MOAB - The Mother Of All (film) Battles

[Marco B]

So the Dark Lord Sauron and the Orcs thought the battle was won…

With the birth of the Super-Orcs (Canon 1Ds Mark III, 21.1MP Full Frame) some years ago, Frodo and his friends were as good as dead. How could their world, Middle Earth, survive the continued onslaught of the monsters of the Forces of Darkness, as born from the Underworld and the Land of Mordor? With despair reigning the world, and the Dark Lord Sauron and the Force of the Ring (The Digital Revolution) pulling on little Frodo and his fellow Hobbits, was there no hope left at all?

But still, a few good people were around, like the mighty old Wizard Gandalf (Kodak)… Quietly and calmly, even in the midst of the turmoil and carnage, the dignified old man came up with a powerful new ally in the form of Kodak Ektar 100, that was supposed to beat the hell out of these beasts born from mud, fire, and darkness… More powerful (World’s finest grain) than any other who came before, his traits and strengths still had to be proved in a genuine battle, amongst his fellow Forces of Light (the Elves, Dwarfs and Hobbits) against the Dark Lord Sauron and his horrid, inhumane forces.

Yet, Sauron had not played all of his cards, and incubated in the deepest trenches and crevices of Earth, an even mightier monster developed… Seeing its revelation on the Day of Ultimate Doom (the opening of the PhotoKina), the Über-Orc, Uruk Hai, was born (Sony Alpha 900). With the powers of a hundred Orcs (24.6MP), the heavily armored beast should bring fear into the hearts and minds of even the bravest warriors of Middle Earth…

Or shouldn’t it?...

A (resolution) battle was inevitable… nothing could stop it anymore, although the price for victory would be high. Blood would stain the rivers of Middle Earth for years to come. Many good characters of Middle Earth would die, but only the ultimate sacrifice could turn the tides of things to come.

So, on the Middle Earth site of the battlefield in the heavily fortified White City of Minas Tirith, are lined up Frodo and his friends:

- The Hobbit Frodo (my trusty analog Minolta Dynax 7)
- Gandalf (Kodak)
- Aragorn (Kodak Ektar 100)
- The Dwarf Gimli (Kodak Portra VC 160)
- The Elf Legolas (Fuji Velvia 100)
- Boromir (Kodak TMax 100)
- Sam (Imacon Flextight 646 high end professional scanner, good for up to 50 MP scans)

And gathered on the Pelennor Fields at the site of the Forces of Darkness:

- The Dark Lord Sauron and the Force of the Ring (The Digital Revolution)
- Uruk Hai (Sony Alpha 900) and all other Orcs

Read more about this Epic Battle of the Century on my website:

Let the Mother Of All Battles commence!!!

May the Forces of Light win!

 

[bnstein]

Marco thanks for your efforts, I found this interesting to read. The sony camera sure looks impressive, but then so does velvia and in its own way T-max.

 

[Marco B]

Thanks Bnstein, good to hear you appreciated all the hard work that went into this. Actually, if I had known how much work it would become, I may have not done it all. But that's mostly my own fault, I have a tendency to go deeper and deeper with these things, trying to evaluate and see things from different perspectives.

Although the inclusion of a digital camera may have been off-putting to some, I sure hope people can "read-between-the-lines", and actually appreciate how phenomenally well Velvia performs, and how well the new Ektar 100 still comes by in this test. Many of the crops are just HUGE enlargements.

It is always a risk to put a digital capture next to a scan: since the extreme high resolution scans inevitably includes showing grain, people may falsely start to think "that it looks bad" compared to a smooth digital shot. While it isn't! In remembrance of Flotsam, who so eloquently phrased it making it APUG's lead quote:

"That is called grain. It is supposed to be there."

Marco

 

[Tim Gray]

Haven't read this yet, but wanted to thank you in advance. I'm sure it will be an entertaining read.

Sometimes I look at the full frame DSLRs and marvel over the resolution. Then I realize a lot of the time I shoot P3200TMZ. Haha. That has all the resolution of what, maybe 2-3 mp?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Nice test Marco, I think it shows once more that even if film does not always hold the technical high ground, there are still perfectly valid aesthetic reasons for using it.

 

[Laurent]

Nice test ! Your site is very nice also, thanks for sharing.

 

[domaz]

35mm or 120 or large format? My bet is the results will be: 35mm will be close but leaning toward the Dark Lord, 120 will be close leaning towards the Hobbits and large format will destroy the One ring mightily.

 

[Marco B]

Sometimes I look at the full frame DSLRs and marvel over the resolution. Then I realize a lot of the time I shoot P3200TMZ. Haha. That has all the resolution of what, maybe 2-3 mp?

Thanks Tim for this wonderful remark, it made me laugh out loud!

After all the "pixel-peeking" I have been doing in this test, it is utterly refreshing to have someone put you back on the ground with both feet!

 

[GeoffHill]

I cant help preferring the skin tones on the digital camera...

 

[Marco B]

I cant help preferring the skin tones on the digital camera...

Don't let the Force of the Ring get you! You know what happened to Gollom...

Actually, as I stated in the beginning of the test, the scanner wasn't exactly "perfectly" calibrated. With a better calibrated scanner and some color correction, it might be fine.

Than again, any highly saturated film like Portra 160VC or Ektar 100, probably IS simply more suited for landscape / wildlife and architectural photography instead of portraiture...

And the Velvia shot is the one I had most issues with in terms of color and correcting. I currently find the images too "greenish", should probably have tried to add a little bit more warmth / red to it.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thanks Bnstein, good to hear you appreciated all the hard work that went into this. Actually, if I had known how much work it would become, I may have not done it all. But that's mostly my own fault, I have a tendency to go deeper and deeper with these things, trying to evaluate and see things from different perspectives.
.....
Marco

Hello Marco,

I know very well what a lot of work these kinds of tests are, because I am currently involved in something similar.

Because I know the problems of such tests please let me add some aspects:

1. I see one essential problem with your test: Your test chart is not a good choice. Your "Image Engineering" test chart is made for low resolution digital cameras, not for high resolution digicams or films. The maximum resolution is only about 40 Lp/mm, a rather low value. Much lower than both the physical resolution limit of the 24 MP Sony sensor (which is 85 Lp/mm), and much lower than the resolution limits of all the films you have used.

The interesting question is, how is the performance near the resolution limit, and where are the resolution limits of certain lens/film/sensor combinations (system resolution).
To answer these questions you have to use resolution charts with at least 100 Lp/mm, better more, because TMX, Velvia + Co. can resolve more than 100 Lp/mm with very good prime lenses.
If you would have used a chart with higher resolution figures of above 100 Lp/mm you would have seen that at 80-85 Lp/mm the Alpha produces artifacts and is not able to resolve the fine details, whereas your films can resolve these extremely fine line patterns.

So, your test is more like buying a Porsche, driving on a highway at 55 m.p.h and making the conclusion "hey, this car can be driven at incredible 55 m.p.h." . You know what I mean.
Resolving of 40 Lp/mm is very easy and not a challenge at all. Neither for film nor for better digital sensors.

2. My test results in the 40 Lp/mm area with film look much scharper and better defined than yours. Seems that something in your scanning operation may be wrong.

3. Some details about my own results: I am currently involved in an intensive test programme about resolution of modern films and sensors. We have not finished all tests at the moment. A lot of work has still to be done. Some films and sensors have yet to be tested. Probably we can publish all of our results next year. But so far we have found that a lot of modern films have significantly higher resolution than the best digital sensors. The physical resolution limit of a 22 MP 24x36mm sensor is 80 Lp/mm, the resolution limit of a 24x36mm 24 MP sensor is 85 Lp/mm. We reached it (as well as dpreview for example, look at the Canon Eos 1 Ds Mk III test there). With many films we've got resolution values above 100 Lp/mm for system resolution (film + lens). With most of the modern ISO 100/21° films such resolution is possible (with very good prime lenses even higher resolution is possible). We are testing at a very moderate object contrast of 1:20.

With Fuji Provia 100F, Velvia 100F, Velvia 100, Sensia 100, Astia 100F, Kodak E100 G(X), Elitechrome 100, Kodak TMX, Fuji Neopan Acros and Agfa APX 100 we have achieved 100 Lp/mm. The 100 Lp/mm pattern is so clear with all these films that we can conclude, that the resolution limit is significantly higher than this value. Therefore we will continue our test trying to measure where the resolution limit really is.

Even with Fuji Provia 400X, Fuji Superia Xtra 400 and Kodak TMY-2 we achieved 100 Lp/mm. With the new Rollei Advanced Technical Pan (ATP), developed in the dedicated ATP DC developer and exposed with ISO 40/17° we achieved so far a system resolution of 140 Lp/mm. The 140 Lp/mm pattern is so clear that this film as well is not at its resolution limit, further tests for higher resolution are necessary. This film has such extremely high resolution, sharpness and fine grain that you can get results with 35mm film which are on a similar level with medium format. And now this film is obtainable as 120 as well.

We have achieved all these resolution values not only under the microscope, but also on paper in the traditional wet darkroom. We are using the Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 2,8/50. With a slide projector using a very good projection lenses (Docter, Zeiss, Leica) we have got so far 100 lp/mm on screen with the color slide films and 140 Lp/mm with Rollei ATP (much much more than every beamer on the market can deliver). Our tests ar not finished so far, because we have not reached the resolution limits of some films and lenses (both projection and printing). Therefore we are testing some films for even higher resolution values in the printing and projection. Then we can publish all of our results.

But I want to add some results of other scientific resolution tests made by Carl Zeiss. Zeiss is clearly emphazising the qualities of film, especially it's superior resolution. Zeiss is one of the world's most important optic companies (probably the most important). About 99% of their camera optics are made for digital cameras. But nevertheless they say clearly that film has higher resolution in many cases (of course dependant on the film you are using). Here are some of their test results (using normal Zeiss 35mm and med format lenses): Agfa APX 25: 200 Lp/mm; Kodak Ektar 25: 200 Lp/mm; Kodak TMX: 180 Lp/mm, Fuji Neopan Acros 100: 160 Lp/mm; Fuji Velvia: 160 Lp/mm; Kodak BW 400 CN: 150 Lp/mm, Kodak Porta 160 VC: 160 Lp/mm; Kodak TMY (old): 120 Lp/mm, Fuji NPZ 800: 110 Lp/mm. And the absolute resolution record with Spur Orthopan UR with 400 Lp/mm (all published in their magazine "camera lens news" No. 17, 19, 20, 22, 24 on their home page).

3. You wrote in the introduction concerning the new Ektar that new films are rare these days. I have to disagree here looking at the new films which were introduced in the last two years:

Kodak: Portra 160 NC-2, Portra 160 VC-2, Portra 400 NC-2, Portra 400 VC-2, Portra 800 Version 3, Gold 200 new, Gold 400 new, Portra 400 NC-3, Portra 400 VC-3, TMY-2, Ektar 100.

Fuji: Fujichrome Provia 400X, Fujichrome 64 T Type II, Superia 200, Fujicolor 100. Velvia 50 II (resurrection).

Maco/Rollei-Film: Rollei Ortho 25, Rollei Pan 25, Rollei RSD, Rollei Digibase CN 200, Rollei Infrared 400, Rollei ATP 1.1, Rollei CR 200, Superpan 200, Retro 400S, Rollei ATO.
Next year further new films will be introduced: Rollei Retro 80S, Rollei Retro 100 Plus and ATP 3.1.

Ilford: Resurrection of SFX 200.

Fotokemika: Resurrection of IR 820.

Even in the "golden analogue days" we've had very seldom time frames with such a lot of new films.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I'm sorry, but since we all use 'DARK' rooms shouldn't film be the 'DARK' forces? I mean Vader would have kick Luke's whiny butt everyday of the week and twice on Sunday's had it not been for the Emperor spilling all those roasted peanuts shells all over that catwalk in ROTJ. I mean, geez!!!!!!!!!!! ;p

 

[JanaM]

Hello Marco,

I know very well what a lot of work these kinds of tests are, because I am currently involved in something similar.

Because I know the problems of such tests please let me add some aspects:

1. I see one essential problem with your test: Your test chart is not a good choice. Your "Image Engineering" test chart is made for low resolution digital cameras, not for high resolution digicams or films. The maximum resolution is only about 40 Lp/mm, a rather low value. Much lower than both the physical resolution limit of the 24 MP Sony sensor (which is 85 Lp/mm), and much lower than the resolution limits of all the films you have used.

The interesting question is, how is the performance near the resolution limit, and where are the resolution limits of certain lens/film/sensor combinations (system resolution).
To answer these questions you have to use resolution charts with at least 100 Lp/mm, better more, because TMX, Velvia + Co. can resolve more than 100 Lp/mm with very good prime lenses.
If you would have used a chart with higher resolution figures of above 100 Lp/mm you would have seen that at 80-85 Lp/mm the Alpha produces artifacts and is not able to resolve the fine details, whereas your films can resolve these extremely fine line patterns.

So, your test is more like buying a Porsche, driving on a highway at 55 m.p.h and making the conclusion "hey, this car can be driven at incredible 55 m.p.h." . You know what I mean.
Resolving of 40 Lp/mm is very easy and not a challenge at all. Neither for film nor for better digital sensors.

2. My test results in the 40 Lp/mm area with film look much scharper and better defined than yours. Seems that something in your scanning operation may be wrong.

3. Some details about my own results: I am currently involved in an intensive test programme about resolution of modern films and sensors. We have not finished all tests at the moment. A lot of work has still to be done. Some films and sensors have yet to be tested. Probably we can publish all of our results next year. But so far we have found that a lot of modern films have significantly higher resolution than the best digital sensors. The physical resolution limit of a 22 MP 24x36mm sensor is 80 Lp/mm, the resolution limit of a 24x36mm 24 MP sensor is 85 Lp/mm. We reached it (as well as dpreview for example, look at the Canon Eos 1 Ds Mk III test there). With many films we've got resolution values above 100 Lp/mm for system resolution (film + lens). With most of the modern ISO 100/21° films such resolution is possible (with very good prime lenses even higher resolution is possible). We are testing at a very moderate object contrast of 1:20.

With Fuji Provia 100F, Velvia 100F, Velvia 100, Sensia 100, Astia 100F, Kodak E100 G(X), Elitechrome 100, Kodak TMX, Fuji Neopan Acros and Agfa APX 100 we have achieved 100 Lp/mm. The 100 Lp/mm pattern is so clear with all these films that we can conclude, that the resolution limit is significantly higher than this value. Therefore we will continue our test trying to measure where the resolution limit really is.

Even with Fuji Provia 400X, Fuji Superia Xtra 400 and Kodak TMY-2 we achieved 100 Lp/mm. With the new Rollei Advanced Technical Pan (ATP), developed in the dedicated ATP DC developer and exposed with ISO 40/17° we achieved so far a system resolution of 140 Lp/mm. The 140 Lp/mm pattern is so clear that this film as well is not at its resolution limit, further tests for higher resolution are necessary. This film has such extremely high resolution, sharpness and fine grain that you can get results with 35mm film which are on a similar level with medium format. And now this film is obtainable as 120 as well.

We have achieved all these resolution values not only under the microscope, but also on paper in the traditional wet darkroom. We are using the Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 2,8/50. With a slide projector using a very good projection lenses (Docter, Zeiss, Leica) we have got so far 100 lp/mm on screen with the color slide films and 140 Lp/mm with Rollei ATP (much much more than every beamer on the market can deliver). Our tests ar not finished so far, because we have not reached the resolution limits of some films and lenses (both projection and printing). Therefore we are testing some films for even higher resolution values in the printing and projection. Then we can publish all of our results.

But I want to add some results of other scientific resolution tests made by Carl Zeiss. Zeiss is clearly emphazising the qualities of film, especially it's superior resolution. Zeiss is one of the world's most important optic companies (probably the most important). About 99% of their camera optics are made for digital cameras. But nevertheless they say clearly that film has higher resolution in many cases (of course dependant on the film you are using). Here are some of their test results (using normal Zeiss 35mm and med format lenses): Agfa APX 25: 200 Lp/mm; Kodak Ektar 25: 200 Lp/mm; Kodak TMX: 180 Lp/mm, Fuji Neopan Acros 100: 160 Lp/mm; Fuji Velvia: 160 Lp/mm; Kodak BW 400 CN: 150 Lp/mm, Kodak Porta 160 VC: 160 Lp/mm; Kodak TMY (old): 120 Lp/mm, Fuji NPZ 800: 110 Lp/mm. And the absolute resolution record with Spur Orthopan UR with 400 Lp/mm (all published in their magazine "camera lens news" No. 17, 19, 20, 22, 24 on their home page).

3. You wrote in the introduction concerning the new Ektar that new films are rare these days. I have to disagree here looking at the new films which were introduced in the last two years:

Kodak: Portra 160 NC-2, Portra 160 VC-2, Portra 400 NC-2, Portra 400 VC-2, Portra 800 Version 3, Gold 200 new, Gold 400 new, Portra 400 NC-3, Portra 400 VC-3, TMY-2, Ektar 100.

Fuji: Fujichrome Provia 400X, Fujichrome 64 T Type II, Superia 200, Fujicolor 100. Velvia 50 II (resurrection).

Maco/Rollei-Film: Rollei Ortho 25, Rollei Pan 25, Rollei RSD, Rollei Digibase CN 200, Rollei Infrared 400, Rollei ATP 1.1, Rollei CR 200, Superpan 200, Retro 400S, Rollei ATO.
Next year further new films will be introduced: Rollei Retro 80S, Rollei Retro 100 Plus and ATP 3.1.

Ilford: Resurrection of SFX 200.

Fotokemika: Resurrection of IR 820.

Even in the "golden analogue days" we've had very seldom time frames with such a lot of new films.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning, thank you very much for these very interesting informations!

Regards, Jana