Megapixels and film

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fsprow

I recently did a little test for myself and thought I'd share some observations in the hope they may be useful to others.  Comparing three setups:

     1. My H6D-100c (love this camera)
     2. H6D with 50MP back
     3. H6D with HM 16-32 film back, Velvia 100.  Nikon 9000ED scanner with Vuescan, then 16 bit TIFFS.

All exposures same (100ASA).

Images (a portrait of a client and a scenic mountain view) from the first two processed in Phocus (love it too).  Minimal PP.

Large prints made with no printing correction at 30"x50".

My wife (better eye than I) made then following comments on seeing the prints with no attribution.

- Not much "sharpness" difference between 1 and 2.  3 slightly "softer"
- 1 has a strong "three dimensional" look, almost seeing depth, 2 none.
- 3 holds your attention for a longer period, more "human", like analog versus digital music.

Not very scientific, but there it is. Obviously not all variables could be accounted for.

Frank


cerett

Thanks  - Very interesting. I'm not surprised about film being a little softer. What lens were you using? I would love to see these images. Can they be posted?

davidthescot

Love the analog/digital comparison re music.  I too have a 100C and love it for the same reasons you do.  I am however thinking of buying a film back - just for fun.

Best

fsprow

Sorry, overly cautious, I avoid posting. The lens was the 100 f2.2 at f5.6 or close to it.
Best, Frank

fsprow

BTW my wife can tell if I'm playing an LP or digital (even high res from a DAC) from two rooms way.

eyedear

Is the 50mp back a CCD or CMOS type sensor

Bashir Lunat


fsprow


eyedear

It would nice if a CCD back was in the comparison. Would really like to know if there is any difference between them. What you have done is great I have been trying to find out for a long time

Hassilistic

Quote from: fsprow on July 18, 2017, 06:26:51 AM
- 3 holds your attention for a longer period, more "human", like analog versus digital music.
I wonder even how much more of a dramatic effect it would have been (better or worse) had the film development process was all analogue all the way through to enlargement.
Thank you Frank.

fsprow

I will do so in a few weeks with the help of my friends at Photographique in Dallas who have a very complete darkroom.  Will report the results.
Frank

fsprow

I just labored over the tanks and enlarger to make this comparison.  There are obviously a lot of variables (chemicals, enlarger lens etc.) but my non-scientific observations are:

- Resolution from the wet chemistry/enlarger approach (from HM 16 32 Portra 100 negatives) looking an enlarged segment close to the 30x50" used previously for the digital enlargements is quite comparable to the HM>Velvia 100>Nikon 9000ED>Vuescan>Phocus prints. Not much loss of resolution if any from the digital processing, though tiny artifacts can be seen very close up. But note negative versus positive film here.

- Can't make judgments re the color or impact of the digital versus wet chemistry approach to the film. Too many variables and small enlarged segment.

Main conclusion -- whew, it's time for a dram (or two) of single malt.

Frank


 

Tazdog1

Wow, on another post it was stated that you could not use the HM 16-32 film back on that body?

ChrisL

Quote from: Tazdog1 on August 09, 2017, 05:05:26 AM
Wow, on another post it was stated that you could not use the HM 16-32 film back on that body?
A firmware update enabled it, previously it was not.