it's equal to MF up to 16x20 max.  Is this correct?

T-1000

I can compare a mouse to an elephant.  At least they're both grey.  So what?  No one has yet denied that 1ds2 is a "pretty good camera".  In fact that's the weakest praise I've heard yet, for either 1ds or 1ds2.  The issue here is whether 1ds2 is significantly sharper than 1ds, and this is strictly opinions so far.  I'd like to see some direct comparison pictures in addition to the only two I've seen so far and which showed as good as no difference.

But unfortunately for yoru theory, this is NOT a correct assumption...  

The effect of diffraction impairs image quality significantly beginning at about f11 and rapidly getting worse from there.  You can easily see this in a direct f-stop comparison -- and it is noticable in a 1Ds to some degree, and an even greater degree in the 1DsII.  

Cheers,
Jack

Well, only you can decide on this one as it isn't an issue of being a stupid decision or not but a personal one.

If you have a high end DSLR then you need to consider how often you will shoot film at all. If you do shoot film then you'll want it to be worth the effort and so I'd suggest that the larger the format (or panoramic) the better to enjoy the results and the process.

4x5 is significantly different to MF shooting but that may be exactly what you want. 6x7 such from Mamiya 7 are beautiful. 6x12 or 6x17 formats are popular and these have excellent glass.

Only you can know whether this makes sense for you. The problem with digital is that it is very easy to consign all of your analog gear to the camera bag where it stays.

As regards choosing a MF system that doesn't support digital in the future - it's a trade off between cost of system change in the future vs. cost today. There's a lot of stuff out there that is still excellent optically but a dead end if you want to reuse it for digital. If you adopt a film system it would probably make sense to give yourself the option of going digital in the future if you can.

i have in the past, and am getting ready to start a project with it now (have an 8x10 Sinar P).

      jim

Actually, knowing how soft 35mm images can be at f22, I'm surprised that the Akiss images showed any difference at all. The fact that they did, implies that there might be a worthwhile difference at f8, provided that 20 sec exposure did not impact on his results.

Gwelland:

thanks for the math...  Again, excuse my pea-brain, but doesn't an 8-bit TIFF require 3 bits per pixel, one for the red channel, a second for the green and a third for the blue?  

If so, wouldn't this make the ~500MP image roughly 1.5 GIGA-bytes in size and the 16-bit version 3 Gig?

Talk about storage and processing issues!

As you say, no surprises.  I'd be interested in seeing this sort of comparison for 1ds and 1dsII.

Fair enough Jack.  I have found I can go beyond A3 up to A2 or sometimes bigger if I take the same care with my Kodak 14nx shots as I would wth my large format shots.  To some extent this is dependent upon the subject matter.  Of course LF is superior in terms of absolute detail on the really big stuff, but I am only too glad to accept some compromise for the convenience and pleasure of digital. Digital pixels are superior to scanned film pixels, but with LF, there is so much data, it will win out despite this.

My drum scanner has not turned in anger for some time now  ::

Quentin

This seems to be confirmed by a Kodak shooter on the dpreview Kodak forum (a friendly place in dpreview terms) who has just taken delivery of a 1Ds II and done a quick comparison at base ISO.  

Quentin

I just did a slightly different test, and was surprised how quickly the difference became apparent. I tested 4x5 vs. a 6 mp DSLR (Nikon D70), which was obviously going to be a big difference at huge sizes. My test was a LOT less scientific, but was perhaps representative of how people really use the cameras. I did not use the same shot, but picked one from my first day with 4x5 (which I'm just learning) and one from my extensive file of D70 images that didn't show any of the downsides of digital (base ISO, no huge dynamic range, etc...) I scanned the 4x5 Velvia on an older Epson Perfection 3200, at only 1600 dpi (I know that's a 3200x6400 dpi scanner, but, as has been discussed here before, it can't really capture its full resolution).
    I did two print tests, and judged on the results from the prints, not from huge pixel blowups (the pixel blowup would be NO surprise-4x5 just beat a 1Ds II, a D70 isn't going to catch it.) First was a 16x20 print from 4x5 against a (roughly) 14x20 print from the D70. I matched the 20 inch dimension and let the width fall where it may. These prints were produced on an HP DesignJet 130. The D70 print looks OK viewed alone, but it is best not to view it with a print from 4x5 in the same room! The detail in the 16x20 from 4x5 was simply amazing...I was not surprised, except, perhaps, by the magnitude of the difference.
    After the 16x20 result was so conclusive (I consider the D70 to be"falling apart" at 16x20), I decided to see how small I could go and still see a difference. 8x10 (and only 6.7whatever in width on the D70) should be closer? Time to fire up the Photosmart 8450-a very modern, high resolution, wide color gamut small printer (the only printer thus far to have a native color space of Adobe RGB). At 8x10, the D70 is a LOT more acceptable than at 16x20. However, the 4x5 is still easy to pick out-the 8450's pulling detail from the scan that just is not there in the digital file. The 8450 is so high resolution that most of the detail from the 16x20 is still there-you just have to look closely. There is a depth to the 4x5 print that is simply not present in the digital, even at a small size. I wonder if it is better dynamic range (although the 4x5 was Velvia and the digital shot was chosen not to push the limits), just the increased resolution, or what?
    I WAS surprised to have a visible difference as far down as 8x10! I thought that a good DSLR operated within its limits was essentially perfect at a print size that small (I thought that the only reason to use the view camera for prints that small was for the movements). It IS very good, but I can pick out the view camera every time even at 8x10...
    The view camera in this comparison was a pretty simple rig-a Wista DX wooden 4x5 field camera with a multicoated (but fairly low-end) Caltar (Rodenstock) 150 mm f5.6 lens. Film was a Velvia quickload in a Polaroid 545 holder (supposedly not the sharpest way of doing things, but plenty to beat digital).

                                                           -dan

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my conclusion. The fact is that 4x5 scanned on EVEN an Epson 2450 can still produce more true image data than my 16mp digital back with prime Mamiya glass. It shows up in the prints too. Obviously a better scan would show this even more.

Now this isn't meant to be a surprising discovery - I've known that all along (MF film too from my film scanner). In the spirit of 'can xyz mk II beat 4x5 film' I figured that someone might be interested in a real world like for like example and make up their own mind.

The problem I run into with film is that I end up with too much information and I need a Cray XMP machine to run Photoshop. :cool:

Since I don't have to do this stuff for the day job, I actually enjoy shooting both film and digital. Both produce outstanding image quality, but one is more 'outstanding' than the other in qualitative terms if not usability and convenience. Don't worry, I'm not ditching the digital equipment any time soon ......

That was the conclusion of the shooter I referred to who owns a Kodak and recently purchased a 1Ds II.  Its not my conclusion because I neither own, nor have any intention of buying, any Canon kit.  However, it is not particularly surprising given there is relatively little difference in pixel counts, and the Canon uses an AA filter, whereas the Kodak does not.

Your mileage may vary.

Quentin

I think it may in certain situations, but not by a significant margin.  After all, 16MP is not that many more than 14

However, as pointed out, there are significant tradeoffs to not having an AA filter...  In the end, I think the ideal scenario is an AA filter that is not too strong, but just enough to help the Bayer. I think the 1Ds was near-perfect in this balance, though I am not yet sure where the 1DsII falls.

> 4x5 at 2400 is pretty unmanageable even on my dual G5 with 4.5GB ram. The 4x5 ends up as a 4GB 16bit PS file which is ok once it's loaded but takes a while to load/save. It's definitely overkill

Scanning at higher resolution is great to get the detail, but then you can downsample to much lower resolution and still have the detail.  The averaging you get will supress the grain artifacts and make a much better print than working with the scanning resolution.

Quentin:  You and I are certainly on the same wavelength  :D

The fact that folks are now comparing the 1DS Mark II to large format seems to me that the 1DS MII is a pretty good camera, however one looks at it.

Bruce

I researched all that pretty thoroughly some months ago and the figure I recall was f16 for 50mm or so lenses, but in any case without direct comparison shots at optimal aperture it's all speculation and extrapolation as to just how much sharper 1ds2 is for the best lenses at optimal aperture.  The article you pointed out says that the improvement is far less than the improvement from 8 Mpixels to 11, but just how much less?  I wanna see pictures, test grids, street signs, brick walls, landscapes with a lot of detail.  I don't expect to see dramatic differences even for the very best lenses at optimal aperture and the less optimal the lenses or apertures get the less difference you'd see, but the processing and storage overhead is 50% more even if you're shooting with a lens/aperture that gives you no real improvement in resolution.  I could be shown otherwise, but not "talked" otherwise.

Well, I'm still hoping for some crops to be posted, like what Akiss did, but shot at f8 and maybe also a brick wall, detailed leafy vegetation, whatever is most challenging and convincing.  

Even if there's a worthwhile difference at f8 that's pretty much totally missing at f22, it's a little discouraging because you can't do all your shooting with world class lenses at f8.  I mostly shoot wide to very wide and even the best lucky cherry picked zoom samples or Zeiss primes fall short of good 50mm primes.  It all means that in my case I'd be doing a lot of shots without getting anywhere near the maximum resolution potential of a 1ds2, whatever that absolute best resolution potential with a world class lens at f8 may be.  I suspect my next upgrade will be something like a 22 Mpixel MF camera.  That being way better than MF color film, I'll probably be able to live with that without further upgrade lust because I'm sure very high density MF sensors will also require shooting with the very best lenses at exactly the optimal aperture.  Doesn't sound attractive to me.

Does anyone actually shoot 8x10 in this forum?

T-1000

Well, doing the math assuming 8x10 dimensions it's about 500mp (477mp = 8 x 10 x 2500 x 2500 / (1024 x 1024) ) ... which I would expect to be somewhere in the region of ~500MB (8 bit) or ~1GB (16 bit) for an uncompressed TIFF. Lossless compression would obviously shrink these significantly depending upon the image complexity.

You start running into significant image transfer times at this sort of size even for the fastest machines. Storage is another matter again!

You are correct - I realised that I'd missed the 3x & 6x factors for the bytes but I've been away ...

Pretty big stuff.

"If an 8x10 is scanned on a drum scanner at 2500 DPI (the theoretical film grain resolution limit for ISO 100 transparency film)"

100 speed tranny film can resolve far more than 2500 on the film. Many lenses for 8 X10 probably can't and the thicker film base might limit it somewhat too. I can see a very noticeably improvement going from 6.4 microns (4000 ppi) to 3.2 microns (8000 ppi) on the Howtek drum from  6X7 RZ and 35mm frames . Both Tri-X and Agfa 400, believe it or not, can also resolve over 4000 and TMax 100 is even sharper.

To be expected, but perhaps more important is at what print size would the difference become apparent?  I supect you could go quite large before the 4x5 advantage was material.  I would expect the 1Ds II or Kodak SLR/n or c to hold their own up to around A2.

Quentin

It's a pity that Canon seems unable to make wide lenses that match up to the 1Ds (I do not own a 1DsII). Many of these how-large-a-print comparisons are marred by inadequate lenses on the smaller format. OK, many people typically use zooms, but presumably not when they are chasing A2 prints. The cheapest, pixel-sharp Canon lens I have used is the 100mm/2.8macro USM, at any distance, at any f-stop. With that one, or Canon's longer lenses, it becomes obvious that the limit is the Bayerised/antialiaised pixels, not the lens. I have used an astro camera with no Bayer array and the look at the pixel-peeping 1:1 level is quite different. With all shorter primes that I have used on the 1Ds the limit invariably and rather obviously seems to be the lens, not the pixels. Heck, even on a D30, much of the time. Conclusion? Time for Canon to come up with wide lenses worthy of their DSLRs. I'd quite happily pay $1000+ for a decent, pixel-sharp (MTF>70% at 30 lp/mm), f2.8 50mm, 28mm, etc. But then it becomes quite silly to compare printability of 1DsII tele-shots with a 4x5... Somebody somewhere must be using a huge tele on a 4x5 but there can't be all that many of these guys. The people who adapt Zeiss Distagons to Canon DSLRs are testament to these lens issues.

Jack, I read your article on sharpening and resizing at outback. I also just looked at the Qimage product which appears to make the claim that 300 dpi is not enough and offer two printing tests (test chart and photo) done as high as 720 dpi with the implication, for ultimate output we need to output at 720 not 300. If this has any merit then, larger format (more pixels in the capture) and less upsizing could produce substancially better prints. Seems like snake oil at first blush.

Have you looked at the product?

Bob

BTW, the album was updated this afternoon and now includes a drum and Epson flatbed scan comparison...

"The film is Velvia scanned on an Epson 2450 using SilverFast Ai Studio. 2400 dpi. Obviously an Imacon or drum scan would have better shadow detail and DMax. I can't vouch for the 1DsII quality but the Kodak is no slouch in this department. Film still wins in my book - but it's not by a lot."

I'd say by a lot more than you think. Making any comparison between digital and film, you are really comparing the quality of your scanner, not your film, to the digital capture, and in the instances in this thread, none of the scanners can come close to resolving nearly what is actually held in a sharp piece of film. Scan your film on a truly state of the art (not Imacon) drum scanner and you'll be amazed at how much more is there. What's little known is that virtually no scanners achieve their advertised optical resolutions, and Imacon PIII's and Epson flatbeds are great examples of that phenomenon, yielding far less resolution than you might expect.

Hi Graham,

Glad to hear it.  I'm thinking of re-starting shooting large format again because its one way of blowing those $30k digital backs in to the weeds  :D   And I'm having drum scanning withdrawal symptoms.

What I actually thought when I saw your comparisons was that the  Mamiya / digi back solution looked more than "good enough" for most purposes.  I also find scanning LF at 2,000 dpi on my drum scanner pulls out more than enough detail: beyond that and you increase file sizes to silly levels with relatively minor gains (unless you want to cover the side if a house).

Quentin