Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Medium format to digital resolution question....

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 2:03:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm not even sure how to ask this question but....I would like to know how I
can take advantage of medium format quality when I convert it to a digital
file. Obviously there are no digital cameras with large format that anyone can
afford....so...what do I do? Just scan the high quality photo I get from a
medium format negative.....and if I do, how do I translate that high
quality/resolution into a high quality digital file? Or put another way, would
I get just as good quality from say, the 8 megapixil Nikon camera? If anyone
understands this question, please help ok? Thanks
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 2:03:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 23 Jan 2005 23:03:51 GMT, snapshotsid@aol.com (Snapshotsid) wrote:

>I'm not even sure how to ask this question but....I would like to know how I
>can take advantage of medium format quality when I convert it to a digital
>file. Obviously there are no digital cameras with large format that anyone can
>afford....so...what do I do? Just scan the high quality photo I get from a
>medium format negative.....and if I do, how do I translate that high
>quality/resolution into a high quality digital file? Or put another way, would
>I get just as good quality from say, the 8 megapixil Nikon camera? If anyone
>understands this question, please help ok? Thanks


In order for this question to have
meaning, you need a film scanner
that can scan medium-format film.

So, do you?

Yeah, you can scan the print that
you get from an MF negative, but
that's an inferior choice in most
cases.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 2:03:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Snapshotsid" <snapshotsid@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050123180351.01015.00000210@mb-m04.aol.com...
> I'm not even sure how to ask this question but....I would like to know how
> I
> can take advantage of medium format quality when I convert it to a digital
> file. Obviously there are no digital cameras with large format that
> anyone can
> afford....so...what do I do? Just scan the high quality photo I get from
> a
> medium format negative.....and if I do, how do I translate that high
> quality/resolution into a high quality digital file? Or put another way,
> would
> I get just as good quality from say, the 8 megapixil Nikon camera? If
> anyone
> understands this question, please help ok? Thanks

Sid,

Try this site, maybe it will help you.

http://www.scantips.com/

Tim
Related resources
January 24, 2005 3:05:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Snapshotsid wrote:

>
> I get just as good quality from say, the 8 megapixil Nikon camera?

Depends on the size of the prints, what sort of post processing you are
willing to do and what SIZE medium format we are talking about.

With careful exposure using RAW files with good conversion software, using
pro level glass/tripod and then playing with selective NR
software/sharpening in post production, I'm getting 11X14 prints that look
REAL close to my 6X4.5 prints from an 8MP Dslr at normal viewing distances.
With a loupe you can see some difference but even close up they look
=really= good.

A 6X7 camera will still beat it but probably not a bunch in an 8X10 or a
11X14. Anything larger than this, the larger MF cameras will win.YMMV.
--

Stacey, who doesn't believe I'm saying this...
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:44:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Snapshotsid" <snapshotsid@aol.com> wrote:

> I'm not even sure how to ask this question but....I would like to know how
I
> can take advantage of medium format quality when I convert it to a digital
> file. Obviously there are no digital cameras with large format that
anyone can
> afford....so...what do I do? Just scan the high quality photo I get from
a
> medium format negative.....and if I do, how do I translate that high
> quality/resolution into a high quality digital file? Or put another way,
would
> I get just as good quality from say, the 8 megapixil Nikon camera? If
anyone
> understands this question, please help ok? Thanks

You can scan medium format _film_ with either an affordable flatbed scanner
such as the Epson 4870 or a dedicated film scanner. The flatbed scanner will
produce digital files from 6x7 film that may be somewhat better than the 5,
6, or 8MP cameras. My experience with an earlier Epson model was that 6 MP
dSLR images looked better than the 645 scans the 2450 produced.

Medium format film (but only critically sharp images on ISO 100 film)
scanned with a dedicated film scanner is much better than 5, 6, or 8MP
cameras, but the scanners cost US$2,000 or so. And scanning's a pain. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 1:29:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <35je0kF4m6teqU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <stephe_k@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> A 6X7 camera will still beat it but probably not a bunch in an 8X10 or a
>11X14. Anything larger than this, the larger MF cameras will win.YMMV.
>--
>
> Stacey, who doesn't believe I'm saying this...

We *told* you so. :-P
January 24, 2005 11:03:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <35je0kF4m6teqU1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <stephe_k@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> A 6X7 camera will still beat it but probably not a bunch in an 8X10 or a
>>11X14. Anything larger than this, the larger MF cameras will win.YMMV.
>>--
>>
>> Stacey, who doesn't believe I'm saying this...
>
> We *told* you so. :-P

Well when you told me this, it wasn't using an 8MP camera. :^/
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 2:38:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Chris Brown wrote:
>
>
>>In article <35je0kF4m6teqU1@individual.net>,
>>Stacey <stephe_k@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>A 6X7 camera will still beat it but probably not a bunch in an 8X10 or a
>>>11X14. Anything larger than this, the larger MF cameras will win.YMMV.
>>>--
>>>
>>> Stacey, who doesn't believe I'm saying this...
>>
>>We *told* you so. :-P
>
>
> Well when you told me this, it wasn't using an 8MP camera. :^/


But you had plenty of other counter-arguments.
If I had to guess, I'd say you were waiting for
a DSLR from Olympus.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
January 26, 2005 5:01:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafeb wrote:

>
>
> If I had to guess, I'd say you were waiting for
> a DSLR from Olympus.
>

I was waiting for a Dslr that the prints didn't look "digital"?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 6:27:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> rafeb wrote:
>
>
>>
>>If I had to guess, I'd say you were waiting for
>>a DSLR from Olympus.
>>
>
>
> I was waiting for a Dslr that the prints didn't look "digital"?

Digital prints will always look digital, if you magnify them enough
since the pixels are square (or rectangular). Grains in the film medium
are of a random shape, so you can always tell a digital photo, if you
can magnify it enough.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 1:28:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <35otimF4p2dmsU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <stephe_k@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>rafeb wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If I had to guess, I'd say you were waiting for
>> a DSLR from Olympus.
>>
>
>I was waiting for a Dslr that the prints didn't look "digital"?

That was easy even as far back as the venerable D30 - just shoot in 1600 ISO
:-P
January 27, 2005 5:58:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>> I was waiting for a Dslr that the prints didn't look "digital"?
>
> Digital prints will always look digital, if you magnify them enough
> since the pixels are square (or rectangular). Grains in the film medium
> are of a random shape, so you can always tell a digital photo, if you
> can magnify it enough.
>

I meant in an 8X10 and larger print.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 2:28:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:01:42 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>rafeb wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If I had to guess, I'd say you were waiting for
>> a DSLR from Olympus.
>>
>
>I was waiting for a Dslr that the prints didn't look "digital"?


Ah, metaphysics. Good way to end the conversation.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 5:31:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>Digital prints will always look digital, if you magnify them enough
>since the pixels are square (or rectangular). Grains in the film medium
>are of a random shape, so you can always tell a digital photo, if you
>can magnify it enough.

That's not true, if the device making the print is working at high
enough resolution. The pixels can be treated as point samples of a
continuous image, and the image can be resampled to many more pixels all
different (so there are no square or rectangular edges to see).

For this to work well, the native resolution of the output device has to
be several times that of the input data. If the digital printer is
operating at 300 or 400 PPI, you can see the individual pixels with
magnification. But if the printer is operating at something like 2000
PPI, you aren't going to see pixel edges.

You just need an output device pixel density too small for you to see
at whatever magnification you are using (or a blurry enough spot that
you can't distinguish neighbour pixels from each other). You can't
normally see pixel boundaries on television even when the source is a
digital video recorder, for example.

Dave
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 2:46:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cteshr$inq$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
> >Digital prints will always look digital, if you magnify them enough
> >since the pixels are square (or rectangular). Grains in the film medium
> >are of a random shape, so you can always tell a digital photo, if you
> >can magnify it enough.
>
> That's not true, if the device making the print is working at high
> enough resolution. The pixels can be treated as point samples of a
> continuous image, and the image can be resampled to many more pixels all
> different (so there are no square or rectangular edges to see).

Quibble: the printer resolution doesn't matter: all that matters is that the
source file is intelligently upsampled to the native resolution of the
printer. At which point, someone taking a loupe to the print only sees the
printer technology, not the imaging technology.

> For this to work well, the native resolution of the output device has to
> be several times that of the input data. If the digital printer is
> operating at 300 or 400 PPI, you can see the individual pixels with
> magnification. But if the printer is operating at something like 2000
> PPI, you aren't going to see pixel edges.
>
> You just need an output device pixel density too small for you to see
> at whatever magnification you are using (or a blurry enough spot that
> you can't distinguish neighbour pixels from each other). You can't
> normally see pixel boundaries on television even when the source is a
> digital video recorder, for example.

Still, you've got the right idea here: there's no need to see the imaging
technology in the print. You can do the same thing with film. Scan at a
grossly high resolution, NeatImage heavily, downsample to a much lower
resolution. This gives an image with clean pixels indistinguishable from a
dSLR image. Now interpolate up to your heart's content. Look ma, no grain,
no pixels.

(Whether or not this is a good idea is an arguable point. There's probably a
slight loss of detail. I'd rather use a larger format than see grain, so the
above approach supports both the finely detailed smooth-toned lower
magnification enlargements I prefer as well as posters, but if you insist on
squeezing every last bit of detail from miniature formats, putting up with
the grain may make sense.)

The basic idea is to extract the image content and to represent that at the
native resolution of the printer. Then all you will see is the printing
technology, not the imaging technology, when you pull out your 10x loupe.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
January 29, 2005 7:56:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> Then all you will see is the
> printing technology, not the imaging technology, when you pull out your
> 10x loupe.
>

Why would anyone ever do that?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 12:40:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:

>> That's not true, if the device making the print is working at high
>> enough resolution. The pixels can be treated as point samples of a
>> continuous image, and the image can be resampled to many more pixels all
>> different (so there are no square or rectangular edges to see).

>Quibble: the printer resolution doesn't matter: all that matters is that the
>source file is intelligently upsampled to the native resolution of the
>printer. At which point, someone taking a loupe to the print only sees the
>printer technology, not the imaging technology.

Right, but I suspect he's actually talking about the printer technology
when he says you can tell a digital print. If you look at a print from
one of the digital minilabs that operate at 300 or 400 PPI with a loupe,
you can see individual printer pixels. If you look at an inkjet print
with a loop, you can see individual ink dots.

But given an image recorder that operates at a few thousand PPI at
viewing size, or more generally when the pixel pitch is a fraction of
the spot size, pixel boundaries are completely invisible.

>The basic idea is to extract the image content and to represent that at the
>native resolution of the printer. Then all you will see is the printing
>technology, not the imaging technology, when you pull out your 10x loupe.

And if the printing technology is good enough, you can't tell it's
discrete rather than continuous either.

Dave
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:12:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> > Then all you will see is the
> > printing technology, not the imaging technology, when you pull out your
> > 10x loupe.
>
> Why would anyone ever do that?

Other than to understand what was going on, one wouldn't. My point was that
you'd see the printing technology, not the imaging technology if you did
that with correctly processed (and perhaps upsampled if required) images.
(Since the original supposition here was that magnification would allow you
to see the imaging technology.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
!