|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-16-2017, 06:10 PM
|
| |
I prefer exactly the same scan then. Acros has a very straight even tonality, like digital. It has a contrasty look. It's unusual for a film to be that way.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-16-2017, 07:18 AM
|
| |
I think it really comes down to an aesthetic choice, which one you prefer. There is some more discussion here..
'Just as an aside, the Mamiya 7 did very well in the resolution tests and yet the files looked a lot worse than the absolute resolution would indicate. This is due to the grain of the film starting to obscure tonality and fine detailed textures. Low contrast elements got lost within the grain in most cases. The Mamiya 7 ended up resolving considerably more than the DSLRs but looking only slightly better than them.
At first it looks like the DSLR's are quite a bit sharper but once you look closer you see that the details are quite mushy. this is something that has been observed in the IQ180/film results also and is symptom of the way digital and film resolve fine detail. With digital, the finer and finer detail in an image are quite contrasty all the way to the resolution of the sensor and then, at that point, there is no more detail. The camera detail hits a resolution brick wall beyond which it cannot go because of the size of the pixel. Film, on the other hand, renders detail quite differently. Finer and finer detail loses more and more contrast so that at the point where digital hits a brick wall, film has lower contrast so the digital looks sharper. However, the film keeps on going finer and finer until either the grain overwhelms it or the scanner runs out of resolution. What this can mean is that digital can look sharper "at a certain critical resolution". This resolution is dependent on the format but having printed out lots of tests, seems to be at the point of a 300dpi print at native resolution. Once you enlarge beyond this, film carries on looking good but digital starts to look 'plasticky'. Having said that, this critical resolution for the IQ180 is 26 x 32 print - quite good enough for nearly all purposes. In our final print comparison, once you enlarge beyond this to 40 x 50 for example, the 4x5 and definitely the 10x8 start to look better than the IQ180.'
And some more after that..
Camera Test - Editor's Commentary - On Landscape |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-16-2017, 03:48 AM
|
| |
So another thing. Assuming the Mamiya 7/Portra resolution is the same as the IQ180 (53.7mm × 40.4mm), 80mpx, 35mm/Portra (24mmx36mm) should be 31.8 mpx. That and DR you can take a bath in..
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-16-2017, 12:37 AM
|
| |
I mainly linked that page to illustrate how different a film image and a digital image were.
Also, this below is about the page where you can slide the comparison back and forth...
'The one issue with taking images of long distance views is that any difference in focal lengths can't be compensated for by 'just getting a little closer' so we can't use these results as a resolution comparison without taking into account the slight differences in focal length. These differences can be summarised as a 7% advantage for 4x5 and 8x10 over the IQ180, a 20% disadvantage for the Mamiya 7 and a 20% advantage for the Sony A900. In real terms, the 7% advantage for the 4x5 and 8x10 is small enough to be difficult to notice (effectively this is smaller than a 1/10 of a pixel advantage in fine detail) and is equivalent to the difference between 18Mp and 21Mp cameras. The 20% disadvantage for the Mamiya is fairly large and would be noticeable and represents the difference between 10Mp and a 16Mp camera'
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-15-2017, 10:37 PM
|
| |
You could also look at this, it has some shots with a microscope.
Large Format Camera Comparison | On Landscape
The IQ180 is a 80mpx full frame medium format digital back, so you can compare it fairly evenly with the Mamiya 7 shots.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-15-2017, 08:21 PM
|
| |
The technologies are too different to compare them in similar terms, imo. Film is way better, digital looks like crap, also imo. :D It's not about resolution, but contrast/tonality and color.
'As expected, the film camera appears to capture slightly more detail than the digital camera. Perhaps a higher resolution scan would yield even more detail, although I think this is reasonably close to this film's limit. However, as expected, the film image looks extremely grainy. From my perspective, I prefer the digital image. Even in a 4x6 print, the film grain is visible, while the digital image looks fantastically smooth. An 8x10 print is still small enough that the theoretical resolution advantage of film is invisible, but large enough that the film grain is clearly apparent (to my eyes). As the print size increases, the graininess of the film becomes objectionable long before its technical resolution advantage becomes visible.
Of course, this is subjective, and different people will reach different conclusions. However, it is definitely worth seeing some prints made from digital images before concluding that they can't be as good as film-based prints based on resolution numbers alone. Nonetheless, if you don't mind the grain and want the most resolution possible, it still looks like film has the edge.'
Film vs. Digital |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
10-30-2017, 07:51 PM
|
| |
What struck me the most about this comparison was the muddy, artificial look of the digital colors, particularly on the overall view, but also on the crops. I normally prefer 35mm film and a three element, multicoated lens to any digital cameras, so resolution doesn't mean much to me. Mainly the colors, DR, and the rendering of space. :D
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
10-29-2017, 01:00 AM
|
| |
Of course there are examples from the days when uncoated lenses were the only kind there were, what you said was that Voigtlander 'make both uncoated and uncoated' lenses. Cosina Voigtlander make/made single coated and multicoated versions of the same lens concurrently. Voigtlander, Zeiss, and whatever haven't made uncoated lenses since before WWII.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
10-28-2017, 07:41 PM
|
| |
They make/made single coated and multicoated lenses.
|
