Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,648   Online: 677
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    445
    Hello Drew,

    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    Lens resolution cannot evolve at the
    same pace as sensors, ...
    right, but it is not necessary at all that lens resolution evolve at the same space.
    I've had quite a lot of interesting talks about that with lens designers: Lots of the current prime lenses are only diffraction limited, and have therefore a resolution limit given by the wavelenght of light.
    As explained above, for example we've reached the diffraction limit for white light at f5,6 with both the old Nikkor 1,8/50 AI-S (a lens design from 1978) and the modern Zeiss ZF 2/50. We've reached this physical limit at that f-stop in combination with the CMS 20 (Agfa HDP) film. And that at a quite low / moderate object contrast of only 1:4 (two stops). You need an 200 MP 24x36mm Sensor to get the same resolution under the same test conditions.
    With Agfa Copex Rapid still extremely high 165 clearly separated linepairs per millimeter ( you need a 94 MP Sensor to get the same resolution under the same test conditions).
    And even with my old trusty workhorse Ilford Delta 100 very high 130 clearly separated linepairs (you need a 58 MP Sensor to get the same resolution under the same test conditions).

    The physical resolution limit (Nyquist frequency) of the D800E is about 105 lp/mm. No matter how high your object contrast is, it is impossible to surpass this limit. And a better lens wouldn't help you either.

    So we see the lenses are not the main problem. In most cases their resolution capabilities are more than good enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    and all those DLSR's etc cannot compete with basic ancient movements provided by LF cameras. Tilt/shift lenses might be OK for some things, but overall, are a pretty poor
    substitute.
    Of course you have a much greater range in movements with LF cameras.
    But there have been just introduced some very nice new T&S lenses for 35mm camera systems by German lens manufacturer Schneider. I've seen them at Photokina. Very impressive, huge image circle, excellent mechanics and optics (new lens design). Really worth a look.

    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    If you want to venture into LF quality, then figure out all the above, esp a lens with fifty
    times more resolution, not two times more!
    Well, no one is denying the outstanding quality of large format. But sometimes there are exceptions from the rule.
    When we test lenses, films and sensors, then we not only do that in standardised (lab) tests, but also always in real world shooting, 'out there in the fields'.
    And there we've compared Agfa Copex Rapid and CMS 20 (in combination with their dedicated developers) in different formats to standard films in different formats.
    Agfa Copex Rapid (CoRa) in 35mm surpassed APX 100, RPX 100, FP4+ in 6x6 medium format.
    And CMS 20 35mm surpassed CHS 100 in 4x5".
    We needed Acros 4x5" in the Arca Swiss to get better detail rendition compared to 35mm CMS 20.
    And both CoRa and CMS 20 are available in 120, too.

    Best regards,
    Henning

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    445
    Hello Fabrizio,

    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    That was one of the most interesting parts of your post. When analogue is compared to digital the comparison is always performed on the digital playing field, i.e. converting analogue to digital (by scanning) and comparing the results.
    yes, that has been the major problem during the last 12 years in 99,9% of all these film vs. digital comparisons.
    Almost all of these comparisons really have been digital vs. digital comparisons.
    The digital capture medium scanner was compared to the digital capture medium camera sensor.
    And the scans have been only max. 4000ppi scans in most cases. But a 4000ppi scanner can not resolve all the detail, which is in the film. Even the the best high-end drum scanners can not fully exploit the full potential of film.

    One result of our numerous tests have been that you get the best detail rendition with optical enlarging with APO enlarging lenses and with slide projection (colour and BW slides).

    A lot of these superficial and generalising "digital is better than film" statements are caused by comparisons of 4000ppi scans to sensors.
    But film can do much better in the completely optical imaging chain.

    If I look at 35mm slide projection with an excellent projection lens, then the quality is even surpassing digital medium format projected with a beamer. Because the imaging chain film+projection is much better than the digital imaging chain digital file+beamer. The beamer is the very weak part in this imaging chain and decreases the quality of the file to a big extent. From your 40,50, 60 or 80 MP only 1,2,4 or max 8 MP (most expensive gear) remain as beamer output.

    Best regards,
    Henning

  3. #43
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,609
    Good point, Henning.

    We should only compare things (pictures that is) as results of their own production line.
    This does not say anything about the outcome though! And I don't start discussing issues like resolution etc.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    361
    This thread has been a delight to read. Thanks a lot for all the info Henning. It's always nice to be reassured that optical printing is the way to go.
    I wish Spur HRX-3 was available in Turkey. Although part of me has stopped searching for a magic potion (good old ID-11 user here), the other part remains intrigued by potential improvements in neg quality.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Allentown PA area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    343
    I have been enjoying reading this thread that I started. I'm learning a lot, even though the conversation has gone away from the topic. This discussion brings up another good question.

    I know companies like Freestyle and Photo Warehouse are big buyers of film for their house brand. Is it conceivable that they might drive some innovation in the film market? While they don't manufacture film directly, they might have enough buying power to have an exclusive emulsion made someday?

  6. #46
    dwross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oregon Coast
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    818
    I know the direction of the OP was for improvements or innovations to commercial film, but I'll throw my take on the subject into the hat. (Those of you who already know what I'm going to say -- no groans please)

    I think a significant part of the future of film is R&D in the home darkroom, with the goal of making diy film, plates, and paper as easy and satisfactory and accepted as other alternative processes have become.

    d
    www.thelightfarm.com
    Dedicated to Handmade Silver Gelatin Paper, Film, and Dry Plates.

  7. #47
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,017
    Images
    4

    Roll Your Own

    Quote Originally Posted by dwross View Post
    I know the direction of the OP was for improvements or innovations to commercial film, but I'll throw my take on the subject into the hat. (Those of you who already know what I'm going to say -- no groans please)

    I think a significant part of the future of film is R&D in the home darkroom, with the goal of making diy film, plates, and paper as easy and satisfactory and accepted as other alternative processes have become.

    d
    I feel in the minority but I tend to agree with you. There are many on this forum who have convinced themselves that film will always be available, and they may be right. The problem will be the cost of film in my humble opinion. We are already seeing this and it is happening faster and faster. The major players have increased their costs. Smaller players are going out of business because their costs to produce are too high to recover in the current market. We are presently in the last stages of a vicious cost spiral that continues to climb.

    Meanwhile digital is getting less and less expensive. Full frame cameras are getting cheaper. APS-C cameras are getting more and more features.

    There will always be a few die-hard fans that will do whatever possible to continue shooting film. But to do that they will have to become more and more involved in the process. Just in the past 3 years it has become more and more difficult (and expensive) to get film developed. So serious practicioners are developing their own and printing their own, as much for cost containment as for control of the process. We are starting to move into the final stages where people will have to be prepared to either spend a lot of money on film and developing with the very few remaining manufacturers, or they will begin to make their own films, or they will have moved to another capture medium.

    Many of those will move over to DPUG and continue to complain about how the old days when film was cheap and plentiful were so much better.

    At some point it will become more cost effective, and give higher quality, to roll your own.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by madgardener View Post
    I have been enjoying reading this thread that I started. I'm learning a lot, even though the conversation has gone away from the topic.
    O.k., than back to the original topic:
    At Photokina I've had a very long talk with Mr Boll from Fujifilm (Product-&Key Account Manager, Photo Imaging Products), and we've also discussed the situation in R&D. He said that there is still quite a lot of 'silver halide R&D' at Fujifilm, resulting in new products like the latest Eterna archival films, two new silver halide colour papers (for photobooks, an increasing market in Europe) just introduced at Photokina (I've seen them there), and the re-introduced Neopan 400 (they have solved the problem with the raw material which caused the former discontinuation).
    Furthermore they absolutely need this R&D in anti-oxidants etc. for their cosmetic line Astalift.

    Best regards,
    Henning

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    52
    Henning, thanks a lot for the inside view. Is it valid to assume that this kind of R&D include benefits for either slide or negative film or can that be excluded? I am not very familiar with paper technology concerning how it corresponds to film technology.

    Christian

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by j.c.denton View Post
    Henning, thanks a lot for the inside view. Is it valid to assume that this kind of R&D include benefits for either slide or negative film or can that be excluded? I am not very familiar with paper technology concerning how it corresponds to film technology.

    Christian
    Well Christian, progress in anti-oxidants for example is a field where film can benefit. They are used in films. And currently this film knowledge is indeed partly used in Fujifilms Astalift cosmetics. Perhaps we will see the opposite direction in R&D knowledge flow in the future. Maybe imaginable if the colour film market one time really has stabilised and then is growing again (well, the market for professional films is already in this stabilising process, but consumer CN film sales are still decreasing).

    Best regards,
    Henning

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin