Digitizing 120 film 6X9 vs 6X4.5 format

Les Sarile said:

The weakest link - in terms of actual details resolved, is the paper itself.
Unless the optical system is just the worst ever made, it will far outresolve any paper's very low resolution. Even with the glossiest paper - paper with highest print resolution, you would have to make considerably much larger prints to be able to see detail captured on film. For instance, details resolved by 4000dpi scans on 35mm Fuji Provia 100 will require larger than 20" X 30" prints on glossy paper to actually see detail.

Click to expand...

May be you are right - but I don't think so. The paper sw/color emulsion should be not a reason from lost of resolution with very big enlargements.
A simple ink jet printer as exampel : You shot digital with 100MP. The system is the $49.000,- Monster well known as Phase one XF


Your mural sized enlargement should have 2.00m x 3.00m in best quality ever seen - of cause ....is it possible?
How can we find out ?
We devide 100MP datas via croping of original high resoluted jpg. The half is around 50MP a quarter should have around 25MP a.s.o.
Do the same with the print format : 1/2 =
2.00m x 1,50m / 1/4 = 1.00m x 1,50m /
1/16 = 50cm x 75cm / 1/32 ~ 45 x 30 /
1/64 ~ 20cm x 30cm

The original resolution from Phase One is
11608 x 8708 .....1/64 of your original print size should give around 1,5 MP that's 1075 x 1428 in 130dpi ...You get
~ 20cm x 30cm
Thats your result : 20 x 30 cm (21,0cm x 27,9cm) in pour 130dpi print resolution.
Thats not the best quality ever seen - am I right or am I right ? 20 x 30 in 130 dpi

Friends - you have to spent a little more money to come at 2,00m x 3,00m in absolute highest quality (400dpi)
But what I wanted to make clear to you
brent8927 is the following :
Is your ink jet printer able to print 130dpi?
Of cause he could print finer quality - yes he do ?
But this theoretical example should show you the quality your 2.00m x 3.00m enlargement would have!....
But wow - your printer (simple ink jet is able to show more ?)
And the fine Art paper also isn't responsable to pour prints?
It is the resolution (130dpi) .. ..oh yes as a result of the 100MP of Phase One
in 2.00m x 3.00m.
So XF System is insulficient?
Yes it is to 2 x 3 m.
Better results will come from 8'x10' film.

with regards

PS : The Paper (emulsion quality) isn't responsable to lost quality : it is allways the lost from physical issues via optical systems. But one can minimize it with high quality lenses.

blockend said:

That image has been heavily manipulated, probably in Photoshop. It doesn't show what a typical film image looks like in a flat bed or professional scan.

Click to expand...

Hey blockend pls. tell me : "What the hell is - this photoshop? " Were can I find this store? .
You can beat me with any kind of such Shops !
Seriously it has just 1,5MP and just 860kbyte.
But You got me blockend - respect is to you I used Corel After Shot just to crop black parts from scanning (frames).
By the time I had a try from one effect to soft the picture. Very small manipulation.
Normaly I didn't use any software - so as here it was a 2 week promo version.
I didn't bought it.
with regards

trendland said:

May be you are right - but I don't think so. The paper sw/color emulsion should be not a reason from lost of resolution with very big enlargements.

PS : The Paper (emulsion quality) isn't responsable to lost quality : it is allways the lost from physical issues via optical systems. But one can minimize it with high quality lenses.

Click to expand...

I am only defining resolution detail and that paper will be the weakest link depending on type - glossy being the highest and canvas type being the lowest. There maybe other less resolving art paper that I haven't tried. If the detail is captured on good film, you will have to enlarge considerably to see that detail show up on print.

trendland said:

Hey blockend pls. tell me : "What the hell is - this photoshop? " Were can I find this store? .
You can beat me with any kind of such Shops !
Seriously it has just 1,5MP and just 860kbyte.
But You got me blockend - respect is to you I used Corel After Shot just to crop black parts from scanning (frames).
By the time I had a try from one effect to soft the picture. Very small manipulation.
Normaly I didn't use any software - so as here it was a 2 week promo version.
I didn't bought it.
with regards

Click to expand...

You can use whatever editing software you choose, my point was in a thread dedicated to home scanning, a heavily manipulated image isn't typical of what someone might expect "out of the can". Unless your model actually glows of course.

Les Sarile - what should I say now ???
"YES YOU ARE RIGHT" - different types of paper quality is an important issue to max. print quality.
But the theoretical unattainable 100% same quality from negative to print (You can have 100% same quality via copy of a digital medium as a 100% identical clone)
This kind of quality lost you have with contact prints (the very smalest lost) you can see it via optical printing (the better the lens the better the print/smaler the lost) AND (to me) the lost of quality from negative to print via scan is the highest lost of quality in comparison.
Therefore best scanning systems can minimize such losses via scan.
But in general simple scan machines can give fine results.It is relative from the format of print ..
with regards

blockend said:

You can use whatever editing software you choose, my point was in a thread dedicated to home scanning, a heavily manipulated image isn't typical of what someone might expect "out of the can". Unless your model actually glows of course.

Click to expand...

Well - ....she glows so much
So I was forced to make it a little unsharp...

with regards

trendland said:

Les Sarile - what should I say now ???
"YES YOU ARE RIGHT" - different types of paper quality is an important issue to max. print quality.

Click to expand...

It is just a statement of fact and I just want to clarify specifically detail/resolution instead of the all encompassing "quality" which can include artistic considerations that cannot be technically qualified.

At least in this specific point, print detail/resolution can be easily qualified through optical magnification in either analog or digital format.

Yes - the issue quality in photography is allways from much different meaning.
To me a good, valuable picture can have many technical shortcomings.But it isn't art only from the shortcomings.
On the other hand it can be highest quality from other concerns.Looking to R.Capa : unsharp, grainy, very bad tonals. wrong framing a.s.o. but without competitor onto omaha beach.So the quality from photographic concern has to have acompanied from superior technical quality in regard of the format. (exeption : d-day)
Not so very easy with formats to print more as 1 meter.
with regards

trendland said:

Thats right - gordinir8 but I have to provoke the issues you mentioned from digital scanning workflow a bit.
Now we may have a basis from discussion.
At first : sure digital scanners are not cheap at all.
If you ask me - forget they all !
I also can't afford a fine scanning machine too. But I also have no urgend need to buy one (imacon/flexicon).
A couple of years ago Kodak Photo CD wasn't too bad from its quality.The intention was to consumers - to watch their photographs on TV. But it was total nonsense (Ntsc/pal) - HDTV was just a decade later avaible. But soon this medium advanced to a worldwide standard to DTP. The resolution was ok the proffessional version (Kodak photo CD pro) was in max. resolution ~ 4000 x 6000 - to that time it was phantastic.
Today you may get from some labs a consumer scan as jpg. to cheap prices around $,-90 a frame or cheaper.
If you will not spent such cheap, sum you otherwise are wasting your 120 films.
Think about .....
with regards

Click to expand...

I was looking again to scan prices : $, -,60
a single 135 frame but with $ 5,- to each cd medium as a form of order flat.
with regards