Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 11MP digital or medium format film?

Reply
Thread Tools

11MP digital or medium format film?

 
 
nobody nowhere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bill Hilton
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes

I read somewhere that one should do all the processing in 14/16 bit. So
my MF files from a Nikon 8000 are usually 430MB or so. You mention only
200MB from a Tango (no less) scanner. Where do I go wrong? In particular
since this is Chinese torture (no offence to our Chinese friends) I am
using a fairly old, fairly slow PC, with a fairly restricted RAM (750MB)
and fairly slow processor (2 or 3 years old). I know that I could
downsample, but, presumably, I should do this just before printing, not
at the processing stage? Thanks again.

Another question (aren't I a curious little baby?): when you say
"professionally done", what you probably mean is a scan done with a
professional scanner in the Tango league. Surely, had you had a Tango
in your room/office, you could have danced with it yourself, you
wouldn't need somebody else to do it for you, if you can see what I
mean?
>
>When we're selling large prints it's nice to have a $50 200 MB drum scan done
>professionally.


--

nobody
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gsum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2004
I have done a similar comparison between 6x9 Provia 100/Epson 3200
and a Nikon D100. My results agree broadly with yours except
at the scanner's highest optical resolution. This yields a 66mp file
at 3200 ppi. I found that on a pixel by pixel basis, the D100
is much better as, at that res., the scanner 'sees' only grain. Grain
effects can be seen even at 1800ppi with Provia 100. I don't use
Velvia as the Epson is unable to handle the saturated colours and
I don't like over saturation.

Whilst MF certainly provides far more information than a D100
(and probably and 11mp Canon), I far prefer the D100's colours. They
seem accurate and natural when compared to film's 'invisible' colours.

Graham


"Chris Brown" <(E-Mail Removed)_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Beowulf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Do the 11 megapixel digital cameras approach the resolution of a medium
> >format film camera? I have a Canon 10D digital, 6.3 megapixels, and a
> >Canon Rebel Ti film camera. I would like the greater resolution of a
> >medium format camera for larger finer grained prints-- but perhaps

digital
> >is approaching that with 11+ megapixels?

>
> It probably depends on your expectations, and what you mean by "medium
> format". 645 is a whole different ballpark to 69, for example.
>
> Here's a datapoint that may prove useful. Last night, I was scanning a 66
> medium format Velvia slide which I'd shot handheld with an old Yashica TLR
> at 1/30 of a second. I was scanning this on an Epson 4870 flatbed, which
> doesn't come close to getting all the detail out of the slide. A 1

megapixel
> version of the image is here:
>
> http://www.fastfoto.co.uk/Chris/Beer.jpg
>
> The initial output of the scanner is 100 million pixels. They're not "DSLR
> quality" pixels, but that doesn't really matter for this point.
>
> Anyway, at the full 100 million pixel output of the scanner, two things

are
> apparent:
>
> 1) You can easilly read *all* the text on the label of the beer bottle.
>
> 2) The shot has camera shake (surprisingly little for the circumstances,

but
> TLRs are very stable for handheld work).
>
> The camera shake can be seen on the white-on-blue text on the bottle - the
> letters very obviously have a slight vertical smearing to them, with

letters
> like "H" having two distinct crossbars instead of just one.
>
> Now I don't leave my scans at 100 million pixels, as that would be a huge
> waste of disk space, so I typically downsize them. The way this image
> behaves when downsized to different resolutions is educational:
>
> - At 36 megapixels (6000*6000), the image quality per pixel is similar to
> whet I get from my 10D at 400 ISO. The text on the bottle is still
> readable. The camera shake is still obvious.
>
> - At 25 megapixels (5000*5000), the image quality per pixel is similar to
> what I get from the 10D shots I get in good light, with a good lens, on

a
> tripod. The smaller text is barely readable. The camera shake is there,
> but difficult to see if you don't know where to look.
>
> - At 9 megapixels (3000*3000), the image quality per pixel is vastly

better
> than anything I've seen from a DSLR, with very sharply defined edges.

It
> looks like an over sharpened DSLR image, minus the sharpening

artifacts,
> or an SD10 type image, minus the aliasing. In short, "per pixel" at 9
> megapixels, this is vastly better than anything I've ever seen any DSLR

do.
>
> *HOWEVER*, in that same 9 megapixel image, you can't read any of the
> smaller text on the bottle - each letter is only a few pixels wide.

Also,
> the camera shake is all but undetectable.
>
> With a proper film scanner, rather than a flatbed pretending to be one,
> there is probably more detail to be recovered from medium format slides,
> *and* this is a handheld shot, on a 1970s camera, with its Tessar-type

lens
> focused closely and wide-open (a situation where this lens type is not

known
> to shine). It is, however, shot on very high resolution slide film, namely
> Velvia 50, and results from print film may be a bit softer.
>
> Having said all that, the conclusion I can draw from this is that using

this
> combination of film, camera and scanner, and looking purely from a detail
> point of view, 66 medium format makes 11 DSLR megapixels look to be
> something of a poor relation. A 1Ds might have delivered an image where

the
> smaller text on the bottle was just about readable, but it would be a

close
> thing. The slide, on the other hand, has lots of detail left at that

point.
>
> However, if you're comparing to 645 medium format, shot on print film, and
> you consider other things such as grain and shadow noise, the 1Ds probably
> looks a bit more competitive.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ArtKramr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2004
>Subject: Re: 11MP digital or medium format film?
>From: "gsum" http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
>Date: 8/23/2004 7:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4129f725$(E-Mail Removed)>
>
>I have done a similar comparison between 6x9 Provia 100/Epson 3200
>and a Nikon D100. My results agree broadly with yours except
>at the scanner's highest optical resolution. This yields a 66mp file
>at 3200 ppi. I found that on a pixel by pixel basis, the D100
>is much better as, at that res., the scanner 'sees' only grain. Grain
>effects can be seen even at 1800ppi with Provia 100. I don't use
>Velvia as the Epson is unable to handle the saturated colours and
>I don't like over saturation.
>
>Whilst MF certainly provides far more information than a D100
>(and probably and 11mp Canon), I far prefer the D100's colours. They
>seem accurate and natural when compared to film's 'invisible' colours.
>
>Graham
>
>
>"Chris Brown" <(E-Mail Removed)_uce_please.com> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Beowulf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >Do the 11 megapixel digital cameras approach the resolution of a medium
>> >format film camera? I have a Canon 10D digital, 6.3 megapixels, and a
>> >Canon Rebel Ti film camera. I would like the greater resolution of a
>> >medium format camera for larger finer grained prints-- but perhaps

>digital
>> >is approaching that with 11+ megapixels?

>>
>> It probably depends on your expectations, and what you mean by "medium
>> format". 645 is a whole different ballpark to 69, for example.
>>
>> Here's a datapoint that may prove useful. Last night, I was scanning a 66
>> medium format Velvia slide which I'd shot handheld with an old Yashica TLR
>> at 1/30 of a second. I was scanning this on an Epson 4870 flatbed, which
>> doesn't come close to getting all the detail out of the slide. A 1

>megapixel
>> version of the image is here:
>>
>> http://www.fastfoto.co.uk/Chris/Beer.jpg
>>
>> The initial output of the scanner is 100 million pixels. They're not "DSLR
>> quality" pixels, but that doesn't really matter for this point.
>>
>> Anyway, at the full 100 million pixel output of the scanner, two things

>are
>> apparent:
>>
>> 1) You can easilly read *all* the text on the label of the beer bottle.
>>
>> 2) The shot has camera shake (surprisingly little for the circumstances,

>but
>> TLRs are very stable for handheld work).
>>
>> The camera shake can be seen on the white-on-blue text on the bottle - the
>> letters very obviously have a slight vertical smearing to them, with

>letters
>> like "H" having two distinct crossbars instead of just one.
>>
>> Now I don't leave my scans at 100 million pixels, as that would be a huge
>> waste of disk space, so I typically downsize them. The way this image
>> behaves when downsized to different resolutions is educational:
>>
>> - At 36 megapixels (6000*6000), the image quality per pixel is similar to
>> whet I get from my 10D at 400 ISO. The text on the bottle is still
>> readable. The camera shake is still obvious.
>>
>> - At 25 megapixels (5000*5000), the image quality per pixel is similar to
>> what I get from the 10D shots I get in good light, with a good lens, on

>a
>> tripod. The smaller text is barely readable. The camera shake is there,
>> but difficult to see if you don't know where to look.
>>
>> - At 9 megapixels (3000*3000), the image quality per pixel is vastly

>better
>> than anything I've seen from a DSLR, with very sharply defined edges.

>It
>> looks like an over sharpened DSLR image, minus the sharpening

>artifacts,
>> or an SD10 type image, minus the aliasing. In short, "per pixel" at 9
>> megapixels, this is vastly better than anything I've ever seen any DSLR

>do.
>>
>> *HOWEVER*, in that same 9 megapixel image, you can't read any of the
>> smaller text on the bottle - each letter is only a few pixels wide.

>Also,
>> the camera shake is all but undetectable.
>>
>> With a proper film scanner, rather than a flatbed pretending to be one,
>> there is probably more detail to be recovered from medium format slides,
>> *and* this is a handheld shot, on a 1970s camera, with its Tessar-type

>lens
>> focused closely and wide-open (a situation where this lens type is not

>known
>> to shine). It is, however, shot on very high resolution slide film, namely
>> Velvia 50, and results from print film may be a bit softer.
>>
>> Having said all that, the conclusion I can draw from this is that using

>this
>> combination of film, camera and scanner, and looking purely from a detail
>> point of view, 66 medium format makes 11 DSLR megapixels look to be
>> something of a poor relation. A 1Ds might have delivered an image where

>the
>> smaller text on the bottle was just about readable, but it would be a

>close
>> thing. The slide, on the other hand, has lots of detail left at that

>point.
>>
>> However, if you're comparing to 645 medium format, shot on print film, and
>> you consider other things such as grain and shadow noise, the 1Ds probably
>> looks a bit more competitive.

>


I think as time goes on our films choices will be fewer and fewer. In the end
there will be one film on a take-it- or-leave-it basis. (sigh)




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2004
>From: nobody nowhere (E-Mail Removed)

>I read somewhere that one should do all the processing in 14/16 bit.


Definitely a good idea for the global corrections.

> So my MF files from a Nikon 8000 are usually 430MB or so. You
> mention only 200MB from a Tango (no less) scanner. Where do I go wrong?


The scan operator does the basic global corrections (set end points, remove
color casts, etc) with the scanner software in 16 bit LAB mode, then once he's
done he writes out an 8 bit/channel 200 MB file. If you insist on a 16 bit
file it will be 400 MB but you have to pay more. So you're scanning at about
the same rez as they are with MF.

Why 200 MB? At one lab I use 200 MB costs $50 and then it's 75 cents for each
extra MB, or $125 for 300 MB for example. While looking up stuff for this
reply I just noticed that WCI only charges $80 for a 16 bit 400 MB scan so
maybe I should look around a bit more

>when you say
>"professionally done", what you probably mean is a scan done with a
>professional scanner in the Tango league.


Yes.

>Surely, had you had a Tango
>in your room/office, you could have danced with it yourself, you
>wouldn't need somebody else to do it for you, if you can see what I
>mean?


I think they cost around $30,000 new (maybe somewhat less now, I don't know)
and it's not that easy to learn how to use them with the wet mounting and the
specialized software. It's not like scanning with the Nikon 8000 The only
individual I know who has one as his personal home scanner is Bill Atkinson.

Here is more info if you want to check prices or see some of the services
typically offered:

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/...n/wciscans.htm

or

http://www.calypsoinc.com/ and on the 'digital services' link click 'scanning'
There are cheaper places than these guys that still do a good job (like Nancy
Scans) but these two are the favorites of many pros doing nature and wildlife.

Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
nobody nowhere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2004
Thank you Bill.


In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bill Hilton
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>From: nobody nowhere (E-Mail Removed)

>
>>I read somewhere that one should do all the processing in 14/16 bit.

>
>Definitely a good idea for the global corrections.
>
>> So my MF files from a Nikon 8000 are usually 430MB or so. You
>> mention only 200MB from a Tango (no less) scanner. Where do I go wrong?

>
>The scan operator does the basic global corrections (set end points, remove
>color casts, etc) with the scanner software in 16 bit LAB mode, then once he's
>done he writes out an 8 bit/channel 200 MB file. If you insist on a 16 bit
>file it will be 400 MB but you have to pay more. So you're scanning at about
>the same rez as they are with MF.
>
>Why 200 MB? At one lab I use 200 MB costs $50 and then it's 75 cents for each
>extra MB, or $125 for 300 MB for example. While looking up stuff for this
>reply I just noticed that WCI only charges $80 for a 16 bit 400 MB scan so
>maybe I should look around a bit more
>
>>when you say
>>"professionally done", what you probably mean is a scan done with a
>>professional scanner in the Tango league.

>
>Yes.
>
>>Surely, had you had a Tango
>>in your room/office, you could have danced with it yourself, you
>>wouldn't need somebody else to do it for you, if you can see what I
>>mean?

>
>I think they cost around $30,000 new (maybe somewhat less now, I don't know)
>and it's not that easy to learn how to use them with the wet mounting and the
>specialized software. It's not like scanning with the Nikon 8000 The only
>individual I know who has one as his personal home scanner is Bill Atkinson.
>
>Here is more info if you want to check prices or see some of the services
>typically offered:
>
>http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/...n/wciscans.htm
>
>or
>
>http://www.calypsoinc.com/ and on the 'digital services' link click 'scanning'
> There are cheaper places than these guys that still do a good job (like Nancy
>Scans) but these two are the favorites of many pros doing nature and wildlife.
>
>Bill


--

nobody
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2004
Bart van der Wolf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>That image is hardly representative of what film has to offer.
>
>The image suffers from camera shake. The zoom lens may have added it's
>own limitations. Had the image been good, then 4000 ppi isn't enough
>to resolve all detail.
>
>A small (6.35x6.35mm, or 4.7% of the ful frame area) crop from a 5400
>ppi scan (un-retouched, no grain reduction, no sharpening) shows a
>much more detailed image, and that one was handheld:
><http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/SE5400-Wbd-Crop.jpg> for the
>crop, and
><http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/SE5400-Wbd-Overview.jpg> for the
>overview.


That image looks indeed better, but I have other 53 scans of slides from
my brother, and they all are so unsharp. Many were taken during the day
with strong sunlight, so exposure times must have been short enough to
rule out camera shake.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2004
Allan Wind <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 2004-08-22, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Well... see here for what you get from a Minolta DSLR with a Tamron 28-
>> 200 lens:
>>
>> http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

>
>Do you have a larger resolution of this scan online, perhaps the
>unprocessed version? I was expecting better results with a slide
>scanner.


That's the 4000 dpi scan of the slide (a 4000 dpi scan of a slide gives
you an image with approx 5400 x 3600 pixels).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
dylan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2004
From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.

Don't believe Preddy (aka Verne or Orville Wright) and his Sigma/Foveon is
as good as medium format.

"Beowulf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> Do the 11 megapixel digital cameras approach the resolution of a medium
> format film camera? I have a Canon 10D digital, 6.3 megapixels, and a
> Canon Rebel Ti film camera. I would like the greater resolution of a
> medium format camera for larger finer grained prints-- but perhaps digital
> is approaching that with 11+ megapixels?
> ~Beowulf
>
> --
> "It said it needed Windows98 or better installed, so I installed Linux."
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2004

"dylan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
> 35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.


How about some references/pointer? The stuff I've seen has 35mm not being
anywhere close to the 1Ds. (Although I do think that 645 at its best still
edges out 11MP.)

As I've said before, I _really_ like 11MP for A4 prints.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
dylan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2004
Can't find the actual test I saw in a photo magazine, possibly professional
photograher or bjp, as I moved recently and disposed of them, but they
tested a EOS1Ds vs Film and the EOS1Ds came out slightly better in certain
aspects.

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cgmu0m$suh$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "dylan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
> > 35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.

>
> How about some references/pointer? The stuff I've seen has 35mm not being
> anywhere close to the 1Ds. (Although I do think that 645 at its best still
> edges out 11MP.)
>
> As I've said before, I _really_ like 11MP for A4 prints.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The 11MP monochrome, 2.7MP color, $8000 Canon 1Ds Georgette Preddy Digital Photography 24 05-29-2004 10:01 PM
Been hearing and reading alot about digital being the death of Medium Format.. nonamegiven Digital Photography 7 11-18-2003 07:39 AM
What requirements would force you to go to 11MP from a 6MP DSLR ? Al Dykes Digital Photography 13 10-03-2003 04:09 AM
35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras The LoxFather Digital Photography 39 08-31-2003 04:52 AM
Re: 35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras HRosita Digital Photography 0 08-10-2003 01:15 AM



Advertisments