400 lp/mm on film!
- Thread starter peterc
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 2K
D
desmo
Guest
Match that with a similar film like the old APX 25, Tech Pan and others and you have 138Megapixel equivalent.
In reality though, the films most often used might resolve 200lppm which would give a resolution of 35 Megapixels and is about what Kodak themselves have stated is the point at which 35mm is overtaken by digital.
I suspect many so called comparisons use cheaper colour neg film which often only has a resolution of not much more than 100lppm giving about 8 megapixels.
The whole thing is a con to sell more cameras really.
Stick with film, digital doesn't really offer more except convenience if you need images for the web or to transmit somehow.
In reality though, the films most often used might resolve 200lppm which would give a resolution of 35 Megapixels and is about what Kodak themselves have stated is the point at which 35mm is overtaken by digital.
I suspect many so called comparisons use cheaper colour neg film which often only has a resolution of not much more than 100lppm giving about 8 megapixels.
The whole thing is a con to sell more cameras really.
Stick with film, digital doesn't really offer more except convenience if you need images for the web or to transmit somehow.
peterc said:
D
desmo
Guest
and from the site you linked, this is a typical argument:
"I find it amusing that the Zeiss newsletter says "When digital catches up with film..."
In my own experience, and according to several tests by top pros, even a 10-megapixel camera is superior technically to the best scanned 35mm output. (And if you can't scan it, what's the point.)"
The problem with that argument of course is that film is designed to be printed not scanned. By comparing scanned images all you do is start with a bias toward digital.
I've just been doing some print versus print tests and the best 35mm film is definitely better than my Canon 350D.
"I find it amusing that the Zeiss newsletter says "When digital catches up with film..."
In my own experience, and according to several tests by top pros, even a 10-megapixel camera is superior technically to the best scanned 35mm output. (And if you can't scan it, what's the point.)"
The problem with that argument of course is that film is designed to be printed not scanned. By comparing scanned images all you do is start with a bias toward digital.
I've just been doing some print versus print tests and the best 35mm film is definitely better than my Canon 350D.
peterc said:
FrankS
Registered User
Good points, Desmo. But then look at my signature to see my bias!
(I'm not so sure I agree with your signature line, though.)
(I'm not so sure I agree with your signature line, though.)
darkkavenger
Massimiliano Mortillaro
Frank, I don't get it about your signature! 😕 maybe I'm lost in (php/mysql) translation
yossarian
Well-known
I must preface my remarks by stating for the record that I'm a decades-long devotee
of Zeiss. With that out of the way I can't help believing they stacked the deck. What
are the overall characteristics of this film? Can it be used for anything other than
optical tests? What about the contrast level of the images at 400 lpm? The MTF
graphs Zeiss publishes for its lenses show contrast levels at three resolutions--10,
20, and 40 lpm. Often at full aperture the contrast levels at 40 lpm drop well below
20%, which I think needs no further explanation.
I can remember some 30 years ago Modern Photography knocking themselves out
just to obtain 100 lpm on film, using K25, Pan-X and Tech Pan.
I do have a question for desmo. I can sort out testing of analog materials reasonably
well, but you clearly have a grasp of comparing resolution on film with sensor resolution. Can you tell me what the process or formula is for the conversion?
Fred
of Zeiss. With that out of the way I can't help believing they stacked the deck. What
are the overall characteristics of this film? Can it be used for anything other than
optical tests? What about the contrast level of the images at 400 lpm? The MTF
graphs Zeiss publishes for its lenses show contrast levels at three resolutions--10,
20, and 40 lpm. Often at full aperture the contrast levels at 40 lpm drop well below
20%, which I think needs no further explanation.
I can remember some 30 years ago Modern Photography knocking themselves out
just to obtain 100 lpm on film, using K25, Pan-X and Tech Pan.
I do have a question for desmo. I can sort out testing of analog materials reasonably
well, but you clearly have a grasp of comparing resolution on film with sensor resolution. Can you tell me what the process or formula is for the conversion?
Fred
S
Socke
Guest
yossarian
Well-known
Socke said:
Thanks, Socke. Interesting may be too mild a word...
Fred
darkkavenger
Massimiliano Mortillaro
Wow that's interesting! Maybe one day i'll take the "big jump" of developing film myself...🙂
Huck Finn
Well-known
It appears that Gigabit film is only available is Europe. Does anyone have any other info?
Huck
Huck
S
Socke
Guest
Fotoimpex has it but I can't find it on the JandC site 🙁
S
Socke
Guest
yossarian
Well-known
Socke, I just now "Googled" it and JandC are listed, so I hit the link and it popped
right up. It's $14.99. If I wasn't such a computer retard I'd provide the link for
everybody--sorry.
Fred
right up. It's $14.99. If I wasn't such a computer retard I'd provide the link for
everybody--sorry.
Fred
yossarian
Well-known
OK, idle speculation. I don't recall any mention of which camera body the Biogon
was on (presumably the new RF). But with such a thin base, making film flatness
such an issue, what might you get using a Contax RTS III body with the vacuum
assisted pressure plate?
Fred
was on (presumably the new RF). But with such a thin base, making film flatness
such an issue, what might you get using a Contax RTS III body with the vacuum
assisted pressure plate?
Fred
S
Socke
Guest
Fred, originaly the film base was intended for vacuum pressure plates. Later they choose a base with better flatness without vacuum.
I don't know if the Nikon F5 has a vacuum pressure plate, but the first tests of the film where done with one.
One report on the Gigabit Site, mentions the ease of use in a Leicaflex.
I don't know if the Nikon F5 has a vacuum pressure plate, but the first tests of the film where done with one.
One report on the Gigabit Site, mentions the ease of use in a Leicaflex.
yossarian
Well-known
Socke, I think the only 35mm with the vacuum back was the RTS III. I know this is
getting OT, but if Nikon had produced a camera with this feature, then proceeded to
build an AF camera utilizing all existing lenses (like the AX) the photographic press
would have been creaming all over themselves. Contax got a passing mention, but
no ongoing respect for their accomplishments.
Fred
getting OT, but if Nikon had produced a camera with this feature, then proceeded to
build an AF camera utilizing all existing lenses (like the AX) the photographic press
would have been creaming all over themselves. Contax got a passing mention, but
no ongoing respect for their accomplishments.
Fred
bmattock
Veteran
I'd like to jump into this lovefest with a couple of comments, but I don't want to start a war.
1) I have read Mike's blog, and find it interesting. I have no doubt that the described lens is a real cracker.
2) The film used appears to have been SPUR-Orthopan, not Gigabit. Now, I don't know that the two of them are the same. Are they? Why the talk about Gigabit?
3) I had also read that Gigabit was Agfa Copex. If so, and if Agfa is defunct, does that not make Gigabit gone as well? And if SPUR is the same as Gigabit and the same as Agfa Copex...
4) I accept and also believe that a typical 35mm frame of well-exposed, processed and (yes) scanned film is superior to most consumer-grade digital images at this time.
5) I also believe that will change in time.
6) I also believe it doesn't matter for most photographers. I can buy an Indy car to get to work, I guess. I don't need one to get to work. A cheap Kia SUV works just fine.
7) I accept that a comparison of 'print' in the case of film and 'image' in the case of digital is difficult to make, but I reject the notion that one must not or cannot or should not scan film to achieve one's aims, and I especially reject the notion that I can't compare a scanned frame of film to digital. Sure I can. And I will. And guess what? Film wins the quality test there too. I'm cool with that - it helps me in many ways when I do shoot film. But I'll scan and compare as I wish, not be bound some silly 19th century ethic about what is meet and proper to do with film.
Filmist purity means nada to me - I don't possess a darkroom, could not do color if I wanted to (color-blind), and have no desire to do optical enlargements anymore since I began scanning. One can insist that what I do is not optimal for film - so be it - it is what I do and that's good enough for me.
8) And finally...
The self-congratulation is rather obvious, as if a war or a battle had been won. I wonder what kind. Look, look, film beats digital! John Henry beat the steam drill! Whoo-hoo! OK, great. I never doubted that on quality film is much better than digital.
But I use digital to make money for the same reason that most pros have gone to digital, be they film-loving or not; it is faster for many of us. I shoot film for my own purposes and in cases where digital just can't do the job - like a recent available-light event I did. Needed pushed B&W, no digital could do it.
I do understand that there are some technophobes out there who won't/can't seem to get up to speed with PS and whatnot - for them, printing is still much faster and good on them, no problem. But they can't legitimately insist that film is faster workflow - it is just faster for them. I guarantee that I save man-hours and even days of work by doing event photography with digital, as do most pros (or part-time low-rent pros like me) who have switched over.
I'm all for comparisons, and I agree completely that film beats equivalent digital face to face. Not even a contest. But - for what I need it for, digital is a time-saver and a money-saver for most uses. Not every shot I take will end up being blown up to the size of a billboard - to date, none of them have (lol), so I don't even know what I'd want or need 400 lines of resolution for anyway. And for those who shoot photos for billboard reproduction, they shoot MF or LF anyway, don't they? Just curious what niche this film / lens combo fills.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
1) I have read Mike's blog, and find it interesting. I have no doubt that the described lens is a real cracker.
2) The film used appears to have been SPUR-Orthopan, not Gigabit. Now, I don't know that the two of them are the same. Are they? Why the talk about Gigabit?
3) I had also read that Gigabit was Agfa Copex. If so, and if Agfa is defunct, does that not make Gigabit gone as well? And if SPUR is the same as Gigabit and the same as Agfa Copex...
4) I accept and also believe that a typical 35mm frame of well-exposed, processed and (yes) scanned film is superior to most consumer-grade digital images at this time.
5) I also believe that will change in time.
6) I also believe it doesn't matter for most photographers. I can buy an Indy car to get to work, I guess. I don't need one to get to work. A cheap Kia SUV works just fine.
7) I accept that a comparison of 'print' in the case of film and 'image' in the case of digital is difficult to make, but I reject the notion that one must not or cannot or should not scan film to achieve one's aims, and I especially reject the notion that I can't compare a scanned frame of film to digital. Sure I can. And I will. And guess what? Film wins the quality test there too. I'm cool with that - it helps me in many ways when I do shoot film. But I'll scan and compare as I wish, not be bound some silly 19th century ethic about what is meet and proper to do with film.
Filmist purity means nada to me - I don't possess a darkroom, could not do color if I wanted to (color-blind), and have no desire to do optical enlargements anymore since I began scanning. One can insist that what I do is not optimal for film - so be it - it is what I do and that's good enough for me.
8) And finally...
The self-congratulation is rather obvious, as if a war or a battle had been won. I wonder what kind. Look, look, film beats digital! John Henry beat the steam drill! Whoo-hoo! OK, great. I never doubted that on quality film is much better than digital.
But I use digital to make money for the same reason that most pros have gone to digital, be they film-loving or not; it is faster for many of us. I shoot film for my own purposes and in cases where digital just can't do the job - like a recent available-light event I did. Needed pushed B&W, no digital could do it.
I do understand that there are some technophobes out there who won't/can't seem to get up to speed with PS and whatnot - for them, printing is still much faster and good on them, no problem. But they can't legitimately insist that film is faster workflow - it is just faster for them. I guarantee that I save man-hours and even days of work by doing event photography with digital, as do most pros (or part-time low-rent pros like me) who have switched over.
I'm all for comparisons, and I agree completely that film beats equivalent digital face to face. Not even a contest. But - for what I need it for, digital is a time-saver and a money-saver for most uses. Not every shot I take will end up being blown up to the size of a billboard - to date, none of them have (lol), so I don't even know what I'd want or need 400 lines of resolution for anyway. And for those who shoot photos for billboard reproduction, they shoot MF or LF anyway, don't they? Just curious what niche this film / lens combo fills.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
FrankS
Registered User
Bill, of course you are right. Film is good, digital is good, for different reasons. That is the only logical stance one can have on this film/digital thing. Anyone who argues totally for one and against the other looks foolish.
I am fortunate in that I am an amature and have the luxury of choice of medium. For me, traditional film is most satisfying. For someone else, digital will be. That's okay. Differences are good. It's what makes living interesting.
I am fortunate in that I am an amature and have the luxury of choice of medium. For me, traditional film is most satisfying. For someone else, digital will be. That's okay. Differences are good. It's what makes living interesting.
Finder
Veteran
I do what I do because I want to. I guess I would be more interested in winning the film/digital debate if I knew what the prize was. So far nobody can tell me.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
It's just good to know good companies are making lenses better and better. Bill, I think the Spur film they used is new stuff; if that's the case then no, it isn't Agfa. Regardless, the point is they needed it to test the resolution of the lens, which they couldn't do with digital. That's all the news release was about, really.
As for me, I'm just glad lenses like the new Zeiss lenses are available, giving me another choice, whether I stick it on a film M body or an R-D1.
As for me, I'm just glad lenses like the new Zeiss lenses are available, giving me another choice, whether I stick it on a film M body or an R-D1.
Similar threads
