Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,455   Posts: 1,570,545   Online: 865
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68
  1. #21
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    I have to tenously disagree a bit, Paul, though bear in mind that I'm not an industry insider and am merely shooting from the hip like everyone else! Here is my prediction. The SLR concept will be abandoned entirely, in favour of a more rangefindery design with electronic view finder and aux finder. I know, I know, it's gonna suck, yadda yadda... whatever, it will happen IMHO. Once you set aside the mirror box, the design becomes much easier. Many existing lenses can cover slightly larger-than-full-frame and overall this will provide the cameramakers with an opportunity to hawk a whole new batch of lenses. The sensor cost is not as much an issue as it once was, that trail has been blazed and there are fab facilities that can do it now for reasonable cost.

    Just based on ZD pricing etc. my guess is that these new offerings will come in far below the current MF digital options- circa $10k or so.

    ...and I'll still be very happily shooting film on my mamiya 6es
    I think we are getting OT for this group, but don't forget that 36x36 mm is DOUBLE the diagonal dimension of 35mm, it's a different shape, but it is double the size. I think you will find a lot of newer lenses are just barely 35mm coverage. I just bought an 80-200 for an APS-C sized sensor, where one of the reviews said it was fine for that size, but not good for 35mm, even though designed for 35mm.

    Your probably right about the viewfinder, within reason, although it's going to be tough to sell a $10,000 camera with only a live view type display, to high end photographers who are used to optical viewers. Especially when digital MF backs are getting cheaper, which is a trend that will probably continue. 5 Years ago a 20MP back was $40,000, now it's about $12,000, plus there is the flexibility of using film, and the flexibility that you can upgrade the back later on, and continue to use the same camera.

    Do you honestly expect that Hassy and Mamiya will sit on their hands and let Nikon and Canon take their market away, I don't think so.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  2. #22
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    Your probably right about the viewfinder, within reason, although it's going to be tough to sell a $10,000 camera with only a live view type display, to high end photographers who are used to optical viewers.
    Here what's different about the folks who'd have use for such a thing: they'd primarily be shooting tethered or wirelessly to a big screen, to see output roughly as it will print, in almost real time. Moreover, the electronic VF I imagine would have way more functionality than today's 35mm slr VFs, e.g. touch focusing and live histogramming etc. Now, these are all things that 99% of us would say "psha who cares" and I agree, but I am just saying, I think it is the inevitable step for digital. The mirror box has to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    Do you honestly expect that Hassy and Mamiya will sit on their hands and let Nikon and Canon take their market away, I don't think so.
    Actually, I think Nikon and Canon must go up against Hassie and Mamiya etc. very aggressively, and they have the capital to do so (money made mostly from low end cameras). In fact it'd not shock me if they buy those companies outright or at least partner with them on lenses.

    Again, it's all about market growth. if N&C aren't thinking this way, then how will they grow? They can't. And they are not stupid, they've known it'd come to this. It's the end of the (silly) megapixel race.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    25
    Marco, nice work, but you have one big flaw in your test:
    Your test chart is only 40 lp/mm, that is a very low resolution. Even with a Tri-X you can resolve 55-60 lp/mm (with coarse grain of course).

    I have tested the Alpha 900 at its physical resolution limit: A bit more than 80 lp/mm is possible with the best prime lenses. Above that, you get Aliasing artefacts, which is looking quite terrible.

    But with modern films I achieved higher resolution numbers.
    For example, I got 100 Lp/mm with colour negative film (object contrast 1:16).
    That is equivalent to 35 megapixels.
    With colour slide I achieved 120 Lp/mm. With TMX 130 Lp/mm.
    And with Kodak Imagelink, Spur Orthopan UR, Rollei ATP and Ortho 25 I achieved 150 - 180 Lp/mm. That is in the 75 - 100 megapixel range.
    With the right films and very good prime lenses you get higher resolution with film.
    With digital you get "clearer" images, lack of grain. But not higher resolution.
    But to see the difference and the advantage of film concerning resolution you have to use better test charts with resolution figures of 80 - 200 Lp/mm.
    Or you have to increase the distance between test chart and camera and the calculate then resolution by formula.
    You will find further information about this (if you are interested) on the Zeiss website (camera lens news and the MTF article of Dr. Nasse).

    And if you want to see the greatest advantage of film compared to digital technique, then compare slide projection with the most expensive beamers. The beamer has no chance at all. Not in resolution (film is 5x higher) and not in colour brillance. Projected on the screen, 2x3m big, film shows incredible power with modern slide films (if you have a good projector lens like Leica Super Colorplan or Docter MC-B).
    I have lots of Portraits, even projected on a big screen I can see every hair of the eye-brows if am only 10 cm away from the screen. With the beamer you see only big pixels.
    We are missing a lot if we use only computer monitors to look at pictures in this digital era.

  4. #24
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Distagon, might you perchance have some high-megapixel images that one can view? I'd be interested in your results with the 35mm ATP.

    Regarding grain, when shooting static subjects, it should be fairly straightforward to multisample, i.e., shoot the same thing a few times and average out a lot of the grain. Multisampling is useful for digital (in which case it's usually done to expand the dynamic range); why not consider it for film as well. I'm guessing that simply by stacking negs in an enlarger (with careful registry) it should be possible to get grainless enlargements from 35mm well past 24 inches or more. Of course, via drum scanning, this approach might be easier.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Distagon, might you perchance have some high-megapixel images that one can view? I'd be interested in your results with the 35mm ATP.

    ......
    Hello Keith,

    yes, of course I have some high-megapixel images, but not on the internet, only as prints and slides.....
    The problem is, that I don't have a drum scanner (Heidelberg e.g.). Even the new Imacon X5 has a resolution limit of 150-160 Lp/mm. For 160-180 Lp/mm you need a real drum scanner if you want a digital file.

    But mostly I don't want/need a digital file, because......and here comes the good news:
    Take your enlarger, put a very good enlarging lens on it, like Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon or Schneider Apo-Componon, and make classic prints in your darkroom. These excellent lenses can transfer these extremely high resolution figures to photopaper, without any problems.
    It's no problem at all to make high resolution, very sharp and grainless prints in big formats in the darkroom. You have to use very good prime lenses at your camera, films like Kodak Imagelink, Rollei ATP, Spur Orthopan UR, Spur DSX 64/32, Rollei Ortho 25, and a very good enlarging lens.

    And, with films like TMX or Acros 100 and all 100 and 400 ASA slide films you can get higher resolution figures compared to 24 Mp digital sensors.

    Another possibility: Slide projection with an excellent projection lens. I projected some Orthopan UR and Rollei ATP pictures (180 Lp/mm) on screen, and the 180 Lp/mm were completely transferred onto the screen. Incredible, and really amazing! I used a Leica Super Colorplan P2 and a Docter Optics 2,4/90 MC-B (for Kindermann Projectors).

    By the way, I can highly recommend the articles about film resolution on the Zeiss website: Camera Lens News No. 17, 19, 20 and 24. In No. 24 you will see an image of 250 Lp/mm resolution with Kodak Imagelink film (the Camera Lens News is both in English and German available on the homepage).
    And in the last issue there is an excellent article about interpreting MTF diagrammes, written by Dr. Nasse, chief optic designer for camera lenses at Zeiss. He explaines that film resolution ist still higher compared to digital sensors, especially with BW film.

  6. #26
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Okay, I agree and you don't have to make drum scans to please yourself... or me I was merely curious to see a 35mm atp frame scanned to the grain.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    560
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Multisampling is useful for digital (in which case it's usually done to expand the dynamic range); why not consider it for film as well. I'm guessing that simply by stacking negs in an enlarger (with careful registry) it should be possible to get grainless enlargements from 35mm well past 24 inches or more. Of course, via drum scanning, this approach might be easier.
    Hmm I don't think stacking negatives would eliminate grain. You would get twice the density though. Digital multi-sampling works by taking the pixels of the two or more images and sampling them to filter out the "noisy" pixels.

  8. #28
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,368
    Images
    65
    You would also introduce a sharpness problem in all probability.

    PE

  9. #29
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Well, you can enlarge as much as you like and do the alignment that way. Of course it'd be easier to drum scan each neg and then electronically align them, but a fully analogue alignment should be possible. I don't see why it should be any harder than analogue unsharp masking. Anyway maybe I'll try it soon.

    Domaz, I allege that multi-neg printing would reduce grain because grain alignment is random, whereas "real" image information is not. So the grain structure would be effectively averaged out if you expose through multiple negs, thus improving signal to noise, i.e. reducing grain.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  10. #30
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,368
    Images
    65
    Of course, you can only go the multineg route with still life photos. Any motion would cause blur and color fringing.

    PE

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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