[osv]

I do like the procedures but I don't know if anyone else has corroborated his results nor has he provided the results - film, for outside evaluation.

film is too low rez to be of much use these days, but the general trends of what he's done tends to agree with what i've seen with the same glass that i've put on the a7r... imho, it's valuable info.

eric is an engineer, and he's done some imatesting with pentax glass on ff sensors: Pentax : ERPhotoReview

here are four 50/1.4 lenses that i tested on 36mp; two pentax, a canon, and a konica hexanon... the latter is radioactive, and it's the most impressive hunk of glass out of the four: 50mm prime lens comparison, shot on Sony a7R, first round

half of all the wide legacy lenses that i've put on the a7r were defective, so learning how to recognize that should be on everyone's priority list.

[LesDMess]

film is too low rez to be of much use these days, but the general trends of what he's done tends to agree with what i've seen with the same glass that i've put on the a7r... imho, it's valuable info.

Just so you know, that is too broad of a statement and not true across the board without even considering the various sizes that film comes in. Think about if you said that about digital sensors. As you may know, there are a few on the high side and considerably more on the low side as far as resolution is concerned. Today it is possible that more people do not know this is true of film too. The challenge with film is to be able to extract all that detail.

[osv]

agree 100% that getting the detail out of film is what kills it.

disagree that it's too broad of a statement:

"Michael Reichmann's article, Ultimate Shoot-out, compares his 11 Megapixel EOS-1Ds to the medium format Pentax 67II. Although I agree with his conclusion that the EOS-1Ds has better overall image quality-- I'd buy one today if I could comfortably afford it-- I have to dispute one important detail: which camera has the higher resoluton. It's the Pentax. You can see it on the enlargements of the windows in the middle of the page, the second set of images under The Print Evaluation.

A vertical line on the wall on the right is visible in the Pentax image but not in the EOS-1Ds image. Should this change Michael's essential conculsions? No. This thin line represents response at a very high spatial frequency that would have little effect on the appearance of a 13x19 inch image. It would be visible on a 24x30 inch image, but the 1Ds still has superior image quality due to the absence of grain-- see the discussion on Shannon channel capacity and image quality. Sharpness is only a part of the equation. Reichmann's earlier review of the D60, with side-by-side images from the D30, D60, 35mm and medium format cameras, is also worth reading."
Digital cameras vs. film, part 1

[LesDMess]

agree 100% that getting the detail out of film is what kills it.

disagree that it's too broad of a statement:

"Michael Reichmann's article, Ultimate Shoot-out, compares his 11 Megapixel EOS-1Ds to the medium format Pentax 67II. Although I agree with his conclusion that the EOS-1Ds has better overall image quality-- I'd buy one today if I could comfortably afford it-- I have to dispute one important detail: which camera has the higher resoluton. It's the Pentax. You can see it on the enlargements of the windows in the middle of the page, the second set of images under The Print Evaluation.

A vertical line on the wall on the right is visible in the Pentax image but not in the EOS-1Ds image. Should this change Michael's essential conculsions? No. This thin line represents response at a very high spatial frequency that would have little effect on the appearance of a 13x19 inch image. It would be visible on a 24x30 inch image, but the 1Ds still has superior image quality due to the absence of grain-- see the discussion on Shannon channel capacity and image quality. Sharpness is only a part of the equation. Reichmann's earlier review of the D60, with side-by-side images from the D30, D60, 35mm and medium format cameras, is also worth reading."
Digital cameras vs. film, part 1

I am familiar with Michael's controversial article (https://luminous-landscape.com/d30-vs-film/) comparing a 3MP D30 to an Imacon scanned Fuji Provia 100f and stating that,
"Resolution
The first thing I looked at was, of course, resolution. As can be seen by the detail blow-ups immediately above, the D30 image shows finer detail."


To be very cordial, I would have to use a very low resolving film, use bad technique and equipment and scan poorly to replicate his results.


Resolution testing is by far the easiest test to conduct so I would suggest that you conduct it yourself and not rely on Michael. However, some people these days are likely to be unfamiliar with what can actually be achieved by film.

[stevebrot]

film is too low rez to be of much use these days

Just so you know, that is too broad of a statement and not true across the board

osv...I can only make assumptions regarding your knowledge of current films, but you may want to do some research and also to consider the nature of false resolution introduced by image processors (i.e. nice even lines where there are no nice even lines). I am familiar with Reichmann's famous and now fairly dated article. There are issues with his methodology, but I will not quibble with the fine details. I believe his work speaks for itself. I can make a few comments:

• For sure, color films, even the finest grain, even Ektar 100, are limited to around 100 lp/mm, most of which can be extracted with with a true drum scan (not Imacon) or my Nikon 5000 ED*
• The same is not true for the better B&W emulsions where MTF in the 300 lp/mm range are claimed. I do not shoot with those films and cannot comment regarding their real world ability to capture detail with reasonable tonal reproduction. I do know that for the films I do shoot (Fuji Acros 100, T-Max 100, and Rollei Retro 80s), images scanned using the 5000 ED stand up nicely and are not limited by the film.
• I like one of Reichmann's statements, "Is the D30 better that (sic) film? What do I mean by 'better' and what do I mean by 'film'. That’s what the debate is raging on about...".
• I continue to shoot both digital (K-3) and film (35mm up to 4x5) and get consistently good results from both. Which is better? Tell me which photo I should have taken using the other tech and I will tell you which tech is better. It is that simple.
• An image formed using silver grains or dye clouds is qualitatively different than an array of interpolated dots. Different means just that, though for many purposes, a digital capture will prove more workable than a scan. I am thinking specifically of color photography.
• I seldom shoot color film any more except where the film camera is the better tool for the job**.
• For monochrome images, a film capture is generally better, particularly if shadow tone and detail are needed. That being said, I often do monochrome conversions from digital and am very happy with the results.
• For both color and monochrome work, available resolution is usually not the determining factor when choosing what medium or camera to use
• Color darkroom printing is a pain in the...
• I have a beautiful enlarger and top-grade lenses, but seldom do wet prints, even B&W. Why? I am lazy, have a pair of decent scanners, and have a very nice photo inkjet printer that comes very close to what I can do with traditional technique.

Steve

* The Imacon/Hasselblad scanners really shine with larger formats, but only provide about 3200 dpi on a 35mm negative. The 5000 ED will do a true 4000 dpi and a true drum scan somewhat more.

** Examples might be street photography or where I need a camera with movements. Digital kit exists for both cases, but I don't have those kind of funds.

[osv]

I am familiar with Michael's controversial article (https://luminous-landscape.com/d30-vs-film/) comparing a 3MP D30 to an Imacon scanned Fuji Provia 100f and stating that,
"Resolution
The first thing I looked at was, of course, resolution. As can be seen by the detail blow-ups immediately above, the D30 image shows finer detail."

To be very cordial, I would have to use a very low resolving film, use bad technique and equipment and scan poorly to replicate his results.

to be very cordial, did you and steve actually read the link i posted?

because that article was written by norman koren, the guy who wrote the very successful imatest program.

he's an old hand at film, and in that link you can see where he went into detail about his digital vs. film test procedure.

he even tried oversharpening the film scans to increase the resolution... his results weren't all that different from what michael saw, but he was including more p.q. parameters in the comparison than just sharpness.

certainly film scanners are much better these days, but so are digital cameras; to quote norman: "I estimate that a full-frame sensor with 8.3 megapixels would have resolution equal to 35mm film."

i don't even bother with owning a nice printer anymore, i just coordinate my workflow with the local costco printers, that cost upwards of $3k each, and can turn out 20x30 prints: Costco Poster Printing Instructions

[LesDMess]

to be very cordial, did you and steve actually read the link i posted?

. . . .

certainly film scanners are much better these days, but so are digital cameras; to quote norman: "I estimate that a full-frame sensor with 8.3 megapixels would have resolution equal to 35mm film."

i don't even bother with owning a nice printer anymore, i just coordinate my workflow with the local costco printers, that cost upwards of $3k each, and can turn out 20x30 prints: Costco Poster Printing Instructions

I read the articles - years ago, but more importantly I conducted my own test to see if they were true. I even had poster sized (20"X30") optical prints made of the various films that I have used to know what they would look like. I still do.


For the purposes of full disclosure, I not only still use film but I also use various digicams up to a Nikon D800. I don't need to estimate what a full frame 8.3MP sensor is capable of but neither do I have to estimate what various films are capable of achieving in terms of resolution either.


Cordially speaking, do you know what resolution various films are capable of?

[stevebrot]

to be very cordial, did you and steve actually read the link i posted?

Yes, I am very familiar with Koren's article, both parts 1 and part 2.* I am also previously familiar with Reichmann's various articles.

Next question?


Steve

* I am also familiar with his scanner and other articles on his site. Koren is sort of famous, ya know and a good reference. I concur with his (theoretical) assessment regarding color films vs. digital sensor you quoted above.

[monochrome]

When did we change from celebrating the film-like qualities of the K10D CCD sensor to denigrating the limits of resolution of color film?

[osv]

I read the articles - years ago, but more importantly I conducted my own test to see if they were true. I even had poster sized (20"X30") optical prints made of the various films that I have used to know what they would look like. I still do.

that optical printing ship sailed years ago: "I will go so far as to say that in the hands of a skilled printer, a better print can often be made from film digitally than can be made in the darkroom unless one takes extraordinary measures. For some photographs, digital printing will exceed the very best darkroom prints." The Online Photographer: A Perfunctory Guide to Converting Photographic Film to Digital Prints, Part I

does ctein know what darkroom printing is? slightly... http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

For the purposes of full disclosure, I not only still use film but I also use various digicams up to a Nikon D800. I don't need to estimate what a full frame 8.3MP sensor is capable of but neither do I have to estimate what various films are capable of achieving in terms of resolution either.
Cordially speaking, do you know what resolution various films are capable of?

cordially speaking... film fails not just because of what it records, but because the methodologies for scanning it are inferior to shooting digital.

you appear to be taking a dig at norman koren, with the wisecracks about estimating? fyi, he has a masters degree in physics, he's the real mccoy.

[LesDMess]

that optical printing ship sailed years ago: "I will go so far as to say that in the hands of a skilled printer, a better print can often be made from film digitally than can be made in the darkroom unless one takes extraordinary measures. For some photographs, digital printing will exceed the very best darkroom prints."

cordially speaking... film fails not just because of what it records, but because the methodologies for scanning it are inferior to shooting digital.

you appear to be taking a dig at norman koren, with the wisecracks about estimating? fyi, he has a masters degree in physics, he's the real mccoy.

Another disclosure is that I am not adverse to using scanning technology either. I have personally scanned over 35,000 frames of various film sizes, types and brands so far using various flatbeds, dedicated film scanners, Imacons, a Heidelberg Tango, minilab scanners (Agfa, Fuji & Noritsu) and various DSLR scanning. I sent my film off for optical poster prints to compare those results from my own scanning and Epson 7880 prints on various paper types.

I use the word "cordial" to be sure the facts I present - all independently verifiable, are not taken personally.

I pointed out that he estimated what an 8.3MP DSLR would do because at that time this was published many years ago, there were no 8MP DSLRs yet. Well, we have many of those since and much more now don't we.

Now back to the thread, I too test all my lenses since I do buy a lot of used equipment and heaven only knows what they have gone through. I like to weed them out so that if I need to count on them, I will know what can be expected. Below are the results of testing my Pentax 50mm lenses using a 2X2 arrangement of the ISO12233 chart, properly lit, tripod mount with my 14.6MP Pentax K20D.

Lenses


Results

Full res version -> Pentax 50mm Lenses

Using the K20D, I can establish a baseline by comparing it to results from others like DPREVIEW showing the 14.6MP K20D ideally attains about 24 -> Pentax K20D Review: Digital Photography Review

Since I do use film, I also conducted this test but this time with a 4X4 arrangement of the ISO12233 chart, properly lit, tripod mount using my K20D with a known baseline but also this time on Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 processed in Technidol and then scanned 4000dpi on Coolscan. As shown below, this combination achieves much higher results of about 30~36 with the Pentax SMC Macro 50mm F4 on my Pentax LX.

Since I have the Pentax Autobellows, I took a peek at the frame of film at about 4.5X magnification and as you can see from the far right blowup, this lens+film combination actually achieves an even higher 52. Like I said, the challenge with scanning is being able to resolve all the detail that is captured on the film.


Full res version -> Pentax SMC Macro 50mm f4 series