Full resolution of film!

[koraks]

But scanning certainly adds an extra step that could lead to resolution loss, color shifts and crap sharpening artifacts.

Inherent problems are also present with optical color enlargement. For the most part, these have to do with the nature of today's color papers, which just aren't made for optical enlargement anymore. But let's not sidetrack this thread too far into that direction.

 

[Nikon 2]

We're talking about theoretical resolution of approximately 150 lpmm (lines per millimetre) in case of Pan f 50 or Velvia 50 and 200 lpmm for Tmax 100. If you somehow manage to attain maximum resolution, using a high resolution film and a high resolution lens, then print this image on 12x18 inch paper, 1 millimetre of horizontal length of a negative will translate into approximately 17 mm. And that 17 mm will hold 150 "lines" of above mentioned resolution. This means 8.8 "lines" per each millimetre of enlarged print. In other words, you're still gonna need a pretty strong magnifying glass to see the resolution limit of paper. On 12x18 print.

If you specifically need/want a reason to justify spending exorbitant amount of money for German lenses .... well, you don't really need a reason, just go for it. Or even better - buy a medium format camera which will effectively outperform anything in 35 mm class. Even that 50 mm f/2 Apo-Papo magic-bullet lens.

I’m not interested in ruining my happy married life to buy a very expensive German Lens!
Don’t even own a German lens!
APO=Attainable Perfection Only…!

 

[Nikon 2]

One advantage of optical printing vs scanning is you are less likely to get all the artifacts from bad scanning. Of course you lose out on all the benefits of good scanning. But scanning certainly adds an extra step that could lead to resolution loss, color shifts and crap sharpening artifacts. There is a surprising amount of bad scanning out there.

I will compare those photos that were scanned with those done optically…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Besides a tripod, you would also need to lock up your mirror to have any chance of seeing the potential of either lens or film. But before you get to that point, you also have to balance shutter speed and subject movement, depth of field and diffraction, and film speed with graininess. Not to mention practicality.

If you love your Nikon system, enjoy it and stop worrying. The grass may look greener through other lenses, but that’s a distraction.

I do and I will…!

 

[Nikon 2]

None whatsoever.

Wow, I’m speechless…!

 

[L Gebhardt]

The Leica 50mm f/2 APO ASPH may be really sharp, but can you really precisely focus it at the wide apertures needed to avoid diffraction? If not it won't get the full resolution out of the film.

I tested some lenses against each other on TMax100 film a while ago. My conclusion was the differences came down more to focusing than lens quality. The AF Nikon F100 screen is not accurate enough to manually focus. The AF system is off enough in many cases to focus on the wrong plane. On a manual focus Nikon things were much better, but the mirror and/or shutter moving can affect sharpness. The Mamiya 7 system has excellent lenses, no mirror, and rangefinder focusing. The range finder accuracy makes critical focus of closer subjects very difficult. But when the focus is perfect the sharpness is there. Under an 8x loupe my 4x5 negatives are frequently the equal of the 35mm negatives for apparent detail per mm.

I've also done a little testing of some medium and large format lenses on a high res digital Sony A7R4, which is roughly 133 lpmm. All lenses performed very well and focus could be confirmed on the sensor. Surprisingly I could see very little difference between the LF 135mm Sironar S and the native 135 Zeiss Batis. To me that put the myth that larger formats lose meaningful resolution because the lenses are not as good. They can be more than good enough.

The upshot of all my testing was to put more effort into controlling camera movement and precisely focusing on the subject rather than worrying about how sharp any of the lenses are.

 

[Helge]

The Leica 50mm f/2 APO ASPH may be really sharp, but can you really precisely focus it at the wide apertures needed to avoid diffraction? If not it won't get the full resolution out of the film.

I tested some lenses against each other on TMax100 film a while ago. My conclusion was the differences came down more to focusing than lens quality. The AF Nikon F100 screen is not accurate enough to manually focus. The AF system is off enough in many cases to focus on the wrong plane. On a manual focus Nikon things were much better, but the mirror and/or shutter moving can affect sharpness. The Mamiya 7 system has excellent lenses, no mirror, and rangefinder focusing. The range finder accuracy makes critical focus of closer subjects very difficult. But when the focus is perfect the sharpness is there. Under an 8x loupe my 4x5 negatives are frequently the equal of the 35mm negatives for apparent detail per mm.

I've also done a little testing of some medium and large format lenses on a high res digital Sony A7R4, which is roughly 133 lpmm. All lenses performed very well and focus could be confirmed on the sensor. Surprisingly I could see very little difference between the LF 135mm Sironar S and the native 135 Zeiss Batis. To me that put the myth that larger formats lose meaningful resolution because the lenses are not as good. They can be more than good enough.

The upshot of all my testing was to put more effort into controlling camera movement and precisely focusing on the subject rather than worrying about how sharp any of the lenses are.

Using a flash with an IR pilot focus assist helps tremendously with missed AF focus.
All cameras should have it as standard equipment, but I guess it’s down to some ancient, still upheld patent.

 

[BrianShaw]

Is sharpness the same as full resolution…?

Before you go much further with this line of thought, it would benefit you (and everyone else) to come to grips with what you are really asking. What is “resolution “ and how do you measure it… In engineering terms that you can get from product specifications or measurements. Assumptions aren't really valid unless quantified to turn them into facts. Using vague, ambiguous, or subjective terms will only really lead to emotional responses. Then re-read post #2 and do some system-thinking as is implied. Draw a diagram (or make a list) of everything in the “resolution chain” from beginning to end. Also list everything that can negatively impact that chain. For each item obtain the appropriate engineering measurements and do the assessment. Consider the wisdom in posts 2 and 12 whilst doing that.

Otherwise, this thread will just go back-and-forth and wander ad nauseum.

Better yet… load up some film in any camera and do as post 15 suggests.

 

[faberryman]

Is not having a Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2.0 ASPH really what is holding your photography back? Maybe; maybe not. But why take a chance? If you already have a Leica, what's another $8295 for an APO lens? One less thing to worry about. Then you can get back to taking pictures of your cat.

 

[BrianShaw]

When it comes to optics, be careful with this kind of smoke and mirrors. The smoke tends to deposit onto the mirrors, and that harms resolution.

Likewise with audio...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm still waiting for that lens that will point itself at something meaningful and compose the frame in a complementary way.

Until that arrives, I try not to worry about sharpness too much, and focus more on trying to compensate the deficiencies of the optics as alluded to above as well as I can.

The perfect lens will as the shutter is being tripped will adjust the exposure and rearrange the composition for the perfect composition.

 

[Nikon 2]

The Leica 50mm f/2 APO ASPH may be really sharp, but can you really precisely focus it at the wide apertures needed to avoid diffraction? If not it won't get the full resolution out of the film.

I tested some lenses against each other on TMax100 film a while ago. My conclusion was the differences came down more to focusing than lens quality. The AF Nikon F100 screen is not accurate enough to manually focus. The AF system is off enough in many cases to focus on the wrong plane. On a manual focus Nikon things were much better, but the mirror and/or shutter moving can affect sharpness. The Mamiya 7 system has excellent lenses, no mirror, and rangefinder focusing. The range finder accuracy makes critical focus of closer subjects very difficult. But when the focus is perfect the sharpness is there. Under an 8x loupe my 4x5 negatives are frequently the equal of the 35mm negatives for apparent detail per mm.

I've also done a little testing of some medium and large format lenses on a high res digital Sony A7R4, which is roughly 133 lpmm. All lenses performed very well and focus could be confirmed on the sensor. Surprisingly I could see very little difference between the LF 135mm Sironar S and the native 135 Zeiss Batis. To me that put the myth that larger formats lose meaningful resolution because the lenses are not as good. They can be more than good enough.

The upshot of all my testing was to put more effort into controlling camera movement and precisely focusing on the subject rather than worrying about how sharp any of the lenses are.

Thank you for your explanation and I feel you’re spot on, pun intended…!

 

[Sirius Glass]

. . .

Any 35 mm "high resolution" is laughable for medium format shooters and any 120 format "high resolution" is laughable for large format shooter. There's always a better one out there.
. . .

Can you spell Hasselblad?

 

[Nikon 2]

Before you go much further with this line of thought, it would benefit you (and everyone else) to come to grips with what you are really asking. What is “resolution “ and how do you measure it… In engineering terms that you can get from product specifications or measurements. Assumptions aren't really valid unless quantified to turn them into facts. Using vague, ambiguous, or subjective terms will only really lead to emotional responses. Then re-read post #2 and do some system-thinking as is implied. Draw a diagram (or make a list) of everything in the “resolution chain” from beginning to end. Also list everything that can negatively impact that chain. For each item obtain the appropriate engineering measurements and do the assessment. Consider the wisdom in posts 2 and 12 whilst doing that.

Otherwise, this thread will just go back-and-forth and wander ad nauseum.

Better yet… load up some film in any camera and do as post 15 suggests.

My main concern was to achieve the full resolution of film…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Can you spell Hasselblad?

Hassel blad…!

 

[BrianShaw]

My main concern was to achieve the full resolution of film…!

Okay, I understand theoretical questions; should be easy to answer from the specifications of the lens and the specifications of the film. Beyond that, it's a conversation starter but there is not much practical value. Somewhat meaningless for photography purposes. It's like asking which cartridge/stylus I should use to get the best resolution from a 'vinyl" record with no interest in the capabilities of the rest of the audio system... somewhat meaningless for listening purposes.

 

[M-88]

Can you spell Hasselblad?

I sure can, but I humbly leave this honor to you, good Sir!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I sure can, but I humbly leave this honor to you, good Sir!

Sir is for old men!

 

[Paul Howell]

If a lens can resolve Tmax 100 at 200 LPM then it is good enough. I have 3rd party zoom (need to find the lens for the name) in Minolta MD mount, it's a 70 to 210 3.5, it came with a test chart, it could only resolve 100 LPM so if I were to shoot with it I would use Tmax 400 or HP5. What is just as important as resolution is contrast and color fidelity. BTW, in the day Leica used Microfiche film to test their lens, but unless using ortho or microfiche what is the point?

 

[snusmumriken]

Okay, I understand theoretical questions; should be easy to answer from the specifications of the lens and the specifications of the film. Beyond that, it's a conversation starter but there is not much practical value. Somewhat meaningless for photography purposes. It's like asking which cartridge/stylus I should use to get the best resolution from a 'vinyl" record with no interest in the capabilities of the rest of the audio system... somewhat meaningless for listening purposes.

Sure, but which of us has not at some time been captured by the siren voices? There are some branches of photography where sharp detail is almost everything: wildlife photography, for instance. For most of the photos that interest me, I concluded a while back that content is much more important. Nevertheless, I do have a penchant for taking landscapes with little tiny figures in them, and I rather like them to be have as much detail as possible (accepting that I have committed to 35mm). For those shots, and any others that need sharpness, I don’t want to feel limited by the equipment, and I’ll bet most of you feel the same, except those who deliberately embrace random imperfections. It’s just human, isn’t it?

 

[koraks]

I have committed to 35mm

I don’t want to feel limited by the equipment

At some point, this thread will always run into contradictions like these in an attempt to argue for eeking the last drop of resolution from a system. There's nothing wrong with it, per se. It's just so...tedious.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here is the result of doing what many grumble about,
Making a homebrew developer
Using microfilm
Using a cheap scanner

CD4-LC low contrast developer for scanning

I have found that use of high concentrations of CD-4 reduces the contrast of microfilms [pic] and the contrast is further reduced by minimal agitation every 3 min. In combination with reduction of contrast in scanner software this enables some microfilms to be shot at box speed. The CD-4...

www.photrio.com

 

[snusmumriken]

At some point, this thread will always run into contradictions like these in an attempt to argue for eeking the last drop of resolution from a system. There's nothing wrong with it, per se. It's just so...tedious.

Oh come on, where’s your empathy gone? Did you read my post well enough to see what I was saying? The OP has gone down a rabbit hole that many of us have been down at some point too. I bet you have. Easy for you to say now that it’s tedious.

And although it’s a subsidiary issue, committing to some system of other (in his case 35mm and Nikon) and then trying to get the best quality from it that we can is just reality. Few of us can afford to dabble in multiple formats. You are fortunate if you can.

 

[BMbikerider]

The very best lenses of whatever make, price design or manufacturer can be outperformed by one not so good. unless the camera is on a tripod. Believe me I have proved it may times. Resolution, definition or whatever you want to call it, can be affected by so many things but camera shake is probably to blame for more poor lenses than the lenses themselves.

 

[cptrios]

I've posted a bit about this in the Copex Rapid Advice thread. Getting the highest resolution out of film is relatively straightforward, if not exactly easy - use a super-high-res film like CMS 20 or Copex, a very sharp lens, and a tripod. You can avoid the tripod by only shooting in bright sun (on a sunny day, Copex will let you use 1/250 or so at f/5.6) or maybe using an IS lens. But not an IS zoom, because you likely won't get the resolution you need out of it.

Now, is it worth it? Well, who knows? I can offer a bit of context, at least. Here's a shot taken on Copex at f/5.6 with a pretty cheap Rikenon P 50/1.4 on a Pentax ME Super.

This is scan composed of several stitched shots from a 24mp NEX-7. The final version is 12739x8539, coming out to an equivalent of nearly 9000dpi. I think it's around 177lp/mm? Here's a crop from near the center. Bear in mind that at least on my 27" 2k monitor (109ppi), viewing this at 100% equates to an almost 10-foot print.

Now, this is a 108-megapixel image, but it obviously isn't resolving 108 megapixels of detail. I would say it resolves about as well as a 36mp sensor, depending. Here's what it looks like reduced to 36mp:


And, because why not, a screengrab of what it looks like on my monitor previewing a 30x45 print, which is the largest standard-ratio I could get made at any typical commercial lab:

Whatever else, let's appreciate that it's fully possible to get a very clean, sharp 30x45 print out of 35mm film!

But now...let's put that side-by-side with a similar 30x45 preview from my 24mp original RX1:

The conclusion I can draw right away is that if you don't plan on printing bigger than 30x45, shooting these hi-res films is probably not worth it vs. digital, especially if you're aiming for shooting on trips. They're not very convenient to use, thanks to their low ISO and odd developing requirements, and don't (in my opinion) impart any sort of interesting character to an image the way Tri-X or HP5 do. And there are tons and tons of cheap 24mp digital cameras out there that'll give you what you need. And they shoot in color!

It also shows that no, you do not need an $8000 Leica lens to make the most of film resolution. I'm sure the Summicron APO would be marginally better than this (and would likely have improved corners), but I paid less than $100 for the camera and lens combined. Speaking of which, if you're going to be selective about what you shoot, $6 a roll for Copex makes this not a bad bargain vs. the digital option, especially in terms of buy-in cost.

Here's one more comparison set. First, again, is the 100% crop from the 108mp Copex scan, and second is the RX1 image enlarged to the same size (and de-saturated for fairness).



I hate enlarged digital images, and I'd pretty obviously choose the Copex shot here if I had to pick one of these to print at 10' wide. I would actually hang the 10' print of the film shot on my wall and have no problem with people sticking their faces right up to it! However, when we swap the 24mp RX1 for a 61mp A7RIV (this shot is from DPReview's sample gallery), it's a different story.

I suppose I might still prefer the film shot from a subjective standpoint thanks to the organic nature of the grain, but the digital one is now technically better. And, again, the original's in color. So if you've got the money for one of the modern 61mp cameras and a lens that can handle it, that's the way you should probably go. Still, at $2400 for, say, a used A7rIV with a Tamron 35/2.8, you could shoot a lot of Copex before you started losing money in the comparison!