BW panoramic high quality...?

[Photon-hunter]

I am starting a BW landscape panoramic portfolio for an exhibition early next year. I need to choose the right "weapon" soon...

Currently I am shooting 30D with 24 TS-e, shifting the lens to both sides produces very nice panoramic images very easy to stitch. I plan to up-grade to the 30D succesor (which I undestand should have anything between 11-12 Mp.) as soon as it is available. The two options I have right now are:

Buy 45 TS-e to complement my 24 TS-e and continue with my current workflow,
or...
Sell my 24 TS-e and buy a Hasselblad X-pan with 45 and 90 lenses, and shoot BW film straight away.

Any 6x17 or large format option is out of the question right now..

Concerns are: Image quality, I don´t´need HUGE print sizes, but I do need top quality with reasonably big enlargements. I believe Xpan lenses are top-class, and wonder how the print would compare to a 30D TS-e one?

I do quite a lot of low-light/long exposure and shooting with the 30d -TS-e forces two or three long shots per image, which as you can imagine can be very unconvenient (specially if the light conditions are changing, produces two files with slight exposure differences...). The x-pan would enable getting the shot with just one shutter press". Plus, framing with the lens shifting can be tricky and doesn´t allow you to see the full image when composing...

I am scanning my Bronica RF 645 negs with a Epson Perfection 4990 with quite good results. I am just a bit concerned about how the scanning of the pano-negs might go. I will be doing the printing with Epson K3 printers, no darkroom I am afraid...

I need to make a decision soon and any experience/opinions will be most wellcome.

Thanks in adavance..

Erik.

 

[lZr]

I use real pano camera. Horizon S3 Pro. Not so good lens and body. I think stiching will give you very nice results, but keep them if possible to be in accordance with the real pano perspective.

 

[RML]

IMO a Horizon or ,better, a Noblex should do what you want.

And why not 6x17 or larger for now? Those are neg sizes where you'll really gain.

 

[Parkes Owen]

I think the xpan is a fantastic pano camera, it`s as portable as a normal 35mm RF camera, very well built and you`d be hard pressed to find a sharper lens in the 35mm pano format, just ask any xpan owner , or check out luminous Landscape`s xpan review. If you don`t like it you can easily sell it without much depreciation.

 

[guzilla]

The XPan is a wonderfull camera with extremely sharp lenses. So if panoramic is your thing, it's a good choice.
Mine is on ebay these days, because I swapped the 35mm SLR for a Mamiya 7 and there is now a redundancy in film format in my bag, as I can easily crop the 6x7 from the Mamiya to achieve the same result as from the XPan.

For scanning I use a Polaroid 2400 4x5inch scanner. Perfect results also for medium format and I built a film holder for the XPan format. Flatbed scanners are no good for medium format - at least that's my opinion - because their real resolution is limited to max. 1200ppi, which is insufficient.

If your budget is limited in terms of scanner, then maybe the Fotoman 612 is worth a try. The camers is not too expensive, the lens is from Germany and the 6x12 can be scanned on a flatbed.

 

[Finder]

Well, it would depend what you want.

Swing lens pano cameras are nice, but they are limited and the optics are not that great - I have a Widelux F8. They do offer fields of view that cannot be acheived with a "normal" camera. The Widelux is about 140 degrees, a normal camera reaches a maximum field of view of 90 degree (unless you go to a fish-eye lens, but then you are dealing will barrel distortion - barrel distrotion is what gives the fish-eye its large field of view.

Flat film-plane cameras like the Xpan can be expensive. You may also need a center filter which will add to the cost.

If you like ebay, you could pick up an inexpensive 4x5 camera and a 6x12 or 6x17 roll film back - if you go to the 6x17 back make sure the lens can cover it and work with the back. This would give you the added bonus of movements, but it would be a tripod camera and not as fast to use as a panoramic camera. Depending on the lens, you may still need a center filter. I would recommend the 6x12 back - you can always crop to get a narrower aspect ratio (but hard to go the other way with a 6x17). This may be the mose cost-effective way of getting into panoramic photography - yes, you could just use 4x5 film and crop and save money on the roll-film back.

 

[lZr]

I don't like croping idea for panolike image. Also, my 17 mm Sigma for SLR goes to 106 Degree, but pano is not only degrees to cover. The 28 mm Horizon lens gives 110 degree view, but you know that the result is panoramic. You can feel the perspective. Bad, this camera have light leaks, but posrprocessing can be done most of the time
BTW, Epson 4990 is 4000 dpi scanner (not real), but shines for medium format

 

[guzilla]

I don't like croping idea for panolike image. Also, my 17 mm Sigma for SLR goes to 106 Degree, but pano is not only degrees to cover.

Epson 4990 is 4000 dpi scanner (not real), but shines for medium format

Well I'd say it depends a lot from what format you crop. Cropping from 35mm is a different story than cropping from 6x7 or even LF. Rollfilm panoramics have the big advantage over LF that there is a wider variety of films and the price per shot is way less. That's an argument.

The dpi numbers of flatbed scanners are useless. They give you the resolution of the CCD and the stepper motor - but not the resolution of the optics. There is no flatbed scanner on the market that is better than 1200ppi. Using higher scan resolutions on a flatbed is waste of disk space. I'd not recommend a flatbed for anything less than 4X5inch unless the web is your target medium.

 

[lZr]

I have Mamiya RB67 with the normal lens, but never thought to crop the neg for pano image. I don't think of arguments for price/shot. I like shooting and pano angle of view. I think twice before shoting, so may be that way I can do it cheap

I did only one pano print up to day on canvas. May be I need more training to be successful. As far as I can realize, most of the people can't comprehend the propotions of the idea they are exposed to.

 

[Finder]

The dpi numbers of flatbed scanners are useless. They give you the resolution of the CCD and the stepper motor - but not the resolution of the optics. There is no flatbed scanner on the market that is better than 1200ppi. Using higher scan resolutions on a flatbed is waste of disk space. I'd not recommend a flatbed for anything less than 4X5inch unless the web is your target medium.

That is not quite true. Componant resolving power is additive and so even though the optics are below the resolving power of the sensor, it does help. There is also a gain with the MTF limit of the sensor. While you are not acheiving the "optical" resolution of the scanner, you would be doing much better than if the sensor was made to have the same resolving power as the optics. Then there is the question of whether film scanners have that much better optics?

Also, why not recommend them for other use? Scanning in publishing is not new - it is how picture books have been made for decades. Many of today's flatbeds perform better than top-of-the-line professional scanners of 20 years ago. There were few complaints about what they could do.

 

[guzilla]

That is not quite true. Componant resolving power is additive and so even though the optics are below the resolving power of the sensor, it does help. There is also a gain with the MTF limit of the sensor. While you are not acheiving the "optical" resolution of the scanner, you would be doing much better than if the sensor was made to have the same resolving power as the optics. Then there is the question of whether film scanners have that much better optics?

Sorry, but I do not quite get the sense of this - fact is fact. Resolution is not a myth, you can measure it. Flatbeds have resolutions less than 1200ppi - so you can enlarge the scan for print roughy 3-4 times. Film scanners have the resolution they are advertised with - as long as it is not an epson.
And I certainly do hope that my 8'000$ polaroid professional is better than a 150$ consumer piece. Same is true for Nikon, Hasselblad etc.

Also, why not recommend them for other use? Scanning in publishing is not new - it is how picture books have been made for decades. Many of today's flatbeds perform better than top-of-the-line professional scanners of 20 years ago. There were few complaints about what they could do.

I have nothing against flatbed scanners, I use them - just not for 35mm film or anything les than 4x5.

But it is definately NOT true that a consumer flatbed of today is better than an old pro film scanner - typically drum. A 20 year old serious drum scanner will easily blow away any flatbed scanner. Its just huuuge.
Old technology is not necessarily worse - most often it is just big and heavy.

There is a nice test from Ken Rockwell - clearly a digi fan - where he shoots with a 50 year old lens on a 4x5 camera, against the Nikon D200. And guess what, the old horse has a higher resolution, but you die when you carry it around.

 

[jnewt]

Erik,
I have both the X-Pan with the 45 & 90 as well as the D5 with the 24 & 90 T&S. Up until a few months ago I used the X-Pan exclusively for my pano shots, but I have begun using the shift function on the T&S and stitching in PS. In the end the two approaches are very comparable. The down side for me with the X-Pan has been the scanning. There is no question I have lost some quailty with my scans. A higher end scanner might solve the problem, but . . . I have limited the long side of my X-Pan prints to 16-19 inch range (with excellent results). The down side of the T&S approach is that it works only for static images. If there is movement, stiching the 3 shots together usually doesn't work. But when the scene is still, wow, the results are terrific.
Jim

 

[lZr]

I investigated my Epson 4990 from 100% crops at every dpi level. I can say that after 2200 dpi I can't dig more data from the scan. I checked:

1. using the plastic frames,
2. film on the glass,
3. film shifted up using clips to compensate for out of focus possiblities

 

[sweathog]

Just a thought, albeit a bit pricey.

The Widepan Pro 2 (at 1,000 euros), and the Widepan 616 (at 3650 euros) are both 120 format swing lens panoramics. The 617 looks sexy as hell, but the Pro 2 has a 35mm adapter (giving 110mm by 24mm negs).

They're both over at lomography.com
Just a thought.

 

[Doug]

You could also use your Bronica RF645 and crop to pano proportions, see how it goes. A very portable camera of course, and you already own it. Lovely lenses...

The advantage to the cropping approach, IMO, is that the resulting crop can easily vary in proportions to accommodate the best composition. Further, in the shooting, you can include more foreground than you want, or more sky, etc, that will be cropped off later, to keep the camera back parallel to a subject that would "keystone" if you tilted the camera. Flexibility!

 

[Finder]

Flatbeds have resolutions less than 1200ppi.

Film scanners have the resolution they are advertised with.

A 20 year old serious drum scanner will easily blow away any flatbed scanner.

Well, if you can prove these claims, I would like to see.

 

[guzilla]

Well, if you can prove these claims, I would like to see.

The German computer magazine ct regularly tests scanners - professionally. They measure the ppi resolution for BW contrast with test targets used in production printing.

The Epson V700 had 1920x1770 for transparancies. Maximum density was 3,4 which is miles from the claimed 4,0.

The Epson 4990 gives 1700 ppi.

So we are above my claimed 1200, but this is best conditions and balck and white. With a color target you will have a hard time reaching this.

 

[Finder]

The German computer magazine ct regularly tests scanners - professionally. They measure the ppi resolution for BW contrast with test targets used in production printing.

The Epson V700 had 1920x1770 for transparancies. Maximum density was 3,4 which is miles from the claimed 4,0.

The Epson 4990 gives 1700 ppi.

So we are above my claimed 1200, but this is best conditions and balck and white. With a color target you will have a hard time reaching this.

Why would color change this?

 

[kaiyen]

Glad to see this thread stayed on topic...

again - why not 6x17? or 6x12? The fotoman cameras are nice, and that's a big negative. The xpan is nice, as well, but it's still a 35mm pano, rather than a 120. Big difference.

allan

 

[Finder]

I do quite a lot of low-light/long exposure and shooting with the 30d -TS-e forces two or three long shots per image, which as you can imagine can be very unconvenient (specially if the light conditions are changing, produces two files with slight exposure differences...). The x-pan would enable getting the shot with just one shutter press". Plus, framing with the lens shifting can be tricky and doesn´t allow you to see the full image when composing...

The Xpan does have limit to the length of the bulb exposure - about 30 seconds for the I and 5 minutes for the II, if I remember correctly. Swing lens cameras have a very limited shutter speed.