Film vs. Scanning resolution

138S · Sep 3, 2020

Helge said:
I can see why. ...

Helge, let me say my point of view...

This is a little selection of Lachlan's personal attacks in this single thread One post, one disacreditation.

Lachlan Young said:
This is total and utter nonsense that displays a complete lack of even the most basic comprehension of MTF and massive confusion with resolution testing.

Lachlan Young said:
It's pretty clear that you have very little inkling about either

Lachlan Young said:
Again, you don't understand what

Lachlan Young said:
You are once again demonstrating that you read about 10% of the books you try to quote & understand even less.

Lachlan Young said:
Again, you're guessing.

Lachlan Young said:
Or are you guessing wildly on the basis of no actual experience?

But the truth is that

1) TMX is multi-layer, T on cubic

2) that Provia destroys 70% of the contrast at only 50cy/mm even at TOC 1000:1, we don't know at 8:1 but it's it's easy to imagine the range in what the real number is.

3) For each TOC contrast we have different MTF curve

4) And that real practical results are like these most of the times:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-vs-scanning-resolution.177544/#post-2313390

So he discredits himself. Sorry for that off topic. I'll try to speak, no more about him, better if his discredits himself.

Lachlan Young · Sep 3, 2020

138S said:
2) that Provia destroys 70% of the contrast at only 50cy/mm even at TOC 1000:1, we don't know at 8:1 but it's it's easy to imagine the range in what the real number is.

View attachment 253853

3) For each TOC contrast we have different MTF curve

There is no point of view here: you are wrongly stating how MTF is measured by every single film manufacturer. You have no grounds for debate - you are just going to have to accept that you have made a significant and provable error of fact, no matter what the cost to your positions or agendas are. Or for some reason you cannot/ will not read that Fuji document. Which is it?

138S · Sep 3, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
There is no point of view here: you are wrongly stating how MTF is measured by every single film manufacturer. You have no grounds for debate - you are just going to have to accept that you have made a significant and provable error of fact, no matter what the cost to your positions or agendas are. Or for some reason you cannot/ will not read that Fuji document. Which is it?

Lachlan, bye, bye

Helge · Sep 3, 2020

138S said:
For film, MTF graphs are for an specific contrast ratio, this is not the same case than with lenses.

With film, depending on the contrast ratio grains of different sizes take action, so depending on contrast (and base exposure) the MTF graph is totally different.

In the 1000:1 contrast there is a 10 stops difference between lines, so in practice this can be made with a contact copy or perhaps with something like a semiconductor integrated circuit manufacturing lens (projection with reduction). By controlled fogging the film in advance (or after) you adjust contrast of the test and the base exposure of the (projected) black lines.

In that 1000:1 test, if black (projected) lines are in the toe (or not exposed) then white lines will be overexposed around +7, so you are to detect the effect of the ultra small grains having high resolving power over a "fog" from more sensitive crystals... 1000:1 does not describe the film behaviour in pictorial situations as you test crystals that are sensitive at +7 overexposure.

Instead a 1.61:1 tells the truth for common textures, 8:1 for contrasty edges, and 30:1 is good to guess performance for backlighted silhouettes.

If you see the TMX datasheet it says Modulation Transfer extintion at 200 lp/mm for TOC 1000:1 and 65lp/mm for TOC 1.61:1

The posted Provia graph is the one for the unobtanium 1000:1, clearly it has a tendence to extintion at 160lp/mm, well... commercially this MTF graph is nicer than the 1.61:1 would be.

I llustrated in green what it could be the 1.6:1 MTF graph, with extintion at 60lp/mm in that case.

View attachment 253722

_______

Kodak datasheet cites ISO 6328:2000 as the norm inspiring them for that.

_______

Let me reiterate that testing film capability at 1000:1 with a contact copy of a glass target is a totally different situation than with pictorial situations, you'll never get that situation in real shooting, by very, very far.

Helge said:

Exactly.
Again you manage to contradict yourself within your own post.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't understand what you say or ask...

The Serger's Porsche, for example.

It is impressive because it is MF, MF at 2600 effective does that.

Format rules... If you want I show you how my 8x10" shots resolve, made with a W 360.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/

You contradict yourself in that you persist with the 2600 dpi malarky, yet acknowledge the authority of Tim Parkin.

The photo with the clock tower of Flinders Street Station in Melbourne was taken on standard 135 film in a Minolta HiMatic 7sII, so not medium format.

It so happens that with a quick search on Flickr, that there is a photo of the same tower with almost the same magnification ratio, only taken on a 24 MP camera.
So three times your claimed resolution of 2600 dpi/9 MP on a 36x24mm frame.

This is a dubious comparison, since the circumstances and taking conditions are completely different.
Different angle, much more contrasty lighting in the digital photo and different aerial perspective due to the different season.
So, this is a very rough and unsteady comparison, but I still persist because:
From your claimed 9 MP to 24 MP up to the 42 MP of 5600 dpi, there is quite a jump. And that jump is not in any way visible here.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/daral...7Y-fmVgrR-JYqPiQ-7w1gRY-2hgPbbT-rSJcFA-byXRpb

It's interesting to note that while the demosaicing and edge enhancement algorithms have attempted to raise contrast and detect edges in the clock face, it has often completely misunderstood the geometry and made the image lumpier and harsher. The arc over the clock is especially glaring with huge bayer artefacts.

Also note the I have opted to be conservative and give the benefit of doubt to the digital image. The scaling and angle of the shot makes if anything the tower face take up more space in the frame on the digital shot.

And might I recap:
- Reala is not an especially high resolving film.
- The Minolta lens while very good is designed in the mid seventies for a point and shoot, so for example coatings are simpler.
- Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II used to scan, is a 2005 scanner, with an effective resolution of around 4200 dpi.

So the result is actually subtly amazing really, when you look through devils advocate eyes.

138S · Sep 3, 2020

Helge said:
It so happens that with a quick search on Flickr, that there is a photo of the same tower with almost the same magnification ratio, only taken on a 24 MP camera.
So three times your claimed resolution of 2600 dpi/9 MP on a 36x24mm frame.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/daral...7Y-fmVgrR-JYqPiQ-7w1gRY-2hgPbbT-rSJcFA-byXRpb

Helge, look... the Nikon 18-55 DX (see flickr info) delivers around 8MPix effective of the 24 possible in a D5000 series camera, I use that lens. It is debatable how scientific is the DXO rating, but it gives a fair idea about how the thing is.

...So the same resolution I claim, thanks for showing evidence of it :

You exactly nailed an exact match, 8 vs 8. How you nailed that exactly ?

Lachlan Young · Sep 3, 2020

138S said:
Lachlan, bye, bye

That is not the response of someone who can handle being wrong. If you can be big enough and grown up enough to handle, admit to & learn usefully from being wrong, then perhaps you might find that many others would have a less negative opinion of you.

Once more, why can you not handle the realities of MTF as used and documented by all the film manufacturers? What is it that you personally have at stake?

Helge · Sep 3, 2020

138S said:
Helge, look... the Nikon 18-55 DX (see flickr info) delivers around 8MPix effective of the 24 possible in a D5000 series camera, I use that lens. It is debatable how scientific is the DXO rating, but iy gives a fair idea about how the thing is.

...So the same resolution I claim, thanks for showing evidence of it :

You made an exact match 8 vs 8.

View attachment 253860

View attachment 253859

I'd say it pretty clearly resolves to the maximum ability of the sensor.

As mentioned in my addendum to my post, consider that the Minolta is a high end point and shoot from the seventies.

138S · Sep 3, 2020

Helge said:
I'd say it pretty clearly resolves to the maximum ability of the sensor.

As mentioned in my addendum to my post, consider that the Minolta is a high end point and shoot from the seventies.

Beyond the DXO test I personally tested my 18-55 and it resolves around those 8 MPix in the sweet point.

Still 8MPix effective is quite nice.

See here the P_MPix and the field map...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikk...R-mounted-on-Nikon-D5600---Measurements__1139

Helge said:
I'd say it pretty clearly resolves to the maximum ability of the sensor.

Not by far !!! You have to use a prime (like the 50mm 1.4G ) to reach 11MPix with a D5000 series camera:

This is quite well known...

Still many 18-55 shots are quite good because of the excellent VR, which the 50G lacks.

with the 50 you have to stop f/4 or 5.6 to get optical performance,

then you have same shutter setting than with the 18-55 and in that situation the VR may make a difference.

The 18-55 is excellent and 8MPix effective are a lot for most things (like a 4K TV), but it is 8 MPix. I use a lot that lens.

grat · Sep 3, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
That is not the response of someone who can handle being wrong. If you can be big enough and grown up enough to handle, admit to & learn usefully from being wrong, then perhaps you might find that many others would have a less negative opinion of you.

Once more, why can you not handle the realities of MTF as used and documented by all the film manufacturers? What is it that you personally have at stake?

I think the word here is "personally". In my experience, you will never, ever, get someone to listen to your point of view while you're insulting them. Even if you're right, and they're wrong, as long as you pepper your argument with personal attacks, they're not going to agree with you. Arrogance, and condescension, even if justified, can also be a serious barrier to useful discussion, and that's how threads get locked.

faberryman · Sep 3, 2020

Fort Point, Iceland, NSCC Portfolio, and Flower Portraits are digital. The images shown are from the RAW files. I made large digital negatives and printed those in platinum/palladium. All the rest of the galleries are analog. The images for the internet are negative scans. I printed those in my darkroom as either gelatin silver or lith prints. I don't see the point of scanning negatives and making digital prints. You end up with a digital negative that is inferior to what you would have gotten if you had shot digital to begin with. If you want to shoot film, do it right: make analog prints.

Alan Edward Klein · Sep 3, 2020

faberryman said:
Fort Point, Iceland, NSCC Portfolio, and Flower Portraits are digital. The images shown are from the RAW files. I made large digital negatives and printed those in platinum/palladium. All the rest of the galleries are analog. The images for the internet are negative scans. I printed those in my darkroom as either gelatin silver or lith prints. I don't see the point of scanning negatives and making digital prints. You end up with a digital negative that is inferior to what you would have gotten if you had shot digital to begin with. If you want to shoot film, do it right: make analog prints.

Frank, I find your pictures hard to distinguish analog from BW. It could be that they're small on the computer screen. Do you apply any specific adjustments to the digital ones to make them appear more filmlike?

I don't have a darkroom and won;t be getting one. So I'm stuck with lab processing. I enjoy the film taking process though. It slows me down. It allows me to think about what I;m shooting, set up a tripod, etc. I hardly print anymore whether 4x5 or medium format. When I did, I had a pro shop do it. Your special processes are interesting and nice. I wish I had the space to do it, but alas, I'll have to stick to outside labs.

CLyde Butcher from Florida switched over to digital from large format due to his age. I visited his gallery in Venice FLorida. His five foot analog and digital prints are pretty outstanding, the digital prints as good as the analog I think. But I'm not an expert. Of course the analog's are more expensive. If you check his website, he identifies which are [digital=edit] and which are film.

Anyway, you do good work. The original prints must be very nice.

Lachlan Young · Sep 3, 2020

grat said:
I think the word here is "personally". In my experience, you will never, ever, get someone to listen to your point of view while you're insulting them. Even if you're right, and they're wrong, as long as you pepper your argument with personal attacks, they're not going to agree with you. Arrogance, and condescension, even if justified, can also be a serious barrier to useful discussion, and that's how threads get locked.

Ask yourself this question before trying to 'both-sides' this: how has 138S/ Pere Casals managed to irritate & annoy essentially every single person who operates higher end scanners across at least two forums & has had the misfortune to interact with him? Most folk who deal with these optically excellent, but often quirky and troublesome machines are more than willing to give of their time & experience, but the persistently bad faith pseudo-debate stuff that issues forth from a certain individual doesn't help those who want to investigate buying/ accessing/ using high end scanners. I don't know what his deal with pushing Epson is, but his behaviour has a term: Sealioning.

138S · Sep 3, 2020

faberryman said:
If you want to shoot film, do it right: make analog prints.

Fank, no doubt that making optic prints from flim is good advice, but let me point that in the same way you make traditional prints from digital shots also we can make digital prints from traditional film.

Film may have a wonderful footprint even if digital post processing follows.

This is Nolan in the Tenet (2020) shooting, and shooting film. First they do with film is scanning it. And this is a high $200 milion production (sadly a pandemy is in the middle).

faberryman · Sep 3, 2020

138S said:
Fank, no doubt that making optic prints from flim is good advice, but let me point that in the same way you make traditional prints from digital shots also we can make digital prints from traditional film.

Yes, you can make traditional prints from digital, and digital prints from film. And?

138S said:
Film may have a wonderful footprint even if digital post processing follows.

It is certainly possible. Some may even prefer it. I am not one of them.

138S said:
This is Nolan in the Tenet (2020) shooting, and shooting film. First they do with film is scanning it. And this is a high $200 milion production (sadly a pandemy is in the middle).

Good for Christopher Nolan. He has found a process he likes and has done good work with it.

Helge · Sep 3, 2020

138S said:
Beyond the DXO test I personally tested my 18-55 and it resolves around those 8 MPix in the sweet point.

Still 8MPix effective is quite nice.

See here the P_MPix and the field map...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikk...R-mounted-on-Nikon-D5600---Measurements__1139

Not by far !!! You have to use a prime (like the 50mm 1.4G ) to reach 11MPix with a D5000 series camera:

View attachment 253861

This is quite well known...

Still many 18-55 shots are quite good because of the excellent VR, which the 50G lacks.

with the 50 you have to stop f/4 or 5.6 to get optical performance,

View attachment 253862

then you have same shutter setting than with the 18-55 and in that situation the VR may make a difference.

The 18-55 is excellent and 8MPix effective are a lot for most things (like a 4K TV), but it is 8 MPix. I use a lot that lens.

Looks like you discovered that lens and sensor forms a system and has to be judged as such.

My 24 MP Nikon with a lens that gets a combined score of 11 MP gives far higher resolution images than my iPhone 11s 12MP.

Guess what, the same goes for film cameras.

So my comparison is sound in that regard.

Prime lenses doesn’t score too high in DXO Mark either it seems. 14MP for the Nikkor AF 35mm 1.4...

grat · Sep 3, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
Ask yourself this question before trying to 'both-sides' this: how has 138S/ Pere Casals managed to irritate & annoy essentially every single person who operates higher end scanners across at least two forums & has had the misfortune to interact with him?

See, here's the problem: I don't care.

I'm not interested in his side, or your side-- I'm interested in useful information about how to produce a useful digital facsimile of a film negative. My personal opinion on the Epson feud the two of you have going isn't relevant either, which is why I've tried very hard not to express it here.

I have disagreed with several people in this thread, and hopefully, been able to keep the discussion civil anyway. I recognize that other people are entitled to their opinion, however right or wrong they might be, and I learned a long time ago if a donkey thinks he's a horse, don't bother trying to convince him otherwise. I have occasionally been guilty of trying to teach a pig to sing, but that's similarly fruitless.

Helge · Sep 3, 2020

grat said:
See, here's the problem: I don't care.

I'm not interested in his side, or your side-- I'm interested in useful information about how to produce a useful digital facsimile of a film negative. My personal opinion on the Epson feud the two of you have going isn't relevant either, which is why I've tried very hard not to express it here.

I have disagreed with several people in this thread, and hopefully, been able to keep the discussion civil anyway. I recognize that other people are entitled to their opinion, however right or wrong they might be, and I learned a long time ago if a donkey thinks he's a horse, don't bother trying to convince him otherwise. I have occasionally been guilty of trying to teach a pig to sing, but that's similarly fruitless.

What makes you think we care that you don’t care?

I don’t think Lachlan has been especially crass.
Obviously there is some emotion at play here. You have to vent that, within reason, otherwise you are practicing the strange kind of smarminess and sealioning Pere Casals does. Which can be everything from mildly irritating to infuriating.

Telling other people how you think their mind works is part of civil discussion.
Overly mechanical, faux politeness is something people to whom politeness doesn’t come naturally or easily, have learned as a varnish to put on top of everything to be taken “seriously”.

138S · Sep 3, 2020

Helge said:
Prime lenses doesn’t score to high in DXO Mark either it seems. 14MP for the Nikkor AF 35mm 1.4...

14MPix is with an APSC small sensor camera, with a Full Format D850 the 35mm f/1.4G is rated 25MPix, both are totally fair values for the situation IMO. Think that the 35 is a FF lens, optimized for a format that has x2 the area.

Those rated 8 MPix effective of the 18-55VR in the D5500 are totally fair, but to get that you have to shot f/5.6 or f/8 and under 28mm to get that, see the performance map:

The EXIF of the Melbourne shot says 18mm focal and wide open f/3.5, the focal in good for performance but the apperture is not totally optimal, still not bad. That shot should be slightly under 8MPix effective, but not beyond 8...

This enforces that 2600dpi effective rating,isn't it?

I hope this is not to be irritating also for you... Joking, take it with some humor.

Some get irritated when truth is evidenced... I hope it's not your case.

faberryman · Sep 3, 2020

138S said:
14MPix is with an APSC small sensor camera, with a Full Format D850 the 35mm f/1.4G is rated 25MPix, both are totally fair values for the situation IMO. Think that the 35 is a FF lens, optimized for a format that has x2 the area.

Those rated 8 MPix effective of the 18-55VR in the D5500 are totally fair, but to get that you have to shot f/5.6 or f/8 and under 28mm to get that, see the performance map:

The EXIF of the Melbourne shot says 18mm focal and wide open f/3.5, the focal in good for performance but the apperture is not totally optimal, still not bad. That shot should be slightly under 8MPix effective, but not beyond 8...

How is any of that information helpful to a photographer?

grat · Sep 3, 2020

Helge said:
What makes you think we care that you don’t care?

Well to start with... you responded to my statement.

I received comments from three people, two of them in private messages, and one public-- So I responded publicly to that person.

The only emotion in my case is irritation that as expected, a useful thread has disintegrated under the weight of egos. And that probably includes me. Part of my irritation is based on the fact that I've seen this particular flame-fest before, and it was considerably nastier then.

Telling other people how you think their mind works is part of civil discussion.
Overly mechanical, faux politeness is something people to whom politeness doesn’t come naturally or easily, have learned as a varnish to put on top of everything to be taken “seriously”.

It may surprise you that one of your comments was phrased in such a way that I had to restrain myself from expressing my opinion of you, and your probable ancestry-- but that wouldn't have been civil (or useful).

Telling other people how you think their mind works, as a rule, says more about you than it does them, and in some cultures, will offend. As it's very easy to be misunderstood in text, especially when crossing cultural and linguistic barriers, I've developed a habit of erring on the side of caution, and try not to treat others in a way I would object to being on the receiving end of.

138S · Sep 3, 2020

faberryman said:
How is any of that information helpful? Does it really matter if the effect MPix is 7, 8, or 9?

7, 8 and 9 is the mostly the same, but from 24 effective to 8 effective there is a noticeable difference.

Helge posted the comparison of a 35mm film shot with DSLR shot. I provided some evidence that the DSLR shot is gear limited to around 8Mpix effective and not 24.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-vs-scanning-resolution.177544/page-12#post-2317030

faberryman · Sep 3, 2020

138S said:
Helge, let me say my point of view...

This is a little selection of Lachlan's personal attacks in this single thread One post, one disacreditation.

But the truth is that

1) TMX is multi-layer, T on cubic

2) that Provia destroys 70% of the contrast at only 50cy/mm even at TOC 1000:1, we don't know at 8:1 but it's it's easy to imagine the range in what the real number is.

View attachment 253853

3) For each TOC contrast we have different MTF curve

4) And that real practical results are like these most of the times:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-vs-scanning-resolution.177544/#post-2313390

So he discredits himself. Sorry for that off topic. I'll try to speak, no more about him, better if his discredits himself.

How is any of this helpful to a photographer?

removedacct1 · Sep 3, 2020

faberryman said:
How is any of this helpful to a photographer?

Its not.

faberryman · Sep 3, 2020

138S said:
7, 8 and 9 is the mostly the same, but from 24 effective to 8 effective there is a noticeable difference.

Helge posted the comparison of a 35mm film shot with DSLR shot. I provided some evidence that the DSLR shot is gear limited to around 8Mpix effective and not 24.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-vs-scanning-resolution.177544/page-12#post-2317030

So what is your point? That you won an argument on the internet? How does winning arguments on the internet make you a better photographer? Why not post some of your photographs, and describe how they are successful because of all of this technical stuff you are posting?

138S · Sep 3, 2020

Hi guys,

Let's relax a bit and see what I'm testing right now:

I'm messing with an ancient Heliar 30cm that came with the Globus K a week ago.

I'm trying a DIY conversion to emulate the Universal Heliar, the Universal displaces the inner element to provocate diffusion for portraiture. I try to learn what happens is shut shimming the front group...

Nicer than scanners !!!!!!

faberryman said:
How is any of this helpful to a photographer?

Frank, we debating to see what scanning resources are necessary to scan decently, so we need to understand what the practical limits of film to see what scanning performane we may require depending on the situation.

So right now the thing is not about being better or worse photographers, but about learning about the hybrid workflow as its a particular means to craft images from film. This is also a practical concern of interest, but not art.

Film vs. Scanning resolution

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency