Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,700   Posts: 1,549,203   Online: 1193
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56
  1. #21
    AutumnJazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fairfield, Connecticut
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    730
    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bi...elvia50PIB.pdf

    That says both 80 lines/mm and 160 lines/mm...

  2. #22
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith View Post
    My question is, does this "increase" in lp/mm resolution come solely from the higher contrast that velvia has? For example, is it like a USM in photoshop, or that sort of thing, where it looks sharper, but isn't necessarily sharper, or is it really something different in the film that captures more detail?
    Jed Smith
    Jed, you may find this article of great use. It discusses many aspects of what film grain really is, different film types resolutions and the influence of camera lens quality on that (your weakest link may actually not be your scanner, but your lens), and basic scanner design:

    http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/libra...resolution.pdf

    It is an article by Tim Vitale and available from the website of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC).

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    534
    Images
    105
    I'm glad that Marco brought up the issue of lens resolution. Talk of 160 lp/mm from Velvia or any other film is surely an irrelevance. My best lenses (Leica for 35mm and Mamiya 7 for MF) will probably only give 60 or so lp/mm resolution at best and probably much less in the real world when shooting landscapes. Why? Well, most of the time I'll need a lot of depth which means f/11 on the Leica and f/22 on the Mamiya. This immediately reduces resolution. Then I'm outside. Even if my tripod's well planted even a slight breeze will have some effect on the camera and the act of activating the shutter even when using a cable release will also cause some minute movement. If I'm using filters - ND grads are pretty much a necessity with Velvia - then I'm degrading the resolution even further. Let's say we end up with 40 lp/mm in the centre of the lens and probably less at the edge. To get to your 5 lp/mm print size you're looking at an 8x enlargement which feels about right. 8x36mm = 288mm or an 11x7.6 inch print.

    Maybe I have unrealistically high standards but I've never seen a 35mm image enlarged beyond about 9.5x12 that I've been happy with (that goes for Ilfochromes and high-res scans). I use a Gitzo carbon tripod and Arca ball head and the finest 35mm cameras and lenses with Velvia, Provia and E100GX but compared with my MF and LF images enlarged as far as 20x24 the 35mm images always look soft and lack tonality by 16x12. 35mm makes nice 8x10s and reasonable 9.5x12s but that's about the limit for me if I'm really, really worrying about detail and technicalities as they've been discussed in this thread.

    It's a personal thing but if you're happy with 20x30 enlargements from your 35mm landscape shots (however well those enlargements were made) then it would suggest to me that you're not actually that bothered about detail and are much more interested in the emotional impact of the image. Now this is something that's really worth getting enthusiastic about - some of my favourite shots are handheld shots on 35mm black and white that I've enlarged to 16x12 and printed as liths. Not much detail, strange tonality, but the images grab me and hold me every time I look at them.
    My website: Light Work

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    812
    I have three Bronica SQ-A cameras. The funny thing is that the plain prism finders (no meter) sell for much less than a waist level finder in good condition. I have two prism finders and one waist level. With the prism and the Speed Grip an SQ series camera balances nicely and is not difficult to use. I use the SQ-A cameras mostly with the waist level finder. The laterally reversed image doesn't really bother me. I got used to this with TLR cameras a long time ago. By removing the prism and the Speed Grip I have a camera which is lighter and easier to carry around. I also have Bronica ETR and GS-1 cameras. The ETR/S/Si is not that much smaller or lighter than the SQ series cameras. You will find that an ETRS or ETRSi with a meter prism will allow yo to work more quickly. A Mamiya 645 or Pentax 645 or Contax 645 can also allow you to work more quickly but I don't think they will give you better image quality than a 6X6 SLR camera. With Kodackrome 25 and Ektar 25 films gone there just aren't as many people trying to make huge prints f landscapes with 35mm equipment.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by AutumnJazz View Post
    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bi...elvia50PIB.pdf

    That says both 80 lines/mm and 160 lines/mm...
    That is a good point because I had read the OP as line pairs per millimeter and not lines per millimeter. Having checked the datasheet, it does indeed say lines per millimeter so that makes a big difference. i.e. only 80 line pairs per milimeter at 1000:1 contrast.

    so to get all that from a slide using a scanner, then you only need a scanner capable of 4064 dpi scan resolution.

    So I think Jed will need to recalculate.

    160 lines per millimeter is at 1000:1 which si a brightness range of 10 stops
    80 lines per millimeter is at 1.6:1 which is only half a stop range.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    421
    Images
    1
    Wow, thanks for that article - I just read the entire thing. :o
    I am now at a loss as to whether or not I should even worry about these things. I mean, the loss of resolution is incredible, every step of the way.

    If I really care about this I will have to do one of two things - and both involve not shooting the gear I own now. Either I will have to get Leica or Contax primes in a rangefinder type body and drum scan my slides/negs for final prints, or get a medium format setup...most likely a rangefinder there too for ultimate sharpness.

    I can see I will never get the size print and lp/mm that I need with 35mm, though - it just won't happen. Makes me wonder if even 6x4.5 is really enough - I may have to go with a 6x7 and just learn to love it.
    Or...I guess I've gone on this long with what I have...you know the saying, ignorance is bliss! Ah, decisions.

    Jed

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    187
    All of Fuji's pro slide films are very high resolution, though I have a personal preference for Provia. I'll tell you this much...everyone who's stated that you have to drum scan to take advantage of the films' resolution is correct. In scanning MF Fuji chromes with a Nikon Super Coolscan @ max resolution, I have never been able to see grain before pixels.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith View Post
    Wow, thanks for that article - I just read the entire thing. :o
    I am now at a loss as to whether or not I should even worry about these things. I mean, the loss of resolution is incredible, every step of the way.

    If I really care about this I will have to do one of two things - and both involve not shooting the gear I own now. Either I will have to get Leica or Contax primes in a rangefinder type body and drum scan my slides/negs for final prints, or get a medium format setup...most likely a rangefinder there too for ultimate sharpness.

    I can see I will never get the size print and lp/mm that I need with 35mm, though - it just won't happen. Makes me wonder if even 6x4.5 is really enough - I may have to go with a 6x7 and just learn to love it.
    Or...I guess I've gone on this long with what I have...you know the saying, ignorance is bliss! Ah, decisions.

    Jed
    Jed, I went from 645 (Fuji GS 645) to 6x7 (Mamiya 7 II RFDR) and 6x9 (Fuji RFDR). I love the Mamiya 7 II and the big Fujis.

    I also went from 4"X5" to 8" X 10" several years ago.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith View Post
    ..
    ...so even at 5400dpi with the Minolta film scanner, I am still throwing away a ton of the resolution. Well, that's about the best film scanner for any price less than an Imacon or drum scanner.
    From what I know, the Imacon will only scan at approx 200dpi anyway and the minolta won't get 5400. I reserve the right to be completely wrong however..

    Tim

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    421
    Images
    1
    Well, that article indirectly made me realize the answer to why so many people consider digital capture "better" with far fewer MPs than a film scan - for example, a 16mp FF shot from a DSLR more than equals a 40MP scan of 35mm film; it is up there with 6x4.5 film scans. With digital capture you are taking out that second lens to print - whether it is a scanner lens or an enlarger lens.
    So this begs the question...move up to MF and hope to learn to like it...or wait and add a FF DSLR to the equipment bag. :-)
    Jed

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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