[texandrews]

I was looking through images from Alaska, and I don't think I've posted this one anywhere. It's an example, I think, of a larger format look. It may be about the way the details transition from in focus to out of focus, but really I think it's just the larger capture area producing a higher quantity of information.



I'm not sure it's that great a picture, but I think it illustrates the effect.

Rick "who would have applied a bit of tilt if using a view camera" Denney

Yes, I'd say it's a good illustration of the effect. And I think it has a lot to do with the transition, as you said. So, I'd add that with the larger format, it's all transitions that are "better", if better means smoother---from in focus to oof, between tonalities and color gradations. FF looks "jumpier" to my eye, just as apsc and 4/3 looks "jumpier" than FF, and so on. One of the things I initially liked about digital is how much crisper much shots seemed, but as my eye has adjusted I see now that things are "crunchier" to use Jim Kasson's term, and that it lacks a more relaxed quality we saw in film---which Mike Johnston has alluded to on his blog.

FF dogmatists will inveigh about this idea (conveniently forgetting that they make the same argument about the superiority of FF vs. smaller formats, ahem) and throw up all kinds of examples, but a lot of times what I see is some kind of dreamy effect in place that reminds me of soft focus lenses, except that part of it is sharp. Having the background racked oof is not what we mean, as your example shows.

And it's actually kind of an interesting image....

[rdenney]

Thanks, Tex. My earlier two examples in this thread can exactly be described as "crunchy" versus "smooth", even though both were made on film.

Crunchiness describes a lot of effects relevant in this discussion. For example, traditional Japanese lenses were allegedly designed for a crunchy look--they are very good at contrast at spatial frequencies relevant for the sorts of display and print sizes relevant to most people. I'm thinking of maximizing MTF at spatial frequencies of 5-20 line pairs/mm. Traditional German lenses (and American lenses, too, though that goes farther back in time) were more optimized for resolution, and aimed to provide usable MTF at higher frequencies like 40 or 50 line pairs/mm. In the digital age, all this has faded away, and lens design now seeks to maximize MTF at 100% digital display on the computer monitor, the way most people view digital images when making those comparisons. That means a crunchier display, because apparent sharpness is more about contrast at 5 lines/mm in the print than it is about resolution. Some are optimized for screen display--Apple iPhone pictures look great on iPhone displays, but prints, even phone-sized prints? Not so much. I have an older Leica D-Lux 4 (made by Panasonic) that makes images that are stunning on the camera display, but are really difficult to adjust to get the same quality anywhere else.

Large format doesn't need crunchiness to give the impression of apparent sharpness. It has plenty of real sharpness even when contrast is low.

Rick "who'd rather add microcontrast than have to find a way to reduce too much of it" Denney

[Lawrence_645]

The difference between full frame digital 35mm format and Pentax digital 645 is about the same difference between digital 35mm format ('fullframe") and digital APS-C. I'm not sure where the mentioned dimensionality is based on. Personally I only see large format starting to render things differently.

I understand "3D pop", but that comes down to the lens and the depth of field it offers. Digital (and film) 645 have no real major advantage over 35mm film or digital in terms of shallow depth of field - they both top out at about F1.2 equivalent, with 0.95 being available on 35mm rangefinders. Unless you go to custom made Cinelux lenses at F2 or bigger on a 645 or 6x7 (film)body.

It is however obvious that 35 year old lenses for medium format are often sharper wide open than the equivalents and equally old ones for 135 cameras. This probably also adds to the distinct and "mystical" look of medium format. Your "bokeh" or subject isolation won't work if your image is nowhere sharp. Grab an old Nikkor 50mm F1.8 at F1.8 and you've got a very glowy picture full of CA.

Personally I enjoy using medium format film, mostly because I generally like how film looks, I enjoy using a slow and big camera, and I wanted more detail than 35mm film could offer. My first gen Pentax 645 hits the sweetspot.

[rdenney]

The ability to smoothly represent the focus transition, which I think is at the heart of the 3D look, is a continuum. It’s just a matter of personal history where we set boundaries. Many large-format photographers draw that boundary between 4x5 and 8x10, and think of 5x7 as a compromise format. For them, 4x5 was the convenience format—reflected in its popularity with press photographers. Medium format has always been a compromise format, but there are those who describe 645 film as glorified 35mm.

But this is true: the difference between my full-frame digital cameras and the 645z are as startling as the difference between 35mm film and 6x7 film, notwithstanding that the physical difference is smaller. Neither can compete, of course, with 4x5 film, and I live in hopes (forlorn hopes, probably) of an affordable, field-usable, modern single-shot 4x5 back for my Sinars.

It’s also true that the 645z’s 44x33 is not only a great digital format, it’s also a great camera for photographers, and will take its capabilities basically anywhere.

Rick “depends a lot on printing technology” Denney

[barondla]

On the B&H site found this interesting digital medium format benefit:

"The large size of each pixel allows for more efficient light gathering, too, for smoother tonal and color transitions to produce a characteristic three-dimensional "medium format look."

So we aren't the only ones that see it. Good to know.

Thanks,
barondla

[Lawrence_645]

On the B&H site found this interesting digital medium format benefit:

"The large size of each pixel allows for more efficient light gathering, too, for smoother tonal and color transitions to produce a characteristic three-dimensional "medium format look."

So we aren't the only ones that see it. Good to know.

To be fair, the pixel pitch of either Pentax 645D or 645Z is not extraordinary. A Nikon D750, for example, has half the resolution, but the pixels are the same size as those of a 645D. And even bigger than those in the 645Z.

The numbers: Camera Sensor Pixel Pitch List

[Aaron28]

quite late to the convo here but has anyone brought up the idea with making panos to mimic one format to another so to speak........
for example a single image which is cropped 5x4........K-1 with smc tak 85/f1.8



then the size/resolution/ dof (brenizer like) with using 3 frames (portrait orientation) with enough overlap to create a 2x3 .......was the brenizer method developed to mimic/psuedo a larger format?

[texandrews]

quite late to the convo here but has anyone brought up the idea with making panos to mimic one format to another so to speak........
for example a single image which is cropped 5x4........K-1 with smc tak 85/f1.8



then the size/resolution/ dof (brenizer like) with using 3 frames (portrait orientation) with enough overlap to create a 2x3 .......was the brenizer method developed to mimic/psuedo a larger format?

So, a question: what aspect of "the medium format look" is it you are trying to reproduce? Whenever I see a thread about it, most people start getting lost in the equivalence weeds and OOF/bokeh "analysis".

I have seen what I believe to be the medium format look, but it ain't those things....

[w2ck]

Hi,

I, too, get lost in the analysis. I suppose I am just not schooled enough in optics. Most of what optical schooling I have had pertains to microscopes and lithography (as in IC making). Different from the photographic hobby.

That said, I have always figured it had to do with greater area (film and sensor) coupled with larger diameter optics to cover that greater area. And, I was always content to leave it there.

Stan

[Aaron28]

what aspect of "the medium format look" is it you are trying to reproduce?

have no idea....not familiar enough to say that's why i asked if thats what it's (brenizer) main purpose was intended to be........i do not think it really can as the transition of focus to oof i believe is very different......but i do like that i can have more to play with with additional frames (in most cases 2 or 3) and have a more 'scenic' image........not even sure how many frames of either aps-c or full frame would equate to a 6x6 or 6x4.5

[rdenney]

To be fair, the pixel pitch of either Pentax 645D or 645Z is not extraordinary. A Nikon D750, for example, has half the resolution, but the pixels are the same size as those of a 645D. And even bigger than those in the 645Z.



The numbers: Camera Sensor Pixel Pitch List

Yes, but for any given print size, the Pentax image will have far more of those larger pixels, providing both the resolution and the tonal accuracy. And a proportionally larger print will project the same pixel size on the print, but in the midst of a much more expansive print.

The difference in grain size and number of grains between roll film and 35mm film generated the same effect. An 8x enlargement will look smoother than a 16x enlargement to make a 16x20 print from 6x7 and 35mm film. More grains per square inch of print without having to employ micro-grain techniques such as the use of 25-speed Panatomic-X. Plus-X has more tonal range but bigger grains, and 645ade use of the extra tonality without giving up the total number of grains. (Pan-F vs. FP-4 if your were an Ilford guy).

And the 4x enlargement from 4x5 sheet film took another big step in that direction, even if the sheet film was Tri-X.

Rick “who noted the effect in his own prints for the first time in 1976, comparing the lowly triplet-equipped Yashica 635 to a Canon F-1 with its superb 50/1.4 lens” Denney

[Lawrence_645]

Yes, but for any given print size, the Pentax image will have far more of those larger pixels, providing both the resolution and the tonal accuracy. And a proportionally larger print will project the same pixel size on the print, but in the midst of a much more expansive print.

The difference in grain size and number of grains between roll film and 35mm film generated the same effect. An 8x enlargement will look smoother than a 16x enlargement to make a 16x20 print from 6x7 and 35mm film. More grains per square inch of print without having to employ micro-grain techniques such as the use of 25-speed Panatomic-X. Plus-X has more tonal range but bigger grains, and 645ade use of the extra tonality without giving up the total number of grains. (Pan-F vs. FP-4 if your were an Ilford guy).

And the 4x enlargement from 4x5 sheet film took another big step in that direction, even if the sheet film was Tri-X.

Rick “who noted the effect in his own prints for the first time in 1976, comparing the lowly triplet-equipped Yashica 635 to a Canon F-1 with its superb 50/1.4 lens” Denney

Sure, more pixels will result in more detail. No surprises there, that is pure maths. I never said it would not. I clearly mentioned that a 645D/Z has double the resolution of that 24MP D750 I gave as an example. But my point was more that the "medium format look" - probably a sensitive topic on this forum - could not solely come from "large pixels" if those pixels are not larger or smaller than a semi-pro fullframe camera - a sensor that is not much smaller than those in 645D/Z's. As I stated before, the difference between a digital 645 and fullframe is about the same as that of fullframe and APS-C. Yet, nobody talks about "beter tonality" and "that fullframe look" on a fullframe camera vs crop camera (APS-C). I'm not trying to kill the mood or be a troll, it's just something I find interesting to read.

[UncleVanya]

Yet, nobody talks about "beter tonality" and "that fullframe look" on a fullframe camera vs crop camera (APS-C). I'm not trying to kill the mood or be a troll, it's just something I find interesting to read.

I actually think we see comments exactly like that from time to time - less so here than on other photography sites, but some of that same sentiment bleeds through. There is a certain amount of sensor size being attributed almost magical differences in outcome in general photography sites, but here it is less subjective most of the time. The term total light does come out from time to time and seems to be as likely to be cited in 645z vs K1 as it is in K1 vs KP discussions (rarely in other words but not unheard of).

[texandrews]

Yet, nobody talks about "beter tonality" and "that fullframe look" on a fullframe camera vs crop camera (APS-C). I'm not trying to kill the mood or be a troll, it's just something I find interesting to read.

Um, I think I can recall hundreds of posts on that other site about those topics in the late aughts to early teens. They're over now, because FF won the argument.

[w2ck]

Hi,

I remember the arguments from before there were any FF cameras, only APS-C and H. And then how H had a leg up over C. And there were no MF beyond an APS-H sensored back Kodak had for whatever use anyone could make of that... DCS-465.

Stan