| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2005 10:12:07 PM · #26 |
Well said Ron. I am trying to become more profficient at stitching images myself, although I hadn't thought of doing anything like this for this reason though. I usually stick with Panoramic vistas etc. I will experiment.
I think I need something a bit better than canon's photostitch though.
nsbca7. read dpreview.com carefully, paying particularly close attention to the Sigma DSLRs. You will see what I mean about interpolated images from bayer sensors. All bayer sensors will provide images that are very slightly smudged at 100% in relation to true detail simply because only a small portion of each pixel is based on real information and a portion is merely averaged. Interpolation is fairly good, so it does provide additional sharpness and detail well beyond what the camera sees, but any time you "average" fine detail information, you are going to get a very slight smudging.
Cameras like the Sigma and the new Hasselblad are not affected by this because of full colour triplet information on each pixel. The difference is significant. Sigma 3mpix pictures are equal to or better than other canon or nikon 6mpix pics with regards fine detail. (Sigma doesn't have the R&D dollars to keep up in other areas of technology)
The 22mpix Hasselblad will perform around the neighborhood of a 40-50mpix bayer sensor depending on the subject.
Pics out of digital cameras can be manipulated in programs like photoshop and further increase detail to make beautiful large prints (upsizing and usm in stages I believe is the technique - my downstairs roommate used to work for a billboard company), but medium format guys who are hard-headed and will go to the grave believing that their format is better are referring here to the fact that medium format film is able to capture more TRUE detail than a digital camera without manipulation.
I believe that to be largely true. I would personally still be quite happy with a 8-12mpix Foveon based DSLR. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:33:14 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Behind You:
Can someone explain to me why you would need a 22 megapixel camera? |
i know these cameras are used by fashion and glamour magazine photographers. if you ever watch one of those behind the scenes videos of some of those photoshoots you'll see the photographer will usually be shooting with one of these specialized cameras like a mamiya
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:42:47 PM · #28 |
medium format film is great cuz of the cool film borders you can scan or print with your photos =). I think that's the secret truth no one wants to admit haha That's the only reason I can think of why someone would use a digi back as a friggin polaroid replacement, that's rediculous.
but i love shootin 120 film, cuz of the borders, and the big transparencies are sweet to look at haha. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:19:38 PM · #29 |
What are you talking about again?
Originally posted by eschelar:
nsbca7. read dpreview.com carefully, paying particularly close attention to the Sigma DSLRs. You will see what I mean about interpolated images from bayer sensors. |
You mentioned Canon DSLRs earlier, not Sigmas.
Originally posted by eschelar:
Cameras like the Sigma and the new Hasselblad are not affected by this because of full colour triplet information on each pixel.
|
Your putting Sigma and Hasselblad in the same sentence?
The Hasselblad H2D, the one we have been talking about, has a 37mm x 49mm 22 Mp CCD sensor, not a Fovoen.
Originally posted by eschelar:
Pics out of digital cameras can be manipulated in programs like photoshop and further increase detail to make beautiful large prints (upsizing and usm in stages I believe is the technique - my downstairs roommate used to work for a billboard company), but medium format guys who are hard-headed and will go to the grave believing that their format is better are referring here to the fact that medium format film is able to capture more TRUE detail than a digital camera without manipulation.
|
Are you telling me that film doesn't have to be manipulated? It comes right out of the camera as a 30x40 print? Don't you have to "up-size" the neg in an enlarger and proccess it in chemicals to get what you are after?
The technology is better now then it was. If I can do it now on my computer instead of in a darkroom with chemicals why would one proccess be called manipulation and the other be called "TRUE"?
The images now being produced by high end digital bodies exceed film in quality. What you wish to call "TRUE" and what I call true must be two different things. Truth to me would be the aestetic value of the finnished print.
Message edited by author 2005-08-27 23:21:14.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 11:14:22 AM · #30 |
Woah Nelly, calm down there nsbca7. No need to get excited.
my comment about reading dpreview.com and paying close attention to the sigma DSLR's means that if you read dpreview.com's reviews of Sigma DSLR's, you will read detailed information that compares the technology of Bayer Pattern sensors with Foveon sensors used in Sigma's bodies. If you read it, you will understand. I thought I said it pretty simply. DPreview says it pretty simply too.
I am putting Sigma and Hasselblad in the same sentence because of the type of technology they are using. Sigma uses non-interpolated, full color triplet information pixels. Hasselblad's recent announcement says that they do the same. The fact that Hasselblad uses a CCD and Sigma uses a CMOS made by Foveon is irrelevent. I am referring to the ability of each effective pixel to contain full RGB colour information.
This is from the review of the Sigma SD10 from DPReview:
On October 27th 2003 Sigma announced the new SD10. This new X3 based digital SLR is the successor to the SD9 which was the first digital camera to utilize Foveon's unique X3 sensor technology (info here). The SD10 has a Sigma AF mount and, like the SD9, a Foveon X3 10M CMOS Sensor* which has 2268 x 1512 x 3 photodetectors (three photodetectors for each pixel location). With the advent of the SD10 both Sigma and Foveon are taking the (braver but) more logical position of using the number 10 million to represent the number of photodetectors, I'm sure this decision will be debated ad nauseam but it's easy to see their position, in our previous experience the X3 sensor delivers approximately twice the resolution of a standard mosaic sensor with the same number of horizontal and vertical pixel locations.
Note the comment on how the sensor will deliver approximately twice the resolution of a standard mosaic sensor.
I'm afraid the last part of your post is almost too silly to respond to. Of course film has to be enlarged. My point is that the more original information there is, the larger it can be enlarged before having to further manipulate it. Film captures more original detail. True information is information recorded from the scene. Upsizing is not adding information. It is expanding the information. You will never be able to upsize a 2mp pic to a higher quality pic than an 8mp pic of the same scene because the 8mp pic has more TRUE information. This is true no matter how much manipulation you are able to do.
I agree that high end bodies has exceeded film in quality, but what I had read and seen in compared images as well as what I have seen from actual images leads me to believe that this is still limited to 35mm.
I had read that in order to equal 4x5 medium format, 140+megapixels was required. We shall see. I'm not in a position to support or deny that. I am merely stating that I hope the technology used in the Sigma and the Hasselblad sensors migrates its way to canon bodies soon!
Message edited by author 2005-08-28 12:08:46. |
|
|
|
08/28/2005 11:40:54 AM · #31 |
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
This guy suspects the numbers are much higher to replace film.
Message edited by author 2005-08-28 11:41:03.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:24:40 PM · #32 |
you have to understand that these cameras are extremely specialized even amongst the pros. no one pics up a 22 mp camera to make larger prints.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:54:51 PM · #33 |
quote Ken Rockwell
For example, for a four megapixel camera the square root of four is two. Two times four is eight. Thus the biggest print you can make without losing sharpness compared to film at normal viewing distances is is 6 x 8." From a sixteen MP camera likewise you could go 12 x 16." Of course you can print bigger, just you won't have the sharpness of film. Also few people are able to get all the sharpness of which film is capable, making this harder to compare.
Ken Rockwell has apparently never done much printing from a 16Mp camera. 12x16?
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:56:11 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by art-inept:
you have to understand that these cameras are extremely specialized even amongst the pros. no one pics up a 22 mp camera to make larger prints. |
You really need to see what these things are capable of.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 02:07:01 PM · #35 |
His compairing digital to film is similar to analogue to cd. both have benifits and drawbacks. I agree you can make prints WAY bigger than 12x16 but you can't do it without losing your 300dpi unless you interpolate. That is his whole point.
I have seen other test that show that the digital competes very well with film, but iirc they were compaired digital vs scanned not print vs print. I would love to see what the 1DsII prints look like at 30x40 compaired to the same shot with film.
nsbca perhaps you could perform such an expiriment as you already have 2 1DsII's and an old canon 35mm film camera can be had for very cheap and pretty easily resold. I'd love to see it, if you're up for it.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 02:18:10 PM · #36 |
I would love to own one of those 22MP backs (or the ZD). But until my skills improve, I'll stick with my meager 5MP E-1. This one would be very nice, or the integrated ZD. If going for MP, I would go all the way, with 20MP mininum. My next camera will be 10-12MP, and that goes a long way towards A2-sized prints. (16" x 23")
 (6x7cm touch screen!)
Message edited by author 2005-08-28 14:21:19.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 02:30:00 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I have seen other test that show that the digital competes very well with film, but iirc they were compaired digital vs scanned not print vs print. I would love to see what the 1DsII prints look like at 30x40 compaired to the same shot with film.
nsbca perhaps you could perform such an expiriment as you already have 2 1DsII's and an old canon 35mm film camera can be had for very cheap and pretty easily resold. I'd love to see it, if you're up for it. |
I have one 1Ds II and one 1D II.
But to the point. I have already done the comparisons for myself when I first got an 11Mp 1Ds. I had been working with film, 6x7 medium format and 35mm, for years and have over 50,000 images on file. The 11Mp 1Ds trumped 35mm film output without even a small doubt.
The first image I shot with the 1Ds was a landscape. I cropped and blew the image up to 54x24, framed it and brought it to a gallery in Mobile for a juried art competition. The print took first place. When I evaluated the fine detail, even at close viewing I came to the conclusion that there was little chance that I could have matched that with the 6x7 printed from an enlarger. (not to mention how hard and expensive it would be to print that size using traditional darkroom techniques).
I have no doubt that after I get done playing on this computer with this new website and actually get to go out and use my new 16Mp 1Ds II next week I̢۪ll be thinking about getting a bigger printer.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 02:33:35 PM · #38 |
good to know that you have first hand expirience to share. Very valuable that stuff. the 1Ds beats out 35mm... hmmm... maybe I could pick up one of those used down the road :-D
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 03:04:12 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
The first image I shot with the 1Ds was a landscape. I cropped and blew the image up to 54x24, framed it and brought it to a gallery in Mobile for a juried art competition.
|
That is very reassuring. Anything bigger than that, and we are talking bill-board sized prints... But 100dpi is probably as low as you can go, but all this depends on megapixels, sizes and viewing distance...
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 01:20:10 AM · #40 |
Film vs. Digital
Kodak TMAX400. Professional B&W negative film. Average grain size: 2-3um
|
|
|
|
10/24/2005 12:27:33 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Man, having 88,000 x 44,000 images to work with would be quite nice! |
It's just a film view camera with an ungodly scanning system . Just think, in ten tears they may really have gigapixel digital backs for view camera at a half way reasonable price. |
Gordon just spoke at a conference I help organize, and the images were gorgeous. The primary drawbacks are that it weighs 200 lbs and takes a whole morning to set up. On one hand, on the other hand... ;)
|
|
|
|
10/24/2005 01:47:27 PM · #42 |
Ken Rockwell is the photographic equivalent to the founder of the Flat Earth Society.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2005 02:13:03 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Film vs. Digital
Kodak TMAX400. Professional B&W negative film. Average grain size: 2-3um
|
From the Kodak site:
KODAK Blue Plus Color Full-frame image sensors offer enhanced sensitivity and ultra-low dark current. The high dynamic range of this product family provides exceptional performance in high-ISO Digital Still Camera applications.
Enhanced sensitivity
Device Pixels (HxV) Pixel Size (H x Vµm)
KAF-8300 3448 x 2574 5.4 x 5.4
This is for their "finest-grained" sensor of this type -- pixel sizes range up to 9.4 microns.
Therefore, it would seem, at least on a straight mathematical basis, that size-for-size the sensors are still not quite as high a resolution as film, although in practice, it's unlikely to make a difference with normal viewing. |
|
|
|
10/24/2005 03:00:53 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I have seen other test that show that the digital competes very well with film, but iirc they were compaired digital vs scanned not print vs print. I would love to see what the 1DsII prints look like at 30x40 compaired to the same shot with film.
nsbca perhaps you could perform such an expiriment as you already have 2 1DsII's and an old canon 35mm film camera can be had for very cheap and pretty easily resold. I'd love to see it, if you're up for it. |
I have one 1Ds II and one 1D II.
But to the point. I have already done the comparisons for myself when I first got an 11Mp 1Ds. I had been working with film, 6x7 medium format and 35mm, for years and have over 50,000 images on file. The 11Mp 1Ds trumped 35mm film output without even a small doubt.
The first image I shot with the 1Ds was a landscape. I cropped and blew the image up to 54x24, framed it and brought it to a gallery in Mobile for a juried art competition. The print took first place. When I evaluated the fine detail, even at close viewing I came to the conclusion that there was little chance that I could have matched that with the 6x7 printed from an enlarger. (not to mention how hard and expensive it would be to print that size using traditional darkroom techniques).
I have no doubt that after I get done playing on this computer with this new website and actually get to go out and use my new 16Mp 1Ds II next week I̢۪ll be thinking about getting a bigger printer. |
Did you ever try to scan your 6x7 film and and Then digitally print it? 40x50's that look like they came from a 4x5.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2006 09:19:36 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I believe the film size is 9 x 18 inches (!!) |
Air Force Film, black and white, each color image was hand (photoshop) painted.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2006 09:43:51 PM · #46 |
Mamiya ZD user spotted!
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 06:12:58 AM EDT.
(6x7cm touch screen!)
