YUM! Hassy 100MP Camera!

[13Promet]

^^^ Well, I'm using Nikon CS 9000, and it resolves 3800 ppi, that still makes 8550 pixels on the short end, so unless your D800, which has 4900 pixels on the short end, uses a lens with an MTF=1,75, i.e. outresolves itself almost twice, this can't be done.

According to my real life experience, those figures don't tell the whole truth.

I own and use an LS4000 for scanning, i.e. same resolution of your CS9000.
If I compare such scans with the 35mm film digitalizations which I perform by using a Fuji X-E2 and a Nikkor 60 AF-D, the latter definitely resolves more details.
In the edges/cornrers such difference gets dramatic.

In this case I'm comparing 5650 pixels of the LS4000 (@4000 dpi) on the long side to the 4900 from the Fuji, so of course less of a gap than your example.
Still, it says something I guess.

I'm not sure whether it depends on the lens sharpness, its DoF, aberrations, film flatness, focus accuracy, sensor quality or whatever, but the actual resolution difference in favour of the less Mpx solution is definitely there.

Unfortunately, film scanner technology hasn't moved nearly as much as digital camera sensors.
In fact, both you and I are using 10 years old scanners.
And I guess that an actual camera lens is not comparable with the tiny one you can find in our scanners.

And of course I'm referring to digitalization of film.
I expect that shooting the same exact pic with a 90mm lens on 100 ASA film then scanning it would result in even more actual resolution difference in favour of the equivalent natively digital solution (X-E2 + Nikon 60mm) due to the additional conversion step from the former solution.


This said, I keep shooting film and scanning because I like it more and don't need zillion of pixels in my files 🙂

 

[Corran]

^^^ Well, I'm using Nikon CS 9000, and it resolves 3800 ppi, that still makes 8550 pixels on the short end, so unless your D800, which has 4900 pixels on the short end, uses a lens with an MTF=1,75, i.e. outresolves itself almost twice, this can't be done.

Again, pixels ≠ resolution.

Look, I've done the tests. My LS-8000 and 6x7 negatives could barely hold up to my 12mp D700. There's all kinds of technical gobbledygook with regard to pixels vs. film dye clouds / grain, SNR, etc. that is pointless to explain (not to mention the vast difference between say T-Max 100 and Tri-X, regardless of optical resolution) when you can just take a few photos and test it yourself. Your LS-9000 and most any film isn't outresolving a 24mp or higher camera, I guarantee it. But if you don't want to believe me, that's fine, just do the tests, that's all I can say.

By the way, I currently have a scanner that resolves closer to 5400 DPI optical, and I still say the above.

 

[KM-25]

First off, I own and use a big Hasselblad V system, including the fabulous CFV50C back for the V system bodies that is 50MP and 1.3 crop. I have no problem with the crop because frankly, not every lens is up to the task of even that sensor.

So all this throwing legendary Hasselblad under the bus for not coming up with a full frame 6x6 sensor is really silly. I mean...I want, I want and I want is what I hear but no one realizes just how much more expensive it is to produce large sensors with a low failure rate....the R&D required for this alone is astronomical.

Secondly, more pros than one may realize use MF digital for all the reasons a pro would use medium or large format VS 35mm. Bigger files to work from, more nuanced tonality, etc. I realize this is lost on the mainstream wedding and portrait crowd since most don't make a very good living but that does not mean high end pros can't and won't pony up for cutting edge tech that helps move the whole ball game forward. And yes, if you give me 100MP, I will show you how my clients use that...you would be amazed.

I think it is great Hasselblad is back in the game...and they are back in the game folks. I don't use the H system because I shoot a lot of square format film but I do use my V system a lot, have a shoot in 2 hours with it actually. So paying 10-15K for a digital back for it is just a no brainer.

If the new 100MP sensor comes in the form of the next CFV back I will strongly consider it. But I will do like I did with my current back and test it for a week before committing.

I applaud them for keeping it moving forward.

By the way...the scanning tests above, what ever man, I know what I see in my film work if I scan it with my 9000ED and what I see when I stitch DSLR scan it, Tmax 100 or better is flat out incredible. So to hell with tests...photographers who make photographs don't have time for that crap.

 

[Corran]

I shoot more film than most anyone. I did a quick test out of curiosity - and to make sure I wasn't wrong when I say what I said. T-Max 100 is indeed incredible, I love it, and it's my favorite b&w film. My statement still held true regardless, and yes there is more to film than resolution - hence me shooting 99% film for my own usage.

But go ahead and tell us how big your client list is or whatever, therefore proving whatever you think you are proving, that's fine. I am 100% sure you have a larger client list than me and you are probably a much better commercial photographer to boot. Doesn't mean you're always right. And most every photographer in history has tested their tools, btw.

 

[KM-25]

I shoot more film than most anyone. I did a quick test out of curiosity - and to make sure I wasn't wrong when I say what I said. T-Max 100 is indeed incredible, I love it, and it's my favorite b&w film. My statement still held true regardless, and yes there is more to film than resolution - hence me shooting 99% film for my own usage.

But go ahead and tell us how big your client list is or whatever, therefore proving whatever you think you are proving, that's fine. I am 100% sure you have a larger client list than me and you are probably a much better commercial photographer to boot. Doesn't mean you're always right. And most every photographer in history has tested their tools, btw.

Look...this is a thread about the new Hasselblad back. And this is a forum that loves to shoot film. So now we have the same old battle of film VS digital VS scanned film and it just gets tiresome. Last night I did a three shot stitch scan using my D810 of a 6x6 Hasselblad Tmax image for a magazine article and it has *so* much information on it that it needed a more robust scan than my 9000ED could muster. So what I see is that MF film scanned still gives a 24MP sensor a run for its money. Wet printed, no contest, it is why I prefer it.

You are the one beating the other guy over the head with your scanning tests, not me. So keep on testing sir, I am well past that and believe me, I shoot at least as much film as you do.

And what does a client list have to do with anything? Is a view from another viewpoint not welcome when you have a whole legion of the usual suspects putting down a company who's latest product they do not understand?

It goes both ways and again, it gets tiresome.

By the way, in March I paid my mentor, a legendary Magnum photographer over 3 grand to rip my recent portfolio a new one during a week long workshop so I....with 28 years in business, can up my game. So yeah, I speak from a side of the road most people seem not have any concept of. And when they do not have a concept of it or understand it, well a lot of them hurl insults at it....or worse, throw out opinions based on what they read on the internet instead of actually having real practical day to day experience with it.

But alas, that is an aspect of these lovely forums that people seem to live on and live for.

 

[Corran]

I'm not arguing with you Dan, with regard to complaints or whatever. It was just a comment regarding an alternative which already can do more than most can even capitalize on if insisting on digital (and I would also note that I've seen more than one person wishing for some silly digital camera when they can't seem to even make the most basic camera take a sharp shot).

I was just responding to the comments back at me. I also realize that most people don't want to be told their precious film doesn't have 3457890mp of resolution stored in there.

And I don't particularly appreciate your implication that I am just one of those photographers that does nothing but test lenses and cameras with an Air Force resolution chart. Which yes, I am aware is a thing, but that's not me. Speaking of which, your comment regarding stitching from a D810, basically proves my point that the LS-9000 isn't giving you astronomical resolution.

 

[Bill Clark]

Week long workshops are wonderful, especially when you can take them from your mentor. I did the same wih my mentor and coach when he was alive. It's a time to have pretty stimulating discussions. And take back wih me a more enthusiased and better photographer.

I still don't see the value in the camera back. Maybe it's just me but my eyes probably wouldn't notice any difference and, to me, that's the real test. And, for sure, my base of clients, before I retired, wouldn't notice either.

 

[jsrockit]

And yes, if you give me 100MP, I will show you how my clients use that...you would be amazed.

I don't doubt it at all, but can you tell us (me) some ways? It would be cool to know.

 

[KM-25]

And I don't particularly appreciate your implication that I am just one of those photographers that does nothing but test lenses and cameras with an Air Force resolution chart. Which yes, I am aware is a thing, but that's not me. Speaking of which, your comment regarding stitching from a D810, basically proves my point that the LS-9000 isn't giving you astronomical resolution.

Relax, I am not hammering on you, OK? I know you are not a tester-bater but you are reacting in a way to make me look bad and that makes both of us look bad, right? And the last bit is not chest beating, just perspective. I’m not better than anyone, just trying to do the best I can so even though I have it quite nice at the moment, I am not satisfied with that, want to do better. And you will have to forgive me, I have had three days in a row at getting up at 4:30 AM to do shoots, I am running on fumes.

I still don't see the value in the camera back. Maybe it's just me but my eyes probably wouldn't notice any difference and, to me, that's the real test. And, for sure, my base of clients, before I retired, wouldn't notice either.

Well, the back for me just makes a lot more sense since I prefer the system and it is easy-peasy to switch between the digital back and a A-12 back. I actually shoot a lot more film now that I have this back.

I don't doubt it at all, but can you tell us (me) some ways? It would be cool to know.

Well one way is large interactive displays for my ski area clients. I pretty much created the idea of them in this use which are huge iPad-like touch screen displays. The viewer can expand an area and get more info for recreation, dining, points of interest and historical aspects of the scene depicted. Having super high res landscape like images that have unique light or a moment that would be spoiled by stitching is very helpful here, it makes the quality of the whole experience nothing short of top notch.

I also tend to get more mural requests these days as printing technology at the commercial level has gotten really interesting in terms of materials used, lighting, etc. So again, as high res of an image as possible is often desired.

Also, 100MP may sound huge but it is actually the same pixel density as my CFV50c back if it were to be a sensor that were close to if not full frame. So if one thinks in terms of 300dpi printing, yes, it is much bigger but it is not astronomically so. I have stitched images from the CFV50c back that are 15-20 feet wide at 300dpi…that is much, much bigger than 100MP.