[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Jim, Glad the link helps and thanks for telling me about it! Singh-Ray makes a filter designed by an acquaintance of mine, Tony Sweet, so there's a small personal connection with the company. Best Regards, Bernie Kubiak -- Original message -- From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Bernie. Years ago I was developing a device for evaluating and collimating lenses and a mutual friend, Leon Kenamer, introduced me to Dr. Singh. I had him make three narrow bandwidth filters (5 to 10 nanometer bandwidth) for my autocollimator. He also made an infrared filter for my light source. The lamp would burn the end of a Q-tip at one inch from the bulb. With his filter placed directly in front of the lamp, I could hold my hand at that one inch distance from the bulb and felt only mild warmth. His narrow bandwidth filters also performed perfectly. Needless to say, I was very impressed with his work. I discussed UV filters with him and he was making them at that time. He did say that they were costly to make and was not sure about sales. Thanks again for the link! I lost track of him after Leon passed away. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Singh Ray is still around: www.singh-ray.com/index.html but I don't see a UV filter in their catalog. Bernie -- Original message -- From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most UV filters are just glass, with IR coatings - glass will filter some UV, I seem to recall less than 20%. Singh Ray did make a real UV filter but it wasn't cheap and I don't know if he is still in business. Jim Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Most UV filters are just glass, with IR coatings - glass will filter some UV, I seem to recall less than 20%. Singh Ray did make a real UV filter but it wasn't cheap and I don't know if he is still in business. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The focal length is a bit over 600mm. I use a barlow, so the focal length is around 3000mm effective. The images are from Astia 100f (35mm), scanned on the Minolta 5400 II, but reduced by two. Obviously, the image is tweaked quite a bit in photoshop. The raw image is very blue. I use a long pass filter (optical) to reduce some of the haze. A bit more OT, but I've discovered that so called UV filters don't really remove much UV. I have a flashlight made of 380nm UV leds, which I use as a test source. If you aim the UV at a phosphor screen (such as an oscilloscope), the screen will glow. This allows me to make a crude UV filter test. The run of the mill camera lens UV filters are a joke. My glass is from Andover, and it really kills UV. [Haze is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the wavelength, so a little filtering helps a lot.] Schott Glass makes two UV filters in camera rather than astronomical sizes. I plan on getting one of these for use in high altitudes, where UV is really strong. James L. Sims wrote: Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach! Just how long is the lens you used for this project? Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am surprised and impressed at the detail you captured at that distance. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week, with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles. http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2 You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as irfranview. I didn't bring up the term reach, so I wanted everyone on the same page. I'd like it to be the case that less is more when it comes to sensors. Arthur Entlich wrote: Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need reach you need a spy satellite ;-) It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry. Have you considered a Telescope? Art gary wrote: I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Singh Ray is still around: www.singh-ray.com/index.html but I don't see a UV filter in their catalog. Bernie -- Original message -- From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most UV filters are just glass, with IR coatings - glass will filter some UV, I seem to recall less than 20%. Singh Ray did make a real UV filter but it wasn't cheap and I don't know if he is still in business. Jim Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
I also think it is not correct to simply use jpeg fine with 'no sharpening' for the comparison, as the defaults in each camera could well be different. Some sharpening is likely to be applied in camera to a jpeg even if switched to zero sharpening. He explained away the fact that he could not do a raw test comparison by the fact that he could not find a raw converter that would do both formats, possibly the case a couple of years ago when he did that test, but I would have imagined PS could have done it with both plugins. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Geoghegan Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2007 2:21 AM To: Hanna, Mark (x9085) Subject: [filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography Yes, there are all sorts of ways to define the perfect comparison test depending on what's most relevant to the way each of us would use the gear, let alone a perfect lab evaluation. Rørslett is a reliable source but he's working with his own requirements tastes -- a cold weather nature photographer fond of long lenses. Bob G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography I wish they were a bit more scientific in their analysis. For instance, Canon makes more than one 300mm lens. Bob Geoghegan wrote: Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D mkII or 5D. http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page Results may vary, of course. Bob G Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Notice This email, and any attachments transmitted with it, is confidential and may contain sensitive or privileged information. If you are not the named recipient you may not read, use, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise act in reliance of the message or any of the information it contains. If you have received the message in error, please inform the sender via email and destroy the message. Opinions expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd. No responsibility is taken for any loss or damage sustained from the use of the information in this email and Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd makes no warranty that this material is unaffected by computer virus, corruption or other defects. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week, with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles. http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2 You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as irfranview. I didn't bring up the term reach, so I wanted everyone on the same page. I'd like it to be the case that less is more when it comes to sensors. Arthur Entlich wrote: Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need reach you need a spy satellite ;-) It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry. Have you considered a Telescope? Art gary wrote: I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach! Just how long is the lens you used for this project? Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am surprised and impressed at the detail you captured at that distance. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week, with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles. http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2 You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as irfranview. I didn't bring up the term reach, so I wanted everyone on the same page. I'd like it to be the case that less is more when it comes to sensors. Arthur Entlich wrote: Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need reach you need a spy satellite ;-) It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry. Have you considered a Telescope? Art gary wrote: I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
The focal length is a bit over 600mm. I use a barlow, so the focal length is around 3000mm effective. The images are from Astia 100f (35mm), scanned on the Minolta 5400 II, but reduced by two. Obviously, the image is tweaked quite a bit in photoshop. The raw image is very blue. I use a long pass filter (optical) to reduce some of the haze. A bit more OT, but I've discovered that so called UV filters don't really remove much UV. I have a flashlight made of 380nm UV leds, which I use as a test source. If you aim the UV at a phosphor screen (such as an oscilloscope), the screen will glow. This allows me to make a crude UV filter test. The run of the mill camera lens UV filters are a joke. My glass is from Andover, and it really kills UV. [Haze is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the wavelength, so a little filtering helps a lot.] Schott Glass makes two UV filters in camera rather than astronomical sizes. I plan on getting one of these for use in high altitudes, where UV is really strong. James L. Sims wrote: Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach! Just how long is the lens you used for this project? Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am surprised and impressed at the detail you captured at that distance. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week, with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles. http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2 You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as irfranview. I didn't bring up the term reach, so I wanted everyone on the same page. I'd like it to be the case that less is more when it comes to sensors. Arthur Entlich wrote: Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need reach you need a spy satellite ;-) It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry. Have you considered a Telescope? Art gary wrote: I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
One other detail I'd like to mention is that I really prefer the aspect ratio of 4/3. A subjective matter, naturally. I think it is really silly, this craze in movies and television for the very wide screen, which may suit the sweeping landscape, but very often looks ridiculous and sacrifices the depth and vertical interest that scenes often provide. The 3/2 aspect ratio just begins to fall into that category. Because of this preference of mine, the 4/3 CCD is worth an extra 12.5% for me, so my 5 MP works for me like 5.625, and the next Oly at 10 MP (?) will be like 11.25 MP. Not a big deal, granted. I hear someone saying a day late and a dollar short. :~| Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote: Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among professional photographers working digitally today? It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons. I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the crop factor gives their big white lenses a little more reach and the 1D series has always had much higher frame rates and burst capabilities than their full-frame 1Ds cousin. With Kodak and Contax out of the market that's left Canon's 5D and 1Ds as the only FF cameras that I'm aware of. Of course, Sony and Nikon may both have FF models waiting in the wings, if current rumors are accurate. Personally, I wouldn't mind shooting with a FF sensor, but the 1Ds is more expensive than I'm willing to go and the 5D (which I considered) is saddled with a body design and control layout from Canon's low-end cameras. If price were no object I'd own a 1Ds, but in addition to being expensive it's a real brick. It's about 3 1/2 pounds with no lens. An E-410 weighs less than a pound. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of the sensor to save space on the memory card. R. Jackson wrote: Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get there. On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
Some 2006 Japan-only figures put the 5D at a low single-digit portion of DSLRs overall (and DSLRs are only about 5% of digital camera unit sales). The 1Ds would be a smaller fraction still. This is just from memory, but together they'd be 2-3% of the DSLR market, 100,000-150,000 units. (and that's optimistic) Canon's profile benefits from the high visibility sports market, and for now the 1D Mk III intro. I'd be interested to see figures on the pro-level market, whether by # of users or sales. This year's total DSLRs have Nikon doing quite well with the newer D80, D40 D40x giving them Japan-only lead over Canon at about 48-38% Jan-April this year. http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID38/16799.html#6 World DSLR market in 2006 was 5.2 million units, up 39% over 2005. Unit sales were 46% Canon, 33% Nikon then Olympus, Sony and Pentax-Samsung at 5-6% each. Nikon's growth was a hair under the total, Canon's was 1/4 under with their lost market share going to Olympus and Pentax-Samsung. I'm not sure how Sony's doing compared to Konica-Minolta -- some stories portrayed steady sales after the Sony take-over, others told of a burst then drop off. http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1175724860.html Bob G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote: Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among professional photographers working digitally today? It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons. I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the crop factor gives their big white lenses a little more reach and the 1D series has always had much higher frame rates and burst capabilities than their full-frame 1Ds cousin. With Kodak and Contax out of the market that's left Canon's 5D and 1Ds as the only FF cameras that I'm aware of. Of course, Sony and Nikon may both have FF models waiting in the wings, if current rumors are accurate. Personally, I wouldn't mind shooting with a FF sensor, but the 1Ds is more expensive than I'm willing to go and the 5D (which I considered) is saddled with a body design and control layout from Canon's low-end cameras. If price were no object I'd own a 1Ds, but in addition to being expensive it's a real brick. It's about 3 1/2 pounds with no lens. An E-410 weighs less than a pound. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor does provide a greater reach per resolution. Also, the camera is smaller and likely lighter. Art gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote: Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among professional photographers working digitally today? It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons. I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the crop factor gives their big white lenses a little more reach and the 1D series has always had much higher frame rates and burst capabilities than their full-frame 1Ds cousin. With Kodak and Contax out of the market that's left Canon's 5D and 1Ds as the only FF cameras that I'm aware of. Of course, Sony and Nikon may both have FF models waiting in the wings, if current rumors are accurate. Personally, I wouldn't mind shooting with a FF sensor, but the 1Ds is more expensive than I'm willing to go and the 5D (which I considered) is saddled with a body design and control layout from Canon's low-end cameras. If price were no object I'd own a 1Ds, but in addition to being expensive it's a real brick. It's about 3 1/2 pounds with no lens. An E-410 weighs less than a pound. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Exactly. I agree. Unless the FF is higher res the main advantage of FF is lower noise and in the wide angle department. Art R. Jackson wrote: Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get there. On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF, you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage. Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as it first appears. Art gary wrote: I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of the sensor to save space on the memory card. R. Jackson wrote: Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get there. On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I think you need to strictly define reach. Arthur Entlich wrote: Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor does provide a greater reach per resolution. Also, the camera is smaller and likely lighter. Art gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote: Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among professional photographers working digitally today? It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons. I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the crop factor gives their big white lenses a little more reach and the 1D series has always had much higher frame rates and burst capabilities than their full-frame 1Ds cousin. With Kodak and Contax out of the market that's left Canon's 5D and 1Ds as the only FF cameras that I'm aware of. Of course, Sony and Nikon may both have FF models waiting in the wings, if current rumors are accurate. Personally, I wouldn't mind shooting with a FF sensor, but the 1Ds is more expensive than I'm willing to go and the 5D (which I considered) is saddled with a body design and control layout from Canon's low-end cameras. If price were no object I'd own a 1Ds, but in addition to being expensive it's a real brick. It's about 3 1/2 pounds with no lens. An E-410 weighs less than a pound. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Bob Geoghegan wrote: Some 2006 Japan-only figures put the 5D at a low single-digit portion of DSLRs overall (and DSLRs are only about 5% of digital camera unit sales). The 1Ds would be a smaller fraction still. Well, the 1Ds is what, about $7000 retail? And the 5D retails at $2500 or so? You have to be a pretty avid photographer to drop that kind of coin on a camera. There are probably a lot of people who'd jump all over an inexpensive FF camera, if only because the reviews would marvel at its high ISO performance. The price of manufacturing the sensors doesn't look like it's going to come down significantly within the next few years. Until FF sensors are inexpensive enough to be an option at all price points I don't think we'll see a serious picture of what the market wants. If Joe Tourist can get an APS camera for $500 or a FF camera for $600 I tend to imagine he'll buy the FF camera. I may be wrong, but I think a lot of the people who have a thousand different really good reasons why they'd never own a FF camera might change their song if FF cameras were more affordable. I still like to shoot film. For me it's tough to buy into a camera system unless I can swap the glass off onto a film camera. Like, Sony may come out with a FF camera early next year, but my only option for a film body with that mount would be a Minolta that won't drive SSM lenses. Nikon may come out with a FF body and they still sell new F6 bodies, so there ya go. And of course you can find a new EOS-1v at a lot of places, so that's an option. It's actually pretty sad that we'll probably never see another new 35mm SLR design. Hard to even absorb that, really. -Robert Jackson Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
This makes good sense Art, however I'm curious about pixel density. (apart from the obvious larger pixel = more photons landing in it sensitivity advantage which is often the case with the larger sensor) Can the lenses being used on the cameras in question, satisfactorily resolve the number of lines per mm required for the smaller pixel density of the smaller sensor? I have read about lenses having 40LPmm (crap consumer zoom)or 100LPmm (reasonably good lens), is this figure in relation to the intended projected plane? If so, 40LPmm for a 35mm film plane or FF sensor would be 24mm by 36mm which at 40LPmm, equals 1.3824 MPixels. 100LPmm = 8.64MP. For an APSC sized sensor, 15 by 24mm I think, you're looking at 0.576MP and 3.6MP for 40LPmm and 100LPmm respectively. So in theory, you may be able to crop the FF pic to emulate a 1.3 or 1.6 sized sensor, and despite possibly having less pixel density, the sensor may be capturing the same actual sharpness or resolution, in which case you could simply upsize the resolution to match in PS, and get the same resolution, same sharpness, but lower noise photograph, due to larger pixels, but pixels that may actually match the resolution of the lenses better than the smaller sensor. I don't know much about lens resolution, however if the average L series lens is around 100 to 120LPmm, I know I'd be wanting the larger sensor if my above assumptions are correct. I have a 5D, and the size and resolution of the images never fail to amaze me, as good as my old Mamiya M6451000S. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 9:47 AM To: Hanna, Mark (x9085) Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF, you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage. Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as it first appears. Art gary wrote: I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of the sensor to save space on the memory card. R. Jackson wrote: Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get there. On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Notice This email, and any attachments transmitted with it, is confidential and may contain sensitive or privileged information. If you are not the named recipient you may not read, use, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise act in reliance of the message or any of the information it contains. If you have received the message in error, please inform the sender via email and destroy the message. Opinions expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd. No responsibility is taken for any loss or damage sustained from the use of the information in this email and Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd makes no warranty that this material is unaffected by computer virus, corruption or other defects. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Arthur Entlich wrote: Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF, you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage. Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as it first appears. Art gary wrote: I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of the sensor to save space on the memory card. R. Jackson wrote: Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get there. On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D mkII or 5D. http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page Results may vary, of course. Bob G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF, you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage. Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as it first appears. Art gary wrote: I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of the sensor to save space on the memory card. R. Jackson wrote: Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
If you are using autofocus, that will be the limiting factor in resolution. IIRC, they quit at about 50lpmm. Then there is the antialiasing filter, which reduces resolution. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has an AAF that doesn't filter much, so it is more prone to aliasing problems, but also produces a sharp image. Hanna, Mark (x9085) wrote: This makes good sense Art, however I'm curious about pixel density. (apart from the obvious larger pixel = more photons landing in it sensitivity advantage which is often the case with the larger sensor) Can the lenses being used on the cameras in question, satisfactorily resolve the number of lines per mm required for the smaller pixel density of the smaller sensor? I have read about lenses having 40LPmm (crap consumer zoom)or 100LPmm (reasonably good lens), is this figure in relation to the intended projected plane? If so, 40LPmm for a 35mm film plane or FF sensor would be 24mm by 36mm which at 40LPmm, equals 1.3824 MPixels. 100LPmm = 8.64MP. For an APSC sized sensor, 15 by 24mm I think, you're looking at 0.576MP and 3.6MP for 40LPmm and 100LPmm respectively. So in theory, you may be able to crop the FF pic to emulate a 1.3 or 1.6 sized sensor, and despite possibly having less pixel density, the sensor may be capturing the same actual sharpness or resolution, in which case you could simply upsize the resolution to match in PS, and get the same resolution, same sharpness, but lower noise photograph, due to larger pixels, but pixels that may actually match the resolution of the lenses better than the smaller sensor. I don't know much about lens resolution, however if the average L series lens is around 100 to 120LPmm, I know I'd be wanting the larger sensor if my above assumptions are correct. I have a 5D, and the size and resolution of the images never fail to amaze me, as good as my old Mamiya M6451000S. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 9:47 AM To: Hanna, Mark (x9085) Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF, you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage. Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as it first appears. Art gary wrote: I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of the sensor to save space on the memory card. R. Jackson wrote: Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get there. On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Notice This email, and any attachments transmitted with it, is confidential and may contain sensitive or privileged information. If you are not the named recipient you may not read, use, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise act in reliance of the message or any of the information it contains. If you have received the message in error, please inform the sender via email and destroy the message. Opinions expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd. No responsibility is taken for any loss or damage sustained from the use of the information in this email and Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd makes no warranty that this material is unaffected by computer virus, corruption or other defects. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I wish they were a bit more scientific in their analysis. For instance, Canon makes more than one 300mm lens. Bob Geoghegan wrote: Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D mkII or 5D. http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page Results may vary, of course. Bob G Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 7, 2007, at 7:51 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: The M7 doesn't get close (without going to heroic efforts), polarizers are a pain, it doesn't really do portraits. It's a two-trick pony (43 and 65 (three if you like 80mm)) Actually, my preferences are 65mm and 150mm. The 43mm and 50mm are pricey and you have to use an external finder. Same with the 210mm. All the range-coupled lenses work pretty nicely, though, IMO. , but the 43 is expensive enough that it never showed up here (oops: for 1/2 the money I could have had the GSW690III with full 6x9, but the lack of interchangeable lenses put me off). Yeah, me too. Hard to commit to one focal length. Unless you're Ozu. Heh...I always thought 'Ozu's 50' would be a cool name for a band. Seems nice, though. Never used one. And I'm not convinced the M7 is any better on the shutter speed than the M645. If I need 1/60 or slower with either of them, the tripod gets used. People insist rangefinders work handheld, but that's a lot of film and a lot of lens to waste. I almost never hand-hold medium format. It's a sexy idea and all. I love seeing the guys in movies dancing around with a Hasselblad while some rock star pouts for them, but when I'm going to be shooting big film I usually make time to shoot from a tripod. If I'm going to shoot hand-held I'll almost always grab a 35mm. The main reasons I like the 7 are that it's pretty small and light. I can keep it in my case and not feel like I'm dragging around a lot of extra stuff just on the off-chance I'll want to shoot 6x7. And Mamiya optics are really nice. I've got a Beseler 67 with negatrans carriers for both 35mm and 6x7, but I'm really starting to warm up to the idea of scanning at very high resolutions and sending out the files when I need large prints. I've scanned about 400 slides and negatives on this V700 over the past few weeks. At first I was limiting my 35mm scans to 4800 dpi. I wasn't really seeing much difference between 4800 and 6400, so I wasn't bothering to go any higher. I think I was mainly looking at negatives, though. A few days ago I scanned some crappy old Ektachrome at 6400 just to see what it looked like and I was really surprised at how close 6400 dpi seemed to come to capturing the grain. I should have been doing my early comparisons with slide film. I don't know why I didn't have my head screwed on right. I'm in San Diego in a couple of weeks and I think I'm going to make a trip up to L.A. and rent some time on an Aztek or an Imacon while I'm in SoCal. I really wonder if 8000 dpi will do the trick. 8000 dpi and autofocus just might be the right stuff. HEADS UP! The GX-680 III doesn't have movements; you need the GX-680 IIIS. You got that one backwards. The S is the lightweight version sans movements: http://www.jafaphotography.com/fuji_gx680s.htm Over five pounds with no lens or magazine isn't what I consider a light camera, but I guess it's lighter than a Vespa. I was looking at old TLRs on the lowest shelf of a glass case on the dusty second floor of a used camera shop here in Tokyo, and when I stood up and turned around, there was a Fuji GX-680 on the top shelf of the case behind me ready to pounce. I practically had a heart attack; that guy's enormous. Yeah, they're really immense. A few years ago I was at the East Bay Camera Show in Hayward and a guy had one on his table. I don't remember if it was a I, II or III, but I'd wanted to check one out for years. I'd imagined it with a central chassis the size of a 500ELM body and then discovered that the chassis was more like a car battery. A year or so later the same guy had it down at the San Jose camera show. No takers, I guess. I checked it out again and again it left me walking away shaking my head. I've really been leaning towards getting a view camera the last couple of years. It's something I'd wanted to do for ages, but for some reason I never got around to it. Work and life and stuff, I guess. Anyway, that Fuji kind of popped into my head a few times lately. It wouldn't be hard to shoot 120 and digital with the same rig that way. Tethered to a laptop in a hooded Portabrace monitor pack it would be possible to maintain a pretty useful degree of control. I was always a fan of guys like Clyfford Still and Mark Rothko who worked at in very large scale. Standing right up in front of their paintings is kind of like standing in front of a big picture window looking out on some alien landscape. I've really wanted to do some experiments at a very large scale, but I think it's something I'm just now starting to be ready to pursue. Heh...both financially and artistically. ;-) BTW, what do you do with a 48 x 96 print if you decide you don't really like it, after all? Heh... -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
You're right, Olympus is taking forever to bring out the new model, which has probably cost them some market base, but I'm waiting for it. The leaked info sounds great. The 14-35mm f2.0 lens is taking even longer, and isn't expected until next spring, rumor has it. It would seem to me odd that they wouldn't introduce the news lens with the new camera. Maybe the camera will be further delayed and they will come out together after all. ~Berry On 7/6/07 10:04 AM, R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I had an E-1. I actually gave it to a friend of mine last year and he's enjoying it. They've just taken so long replacing it that there's really no choice in a high-end E model right now, though the leaked document about the E-1 replacement looks promising. -Rob On Jul 6, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Berry Ives wrote: Just a detail, Rob, but the Oly E-1 has a weather-sealed magnesium body. It's quite solid. I don't know if any of their other models have the magnesium body, or if that feature is reserved for their pro line. Berry -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're right, Olympus is taking forever to bring out the new model, which has probably cost them some market base, but I'm waiting for it. The leaked info sounds great. The 14-35mm f2.0 lens is taking even longer, and isn't expected until next spring, rumor has it. (Sorry to be on your case here: feel free to tell me to take a hike. I find format comparisons interesting, but end up being a larger-format partizan.) I realize that an f/2.0 28-70mm equivalent lens sounds pretty cool. But you are forgetting to take the other aspects of the format difference into account. For the same pixel count (to a rough first approximation, 10 is about the same as 12.7), a 4/3 camera's pixels are 1/4 the area, and thus are two stops less sensitive. And DOF scales with the format size, so you gain two stops of DOF. (Only at the wide end, at smaller apertures, diffraction kicks in two stops sooner, so while f/16 on FF results in sharp images, apertures smaller than f/8 on 4/3 will show diffraction effects. (One of the early 5D/D2x comparisons bogusly shot them both at f/16, unfairly making the D2x look soft.)) So that sexy-sounding f/2.0 lens will be functionally indistinguishable from an f/4.0 28-70mm lens on FF (with the FF at four times the ISO for identical noise/dynamic range). It may be that the f/2.0 bit buys you an AF advantage, but I'm not sure. In FF vs. APS-C arguments, the point that an extra 1.4x TC is functionally equivalent to a smaller pixel pitch (test show that TCs do not significantly degrade the angular resolution of the lens) fails since the 5D's AF isn't an extra stop better than the APS-C AF, and the 5D can't focus with an f/5.6 lens + 1.4xTC. Note that to actually be equivalent, the 4/3 lens has to provide _twice_ the resolution (twice the lp/mm at any given MTF, or an MTF curve shifted up by a factor of two due to the finer pixel pitch) at f/2.0 than the FF 28-70mm lens does at f/4.0. (Interestingly, MTF performance does scale up with decreasing format sizes, so this point may not be a problem; but the need for twice the resolution at a much wider f stop may be problematic.) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 7, 2007, at 7:34 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote: But you are forgetting to take the other aspects of the format difference into account. This seems like an assumption. ;-) For the same pixel count (to a rough first approximation, 10 is about the same as 12.7), a 4/3 camera's pixels are 1/4 the area, and thus are two stops less sensitive. Natch. And DOF scales with the format size, so you gain two stops of DOF. (Only at the wide end, at smaller apertures, diffraction kicks in two stops sooner, so while f/16 on FF results in sharp images, apertures smaller than f/8 on 4/3 will show diffraction effects. But since DOF is two stops shallower you don't need to stop the lens down as much to get the same effective DOF. So that sexy-sounding f/2.0 lens will be functionally indistinguishable from an f/4.0 28-70mm lens on FF (with the FF at four times the ISO for identical noise/dynamic range). That's assuming a linear comparison of sensitivity where the 4/3 sensor is functionally two stops less sensitive than the FF sensor across its entire ISO range, which in a technical sense it may well be. However, 100 ISO is 100 ISO on both a FF and a 4/3 sensor. From my experience shooting with 4/3 the images from my E-1 looked wonderful at ISO 100-200. The combination of the lovely color rendition of the Kodak CCD used in the camera and the microcontrast qualities of the Zuiko glass conspired to create a beautiful capture device. Where you started losing IQ with the E-1 was at 400 and above. Not terrible at 400. Mostly a luminance noise pattern that looked almost like film grain at 400. At 800 it was starting to contain enough color speckling from the rising curve of the chrominance noise to look more electronic. Which comes back to that issue of high ISO on the 4/3 chips being problematic. That doesn't mean that you're going to suffer at low ISO, though. So a birder, for example, will have a two-stop DOF advantage over a FF guy right out of the gate just because of his format of choice. Add in the faster Zuiko f/2.0 lens at ISO 100 and he can use a higher shutter speed at a lower aperture all day long. You're right, though, when you get to the end of the day and the light starts to fall the extra speed of the lens becomes a crutch that attempts to overcome the limits of the sensor. Still, the high- end Oly glass tends to be very sharp wide open and you don't have to stop them down much at all to hit their sweet spot. Note that to actually be equivalent, the 4/3 lens has to provide _twice_ the resolution (twice the lp/mm at any given MTF, or an MTF curve shifted up by a factor of two due to the finer pixel pitch) at f/2.0 than the FF 28-70mm lens does at f/4.0. (Interestingly, MTF performance does scale up with decreasing format sizes, so this point may not be a problem; but the need for twice the resolution at a much wider f stop may be problematic.) This is the biggest problem with the format, IMO. You're always going to be fighting that battle. It's the same thing with shooting 16mm instead of 35mm cine stuff. The 16mm gear is lighter, has greater DOF for run-and-gun work and is obviously a lot less expensive to work with. But the frame is roughly a quarter the size of the 35mm frame, so the glass always has to be much better than glass would have to be on a comparable 35mm rig and obviously the grain is going to be magnified on top of that. A grain pattern that looks subtle and wonderful in 35mm may look really bad in 16mm, so you can't even use the same standards of judging what stock to use because 5263 is not the same at the end of the day as 7263 when you take the format into consideration. So that's the rub when you have to decide on buying glass from Olympus now. The 35-100mm f/2 is a really nice lens. Effectively a 70-200mm f/2 lens, but it carries a price tag of $2200. Is it equal to a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 on APS? Or a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 on a FF camera? Hard to say. More than the MTF numbers of the lens play into it, of course. Those Canon FF cameras have a sensor with a diagonal nearly as wide as their lens mount where the 4/3 sensor is tiny in comparison to the 4/3 mount. That allows a lot of advantageous geometry when it comes to lens design and how the light strikes their sensor it a big part of the 4/3 advantage (to quote the nauseating Olympus PR machine). At the end of the day I think it's about what camera you enjoy using as much as almost anything else, unless you have some particular application that draws you to one camera over another. I prefer CCD sensors and my E-1 and now my D200 both have CCDs. I don't know what options will be available to me in the future, though. I'd love to see the Foveon chips get it together. I'd take full color information over just about any other consideration, but so far I'm unconvinced that they've got that format ironed-out. I really like the highlight and color characteristics of the Fuji Super CCD SR Pro. If Olympus
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Uh, this should be deeper...sorry. ;-) On Jul 7, 2007, at 12:08 PM, R. Jackson wrote: But since DOF is two stops shallower you don't need to stop the lens down as much to get the same effective DOF. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] So a birder, for example, will have a two-stop DOF advantage over a FF guy right out of the gate just because of his format of choice. Add in the faster Zuiko f/2.0 lens at ISO 100 and he can use a higher shutter speed at a lower aperture all day long. It don't work that wayg. The 5D user shoots at ISO 400 with the same image quality (photon shot noise) and same shutter speed and sees the same DOF (and same background blurring effects) at f/4.0 as the 4/3 user does at f/2.0. It is seriously cool how digital cameras with the same pixel count scale across formats. (At ISO 100, the 5D should have a two stop dynamic range advantage, except that the A/D converters don't have enough bits.) Note, of course, that you have to use a larger lens on the 5D to get the low-light high-ISO advantage. The 100/2.0 is a bigger lens than the Oly 50/2.0 (I'd guess, anyway.) The bottom line is that if you think a smaller format buys you anything other than lighter weight/smaller size/lower price, you've done your math, physics, and/or optics wrong. You're right, though, when you get to the end of the day and the light starts to fall the extra speed of the lens becomes a crutch that attempts to overcome the limits of the sensor. Still, the high- end Oly glass tends to be very sharp wide open and you don't have to stop them down much at all to hit their sweet spot. You are already shooting two stops smaller with the 5D for the same DOF. And for portrait work, you don't shoot at f/4.0 with FF, you shoot at f/2.0 and wider. For a DOF effect that simply isn't available from the 4/3 format. (Although I wish Canon had an 75 or 85/1.4. The f/1.2 is overmuch.) Note that to actually be equivalent, the 4/3 lens has to provide _twice_ the resolution (twice the lp/mm at any given MTF, or an MTF curve shifted up by a factor of two due to the finer pixel pitch) at f/2.0 than the FF 28-70mm lens does at f/4.0. (Interestingly, MTF performance does scale up with decreasing format sizes, so this point may not be a problem; but the need for twice the resolution at a much wider f stop may be problematic.) This is the biggest problem with the format, IMO. You're always going to be fighting that battle. It's the same thing with shooting 16mm instead of 35mm cine stuff. The 16mm gear is lighter, has greater DOF for run-and-gun work and is obviously a lot less expensive to work with. But the frame is roughly a quarter the size of the 35mm frame, so the glass always has to be much better than glass would have to be on a comparable 35mm rig and obviously the grain is going to be magnified on top of that. A grain pattern that looks subtle and wonderful in 35mm may look really bad in 16mm, so you can't even use the same standards of judging what stock to use because 5263 is not the same at the end of the day as 7263 when you take the format into consideration. That's the difference with digital: you can get a reasonable 10MP image from the 4/3 camera at ISO 100. You really can't get a reasonable film image from 1/4 the area of 35mm. So that's the rub when you have to decide on buying glass from Olympus now. The 35-100mm f/2 is a really nice lens. Effectively a 70-200mm f/2 lens, but it carries a price tag of $2200. Is it equal to a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 on APS? Or a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 on a FF camera? Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is with the 70-200/4.0 (IS). Without IS, it's half the price, with about 3/4 the price. And those are phenomenally good lenses that you are putting in front of very widely spaced pixels. There's no need to stop down with the 70-200/4.0. Hard to say. More than the MTF numbers of the lens play into it, of course. Those Canon FF cameras have a sensor with a diagonal nearly as wide as their lens mount where the 4/3 sensor is tiny in comparison to the 4/3 mount. That allows a lot of advantageous geometry when it comes to lens design and how the light strikes their sensor it a big part of the 4/3 advantage (to quote the nauseating Olympus PR machine). The telecentric bit strikes me as nothing other than lying snake oil. (Real telecentric lenses aren't used for pictorial photography, they're for machine vision applications, and the ray tracing diagrams on the Oly site show optically impossible paths.) As before, it's not even a 30 degree angle of incidence with the Canon mount, and there's no difference with longer lenses. At the end of the day I think it's about what camera you enjoy using as much as almost anything else, unless you have some particular application that draws you to one camera over another. I prefer CCD sensors and my E-1 and now my D200 both have CCDs. At the end of the day, one shoots a camera that meets one's needs. If the 4/3 meets your needs, there's no reason to move to a larger format (just don't try to tell me that it's better; it ain't). Just as 645 meets my needs but not the needs of someone making
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 7, 2007, at 1:29 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: It don't work that wayg. The 5D user shoots at ISO 400 with the same image quality (photon shot noise) and same shutter speed and sees the same DOF (and same background blurring effects) at f/4.0 as the 4/3 user does at f/2.0. It is seriously cool how digital cameras with the same pixel count scale across formats. (At ISO 100, the 5D should have a two stop dynamic range advantage, except that the A/D converters don't have enough bits.) So you have an unrealized two-stop advantage at low ISO. I can see how important that unrealized potential could be. ;-) The bottom line is that if you think a smaller format buys you anything other than lighter weight/smaller size/lower price, you've done your math, physics, and/or optics wrong. Theoretically. Funny how things don't always work that way practically. You are already shooting two stops smaller with the 5D for the same DOF. And for portrait work, you don't shoot at f/4.0 with FF, you shoot at f/ 2.0 and wider. For a DOF effect that simply isn't available from the 4/3 format. (Although I wish Canon had an 75 or 85/1.4. The f/1.2 is overmuch.) If you shoot portraits exclusively then the selective focus issue is always going to be your overriding priority. The larger the film the shallower the DOF. Large format is your friend in the studio. Of course, Olympus doesn't actually have a single decent portrait lens in their lineup. If that's the kind of work you do then the 4/3 line of cameras and optics isn't something to be considered. That's the difference with digital: you can get a reasonable 10MP image from the 4/3 camera at ISO 100. You really can't get a reasonable film image from 1/4 the area of 35mm. Well, it kind of depends. With cinema cameras you used to always be fighting against generation loss. I think I can get better IQ from a 16mm scanned negative than we used to get from a 35mm negative that had gone through four or five generation losses. This would make 16mm an ideal format for television if those productions were still shot like they were 20 years ago, but with faster film stocks the evolution of the medium has favored using less lighting for heat/ power cost savings as well as the need for less crew. 35mm using ISO 500 stocks (pretty much the standard now) doesn't translate down to 16mm because the apparent grain signature will be more dominant. Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is with the 70-200/4.0 (IS). I know you like that f/4 comparison, but like you said earlier, with the A/D converters as they are you aren't seeing a dynamic range advantage at low ISO, so the comparison doesn't hold. Unless you're still dwelling on DOF. Any excuse to erect a straw man? :-) The telecentric bit strikes me as nothing other than lying snake oil. Heh...makes you feel better about that CMOS dust-magnet you bought? ;-) At the end of the day, one shoots a camera that meets one's needs. If the 4/3 meets your needs, there's no reason to move to a larger format (just don't try to tell me that it's better; it ain't). It's better at some things, certainly. If, for example, you're doing forensic work you have additional DOF and since you can use lower stops you extend the range of your strobes. Just as 645 meets my needs but not the needs of someone making larger landscape prints. I prefer my 6x7. ;-) Foveon doesn't buy you anything the human eye can actually see. And not using a low-pass filter reduces real resolution by it's snap-to- grid effect which puts features in the wrong place; it's an artificial sharpening trick at best. Foveon, and actually any capture medium that delivers 4:4:4 color, should really shine when you start manipulating the image in post. The more color timing you do the quicker a Bayer image will fall apart when compared to, say, the image from a scanning back. I assume Foveon will hold up the same way, but the implementation of the technology seems shaky at best right now. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I have been trying to follow this thread, with some difficulty - probably my old age. But to keep perspective and depth of field equal, when comparing Full Frame with smaller formats, lens focal length, circle of confusion, or blur circle, size must be adjusted proportionately. Control of chromatic aberrations become proportionately more restrictive. Then there's Lord Rayleigh's Criteria regarding Diffraction Limit is just as true today as it was when he published it. Therefore, with today's APO lenses, we can achieve very high quality images, with smaller formats. BUT, to achieve sharp images, the minimum acceptable lens aperture size will increase (f:# will decrease) because of diffraction. Having said this, I'm very pleased with my Canon 20D, The two lenses I have are incredibly sharp, and zoom lenses at that (I did think that no zoom lens could equal a prime lens but that may be changing) but I try to stay within its limitations - shoot at the lowest ISO that I can get away with and control exposure time to stay within a range of f:4 to f:11. Jim David J. Littleboy wrote: From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] So a birder, for example, will have a two-stop DOF advantage over a FF guy right out of the gate just because of his format of choice. Add in the faster Zuiko f/2.0 lens at ISO 100 and he can use a higher shutter speed at a lower aperture all day long. It don't work that wayg. The 5D user shoots at ISO 400 with the same image quality (photon shot noise) and same shutter speed and sees the same DOF (and same background blurring effects) at f/4.0 as the 4/3 user does at f/2.0. It is seriously cool how digital cameras with the same pixel count scale across formats. (At ISO 100, the 5D should have a two stop dynamic range advantage, except that the A/D converters don't have enough bits.) Note, of course, that you have to use a larger lens on the 5D to get the low-light high-ISO advantage. The 100/2.0 is a bigger lens than the Oly 50/2.0 (I'd guess, anyway.) The bottom line is that if you think a smaller format buys you anything other than lighter weight/smaller size/lower price, you've done your math, physics, and/or optics wrong. You're right, though, when you get to the end of the day and the light starts to fall the extra speed of the lens becomes a crutch that attempts to overcome the limits of the sensor. Still, the high- end Oly glass tends to be very sharp wide open and you don't have to stop them down much at all to hit their sweet spot. You are already shooting two stops smaller with the 5D for the same DOF. And for portrait work, you don't shoot at f/4.0 with FF, you shoot at f/2.0 and wider. For a DOF effect that simply isn't available from the 4/3 format. (Although I wish Canon had an 75 or 85/1.4. The f/1.2 is overmuch.) Note that to actually be equivalent, the 4/3 lens has to provide _twice_ the resolution (twice the lp/mm at any given MTF, or an MTF curve shifted up by a factor of two due to the finer pixel pitch) at f/2.0 than the FF 28-70mm lens does at f/4.0. (Interestingly, MTF performance does scale up with decreasing format sizes, so this point may not be a problem; but the need for twice the resolution at a much wider f stop may be problematic.) This is the biggest problem with the format, IMO. You're always going to be fighting that battle. It's the same thing with shooting 16mm instead of 35mm cine stuff. The 16mm gear is lighter, has greater DOF for run-and-gun work and is obviously a lot less expensive to work with. But the frame is roughly a quarter the size of the 35mm frame, so the glass always has to be much better than glass would have to be on a comparable 35mm rig and obviously the grain is going to be magnified on top of that. A grain pattern that looks subtle and wonderful in 35mm may look really bad in 16mm, so you can't even use the same standards of judging what stock to use because 5263 is not the same at the end of the day as 7263 when you take the format into consideration. That's the difference with digital: you can get a reasonable 10MP image from the 4/3 camera at ISO 100. You really can't get a reasonable film image from 1/4 the area of 35mm. So that's the rub when you have to decide on buying glass from Olympus now. The 35-100mm f/2 is a really nice lens. Effectively a 70-200mm f/2 lens, but it carries a price tag of $2200. Is it equal to a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 on APS? Or a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 on a FF camera? Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is with the 70-200/4.0 (IS). Without IS, it's half the price, with about 3/4 the price. And those are phenomenally good lenses that you are putting in front of very widely spaced pixels. There's no need to stop down with the 70-200/4.0. Hard to say. More than the MTF numbers of the lens play into it, of course. Those Canon FF cameras have a sensor with a diagonal nearly as wide as their lens
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 7, 2007, at 3:59 PM, James L. Sims wrote: Control of chromatic aberrations become proportionately more restrictive. Then there's Lord Rayleigh's Criteria regarding Diffraction Limit is just as true today as it was when he published it. Therefore, with today's APO lenses, we can achieve very high quality images, with smaller formats. BUT, to achieve sharp images, the minimum acceptable lens aperture size will increase (f:# will decrease) because of diffraction. Having said this, I'm very pleased with my Canon 20D, The two lenses I have are incredibly sharp, and zoom lenses at that (I did think that no zoom lens could equal a prime lens but that may be changing) but I try to stay within its limitations - shoot at the lowest ISO that I can get away with and control exposure time to stay within a range of f:4 to f:11. Jim These are excellent points. The thing I notice most about working with digital cameras in general is that all that nonsense about automation making the process easier is pretty much just that. At this moment in time you really need to have a very tight leash on your aperture and ISO, at the very least. If you let the camera pick your aperture and/or ISO it's just going to lead to trouble. On the other hand, the output from almost all DSLRs anymore is really exceptionally good. A few months back I had decided to leave Olympus and spent a long time agonizing over where I was going to migrate. I'd owned Canon stuff in the 70's. Loved the L lenses back then. Thought the F-1 was the greatest camera in the world until I was at a photo show given by a local paper and they were bench-testing cameras for free. My Canon wasn't even close to specs. I spent the whole day there watching cameras being tested. My unofficial tally at the end of the day showed a higher percentage of Olympus cameras testing close to spec and that's when I started looking at the Oly stuff. I was an OM-2n user a month later and hadn't really even looked at another camera manufacturer seriously since the late 70's. It was kind of a tough change for me. Heh...anyway, I borrowed cameras from friends quite a bit during my painful migration. I tried out a Minolta 7D that seemed really nice. I tried a Pentax K100D that seemed excellent, actually. I tried a Canon 30D which seemed nice, as well. At the end of the day the only reason I bought the Nikon was that the D200 had weather seals and seemed really durable and it could shoot at 5 fps. I picked up a D200 and an F80 at the same time because I wanted to be able to share glass between a film body and digital body. I grabbed a few lenses and they've proven to be really quite good within a certain range of apertures. BTW, one of the lenses I bought was the 18-200mm novelty zoom that's been hammered pretty much continually since it was released. My prime lens set for shooting 35mm cinema is comprised of 18mm, 22mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm and 200mm primes. The cinema frame size is very comparable to the APS sensor size and having a single zoom that could cover the range of all my primes made it a nice tool for location scouting. Look at the EXIF data later and know right up front what lenses will need to come out and when. So from that standpoint it's been handy. It's not the nicest zoom I've ever owned and it's very plastic-y and it creeps really bad, but for an example of a bad lens even it isn't all that bad. Somewhere in the middle of its zoom range the complex distortions go away and image quality gets pretty decent. Certainly a lot nicer than what we considered to be a bad lens 20 years ago. And at the end of the day, it's still all about getting out and taking photos. I have a little day trip planned for tomorrow. I was just getting ready. ;-) http://home.comcast.net/~jackson.robert.r/DirtyCrazy.jpg Tomorrow morning I am headed out to Tracey, Farmington, Linden, Clements and Sonora. I'm off to hunt down the locations used in the filming of 'Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry' and take photos of them from as close as possible to the perspectives used in the film. Just for kicks, really. Those cities are all still really small. Sonora is the biggest at about 3000 people. I tend to imagine that a lot of the locations haven't changed much. It should make a fun little document of those places and it gives me an excuse to shoot some film in an interesting way. I printed out a bunch of frame grabs from the movie, put together some maps and pulled out some film to shoot. It's the nerdy days out doing stuff like this that make all the sweating out technical details worthwhile. ;- -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is with the 70-200/4.0 (IS). I know you like that f/4 comparison, but like you said earlier, with the A/D converters as they are you aren't seeing a dynamic range advantage at low ISO, so the comparison doesn't hold. It holds because under ISO 400 on the 5D is irrelevant; you don't have under ISO 100 on the 4/3 cameras. The 5D doesn't deliver a dynamic range advantage (at low ISOs), just a two stop sensitivity advantage across comparable ISOs. At the end of the day, one shoots a camera that meets one's needs. If the 4/3 meets your needs, there's no reason to move to a larger format (just don't try to tell me that it's better; it ain't). It's better at some things, certainly. If, for example, you're doing forensic work you have additional DOF and since you can use lower stops you extend the range of your strobes. Again, no. It all scales; ISO 400 is the same noise performance as ISO 100. So ISO 400 at f/4.0 is exactly the same photographically as ISO 100 at f/2.0. Just as 645 meets my needs but not the needs of someone making larger landscape prints. I prefer my 6x7. ;-) I like my Mamiya 7, too. But it doesn't replace an SLR, and you have to need to print larger than A3 to need 6x7. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have been trying to follow this thread, with some difficulty - probably my old age. But to keep perspective and depth of field equal, when comparing Full Frame with smaller formats, lens focal length, circle of confusion, or blur circle, size must be adjusted proportionately. Exactly. The neat thing is that it all scales. All of it. Very very cool. A larger format gives you exactly the same functionality as the smaller format, plus more if you are willing to buy larger lenses or use longer exposure times. (Assuming identical pixel counts.) Inversely, if you don't mind the lower sensitivity and lower dynamic range, you can pack as many pixels as you want into a smaller sensor and still get high-resolution images. With film, ISO and film resolution didn't scale, so the lenses seemed faster and the resolution worse with smaller formats. http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/ http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/f-ratio_myth/ http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html Control of chromatic aberrations become proportionately more restrictive. There must be some things in here that don't scale, I suppose. But for practical purposes, small cameras work. Very strange. Then there's Lord Rayleigh's Criteria regarding Diffraction Limit is just as true today as it was when he published it. Therefore, with today's APO lenses, we can achieve very high quality images, with smaller formats. BUT, to achieve sharp images, the minimum acceptable lens aperture size will increase (f:# will decrease) because of diffraction. Having said this, I'm very pleased with my Canon 20D, The two lenses I have are incredibly sharp, and zoom lenses at that (I did think that no zoom lens could equal a prime lens but that may be changing) but I try to stay within its limitations - shoot at the lowest ISO that I can get away with and control exposure time to stay within a range of f:4 to f:11. Yep. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 does amazing work here on the 5D. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 7, 2007, at 5:15 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: The 5D doesn't deliver a dynamic range advantage (at low ISOs), just a two stop sensitivity advantage across comparable ISOs. Sure. I thought I'd already made that stipulation clear. Yes, a bigger sensor will get you more high-ISO sensitivity. Of course. I don't think anyone's going to question Canon FF cameras when it comes to available-light photography. Above ISO 800 pretty much nothing can touch them. Again, no. It all scales; ISO 400 is the same noise performance as ISO 100. So ISO 400 at f/4.0 is exactly the same photographically as ISO 100 at f/2.0. Eh, good point. The Guide Number for range will double with the ISO boost, even though the modifier for F-stop will be lower. I like my Mamiya 7, too. But it doesn't replace an SLR, and you have to need to print larger than A3 to need 6x7. HA! So IQ is vital to you unless it isn't. Heh...I guess we could go on for a couple of days with me saying that 645 isn't a serious format and you can choose to use an inferior format if it suits your needs, but that doesn't make it worth using. ;-) And FWIW, a medium format SLR is only useful, IMO, if you lock up the mirror. When you start moving big mirrors like that around it defeats the purpose of using a larger format. I tried out a couple of Pentax 67s at camera shows and releasing the shutter was like tripping a mouse trap. The Mamiya is really well-behaved, IMO. I can live without it being an SLR in exchange for not having a bid sheet of glass swinging wildly to and fro inside the body. I've actually been thinking about picking up a Fuji GX-680 III. Being able to change off between 120 and a digital back plus having view camera movements (although somewhat limited) makes a pretty strong argument for owing one, but every time I pick one up at a camera show the sheer bulk of it scares me away. It's a lot cheaper option than the SInar M route, though. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] So IQ is vital to you unless it isn't. Heh...I guess we could go on for a couple of days with me saying that 645 isn't a serious format and you can choose to use an inferior format if it suits your needs, but that doesn't make it worth using. ;-) Exactly! But I ain't telling you that 645 is better than 6x7. Only that it's cheaper, lighter, easier to use, and meets requirements. Tell me that about the 4/3 cameras and you don't get an argument. But blame digital for 4/3's problems, tell me that it does something better, and you get an argument. And FWIW, a medium format SLR is only useful, IMO, if you lock up the mirror. When you start moving big mirrors like that around it defeats the purpose of using a larger format. I tried out a couple of Pentax 67s at camera shows and releasing the shutter was like tripping a mouse trap. That's true of the P67, but the M645 delivers the goods at 1/125 handheld. About one in three images fail at 1/60. According to both my microscopes and Nikon 8000. I've seen people using P67s handheld, but that's outdoors on bright sunny days. The Mamiya is really well-behaved, IMO. I can live without it being an SLR in exchange for not having a bid sheet of glass swinging wildly to and fro inside the body. The M7 doesn't get close (without going to heroic efforts), polarizers are a pain, it doesn't really do portraits. It's a two-trick pony (43 and 65 (three if you like 80mm)), but the 43 is expensive enough that it never showed up here (oops: for 1/2 the money I could have had the GSW690III with full 6x9, but the lack of interchangeable lenses put me off). And I'm not convinced the M7 is any better on the shutter speed than the M645. If I need 1/60 or slower with either of them, the tripod gets used. People insist rangefinders work handheld, but that's a lot of film and a lot of lens to waste. I've actually been thinking about picking up a Fuji GX-680 III. Being able to change off between 120 and a digital back plus having view camera movements (although somewhat limited) makes a pretty strong argument for owing one, but every time I pick one up at a camera show the sheer bulk of it scares me away. It's a lot cheaper option than the SInar M route, though. HEADS UP! The GX-680 III doesn't have movements; you need the GX-680 IIIS. I was looking at old TLRs on the lowest shelf of a glass case on the dusty second floor of a used camera shop here in Tokyo, and when I stood up and turned around, there was a Fuji GX-680 on the top shelf of the case behind me ready to pounce. I practically had a heart attack; that guy's enormous. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Hi James, Thanks for the formula. I guess we need to go back to glass plates ;-) Art James L. Sims wrote: Art, There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given a specific blur circle size, is a trig function of the cone angle Tan ½Angle = .5 x f# ÷ Lens Focal Length. Without special pressure plates or vacuum plates, the film bow in 35mm cameras is typically .003. 2¼ square format cameras have film sag that ranges from about .006 to .010. At large apertures, these dimensions can make a significant difference in image sharpness. The flatbed scanners that I'm familiar with have great depth of field, suggesting the lenses have very small apertures. However, image sharpness degrades as the lens aperture is reduced. I'm not sure what this effect is with flatbed scanners, because each lens is recording one element of the image per increment. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: There seems to be two main issues with depth of focus with film. One, when the image is captured within the camera, and two, when it is then reproduced, either as a print, or made into a digital file. With 35mm frames, in my experience, the second one is not that significant as long as the digital scanner has a decent depth of focus, which is determined by the aperture of the lens within the scanner. On standard optical CCD film scanners, at least with 35mm frames, if the light source is sufficient, it isn't a great issue, and is easy to test for... either the grain (dye clouds) are evenly in focus or they aren't. The places I have seen a real problem are with larger format films, which may require special mounting, glass carriers, or some other method of maintaining flatness and with film scanners that have inadequate light sources which lead to needing to use a rather wide open lens to capture the image, causing limited depth of focus. The CCD flat bed scanners I have used seem to have substantial depth of focus. I have scanned 3d objects with very reasonable resolution and sharpness. The in camera issue is another matter. I don't know the actual depth of focus at film plane different apertures allow for in camera. Perhaps someone has a chart that indicates the depth of focus relative to aperture. It would be interesting to know. 35mm film is physically small enough that I expect the deviation is of less significance, but I can see how larger roll films or sheet film could end up problematical. Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? That could be valuable to know. Art James L. Sims wrote: All other arguments aside, flatness is much more important that some realize. Back in the eighties, I had a lengthy dialog with a well known research lab about depth of focus - it ain't exactly what the American Cinematographer's Handbook says it is. Film bows and sags. That's hard to control. Jim gary wrote: One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of silicon. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Just a detail, Rob, but the Oly E-1 has a weather-sealed magnesium body. It's quite solid. I don't know if any of their other models have the magnesium body, or if that feature is reserved for their pro line. Berry On 7/5/07 8:52 PM, R.Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 5, 2007, at 4:44 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: Kind of hard to justify coughing up $5000 for a lens to put on a little $600 plastic 4/3 camera. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Yeah, I had an E-1. I actually gave it to a friend of mine last year and he's enjoying it. They've just taken so long replacing it that there's really no choice in a high-end E model right now, though the leaked document about the E-1 replacement looks promising. -Rob On Jul 6, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Berry Ives wrote: Just a detail, Rob, but the Oly E-1 has a weather-sealed magnesium body. It's quite solid. I don't know if any of their other models have the magnesium body, or if that feature is reserved for their pro line. Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Art, Well, we've sort of done that with digital cameras. They have also put my old Pentax cameras out of service, and after all the work I did fabricating a pressure plate that kept the film reasonably flat. At my age, I'm also an advocate of image stabilization - I'm taking sharp pictures, again - hand-held! Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: Hi James, Thanks for the formula. I guess we need to go back to glass plates ;-) Art James L. Sims wrote: Art, There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given a specific blur circle size, is a trig function of the cone angle Tan ½Angle = .5 x f# ÷ Lens Focal Length. Without special pressure plates or vacuum plates, the film bow in 35mm cameras is typically .003. 2¼ square format cameras have film sag that ranges from about .006 to .010. At large apertures, these dimensions can make a significant difference in image sharpness. The flatbed scanners that I'm familiar with have great depth of field, suggesting the lenses have very small apertures. However, image sharpness degrades as the lens aperture is reduced. I'm not sure what this effect is with flatbed scanners, because each lens is recording one element of the image per increment. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: There seems to be two main issues with depth of focus with film. One, when the image is captured within the camera, and two, when it is then reproduced, either as a print, or made into a digital file. With 35mm frames, in my experience, the second one is not that significant as long as the digital scanner has a decent depth of focus, which is determined by the aperture of the lens within the scanner. On standard optical CCD film scanners, at least with 35mm frames, if the light source is sufficient, it isn't a great issue, and is easy to test for... either the grain (dye clouds) are evenly in focus or they aren't. The places I have seen a real problem are with larger format films, which may require special mounting, glass carriers, or some other method of maintaining flatness and with film scanners that have inadequate light sources which lead to needing to use a rather wide open lens to capture the image, causing limited depth of focus. The CCD flat bed scanners I have used seem to have substantial depth of focus. I have scanned 3d objects with very reasonable resolution and sharpness. The in camera issue is another matter. I don't know the actual depth of focus at film plane different apertures allow for in camera. Perhaps someone has a chart that indicates the depth of focus relative to aperture. It would be interesting to know. 35mm film is physically small enough that I expect the deviation is of less significance, but I can see how larger roll films or sheet film could end up problematical. Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? That could be valuable to know. Art James L. Sims wrote: All other arguments aside, flatness is much more important that some realize. Back in the eighties, I had a lengthy dialog with a well known research lab about depth of focus - it ain't exactly what the American Cinematographer's Handbook says it is. Film bows and sags. That's hard to control. Jim gary wrote: One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of silicon. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I don't disagree with much that you stated. A good deal of the extra file size in a scanned silver halide image is just grain artifacts, and offers no image information. However, if the same processing that is done to digital images in camera were done to the film image, a lot of the grain could be suppressed. The same thing that makes some of the perceptual problems from digital output (the grid pattern) also allows for some fancy processing that can nearly eliminate visible pixels. For instance soft gradient areas really shine, like expanses of sky. The same area in film looks like a dish of pond water under a microscope. However, that is the same process the somewhat diminishes apparent resolution in more complex detailed areas. But this just shows the fact that there is a considerable subjective aspect to evaluating the results that technical equipment can't prove. Each of us sees random and matrix patterns differently, and the subject matter also alters how we respond to those artifacts. Art David J. Littleboy wrote: From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Film grain itself is not actual information. it is the random structure used to create the image on it's smallest level. Grain occurs in three random manners. Firstly, each color layer is laid down with the silver halide grains in a completely chaotic manner. Secondly, the grain size is randomized, and thirdly, the relationship between those factors between the layers is randomized, as well. This creates a forgiving structure. Hmm. I don't find it forgiving in the slightest. I strongly dislike have the same ugly texture superimposed on all my images, and for prints I will actually show people, never use enlargements over 8x. This means that 35mm is for 8x10, 645 for 12x18, and 6x7 for 16x20. All of these produce superb quality prints at these sizes. But they wouldn't be at sizes larger than that. Meanwhile, my 5D makes just as good 12x18s as 645 does. So there's no point in shooting 35mm or 645 at this point in history. Due to the use of the Bayer matrix, the color interpolation required, and a number of other factors, digital images are intentionally blurred via electronic filtering. This is why judicious use of unsharp masking can bring so much detail back to an image. No, it's _physical_ filter in front of the sensor, called a low-pass, or antialias, filter. Nothing electronic about it. The mathematics of discrete sampling tells us that such a filter is required to achieve correct imaging up to the mathematical resolution limits of the sensor. But you knew that. What I've recently come to realize is that low-pass filtering _improves_ resolution by removing jaggies. Just as antialiasing in font display improves the apparent resolution of fonts on the screen, antialiasing in discrete capture allows the sensor to show the position of sharp edges and lines more accurately than happens in non-antiliased cameras. The reason the debate regarding image resolution - film versus digital - continues, is because instrumentation can't really answer it. Yes, numbers of line pairs can be read, etc. but that isn't how we perceive. So far, so good. Our eyes prefer random analogue and in spite of the defects in this method, we have built in filters to deal with that because nature is designed around random noise. Your eyes, maybe. Mine don't like random noise. It's a good thing that film scales up to much larger formats than digital. I really don't understand how people can stand 5x7s from 35mm Tri-X. So, this debate cannot be answered by machines. It can only be answered by human consensus. Yep. And 12x18 images from 24x36mm of film are unacceptable, whatever film is used. (And embarrassing if the bloke who made the print displayed next to yours used MF or 12MP digital.) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
Since I have not used VueScan in years, I have to take your word on that; but white balance/color temp is a very significant element in many cases along with exposure that I use Camera RAW for which is not available from within Photoshop. But I think we are on t he same page and not really in any major disagreement. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 9:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most of the automatic processing that is done by the scanning software has to do with things that one can already do in Photoshop such as levels and curves settings, saturation settings, brightness and contrast settings, etc. and not with things that are done with Camera RAW applications. The biggest advantage to camera RAW over a scanner DNG is the ability to change color temperature/white balance info. The rest is pretty analogous to operations possible with any image in Photoshop. For instance, I just opened up a shot I took of fireworks last night with my D200. Going through the panes I can control White Balance, Temp and Tint. Then Exposure compensations, including brightness, contrast, saturation, etc. In the next pane I can control tone curves. In the next I can add sharpening. In the next I can convert to grayscale with HSL tweaks. In the next I can do split-toning with Highlight and Shadow controls. In the next I can correct lens geometry and CA. The next is camera color profiling and the final pane is for presets. Really, the only thing I can do with Adobe Camera RAW that I can't do with a DNG from VueScan is adjust the white balance from raw sensor data. The rest of it works just about the same whether I'm adjusting a scan or a NEF. -Rob --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
David, Remember that this discussion started with my attempt to explain why Getty and other high end stock photography houses might insist on professional drum scans over high end prosumer CDD scanners. The main justification is that they know the quality that their clients demand but they do not know the exact range of uses and sizes that will be used by the clients who license the image or if and how the image may be cropped when used at the users given enlargement size. We are not talking about the differences you might see at the size enlargements that you prefer or about your tastes concerning grain and grain structure in an image. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David J. Littleboy Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 12:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography From: gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at 16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally exceeds 30MPixels. I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the claim that you really don't get the full stated resolution with a film scanner. I've never seen a drum vs. 4000 ppi Nikon comparison that I thought showed a ntoiceable or significant advantage to the drum scan. The differences are very much on the order of counting angels on heads of pins. And the 12.7 and 16MP Canons look a lot more like 645 than 35mm, in terms of print quality at 12x18. (This guy is printing a lot bigger than I would, and thus is agonizing over really minor differences.) http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/ David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote: However, if the same processing that is done to digital images in camera were done to the film image, a lot of the grain could be suppressed. Yeah, but would you want to suppress the grain? I did a test for a video camera manufacturer last year. They were interested in seeing if their mpeg encoder would be practical in a telecine situation. To the encoder the grain structure is just noise, so it ground away ruthlessly trying to suppress as much of the noise as possible. The up side was that 720p transfers of 8mm footage were possible and looked pretty decent. The down side was that if you stopped on a frame and examined it closely there was a sort of cross-hatch aliasing pattern all over the image where the mpeg encoder had tried to smooth out that hideous noise that seemed to be absolutely everywhere. At the end of the day the thoughts of the engineers were that to get close to an acceptable mpeg compromise would result in very large files and require a lot of processing power to encode them. The market was really too small for them to bother. Uncompressed video still seems to be the best format for capturing telecine passes. IMO, most noise reduction attempts at reducing grain in scanned film looks bad. I use ICE occasionally or Noise Ninja sometimes in selected problem areas and then fade it a bit to reduce the grain when something is particularly grainy, but it can look really bad if you aren't careful. The ideal situation, IMO, will arrive when scanning at resolutions sufficient to completely and accurately reproduce the grain structure exist and are practical for photographic use. Look here: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html See the 400x magnification? If that level of capture detail existed in your film scans and you had no issues with aliasing I think it would be pretty significant. The files will be enormous, though, and you'd have to really enjoy the artifacts of the medium to even bother. I'd bother, though. I imagine it will be another decade before that kind of technology is accessible to people for fine arts use in any practical sense, but I'll be at the head of the line. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of silicon. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
But a pixel is around 6um on a side, so grain is finer than a pixel. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote: snip Look here: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html See the 400x magnification? If that level of capture detail existed in your film scans and you had no issues with aliasing I think it would be pretty significant. The files will be enormous, though, and you'd have to really enjoy the artifacts of the medium to even bother. I'd bother, though. I imagine it will be another decade before that kind of technology is accessible to people for fine arts use in any practical sense, but I'll be at the head of the line. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 05/07/2007 David J. Littleboy wrote: I don't buy it. AIUI the colour fringing is a combination of chromatic aberration in the lens and Bayer colour interpolation. Vignetting is due to the microlenses presenting a smaller effective aperture to off-axis rays. You get both together, but they're distinctly different in their origins. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 5, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Laurie wrote: While Digital SLRs might know or identify the lens focal length, aperture setting, focus, etc., It cannot identify the glass that is used in any given lens or the optical properties specific to that particular lens. Since most DSLRs allow for interchangeable lenses and lenses made by varying manufacturers, it is probably not reasonable to expect the camera to be able to compensate except in a generalized way for light fall off produced by any particular lens. Actually, the Olympus stuff does know what lens is on the camera and can be set to compensate. I used to have an E-1. I don't know how smart the lenses are, but I know that sometimes I'd get notifications from the Olympus studio software that one of my lenses had a new firmware update available, so apparently the lenses had more than just an ID residing in their circuitry. I personally never used the Shading Compensation because the E-1 was slow enough already. When DP Review tested the E-1 they got these write timing numbers: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/page10.asp 2560 x 1920 SHQ with no filter 2.0 sec 2560 x 1920 SHQ Lens Shading compensation 18.9 sec Nearly ten times slower write speeds using lens shading compensation was enough to scare me away from it for keeps. Interesting idea, though. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 05/07/2007 gary wrote: Seems to me the camera should be able to compensate for the vignetting. It knows the lens and the sensor, so it should know the light falloff. There are software strategies for dealing with both vignetting and chromatic aberratuon artifacts, also barrel/pincushion distortion and just about any other drawing issues that lenses get wrong onto a flat surface, but processing power so far means they're post-prod techniques done on the computer rather than in cameras. The Leica M8 Kodak sensor uses microlenses that are progressively angled toward the lens axis to increase light-gathering power near the edge of the frame. Vignetting still occurs with short lenses at wide apertures, but given the short back focus of the lenses involved, presumably it'd be worse without. Then you have Olympus producing telecentric-ish lenses so off-axis rays are perpendicular(-ish). If all else fails I still have the Kodak Brownie 620 I was given as a kid, a tin box with a 2 element lens stuck in the front. That wasn't perfect either, but I can't say it mattered :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
Rob, Actually, the Olympus stuff does know what lens is on the camera and can be set to compensate. Is that only for Olympus brand lenses or does it apply to third party lenses like Sigmas and the like? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography On Jul 5, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Laurie wrote: While Digital SLRs might know or identify the lens focal length, aperture setting, focus, etc., It cannot identify the glass that is used in any given lens or the optical properties specific to that particular lens. Since most DSLRs allow for interchangeable lenses and lenses made by varying manufacturers, it is probably not reasonable to expect the camera to be able to compensate except in a generalized way for light fall off produced by any particular lens. Actually, the Olympus stuff does know what lens is on the camera and can be set to compensate. I used to have an E-1. I don't know how smart the lenses are, but I know that sometimes I'd get notifications from the Olympus studio software that one of my lenses had a new firmware update available, so apparently the lenses had more than just an ID residing in their circuitry. I personally never used the Shading Compensation because the E-1 was slow enough already. When DP Review tested the E-1 they got these write timing numbers: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/page10.asp 2560 x 1920 SHQ with no filter 2.0 sec 2560 x 1920 SHQ Lens Shading compensation 18.9 sec Nearly ten times slower write speeds using lens shading compensation was enough to scare me away from it for keeps. Interesting idea, though. -Rob --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your math is good; I got 26.2 degrees off vertical. But I don't know the significance of that angle with respect to the sensor tunnels. It sounds like a rather large angle to me. You might do the math for, say, the Contax G-series 21mm Biogong. (The rear element of the Biogons tends to be practically touching the film, as I understand it.) Anyway, I've heard from two people who have tested the 5D sensor for sensitivity vs. angle of incidence, and both found that the falloff was less than with film. Regarding the issue of (individual) lens-specific info being passed from the lens to the image file, for Olympus (from their web site): Each Zuiko Digital Specific Lens also contains its own CPU to further solidify a richly colored, clear image. These smart lenses transfer data specific to the lens being used to the system's software to correct potential distortions and aberrations that occur in all lenses. Pin cushioning, barrel distortion, shading and other unwelcome phenomena can be eliminated with the single touch of a button in software. The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a serious format. If one is concerned with image quality. Meanwhile, the lens name makes it into the EXIF information in most SLRs for most lenses, and some software will do the corrections for you, with some of it automated, I think (PTLens). I haven't found the need for any of that with either the Sigma 12-24 or the Canon 17-40 on the 5D, although I mostly shoot stopped way down. The place that I do need some correction help is the 24TSE (which needs chromatic abberation correction when shifted), but the amount of shift and tilt doesn't make it into the EXIF data, so it can't be automated. Oh, well. I really ought to CLA the Nikon 8000, pick up a cheap EOS film body, and do the work. But there's real work in the inbox, a guitar to be practiced, old photographs to be processed, and new photographs to be taken... David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
There seems to be two main issues with depth of focus with film. One, when the image is captured within the camera, and two, when it is then reproduced, either as a print, or made into a digital file. With 35mm frames, in my experience, the second one is not that significant as long as the digital scanner has a decent depth of focus, which is determined by the aperture of the lens within the scanner. On standard optical CCD film scanners, at least with 35mm frames, if the light source is sufficient, it isn't a great issue, and is easy to test for... either the grain (dye clouds) are evenly in focus or they aren't. The places I have seen a real problem are with larger format films, which may require special mounting, glass carriers, or some other method of maintaining flatness and with film scanners that have inadequate light sources which lead to needing to use a rather wide open lens to capture the image, causing limited depth of focus. The CCD flat bed scanners I have used seem to have substantial depth of focus. I have scanned 3d objects with very reasonable resolution and sharpness. The in camera issue is another matter. I don't know the actual depth of focus at film plane different apertures allow for in camera. Perhaps someone has a chart that indicates the depth of focus relative to aperture. It would be interesting to know. 35mm film is physically small enough that I expect the deviation is of less significance, but I can see how larger roll films or sheet film could end up problematical. Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? That could be valuable to know. Art James L. Sims wrote: All other arguments aside, flatness is much more important that some realize. Back in the eighties, I had a lengthy dialog with a well known research lab about depth of focus - it ain't exactly what the American Cinematographer's Handbook says it is. Film bows and sags. That's hard to control. Jim gary wrote: One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of silicon. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 7/5/07 5:44 PM, David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a serious format. If one is concerned with image quality. I think that for you to say this is equivalent, in the film world, of saying that 35mm cameras are not really a serious format. Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote: Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? No, but the plane of focus itself is not flat, it's usually a section of a sphere that is only part corrected to flatness. This becomes an issue when focussing wideangles at wide apertures, especially. If you use a focus aid or AF at the image centre then re-frame to put it near the edge, it'll be OOF. I used to do enough of this that with a 24mm f2 that I bought a plain matte screen without any focus aids so I could focus as framed. It can be quite a handy property since edge of frame close objects can be in focus at the same time as more distant central ones, without having to stop down to provide as much DoF as expected. If you photograph a flat wall with such a w/a, you can see the problem; the edge-of-wall to lens distance can be substantially greater (nearer infinity) than the centre ditto. This would mean the lens needs to be racked in further for the edge image to be sharp, more extended for the centre. Constant subject-lens distance d implies a part-spherical plane of focus of radius equal to d. The back focus of the lens b is also a part-spherical surface of radius b. For longer lenses with narrower angle of view none of this is really noticeable, as the smaller section of a sphere is near enough flat and DoF hides the effect. We need spherical film or sensors - but the radius would be different for each focal length dammit. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I thought the lens design has elements to compensate for field flattening. In any event, the predictably flat silicon focal plane has to be better than the lottery of film. Tony Sleep wrote: On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote: Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? No, but the plane of focus itself is not flat, it's usually a section of a sphere that is only part corrected to flatness. This becomes an issue when focussing wideangles at wide apertures, especially. If you use a focus aid or AF at the image centre then re-frame to put it near the edge, it'll be OOF. I used to do enough of this that with a 24mm f2 that I bought a plain matte screen without any focus aids so I could focus as framed. It can be quite a handy property since edge of frame close objects can be in focus at the same time as more distant central ones, without having to stop down to provide as much DoF as expected. If you photograph a flat wall with such a w/a, you can see the problem; the edge-of-wall to lens distance can be substantially greater (nearer infinity) than the centre ditto. This would mean the lens needs to be racked in further for the edge image to be sharp, more extended for the centre. Constant subject-lens distance d implies a part-spherical plane of focus of radius equal to d. The back focus of the lens b is also a part-spherical surface of radius b. For longer lenses with narrower angle of view none of this is really noticeable, as the smaller section of a sphere is near enough flat and DoF hides the effect. We need spherical film or sensors - but the radius would be different for each focal length dammit. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
With respect to lenses, the only lenses that I know of that have adjustable elements for compensating for field curvature and producing effective, although not complete, flattening are flat field copy lenses and true macro lenses. I will not comment on silicon sensors except to say that no matter how flat they may be they certainly will be effected to one degree or another by the optics of the lens in the digital camera or scanner in the case of CDD scanners. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography I thought the lens design has elements to compensate for field flattening. In any event, the predictably flat silicon focal plane has to be better than the lottery of film. Tony Sleep wrote: On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote: Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? No, but the plane of focus itself is not flat, it's usually a section of a sphere that is only part corrected to flatness. This becomes an issue when focussing wideangles at wide apertures, especially. If you use a focus aid or AF at the image centre then re-frame to put it near the edge, it'll be OOF. I used to do enough of this that with a 24mm f2 that I bought a plain matte screen without any focus aids so I could focus as framed. It can be quite a handy property since edge of frame close objects can be in focus at the same time as more distant central ones, without having to stop down to provide as much DoF as expected. If you photograph a flat wall with such a w/a, you can see the problem; the edge-of-wall to lens distance can be substantially greater (nearer infinity) than the centre ditto. This would mean the lens needs to be racked in further for the edge image to be sharp, more extended for the centre. Constant subject-lens distance d implies a part-spherical plane of focus of radius equal to d. The back focus of the lens b is also a part-spherical surface of radius b. For longer lenses with narrower angle of view none of this is really noticeable, as the smaller section of a sphere is near enough flat and DoF hides the effect. We need spherical film or sensors - but the radius would be different for each focal length dammit. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
That's fine. But there are thousands of professional and serious amateur photographers out there that do not have that restriction. I shot 4x5 for a while, and there is no denying the beauty of large format for certain types of images. I discovered a small spider web once on a barb of a wire fence that I had not noticed in the original landscape, when I printed it at 16x20. There's something to be said for that, especially if one is printing fairly large. But what I do now does not depend on that level of resolution. I can print up to 12x16 using Oly E-1 image files, with low-level unsharp mask, and they look very sharp. Much of this is macro work, which is perceived differently in that great detail is already possible without large format. I'm happy not to have to hike out into the desert and pack some very hefty camera to do that. I'm fine with the 4/3's sensor, and I await the next generation of the E-1, which is a very solid camera. While I recognize that the sensor size is a limiting factor, in general, there are other limiting factors, such as there were with film, e.g., lack of flatness of the film. I think that time will favor the 4/3's sensor in the context of all the other limiting factors in what makes makes possible a good photograph. And of course none of this addresses the most crucial aspect of all, as you know, the creativity of the photographer...subject matter, composition, etc. We've all got our own gigs. Berry On 7/5/07 7:07 PM, David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 7/5/07 5:44 PM, David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a serious format. If one is concerned with image quality. I think that for you to say this is equivalent, in the film world, of saying that 35mm cameras are not really a serious format. Well, if you've been listening, I've been saying and/or implying that, toog. I've owned several 35mm cameras over the years, and always have come back to medium format. The 5D is the first 24x36mm format camera I've owned that I've been happy with. YMMV, of course. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 5, 2007, at 4:44 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a serious format. If one is concerned with image quality. Technically, there's merit to what you're saying. Given a the current 10 megapixel 4/3 sensor with a 4.7 micron pixel pitch and a comparable full-frame 10 megapixel chip with a 9 micron pixel pitch, all things being equal, the larger chip should display a comparable noise profile a couple of stops down the road from the 4/3 chip. The overall IQ is an assemblage of a lot of factors, though. The 4/3 lens mount is a pretty well-thought-out digital lens mount and Zuiko's high-end glass is really very nice. Much nicer, IMO, than comparable offerings by Nikon and Canon. Of course, they're generally more expensive, as well. I kind of wonder how many of those high-end lenses are actually out there in the world, really. Kind of hard to justify coughing up $5000 for a lens to put on a little $600 plastic 4/3 camera. Under most circumstances I doubt you could tell the difference between a landscape shot with a full-frame sensor and a 4/3 sensor, though. Certainly not because one falls apart sooner when being printed in large formats. That line of discussion last night about not enlarging a 35mm negative past 8 x10 and never using Tri-X for anything as large as 5 x 7 was kind of a warning flag that we aren't going to agree on this. And that's OK. If by that you meant that you've found a workflow that allows you to make prints from film stocks like PanF Plus or Velvia that don't appear to have originated from film, then what you're saying makes a certain sense. With extremely fine-grained films at small enlargement sizes you can make prints that have very little in the way of tell- tales that would let you know there was an acquisition medium of any kind involved. The kind of stuff you see in magazine ad work. I have an acquaintance who's anal about grain because he does stereoscopic photography and grain kind of kills the illusion. He almost always uses Kodachrome 64. He can't understand why I've ever shot any Kodachrome 200. He thinks the grain is objectionable. He's always saying, Why shoot Kodachrome if you're going to have grain? Of course, I just like the way it looks. I like the colors, I like the contrast and I like the grain structure. I'm not a huge fan of the flaky latitude with that particular stock, but it's got a look all its own when the stars are aligned and your karma is working right. Just don't let a black cat cross your path or walk under any ladders. I've routinely made 11 x 14 enlargements from Tri-X that I'd show to anyone and I've enlarged Velvia slides to 16 x 20 a number of times with very pleasing results. Past that 35mm starts to fall apart, IMO. You went on to say that 6x7 falls apart past 16 x 20 which is about the starting point for me with 6x7. And of course you went on to say that the output from a 5D is the equal of medium format film, which is another big agree-to-disagree. I know the output is easier to work with and much easier to print, but I honestly believe you need 100+ megapixels to equal the richness of the grain pattern visible in optical prints made from 6x7. Of course, you don't like seeing grain. Which points out a huge aesthetic difference that I imagine is going to form a lasting dichotomy between those of us who grew up in darkrooms and the younger generation who learned to be photographers sitting at a computer. That ugly ol' grain is the essence and character of the medium for some of us, where I regularly read people discussing about the best way to eliminate it from scans. I just scanned this 30-year-old Ektachrome 400 slide tonight. At 6400 dpi it came out to 5141 x 8085. I downscaled it to 2912 x 4368, which is the output size of a 5D. Now, I'm not going to pretend that there was actually 41 megapixels of information there that made it through the lens and stuck to the film. In fact, the focus is a little dodgy as it is. I think the guitar is in focus better than his face. But here's a jpeg (I don't have the server space to upload a tiff or I would) that's about a meg and you can still see grain aliasing. I think that I could get everything that's rational to get if I could scan at 12,800 dpi. But to me this old piece of Ektachrome, that wasn't a particularly good stock to begin with, yields a much more engaging image than a 5D. No moire. No strange plastic fleshtones. This image hasn't had any post-processing, so unsharp masking might help its apparent sharpness, but it would also help accent the grain aliasing. Film, man. Heh...OK, I've ranted about film enough. Not that I don't like digital at all. It's handy. I work with digital all the time. I just shot a project where I did exteriors on 35mm stock and interiors (interviews) on 720p video. I'm fine with the way it looks. It's just that ya gotta repect the emulsion, baby. Grind me up another horse and feed that gelatin into
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Art, There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given a specific blur circle size, is a trig function of the cone angle Tan ½Angle = .5 x f# ÷ Lens Focal Length. Without special pressure plates or vacuum plates, the film bow in 35mm cameras is typically .003. 2¼ square format cameras have film sag that ranges from about .006 to .010. At large apertures, these dimensions can make a significant difference in image sharpness. The flatbed scanners that I'm familiar with have great depth of field, suggesting the lenses have very small apertures. However, image sharpness degrades as the lens aperture is reduced. I'm not sure what this effect is with flatbed scanners, because each lens is recording one element of the image per increment. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: There seems to be two main issues with depth of focus with film. One, when the image is captured within the camera, and two, when it is then reproduced, either as a print, or made into a digital file. With 35mm frames, in my experience, the second one is not that significant as long as the digital scanner has a decent depth of focus, which is determined by the aperture of the lens within the scanner. On standard optical CCD film scanners, at least with 35mm frames, if the light source is sufficient, it isn't a great issue, and is easy to test for... either the grain (dye clouds) are evenly in focus or they aren't. The places I have seen a real problem are with larger format films, which may require special mounting, glass carriers, or some other method of maintaining flatness and with film scanners that have inadequate light sources which lead to needing to use a rather wide open lens to capture the image, causing limited depth of focus. The CCD flat bed scanners I have used seem to have substantial depth of focus. I have scanned 3d objects with very reasonable resolution and sharpness. The in camera issue is another matter. I don't know the actual depth of focus at film plane different apertures allow for in camera. Perhaps someone has a chart that indicates the depth of focus relative to aperture. It would be interesting to know. 35mm film is physically small enough that I expect the deviation is of less significance, but I can see how larger roll films or sheet film could end up problematical. Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? That could be valuable to know. Art James L. Sims wrote: All other arguments aside, flatness is much more important that some realize. Back in the eighties, I had a lengthy dialog with a well known research lab about depth of focus - it ain't exactly what the American Cinematographer's Handbook says it is. Film bows and sags. That's hard to control. Jim gary wrote: One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of silicon. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes because you are mixing apples and oranges in your comparison. The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture; it does not need to be converted into a digital file after the capture by a second external process. A 35mm film capture's quality after scanning will depend on the film uses, and how it was processed, for starters, and the scanning of the film will comprise the equivalent of a second generation capture with the possible introduction of noise, artifacts, and other degrading components during the scan. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's going to find this a little suspect. I own a D200 and I like it quite a bit, but at the end of the day I like a scanned Kodachrome/Velvia slide more most of the time. Now, it's true that the slide may well end up being a troublesome scan and may have dust or other artifacts that I'll have to clean up and won't ever completely transfer to digital. There's always going to be a percentage of what's on that transparency that doesn't make it into the computer for whatever reason, but it's still a pretty good source, IMO. At 4800 dpi a 35mm scan is 6255x4079. That's over 25 megapixels. I can't really tell the difference between a 4800 dpi scan and a 6400 dpi scan, so I never go higher than 4800 dpi, but it's still a pretty decent capture medium, IMO. Not knocking digital. It's cool. Very convenient. Very high quality. And I'd agree that the D200 is probably resolving as much detail as film, more or less. It's just that film's detail extends down to its grain structure and things that the lens didn't even necessarily resolve, as well as having a different appearance in general than electronic capture. A certain vibrance in things like afternoon sunlight seems to be there on film that I, at least, have real trouble duplicating with digital properly. The instant feedback is very conducive to a sharp learning curve, though. Robert Jackson Santa Rosa, CA Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 3, 2007, at 11:47 PM, R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] ... At 4800 dpi a 35mm scan is 6255x4079. That's over 25 megapixels. I can't really tell the difference between a 4800 dpi scan and a 6400 dpi scan, so I never go higher than 4800 dpi, ... I need a new film scanner, Robert, so I'm curious to know how - with what - you've been scanning at 4800 6400 and whether it's still made and supported? Thanks. -- Sam Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Thanks, Rob. I might follow along, partly because I also have a lot of prints - old family photos mostly - to scan. -- Sam On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:44 AM, R. Jackson wrote: I'm using an Epson V700. It's been a pretty nice machine so far. I've scanned about 500 negatives and slides over the past couple of months and been very happy with the results, even though it's not a dedicated film scanner. -Rob On Jul 4, 2007, at 5:36 AM, Sam McCandless wrote: I need a new film scanner, Robert, so I'm curious to know how - with what - you've been scanning at 4800 6400 and whether it's still made and supported? Thanks. -- Sam Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the DSLRs mentioned may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW formats, which can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the Camera Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format, which cannot be done when scanning film. Actually, RAW output from VueScan is pretty similar a camera RAW output in its ability to be manipulated in post. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Secondly, some artifacts produced in the scanning process by prosummer scanners operated by layoperators may not be readily remedied or correctable at all in some cases. And I'm sure THEY don't want to do any corrections, even if possible. Mike K. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current raw output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan without any software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file. This is not exactly the same as Camera RAW which via camera raw conversion programs allows the user to interpret the raw data as to exposure, white light, saturation levels, chromatic distortion, and color settings prior to converting the interpreted data into a standard format which the user can then manipulate in image editing programs like Photoshop. The VueScan raw file that I knew was a standard formatted image file which was exported to an image editing program where the user could do corrections, manipulations, and enhancements typical of such programs but not the same as one can do in the Camera Raw reader applications. But things may have changed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the DSLRs mentioned may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW formats, which can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the Camera Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format, which cannot be done when scanning film. Actually, RAW output from VueScan is pretty similar a camera RAW output in its ability to be manipulated in post. -Rob --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
You may be right. The commercial drum scanners are much more flexible and complex allowing for very subtle adjustments and corrections via much more complicated software that often requires a trained, accomplished, and experienced scan master to make full use of - sort of like a pressman on an offset press. Most prosumer scanners and software allow for as much control as does the drum scanner hardware and software; and most prosummers do not want to take the time to learn the steep learning curve involved in mastering the ins and outs of such control. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Kersenbrock Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 5:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Secondly, some artifacts produced in the scanning process by prosummer scanners operated by layoperators may not be readily remedied or correctable at all in some cases. And I'm sure THEY don't want to do any corrections, even if possible. Mike K. --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I sent this message out on July 2nd, but I don't think it got posted, at least I never received a copy... so I'm trying again. If it did get posted, I apologize for the redundancy. Art Original Message Subject:Re: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:25:49 -0700 From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I find the camera requirements rather laughable, and quite out of date. I'm not saying you'll go wrong with what they recommend, but the truth is the same exact Sony chip in the DX-200 is also to be found in the D-80, the Sony Alpha, the Pentax K10D (which is also the only camera using a 32 bit AD chip) and probably numerous other cameras. I imagine the camera requirements are to bias toward people who are serious photographers, because the cameras they list are all of the costlier models. Notice they don't mention which lenses have to be used... You see, they can determine which camera was used to shoot an image with the exif file, but they can't tell the lens necessarily. Also, with film, they had no idea which camera was used. I find this just a bit of elitism at work because they can. I wonder if anyone has figured out a way to rewrite and edit the exif files yet? As to the scanners... I'm sure it helps them to get better quality scans, assuming the scans are well done, and most of the scanners involved are used commercially, so that probably also narrow the scope. What would be interesting is to test Getty's reviewers and see if in a blind test they could really tell the differences. I do agree that using a camera with a larger sensor improves quality and limits noise considerably, (at least until Kodak's new matrix is worked out), but the scans and using other cameras with similar sensors... I doubt they'd know which was which. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty Images , a major stock photography company, posted their camera/scanner requirements on their website. I went searching on their website today, and located their standards. Here are their requirements for cameras: If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us. Here are their requirements for film scanners: We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using the approved desk top film scanners from the following list: Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan; Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3 I've never heard of any of these scanners and am somewhat shocked that not even the high end Nikon scanners are included in the list. The first one on the list, the Imacon 949 is a $5000 device, which probably explains why I've ever heard of it. I didn't check the prices on the other scanners, but if they are equally ruinous, then it looks like the cheapest way to take stock quality photos is to get a digital camera like Nikon's D200 (about $1300), rather than use film plus scanning. Is it really true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000? What are the prices for having photos professionally drum scanned? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I'll say again something I have stated many times in the past. Humans are analogue, not digital. We work on a cellular level and most of our cells aren't lined up in perfect grids, far from it. We, both evolutionarily and through learning, ignore random patterns in our vision (and other senses), as random noise, because we are ourselves have a very noisy perceptual system. We see, hear, taste and feel all sorts of stuff which is just random nerve triggering, not to mention all our noisy functional systems (circulation, our neuro-chemical/electrical system, etc.). We learn to filter this out. Film grain itself is not actual information. it is the random structure used to create the image on it's smallest level. Grain occurs in three random manners. Firstly, each color layer is laid down with the silver halide grains in a completely chaotic manner. Secondly, the grain size is randomized, and thirdly, the relationship between those factors between the layers is randomized, as well. This creates a forgiving structure. There will be a certain luck of the draw that the image reproduction will sometimes follow certain grain placement closely, while other areas may be very non-optimized. However, due to the jumbled manner of grain, its size relative to our perception, and our perceptual filters, we excuse much of this. Again, because they are so foreign to most of nature, grids and non-random placements and patterns stand out to our vision. The grid used in a digital camera sensor is one example. Each sensor point is of the exact same size, and perfectly located in a matrix. All three colors use the same exact grid format. Due to the use of the Bayer matrix, the color interpolation required, and a number of other factors, digital images are intentionally blurred via electronic filtering. This is why judicious use of unsharp masking can bring so much detail back to an image. Actual physical size of the sensor is not relevant to resolution, however, how many discrete points of information is. So, it is the number of pixels within the frame that determines resolution, not size. (Of course, the larger the sensor the larger each sensor point and therefore the lower the noise, but that's another issue). The reason the debate regarding image resolution - film versus digital - continues, is because instrumentation can't really answer it. Yes, numbers of line pairs can be read, etc. but that isn't how we perceive. Our eyes prefer random analogue and in spite of the defects in this method, we have built in filters to deal with that because nature is designed around random noise. Digital sound, images, or whatever are... digital. The edges are distinct, and placed without random elements. We notice these things. No matter how pure digital might end up (CD music versus vinyl) we expect and desire the random elements of noise and variability, and we perceive these as extra resolution, warmth, more natural etc. It's really just random noise, but we like it. Those are the types of errors we can live with. So, this debate cannot be answered by machines. It can only be answered by human consensus. At some point, the digital image components will be beyond any human's ability to perceive as discrete components, (other than with massive enlargement) and then the issue will be moot, and for some it is so close to that now, that is already is moot, considering the many other features digital images and music supply. I will once again also mention that the environmental damage done by silver halide photography is great enough that even if digital is not perfectly equivalent, the options are close enough that each of us should seriously consider our ecological footprint when making a decision about digital versus silver based. It is not that digital is without a footprint, but in the big picture it is likely much smaller, and studies to date seem to suggest that. Art R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes because you are mixing apples and oranges in your comparison. The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture; it does not need to be converted into a digital file after the capture by a second external process. A 35mm film capture's quality after scanning will depend on the film uses, and how it was processed, for starters, and the scanning of the film will comprise the equivalent of a second generation capture with the possible introduction of noise, artifacts, and other degrading components during the scan. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's going to find this a little suspect. I own a D200 and I like it quite a bit, but at the end of the day I like a scanned Kodachrome/Velvia slide more most of the time. Now, it's true that the slide may well end up being a troublesome scan and may have dust or other artifacts that I'll have to clean up and won't ever completely transfer to digital. There's always going to be a percentage of
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to convert the analog capture on film into an electronic digital capture. The first generation capture equivalent for film is when you transmit the image data from the lens to the film; scanning it into digital form later is a second generation capture. This isn't quite accurate. Digital Sensors actually use analogue sensors. They then translate the information via an A/D converter, to a digital entity which is then either saved as is or further processed as a JPEG. You are correct that this same process occurs with a film scanner, so there are extra translations going on (Film image (and all that entails to get to that point) to electro-optical sensor image to digital file format. Of course there can be some of this in play as well; but it probably has more to do with Getty knowing the demands of their clients and wanting to play it safe by insisting on equipment and processes that they are familiar with and know will produce that quality rather than taking the risk of having to spend time sorting through submissions which come from sources, equipment, and processes that they are not familiar with and cannot be sure are up to their needs. Sometimes better equipment does produce better and more reliable results on a more consistent basis. Would you readily accept a prescription from an unknown drugstore that bore an unfamiliar brand name on it and was prescribed by a doctor who had a degree from a medical school that you never heard of and whose license to practice medicine was of uncertain origins? I would give Getty's requirements more credibility if they didn't limit the digital cameras to certain models and brands, but rather stated a resolution and sensor size (since noise is an issue). Or what about ISO for that matter. A D200 image at ISO 1600 may be equivalent to a smaller (physical sized) sensor at ISO 200 in those terms. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current raw output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan without any software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file. Correct. You can also save the VueScan data as an Adobe DNG file, which allows for lossless compression and a considerable space savings over 16-bit uncompressed tiff files, which may seem trivial, but when scanning color 6x7 transparencies at 4800 dpi the output is 13,376 x 10,676 and around 260 meg in size. DNG can pull that back to around 175 meg. This is not exactly the same as Camera RAW which via camera raw conversion programs allows the user to interpret the raw data as to exposure, white light, saturation levels, chromatic distortion, and color settings prior to converting the interpreted data into a standard format which the user can then manipulate in image editing programs like Photoshop. All true. When many people scan film, though, they subject the image to automated processing that may well result in the kind of irreversible image degradation you were talking about earlier. By storing a file directly from the CCD output of the scanner and dealing with all processing post-capture you allow yourself the freedom to oversee any processing manually, potentially avoiding the kind of problems you seemed to be referring to. Obviously it's more time-consuming. I find that the RAW files from VueScan can withstand a considerable amount of tweaking in Photoshop before they start to show visible artifacts. Obviously much more than most pre-processed scanner output. Of course, they don't look as appealing right out of the scanner, which may put off more casual users. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need to be, shall we say, dematrixed. The output of a film scanner is RGB at every pixel location, where the DSLR is one color per pixel, with additional post processing required to get RGB at every location. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the DSLRs mentioned may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW formats, which can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the Camera Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format, which cannot be done when scanning film. Actually, RAW output from VueScan is pretty similar a camera RAW output in its ability to be manipulated in post. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 4, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote: At some point, the digital image components will be beyond any human's ability to perceive as discrete components, (other than with massive enlargement) and then the issue will be moot, and for some it is so close to that now, that is already is moot, considering the many other features digital images and music supply. Well, we went through this same kind of technology arc in audio a decade or so ago. CDs may have come along in '84, but I was still using 2 tape up into the 90's. Manufacturers kept coming to trade shows and telling us that with their pre-emphasis model and proprietary compression an 8-bit audio file at 27.5 KHz was indistinguishable from its source and then you'd listen to the demo and run screaming from the building. Then the 12-bit 31 KHz stuff came along and that was definitely, without any wiggle-room an absolute replacement for analog recording equipment. And after the demo we'd once again run screaming from the building and have nightmares for months. This went on through 16-bit 44.1 KHz recorders that were allegedly indistinguishable from the source and then 16-bit 48 KHz and finally at 24-bit 96 KHz decks the advantages of working with tape pretty much evaporated, IMO. Either my ears finally got too old and worn to hear the subtleties anymore or the technology finally arrived. We're kind of going through the same thing with digital imaging, IMO. Right now there are a lot of things that digital does wonderfully and a lot of things it doesn't. A few years ago I went to an Andreas Gursky exhibition where he had massive prints on display of images made with scanning backs and the amount of detail in some of his landscapes was truly stunning. In his interiors, though, there was an image at a soccer game where one of the players appeared twice in the photo, having apparently run ahead of the scanning head after his first capture to make a second appearance on the field. The lack of a de-Bayering process seemed to be worth the inconvenience and slow capture speed of the systems he was using, but it seemed more viable to me for landscapes than for shots involving moving subjects. Eventually we'll undoubtedly see systems that have more compelling output without the disadvantages. And of course, as with digital audio, we're kind of waiting on the computer hardware to catch up with the art. I have a very fast four-core 3 GHz Mac Pro with a lot of memory and a couple of terabytes of drive space and a 250 meg image still grinds my machine to a near halt. It is not that digital is without a footprint, but in the big picture it is likely much smaller, and studies to date seem to suggest that. I really feel like this is a case of human negligence more than an unavoidable reality of chemical capture, though. I just finished a film project about a nuclear waste facility in the American midwest that contaminated the local environment in what you would think would be a criminally irresponsible manner, but the owners of the site broke no laws. Even when they found themselves with 6 million gallons of radioactive water and decided to get rid of it by evaporating it as steam and sending it out of a smokestack they were completely within their legal rights and the CDC backed them up on it in interviews I did last spring. The thing is, there were responsible ways of dealing with that waste and I show a facility in New Mexico where the same type of waste is encapsulated in salt half a mile underground. I could stand on the surface with a geiger counter and read lower background radiation than I get in my bedroom. By the same token, we *can* safely dispose of photo chemistry. We just don't bother most of the time. Robert Jackson Santa Rosa, CA Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
When many people scan film, though, they subject the image to automated processing that may well result in the kind of irreversible image degradation you were talking about earlier. By storing a file directly from the CCD output of the scanner and dealing with all processing post-capture you allow yourself the freedom to oversee any processing manually, potentially avoiding the kind of problems you seemed to be referring to. True; but this automatic processing may include a few of the things that one manually controls when using a Camera RAW application to interpret the image data values. However, for the most part with respect to these things, it uses defaults in the automatic processing; but most of the automatic processing that is done by the scanning software has to do with things that one can already do in Photoshop such as levels and curves settings, saturation settings, brightness and contrast settings, etc. and not with things that are done with Camera RAW applications. Thus by storing a file directly from the CDD output of the scanner and dealing with all processing post capture, you are not really dealing with the interpretive processes that one is manually dealing with when processing a Camera RAW file in a Camera RAW application. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current raw output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan without any software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file. Correct. You can also save the VueScan data as an Adobe DNG file, which allows for lossless compression and a considerable space savings over 16-bit uncompressed tiff files, which may seem trivial, but when scanning color 6x7 transparencies at 4800 dpi the output is 13,376 x 10,676 and around 260 meg in size. DNG can pull that back to around 175 meg. This is not exactly the same as Camera RAW which via camera raw conversion programs allows the user to interpret the raw data as to exposure, white light, saturation levels, chromatic distortion, and color settings prior to converting the interpreted data into a standard format which the user can then manipulate in image editing programs like Photoshop. All true. When many people scan film, though, they subject the image to automated processing that may well result in the kind of irreversible image degradation you were talking about earlier. By storing a file directly from the CCD output of the scanner and dealing with all processing post-capture you allow yourself the freedom to oversee any processing manually, potentially avoiding the kind of problems you seemed to be referring to. Obviously it's more time-consuming. I find that the RAW files from VueScan can withstand a considerable amount of tweaking in Photoshop before they start to show visible artifacts. Obviously much more than most pre-processed scanner output. Of course, they don't look as appealing right out of the scanner, which may put off more casual users. -Rob --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
This isn't quite accurate. Digital Sensors actually use analogue sensors. They then translate the information via an A/D converter, to a digital entity which is then either saved as is or further processed as a JPEG. Technically we are in agreement; I oversimplified in order to avoid confusion. The image information is transmitted from the lens to the analogue sensors to an A/D where it is converted into digital data, which is then further processed and saved as a standard image file format like JPEG or TIFF. This represents a first generation capture and is equivalent to capturing the image information to film, which is also a first generation capture in my terminology. When one scans film or prints, one is doing something similar to what one does when one captures image information with a digital camera; only this time one is capturing already captured analog image information that was captured on film or in a print and digitalizing the previously captured analog information, which makes this capture a second generation capture in my terminology. Hope this clarifies things and suggests that we are not in disagreement. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to convert the analog capture on film into an electronic digital capture. The first generation capture equivalent for film is when you transmit the image data from the lens to the film; scanning it into digital form later is a second generation capture. This isn't quite accurate. Digital Sensors actually use analogue sensors. They then translate the information via an A/D converter, to a digital entity which is then either saved as is or further processed as a JPEG. You are correct that this same process occurs with a film scanner, so there are extra translations going on (Film image (and all that entails to get to that point) to electro-optical sensor image to digital file format. Of course there can be some of this in play as well; but it probably has more to do with Getty knowing the demands of their clients and wanting to play it safe by insisting on equipment and processes that they are familiar with and know will produce that quality rather than taking the risk of having to spend time sorting through submissions which come from sources, equipment, and processes that they are not familiar with and cannot be sure are up to their needs. Sometimes better equipment does produce better and more reliable results on a more consistent basis. Would you readily accept a prescription from an unknown drugstore that bore an unfamiliar brand name on it and was prescribed by a doctor who had a degree from a medical school that you never heard of and whose license to practice medicine was of uncertain origins? I would give Getty's requirements more credibility if they didn't limit the digital cameras to certain models and brands, but rather stated a resolution and sensor size (since noise is an issue). Or what about ISO for that matter. A D200 image at ISO 1600 may be equivalent to a smaller (physical sized) sensor at ISO 200 in those terms. Art --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most of the automatic processing that is done by the scanning software has to do with things that one can already do in Photoshop such as levels and curves settings, saturation settings, brightness and contrast settings, etc. and not with things that are done with Camera RAW applications. The biggest advantage to camera RAW over a scanner DNG is the ability to change color temperature/white balance info. The rest is pretty analogous to operations possible with any image in Photoshop. For instance, I just opened up a shot I took of fireworks last night with my D200. Going through the panes I can control White Balance, Temp and Tint. Then Exposure compensations, including brightness, contrast, saturation, etc. In the next pane I can control tone curves. In the next I can add sharpening. In the next I can convert to grayscale with HSL tweaks. In the next I can do split-toning with Highlight and Shadow controls. In the next I can correct lens geometry and CA. The next is camera color profiling and the final pane is for presets. Really, the only thing I can do with Adobe Camera RAW that I can't do with a DNG from VueScan is adjust the white balance from raw sensor data. The rest of it works just about the same whether I'm adjusting a scan or a NEF. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Film grain itself is not actual information. it is the random structure used to create the image on it's smallest level. Grain occurs in three random manners. Firstly, each color layer is laid down with the silver halide grains in a completely chaotic manner. Secondly, the grain size is randomized, and thirdly, the relationship between those factors between the layers is randomized, as well. This creates a forgiving structure. Hmm. I don't find it forgiving in the slightest. I strongly dislike have the same ugly texture superimposed on all my images, and for prints I will actually show people, never use enlargements over 8x. This means that 35mm is for 8x10, 645 for 12x18, and 6x7 for 16x20. All of these produce superb quality prints at these sizes. But they wouldn't be at sizes larger than that. Meanwhile, my 5D makes just as good 12x18s as 645 does. So there's no point in shooting 35mm or 645 at this point in history. Due to the use of the Bayer matrix, the color interpolation required, and a number of other factors, digital images are intentionally blurred via electronic filtering. This is why judicious use of unsharp masking can bring so much detail back to an image. No, it's _physical_ filter in front of the sensor, called a low-pass, or antialias, filter. Nothing electronic about it. The mathematics of discrete sampling tells us that such a filter is required to achieve correct imaging up to the mathematical resolution limits of the sensor. But you knew that. What I've recently come to realize is that low-pass filtering _improves_ resolution by removing jaggies. Just as antialiasing in font display improves the apparent resolution of fonts on the screen, antialiasing in discrete capture allows the sensor to show the position of sharp edges and lines more accurately than happens in non-antiliased cameras. The reason the debate regarding image resolution - film versus digital - continues, is because instrumentation can't really answer it. Yes, numbers of line pairs can be read, etc. but that isn't how we perceive. So far, so good. Our eyes prefer random analogue and in spite of the defects in this method, we have built in filters to deal with that because nature is designed around random noise. Your eyes, maybe. Mine don't like random noise. It's a good thing that film scales up to much larger formats than digital. I really don't understand how people can stand 5x7s from 35mm Tri-X. So, this debate cannot be answered by machines. It can only be answered by human consensus. Yep. And 12x18 images from 24x36mm of film are unacceptable, whatever film is used. (And embarrassing if the bloke who made the print displayed next to yours used MF or 12MP digital.) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
I do not know for sure; but I do not believe that this is correct. I think that both DSLR Camera RAW image data values like raw scanner image data values are just that - raw uninterpreted data values for the various elements. I do not know if the raw color space that digital cameras and scanners capture to is RGB, L*A*B*, or some other color space; but I think both digital cameras and scanners associate all the color values for a given pixel with the pixel location that it is located with and that DSLRs do not map only one color value per pixel location. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need to be, shall we say, dematrixed. The output of a film scanner is RGB at every pixel location, where the DSLR is one color per pixel, with additional post processing required to get RGB at every location. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the DSLRs mentioned may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW formats, which can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the Camera Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format, which cannot be done when scanning film. Actually, RAW output from VueScan is pretty similar a camera RAW output in its ability to be manipulated in post. -Rob --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at 16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally exceeds 30MPixels. I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the claim that you really don't get the full stated resolution with a film scanner. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to convert the analog capture on film into an electronic digital capture. The first generation capture equivalent for film is when you transmit the image data from the lens to the film; scanning it into digital form later is a second generation capture. We are not talking about sensor size which has more to do with multiplier effects on the effective lens sizes of the lenses being used and possibly on the resolutions that are possible. Hope this helps. This whole thing about judging photographic quality by the equipment does seem to me like a snooty conservatism on the part of Getty Of course there can be some of this in play as well; but it probably has more to do with Getty knowing the demands of their clients and wanting to play it safe by insisting on equipment and processes that they are familiar with and know will produce that quality rather than taking the risk of having to spend time sorting through submissions which come from sources, equipment, and processes that they are not familiar with and cannot be sure are up to their needs. Sometimes better equipment does produce better and more reliable results on a more consistent basis. Would you readily accept a prescription from an unknown drugstore that bore an unfamiliar brand name on it and was prescribed by a doctor who had a degree from a medical school that you never heard of and whose license to practice medicine was of uncertain origins? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography Laurie, What does it mean that: The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture The film sensor of the D200 is substantially smaller than a 35mm film image, so I guess that is not what it means. So what is the basis for saying this? This whole thing about judging photographic quality by the equipment does seem to me like a snooty conservatism on the part of Getty. They can do what they like, of course. Just a question, Berry On 7/1/07 7:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
From: gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at 16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally exceeds 30MPixels. I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the claim that you really don't get the full stated resolution with a film scanner. I've never seen a drum vs. 4000 ppi Nikon comparison that I thought showed a ntoiceable or significant advantage to the drum scan. The differences are very much on the order of counting angels on heads of pins. And the 12.7 and 16MP Canons look a lot more like 645 than 35mm, in terms of print quality at 12x18. (This guy is printing a lot bigger than I would, and thus is agonizing over really minor differences.) http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/ David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Laurie, What does it mean that: The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture The film sensor of the D200 is substantially smaller than a 35mm film image, so I guess that is not what it means. So what is the basis for saying this? This whole thing about judging photographic quality by the equipment does seem to me like a snooty conservatism on the part of Getty. They can do what they like, of course. Just a question, Berry On 7/1/07 7:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
The DSLR digital camera's mentioned are all the higher end models of their respective manufacturers as well as among the more current models in the pipeline. Their being selected probably has as much to do with the degree of noise and distortion of their sensors as the number of megapixels that they are capable of. I am equally sure that there is also an industry bias towards certain camera brands and models over others just as there is for certain medium and large format digital backs over others. This is not new and existed with film cameras as well where the premier brands were Nikon, Canon, Hasselblat, and Sinar or Deerdorf over Pentax, Olympus, Bronica, Mamiya, and Calumet. The film scanners are all drum scanners or the equivalent which are high end industry workhorses use to produce high quality and resolution scans from film sized 35mm to 8x10 or larger. The file sizes of the scans may be 100MB or so per scan and the bit depth at which these scanners scan is far greater than flatbed or sensor chip based film scanners. The Nikon 5000 and the equivalent film scanners may be the top of the prosummer line of film scanners; but it is not the top of the line scanner by industrial commercial standards. Moreover, there probably is a biased belief that professional commercial scans will b e done by professional craftsmen who specialize in scan with the equipment that they use and know how to get the most quality out of that equipment where prosummers - no matter how good or competent - do not scan for a living and probably nopt as likely to produce flawless scans. There is also probably a histroric legacy industry bias among the curators, archivists, and operators of up-scale stock houses in favor of drum scanners and certain professional commercial scanning houses, who they have worked with before. Is it really true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000? Yes because you are mixing apples and oranges in your comparison. The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture; it does not need to be converted into a digital file after the capture by a second external process. A 35mm film capture's quality after scanning will depend on the film uses, and how it was processed, for starters, and the scanning of the film will comprise the equivalent of a second generation capture with the possible introduction of noise, artifacts, and other degrading components during the scan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 5:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty Images , a major stock photography company, posted their camera/scanner requirements on their website. I went searching on their website today, and located their standards. Here are their requirements for cameras: If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us. Here are their requirements for film scanners: We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using the approved desk top film scanners from the following list: Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan; Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3 I've never heard of any of these scanners and am somewhat shocked that not even the high end Nikon scanners are included in the list. The first one on the list, the Imacon 949 is a $5000 device, which probably explains why I've ever heard of it. I didn't check the prices on the other scanners, but if they are equally ruinous, then it looks like the cheapest way to take stock quality photos is to get a digital camera like Nikon's D200 (about $1300), rather than use film plus scanning. Is it really true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000? What are the prices for having photos professionally drum scanned? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I was the one that brought up the topic, based on a speech I attended by Jim Sugar. He uses http://marketplace.digitalrailroad.net/Default.aspx rather than Getty, but believes you should meet the Getty standards. As I also mentioned, the EOS-1ds Mark II seems to be THE standard. Jim also has a website http://web.mac.com/jimsugar1/iWeb/Jim%20Sugar/Jim%20Sugar%20Photography.html Cantoo in Berkeley http://www.cantoo.com/ rents out time on Imacon scanners. That is, you use them on-premises. [OK, not handy for everyone on this list, but the idea is such places do exist.] I suppose someday I should spend an hour and generate a scan using one of their high end machines versus my lowly Minolta 5400 II. I don't recall if I posted this, but looking at my notes from the speech, the one thing I thought was useful advice is to shoot vertical. You need to do this for magazine cover shots, which is good money. I'll admit it is not a natural thing to do, though my EOS-1HV does have controls for use in both directions. Jim said he was making nearly as much money from stock as assignments. Since he probably doesn't work cheap, this is impressive. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty Images , a major stock photography company, posted their camera/scanner requirements on their website. I went searching on their website today, and located their standards. Here are their requirements for cameras: If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us. Here are their requirements for film scanners: We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using the approved desk top film scanners from the following list: Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan; Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3 I've never heard of any of these scanners and am somewhat shocked that not even the high end Nikon scanners are included in the list. The first one on the list, the Imacon 949 is a $5000 device, which probably explains why I've ever heard of it. I didn't check the prices on the other scanners, but if they are equally ruinous, then it looks like the cheapest way to take stock quality photos is to get a digital camera like Nikon's D200 (about $1300), rather than use film plus scanning. Is it really true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000? What are the prices for having photos professionally drum scanned? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Hi Tony, They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends and retracts a little. You are sure? That is good news! With kind regards, Henk de Jong -- http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Myanmar (Burma) - Photo Galleries Tony Sleep wrote: On 15/06/2007 Henk de Jong wrote: I think the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens is also not bad, but a big draw back is the rotating frontlens when focussing. At least that is what Canon support tells me. A big handicap when using (Cokin) filters like polariser or half-coloured ones. They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends and retracts a little. The same as every other EF lens I've ever used. And yes, the 50 f1.4 is a nice lens. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jun 17, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Henk de Jong wrote: Hi Tony, They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends and retracts a little. You are sure? That is good news! With kind regards, Henk de Jong -- http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Myanmar (Burma) - Photo Galleries Three of Canon's 50mm lenses, including the f1.4, are reviewed here: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php. I wish the f2.5 Compact Macro was too. Sam Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
Hi People, I can verify that the front of the 50 1.4 does not rotate. Very nice optics for the money, however don't count on or even bother using it at F1.4, it's a mess. Stopping down to 1.8 improves things out of sight. Mark. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henk de Jong Sent: Monday, 18 June 2007 8:04 AM To: Hanna, Mark (x9085) Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography Hi Tony, They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends and retracts a little. You are sure? That is good news! With kind regards, Henk de Jong -- http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Myanmar (Burma) - Photo Galleries Tony Sleep wrote: On 15/06/2007 Henk de Jong wrote: I think the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens is also not bad, but a big draw back is the rotating frontlens when focussing. At least that is what Canon support tells me. A big handicap when using (Cokin) filters like polariser or half-coloured ones. They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends and retracts a little. The same as every other EF lens I've ever used. And yes, the 50 f1.4 is a nice lens. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Thanks Tony, for the link. US$ 175 (without shipping costs) for an adapter ring is not cheep. English is not my native language, so some explanations on the website are difficult to understand. Am I right that when you apply the adapter ring you focus by hand with maximum aperture and that the diaphragm will close automatically to the setting you have set manually at the moment you push the release button? This is the method I had always used: Because I like to have total control of the depth of field I almost always use the camera in the aperture-priority auto exposure mode With kind regards, Henk de Jong -- http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Myanmar (Burma) - Photo Galleries Tony Sleep wrote: On 09/06/2007 Henk de Jong wrote: The Canon 5D looks like an interesting camera body and even more now I have read that I could (re)use my Contax, Yashica and Tokina lenses. A friend fitted Leica R lenses to his 1DS-2. http://www.cameraquest.com/frames/4saleReos.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I am going to raise a different issue regarding the film versus digital issue for consideration. It has little to do with image quality, but instead environmental quality. For years Kodak and others told us that photographic materials manufacturing processes, photo chemicals and lab film and paper processing had little impact on water quality and pollution of water. We were told that silver was captured and recycled and that other chemicals either were reclaimed or biodegradable. We pretty much accepted this as fact. But Sweden and other countries which monitor water quality with considerable frequency have been reporting changes as digital imagery has taken over for film and print imaging, that indicates what were told wasn't true at all. Levels of silver salts (which are quite toxic) and many other photographic industry related components have successively lessened considerably from water supplies. Analysis has concluded these came directly from the manufacture and moreso processing of photographic materials, and as silver halide based image production have lowered so have these toxic pollutants. The other side of this coin is that film cameras used to be updated by a couple bucks worth of the newest roll of film on the market. A digital camera pretty much is frozen in time, and may face rapid obsolescence. However, the evolution in digital is rapidly reaching the point where the current technology is more than adequate for most people until that camera fails to work. If nothing else, as wonderful as film may be, or may have been, I'm not sure we can afford the cost to the environment for any extra value it might provide. In the majority of cases, digital meets or exceeds the needs of most photographic reproduction. So, on environmental grounds, I am not sad to see film being replaced with electronic methods, and non-silver image production. It won't be the first method to become obsolete due to its health (planetary of otherwise) related risks. And considering many photographers also have a strong environmental ethic, I would imagine even without considering the many other advantages to digital image recording, this alone could sway consideration of one to the other. I used to shot hundreds of rolls of film a month, I haven't shot more than 2 in the last couple of years, and once the film in the fridge is used up, I don't foresee buying any more. Daguerreotype used mercury with chlorine and bromine vapors all of which are toxic and polluting. Very few mourn its passing, and so it should be with the silver photographic processes. Nice, but unnecessary and harmful. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 10/06/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote: However, the evolution in digital is rapidly reaching the point where the current technology is more than adequate for most people until that camera fails to work. I read this week that the leading 8 mfrs of digital cameras expect to sell 89m cameras during 2007, up 18% on the previous year. Few digital compacts seem to be engineered to last more than 2-3 years, Even with recycling that's a lot of landfill. It's only a matter of time before we see $20 disposable digicams with built in memory, battery and cheap CMOS sensor. The surviving photofinishing trade will love them, as they'll be designed as drop-off and get back prints (chosen at a console) and a DVD. So I think that's a perfect excuse to buy a Leica M8 and save the planet :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I don't disagree that most compacts are designed to last 2-3 years. Then again, toward the end of the compact film camera market, they also were designed with the same lifespan. Not only has the cost of production of these cameras become cheap but so has the environmental impact of the technology. Soon, most, if not all of the displays will be OLED, a pretty safe technology, which doesn't even require backlighting. The impact of the small electronics, will also be minimal (compared to laptops and desktop computers or printers). The batteries are recyclable. The main components will be the cases, which will be recyclable plastic as well. The lenses may well be reusable. I'm not keen on throw away products, but the footprint digital has, relative to film, is much smaller. Now that pretty much everyone in the developed world has a computer anyway, the cameras are a minor adjunct in terms of cost and footprint. When one considers how many frames in a shoot are of no value and now can just be erased that in itself if a huge savings of materials. Then consider previewing on a computer, fixing defects with software, and then sending images on via email to again be viewed on an OLED/LCD screen. Are digitals without an environmental footprint? Hardly. But relative to film and processing, and silver image prints, the changeover has reduced the demands on the planetary resources considerably. Art Tony Sleep wrote: On 10/06/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote: However, the evolution in digital is rapidly reaching the point where the current technology is more than adequate for most people until that camera fails to work. I read this week that the leading 8 mfrs of digital cameras expect to sell 89m cameras during 2007, up 18% on the previous year. Few digital compacts seem to be engineered to last more than 2-3 years, Even with recycling that's a lot of landfill. It's only a matter of time before we see $20 disposable digicams with built in memory, battery and cheap CMOS sensor. The surviving photofinishing trade will love them, as they'll be designed as drop-off and get back prints (chosen at a console) and a DVD. So I think that's a perfect excuse to buy a Leica M8 and save the planet :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
R. Jackson wrote: It depends, really. Like, I was scanning some old Ektachrome 400 today. The images were coming out at at 4374 x 6400 pixels. That's about 28 megapixels and the scanner still wasn't clearly capturing the grain structure. Looking at it closely you can see what looks like noise, but is actually imperfectly resolved grain. The thing about properly resolving the grain, is that the grain creates the image. It is responsible for acuity, contrast, resolution and detail. Without properly capturing it, in a scan, you are not getting all the sharpness and detail that is there. And I think this goes to my comment about proper scanning. Further, current, modern slide films are much better than the old 400, even noticeably better than they were 5 years ago. They are sharper, finer grained and higher resolving than before. Now, Ektachrome wasn't the finest-grained kid on the block, but the grain is fine enough that 28 megapixels isn't getting there. That is another downside for film. Once properly scanned, it takes a lot more storage space and computer prower to handle. That said, handling the 220 MB files from a 5400 dpi scan of a 35mm slide hasn't presented much of a problem for me. Of course, some of it is undoubtedly me hitting the optical limits of my Microtek scanner. That said, I've taken 5 1/2 megapixel images with my old Olympus E-1 that give some of my Ektachrome slides a run for their money when it comes to resolving detail. Maybe an old Ektachrome 400 slide, but not a current slide film. And I think it also depends on the image subject to some extent (and perhaps what you are looking for in an image). Some things just don't have alot of detail to show so you are not losing anything by not having it, and in some cases you don't need or care about the detail. And if you are not printing large, say if 8x10's are all you do, you might not notice a difference. But take the film to it's limits and you will definitely notice the additional detail present in the film image (and how interpolation of the digital file to produce a large print, creates fake detail to fill in the extra pixels). It's just that the actual image on a slide doesn't begin to cover the amount of information contained in the slide and if you want it all you have to scan huge to get it. I just shot a couple of rolls of Efke 25 in my Mamiya 7. Those 6x7 negatives contain WAY more than four times the amount of information on those 35mm slides. I wouldn't be surprised if it took 175 megapixels to properly resolve the grain structure. And that's the real problem with comparing film and digital. 10-12 megapixels will certainly give you images every bit as detailed as you're used to getting from film. Yet to capture the beauty of film's grain you have to scan at a level of detail that's really kind of impractical. Yes. I have to say that full 4000 dpi scans of 6x7 slides is scanning huge It creates a 500+ MB file. This is not the easiest thing to work with even with a good computer, and the scanning takes time. But I have to say that the results can be stunning -- with Astia 100F as well as Efke 25 -- and virtually grainless. And the only thing that can match it is a $30,000 39 mp digital back. I've scanned 4x5 film a few times, but if I am going to do that seriously as I am planning, I'm going to need a bigger computer. I had a test arrangement with a camera manufacturer last year to do a telecine of some old 8mm film to HDV. They wanted to know how it performed. They may have been thinking of looking into an HDV telecine product, I don't know. Anyway, the results were mixed. The 720x1280 images from the camera captured all the detail that the lens on the 8mm camera original delivered to the film. I'm fairly confident of that. But the camera didn't even begin to resolve the grain structure. In fact, after talking to their engineers I found out that the mpeg encoder saw the grain as high frequency noise and tried to suppress it. So I was seeing a kind of cross-hatch pattern on individual frames that had replaced the grain structure. Now, when the image was in motion you couldn't tell you weren't just looking at grain, but pausing on a frame left an impression of some kind of jpeg compression gone wrong or something. Obviously this wouldn't be the case with uncompressed recording, but then the file sizes would be immense and I'm pretty sure 720p doesn't even approach the level of detail needed to resolve the 8mm grain structure. Yes, in some ways these things aren't set up for film. It can be hard for something set up for digital to adequately deal with analog grain. but there are product designed to deal with grain very effectively. You can indeed reduce grain like you would reduce noise. I've applied Neat Image to scanned film images to reduce grain (when I want to take something big and I don't want grain to intrude) and the results can be amazing. It is
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 08/06/2007 George Harrison wrote: Thanks for the link below but I am damned if I can see any images at all ! George Harrison If you need convincing, download and print at 16x12 some of the sample full res images at http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html Select the camera (link) you are interested in., eg http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/5d.html Then select 'sample pictures' from the 'review index' drop-down menu on the LHS of the page that appears. eg http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/5d_samples.html Pick an image eg http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/eos5d/samples/IMG_0533.JPG (this is a good one as the exact same scene has been photographed for most or all reviews, so you can see how a 10D, 1DS, 1D-2N, 5D etc differ and compare) If possible, print them at a fairly large size, because it gives a much more realistic idea of how they compare with film images, either made in the darkroom or scanned. In most respects, IMO, 1DS, 1DS-2, 5D comes close to 645 and in some ways better, in others not. The whole MF vs 35mm digital debate is contentious and perhaps a bit spurious - if you're happy with even a Box Brownie that's good enough - but http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml is a good piece and his observations match my own. MF is going to recover it's tech advantage as MF backs improve. Image quality from the latest Hasselblad (can't recall the model, integrated back, huge cost) is just astonishing. Digital's Achilles heel is that fine detail below Nyquist gets brick-wall abstracted to aliased mush which contrasts badly with the overall tonal cleanness. Film degrades more gracefully and isn't clean to start with. I use 10D (retired except occasionally) and 1Dmk2-n and have used a 5D - which produces IMO among the best files in the business. I am picky and for me the 10D images start falling apart when printed 12x8 and the 1Dmk2-n manage as big as I ever print (A3). I have never liked bigger than 16x12 for 35mm film anyway because it's too much for the format, and in fact 14x9 is my preferred size. I also use Rollei 6000 MF and have used Hasselblads, so am familiar with MF quality. I loved TMX100 in Rodinal for MF BW, extreme sharpness. Actually, I haven't touched the Rollei kit for a couple of years, it's redundant now and just not worth selling, but maybe there'll be a dig back I can afford someday. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm. Interesting and quite contrary to my own experience and others. 6 mp DSLR's could not hold a candle to a properly scanned piece of 35mm film in terms of image quality, detail, resolution and enlarge-ability. :-) I said it was contentious. In absolute and abstract terms I'd agree with you. A decent 35mm, scanned, has all those things (and I found a long time ago that scanning post prod gave me better prints than I could achieve in the darkroom - and I was a fairly expert BW printer after 25yrs of it). But whether it matters is a more important but subjective question. For years I used a 10D with no sense of loss because images were almost always going to repro, and seldom used A4. The gains, in terms of control, tonal smoothness, and saved time vastly outweighed the fact that they'd look worse as a 16x12 print which would never get made. Although one client did get me to blow up a couple to 1 x 1.5m, and they were surprisingly fine so long as you were near the proper viewing distance. If you went close, ugh, but then 35mm film would be too. Another issue that pushed me toward dig was that the materials I liked best had either disappeared or had been replaced by updated inferior (but less noxious) ones or truncated ranges (Agfa papers only in the top selling grades - what idiots). Now they have gone completely. And another was client requirements. 4 years ago I took 800GBP worth of stale paper and chemistry to the tip because nobody ever ordered prints anymore. Clients had begun to insist on dig. delivered electronically, for the obvious cost savings as much as anything. Film is not dead, and I hope it never is even though I appear to have left it behind, but it has become a shrinking, specialist niche far faster than anyone expected. There are a lot of losses and downsides to this evolution, and gains as well, but they really aren't what anyone expected. They are a nothing to do with image quality, which is and always was a matter of 'good enough' rather than a techie theological debate. I'm in the middle of writing a series of blog pieces about this. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 James L. Sims wrote: I think that digital imaging definitely has a place in this list, Tony. I have confidence in and great respect for the core group of this list. Digital imaging, film scanning and digicams are still evolving. Just some of the issues are RAW file converters, practical limits of pixel density - have we reached it? How much do we really need? And the digital archiving issues, just to name a few. I think you have a blue ribbon group contained in this list, Tony. Please keep it going, I am amazed to see it leap back into life, it saves me worrying that the server has clagged:) I'm happy to let it mutate to accomodate changed conditions, though I wouldn't want to see it become a minor and pointless clone of [prodig]. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 R. Jackson wrote: to fully resolve the grain structure of film takes WAY more resolution than you need to replace it as a capture medium. Yup. At one time I had 4,000 8,000 and 12,000ppi scans of the same bit of film. 8,000 was clearly better than 4,000 (not hugely, but clearly), but 12,000 still showed further improvement albeit diminishing returns. 12,000ppi recorded the grain topology more accurately. Now, an information theorist will tell you that's a waste of effort because the image itself has far lower spatial frequencies than all those pointless wiggly edges of clumps of grain. And they'd be right, except the film image *is* the grain rather than what it encodes, and you can see a difference with mushy grain that just doesn't look right. But that's the difference between photographers and information theorists, taste and judgement ;) None of this matters much if you don't print big enough for it to matter or don't care, and I've never longed for more than 4,000ppi personally. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Contentious is an understatement! I don't think we are is disagreement, and as I suggested it is all about what precisely you are talking about. At the 6mp level, I think people were willing to sacrifice image quality for convenience and speed. You've outlined some of that below. And it's convenience not only for the photographer, but for the client/publishers/etc. as well. There were a few magazine whose reputation was built on picture quality that wouldn't buy, but many were willing to make the trade off. I don't necessarily agree, however, with the oft-used qualification in the digital era proper (or normal) viewing distances. All that says is that it looks OK if you don't get too close. It is a compromise, something of a cop out, even somewhat apologetic. I look at all my prints up close and personal. Look at people in galleries, and you we see them looking at prints close up. And it is at these distances that you find with the 6mp DSLR's that the fine detail isn't really there (at best it's faked). 35mm film persisted because there we a lot of people that still looked closely. Until now (or about a couple years ago), that is. Today, however, with the continued development of the medium, we don't have to compromise any more. The 10mp (marginal) and 12-16mp DSLR's can give us the convenience and speed everyone desires without really compromising on absolute image quality (and detail). This is why 35mm is now dead. The advantages of 35mm film over other sizes are now provided by digital. The raison dete of 35mm film has disappeared. That (speed, convenience, flexibility, compactness, etc.) is now better filled by digital. BW film will probably live on longer than color. And 120 film and sheet film will live on in fine art circles. In fact, sales of sheet film cameras are as strong as ever -- and sales of 8x10 film view camera are growing significantly. Film is not dead, the focus has just move to larger sizes. Tony Sleep wrote: :-) I said it was contentious. In absolute and abstract terms I'd agree with you. A decent 35mm, scanned, has all those things (and I found a long time ago that scanning post prod gave me better prints than I could achieve in the darkroom - and I was a fairly expert BW printer after 25yrs of it). But whether it matters is a more important but subjective question. For years I used a 10D with no sense of loss because images were almost always going to repro, and seldom used A4. The gains, in terms of control, tonal smoothness, and saved time vastly outweighed the fact that they'd look worse as a 16x12 print which would never get made. Although one client did get me to blow up a couple to 1 x 1.5m, and they were surprisingly fine so long as you were near the proper viewing distance. If you went close, ugh, but then 35mm film would be too. Another issue that pushed me toward dig was that the materials I liked best had either disappeared or had been replaced by updated inferior (but less noxious) ones or truncated ranges (Agfa papers only in the top selling grades - what idiots). Now they have gone completely. And another was client requirements. 4 years ago I took 800GBP worth of stale paper and chemistry to the tip because nobody ever ordered prints anymore. Clients had begun to insist on dig. delivered electronically, for the obvious cost savings as much as anything. Film is not dead, and I hope it never is even though I appear to have left it behind, but it has become a shrinking, specialist niche far faster than anyone expected. There are a lot of losses and downsides to this evolution, and gains as well, but they really aren't what anyone expected. They are a nothing to do with image quality, which is and always was a matter of 'good enough' rather than a techie theological debate. I'm in the middle of writing a series of blog pieces about this. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How I wish they could just fit the sensor chip from the Canon 5D (or even the 1Ds MkII) into the Contax N Digital -- now that would produce be one h*ll of a camera. I fully agree and I wish for a long time that Contax makes DSLRs also in the semi-prof segment. I still use a Contax 139 and a Contax Aria with slide film and a film scanner. http://www.hsdejong.nl/myanmar/miscellaneous/the_making_of.html I will switch entirely to digital in the near future, but with some pain in my heart. The Canon 5D looks like an interesting camera body and even more now I have read that I could (re)use my Contax, Yashica and Tokina lenses. Could you tell me (or point to a web site) how this is done? With kind regards, Henk de Jong -- http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Myanmar (Burma) - Photo Galleries Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 Henk de Jong wrote: The Canon 5D looks like an interesting camera body and even more now I have read that I could (re)use my Contax, Yashica and Tokina lenses. A friend fitted Leica R lenses to his 1DS-2. http://www.cameraquest.com/frames/4saleReos.htm -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 6/8/07, James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you, Tony, Digital cameras, for all practical purposes, has surpassed the quality of 35mm format film and I believe that happened with the arrival of the six megapixel camera, a few years ago, significant cropping, not withstanding - grain being much more forgiving than pixelization. There are pockets of resistance: http://image66.blogspot.com/ Warning: no C*non or N*kon images to be found above. This guy coined the expression delayed digital capture for his scanned stuff (tongue in cheek, I think). He's a friend, so be kind. ;^) Joel W. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This conflicts with claims that it is beneficial to scan at 4000 dpi or higher resolutions. Am I likely seeing the limitations of the optics of my scanner rather than of the information capacity of the film? Anybody know how well the optics of the Polaroid SprintScan 4000 compares with those of Konica-Minolta or Nikon scanners? The main issue with scanning at lower than 4000ppi is grain aliasing on some materials (grain sizes near the Nyquist limit cause aliasing artifacts which look like exaggerated and false-colour grain). This isn't totally avoided in 4,000ppi+ scanners and Nikons have always seemed more prone due to the semi-collimated LED lightsource. Nikon 2700ppi models were especially prone, and most claims to see ISO100 grain in scans were nothing more than visible grain aliasing. I've only seen it twice with Polaroid 4000, in some overexposed Fuji200 col neg and in TMax3200. There is nothing you can usefully do with such images. I can't answer your optics question; all seem at least adequate. And normalising the images via bicubic resampling means all bets are off regarding a meaningful comparison - it's useful but it's not very kind to image detail. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Yes, Astia 100F is very good. In fact, a lot of the current 100 speed color slide films are very good and competitive. Velvia 100F is also very good and very fine grained. I use it in 120 size and scanned at 4000dpi on the Nikon 8000, grain is almost invisible. Kodak, meanwhile, has not been sleeping, their E100G and E100GX slide film are as good, if not better, and I prefer it to the current Provia. But most of this is with 120 film these days. (and no, there is no DSLR that comes close to the quality of this 120 film scanned output). 35mm film has been mostly replaced (except in specific circumstances) by the 5D. I still use a 35mm film compact from time to time. I have yet to find ANY digital compact that matches the output from my little Ricoh GR1s (and that most certainly includes the Ricoh GR-Digital). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The best film I've tried is Fuji Astia 100F. It is very fine grain, and certainly benefits from the highest scanning resolution on the 5400. Astia is slightly less contrasty than most slide film, so you have a bit of dynamic range to play with when you scan it. I can get good images from a crop that is about 1/3rd the width of the frame. I'm often shooting images where I can't get close enough, so I need the full resolution. Now I suppose if I had DSLR at 16Mpixel, the results would be similar. snip Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Actually I don't think your recollection is entirely accurate. If it was the 1Ds (Mk1), then it is only an 11mp camera. And when you say as good as, you really do need to explain what exactly you mean. The 11mp 1Ds (Mk1) is overall, probably a touch better than a piece of 100 ISO color 35mm film. It will produce a cleaner large print (no grain), but the film, well scanned, will supply a little more resolution. At 400 ISO, the 1Ds is more clearly better. The more recent 12.8mp Canon 5D is better still, and the first DSLR that was good enough, in my view, that was worth the investment to switch. (and if you ask the LL folks, I am sure they will agree -- the 16mp 1Ds MkII, came before the 12.8mp 5D, so it might have been the first, but its not the only one that LL considers to be as good as or better than film) Comparing the 5D's output to scans of 35mm film (scanned on a KM Scan Elite 5400 II, and Nikon 8000) I can get more out of the 5D file. To my eyes, it is clearly superior (but certainly not perfect). At higher ISO's, it is vastly superior. It increases its margin at 200 ISO, and at 1600 ISO it produces remarkably good images -- a couple orders of magnitude better than you can do with 1600 ISO film (unless of course, you are using it for the visual effect of it's large grain). Ultra-fine grain, slow speed (6-25 ISO) black and white film might still have an edge, however. I know there were a lot of people running around saying that their 6 mp DSLR was better than film and had tests to prove it. That was pure bunk. With the 12.8 mp 5D, the 16mp 1Ds MkII, 12.4mp Nikon D2x, and 14mp Kodak SLR/c and SLR/n (and I really should include the 10mp Leica M8 in this list) 35mm film has clearly been surpassed. I was long a hold-out in favor of film, but there is no longer any doubt. Now there might be a particular application, or a particular look you are trying to get that film may be the best way to go, but overall and for most applications and uses, these DSLR's are indeed superior. I see further you have bought into the long-standing rumour of the 22mp replacement for the 1DsMKII -- do you have actual knowledge to this, or have you just bought into all the fact-less speculation all over the web? People were spreading rumours saying it was coming 2 years ago, but nothing came, not even a hint. Whenever it arrives, it may indeed be 22mp but Canon needs to be careful. The 16mp 1Ds MKII already exceeds the resolving capabilities of most Canon lenses (including the L's) a 22mp version would just further highlight the weakness of their lens line. I would think they should really focus on improving other aspects of image quality in the 1Ds MKII, rather than just another mindless, and not really that useful (lens resolution limited), increase in MP's. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest checking out this website: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ My recollection is the first DSLR these guys thought was as good as film was a 16Mpixel Canon EOS 1. I can't recall the exact variant (Mark 1, mark 2, etc.) If you don't own that camera (or maybe the 22Mpixel model that is going to replace it), the DSLR will not be as good as scanned film. However, if you can control your work to the point where you don't need to crop very much, you can get acceptable results with a lesser camera. I attended a talk by Jim Sugar (National Geographic and other mags) a few months ago. I haven't followed through on this, but he said Getty Images and Digital Railroad have on their websites what they consider an acceptable camera to produce stock images for them to sell. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
16mp 1Ds MkII is the one I recall the camera LL said matched film. I haven't bought into the 22mPixel rumor. I was told by someone who attended the photo show in Vegas that it was announced. Beyond that, I have no knowledge of the camera. I'd be plenty happy with the Mk II. I attended a show by IIRC Fred Larson of the San Francisco Chronicle. This was the camera the Chron thought replaced film. [They made some corporate decision about two years ago to dump their Nikons and go all Canon. They used to have a mix of bodies.] Astia 100f pushes well, though you can see increased grain if pulled a stop. Half a stop gets you a little edge without much of a grain issue. The claim (i.e. I have no first hand knowledge) that some fashion photographers prefer film IF there is an issue of aliasing. The MKII was about $4k+ last time I looked. There is obviously a price break point for film versus digital. I'm doing about 30 to 40 rolls a year. I probably haven't hit the break point, but someone who shoots for a living easily could pay for the MKii in a year. One thing for sure, the EOS1HS I got a few years ago will be my last new film body. I still like to do some telephotography with my F3 due to the ability to put a magnifier on the screen. I'm trying to convert my EOS film body to that task, but the removable prism is such an advantage. [I'm really getting tired of fixing the old F3, and I think now Nikon won't refurb it.] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually I don't think your recollection is entirely accurate. If it was the 1Ds (Mk1), then it is only an 11mp camera. And when you say as good as, you really do need to explain what exactly you mean. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
