Rollei RPX 25: Grain and Resolution

The thread has been mainly about resolution, grain etc., which are important of course but there are other considerations that (to me) are also important...

The film is of very high quality, no faults in the emulsion that I can detect.
The substrate is one of the best behaving bases I've used in 120. It lays flat in the negative holder instead of bouncing around like a curled spring.
The packaging matches ILFORD exactly, which suits me as I am used to the ILFORD box and tear open plastic foil envelope.
It responds perfectly to my preferred developer for gaining sharpness and yet maintaining the film's very fine grain and delivering the broad span of tonality that I like.

I now regard it as one of "my" films and will keep using it. If it was made available in sheet sizes (4x5, whole-plate and 8x10) my cup would runneth over!

A source for images on any film has to be Flickr. Simply go on Flickr and do a search for RPX25...


RR

Hello,

Dr Croubie said:

Wow, very comprehensive results. I would have loved to see Efke 25 in there, but I suppose that's moot as there's not much left of it. (Or isn't Efke 25 = Rollei Pan 25? I get confused as to what's rebranded what these days).

Click to expand...

well, I've tested Efke 25 as well, but so far I've not yet had the time to finish the analysis, to examine all test shots. And one of my rules is to not to publish any results before all the work is done, before all test shots are completely analysed.

And yes, the second version of Rollei Pan 25 was Efke 25. But the first version was made by FilmoTec, Germany (based on the former OrWo NP 15).
The first version is the one I have tested, see the result in my list above.

Dr Croubie said:

Also very good to know that even the D800 still isn't as sharp as the best film (and those results seem to agree with those here, 85.9 lp/mm.

Click to expand...

I think we have to be precise here: Sharpness (edge sharpness / contour sharpness) ist not a problem with modern digital cameras. With a bit PP you can get brutally sharp results. Personally I don't like it, because it looks very unnatural. Our eyes work different, create a different sharpness character.
And film in its sharpness characteristics is much more similar to our eyes, it looks more natural.

What I have quantified in my tests is resolution, at a precisely defined object contrast (1:4). And at this object contrast lots of films have a significantly higher resolving power than a D800 and D800E.
At higher object contrasts the advantage of film is even higher. Zeiss for example did quite a lot of resolution tests with object contrasts in the 1:32 to 1:64 range.
They got:
160 Lp/mm with Velvia 50
170 Lp/mm with Velvia 100
180 Lp/mm with TMX
160 Lp/mm with Acros 100
200 Lp/mm with Agfa APX 25
250 Lp/mm with Agfa Ortho 25
400 Lp/mm with Spur Orthopan UR (Agfa HDP microfilm; almost identical to Adox CMS 20 II).

Digital sensors don't benefit in resolution from such higher object contrast, because their resolution is limited by the Nyquist freqency. It's impossible to get higher resolution as the Nyquist frequency.
But the D800 and 800E have a very good resolution at low object contrasts (in the 1:1,3 to 1:2 range). In this range they perform better than most films.

Therefore a lot depends on
- which detail is accurately in focus (only in the focus plane you have the full resolution)
- what object contrast have the detail(s) you have focussed on.
Indeed the resolution levels differ quite a lot from detail to detail just in one single shot, one subject.

Best regards,
Henning

NJH said:

Thanks for posting those testing results, its especially interesting that nearly all the films on that list can resolve beyond the limits of the Minolta 5400 I have which has the highest resolution of any consumer scanner. For those using lesser grade scanners they really are throwing away a lot of what those films have captured.

Click to expand...

Yes.
Concerning image detail, resolution and grain, scanning is the worst thing you can do with film.
You get much better results concerning these parameters with
- optical printing, especially with the excellent APO enlarging lenses
- slide projection with excellent projection lenses.

We've done lots of tests about this topic "imaging chain" during the last years.
We've tested the best amatuer scanners like the Nikon Coolscan 5000, and the best drumscanners like the Haselblad / Imacon X5 and the real drum scanner ICG 370 HS.
Result:
Even the best drum scanners cannot resolve all the details on the film. You have a significant loss.

But the good news is:
With optical enlarging with APO enlarging lenses and excellent projection lenses like the Leica Super-Colorplan, Zeiss P-Sonnar, Kindermann 2,4/90 MC-B (Docter-Optics), Rollei AV-Apogon 2,8/120, Schneider AV-Xenotar 2,8/150; the Braun Ultralit, Rollei AV-Apogon 90 etc.
you only have a minimal, not significant loss and you can resolve almost all details on film.
So you can transfer these details on the film
- onto paper
- onto the projection screen.

One example:
The 130 Lp/mm of Delta 100 in our test result in a 120 Lp/mm figure on paper, enlarged with the APO-Rodagon 2,8/50 N.
With the Coolscan 5000 it is only about half of that (55-60) at an object contrast of 1:4.

Similar with Provia 100F in projection: 120 Lp/mm on the projection screen, but only about 60 Lp/mm with the Coolscan 5000.

Another example: Adox CMS 20 II:
240 - 260 Lp/mm on the film in our test with the Makro-Planar at object contrast of 1:4.
Scanned with the drum scanners we've got only 130-140 Lp/mm of it.
But with classic optical enlargement with the APO-Rodagon more than 200 Lp/mm (!),
and in projection with the Super-Colorplan and the Kindermann MC-B 230 Lp/mm on the scren (!!).
230 Lp/mm: You would need a 183 MP sensor in your camera, and a digital projector with also 183 MP to get that digitally.
We will never see that in digital.
Slide projection delivers an absolutely unsurpassed performance in detail rendition with big enlargements.
It is the gold standard.

Our classic enlargement techniques, optical enlargement and projection, are still the best ways to completely exploit, completely use the full potential of film.

Best regards,
Henning

Snapshot said:

Thank you Henning for posting these results!

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Best regards,
Henning

Tony-S said:

Henning,

Can you clarify how you rank Pan F+ above Delta 100?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course, no problem:
Delta 100 has siginifanctly higher resolution as Pan F+, and a bit better sharpness in our test developer Spur HRX.
But Pan F+ has finer grain than Delta 100.

Lot's of film photographers think that a film with finer grain automatically has higher resolution as well.
This is often the case, but not always!
There are some cases in which films with finer grain are not so good in resolution and vice versa.

Further Examples:
Agfa Copex Rapid has much higher resolution and better sharpness than TMX, but there is not a very significant difference in grain between both films.

Retro 80S has finer grain than Copex Rapid, but cannot match the excellent resolution of CoRa.

Another very good example is Ektar 100:
It has very fine grain (but not as fine as ISO 100 slide films), but resolution is quite low and worse compared to all other CN films on the Market: Reala, Pro 160 S / C / NS, Portra 160, Gold 100 and 200, Superia 200 all have significantly higher resolution at an object contrast of 1:4 as Ektar.
But most people don't see it, because they use scanning with scanners with max 4000 ppi. So the performance is very limited by the scanner.
But in optical enlargements the differences are very obvious.

Best regards,
Henning

Hello,

Regular Rod said:

The thread has been mainly about resolution, grain etc., which are important of course but there are other considerations that (to me) are also important...

Click to expand...

of course, but the OP has asked about resolution, grain and sharpness........

I just want to add that both Adox CHS 100 II and RPX 25 also give excellent results in reversal processing (tested in the Wehner process with best results for both films, and RPX 25 can also be developed in the modified Scala process at Photo Studio 13).

Regular Rod said:

A source for images on any film has to be Flickr. Simply go on Flickr and do a search for RPX25...

Click to expand...

With all respect, but I have to completely disagree here. Pictures on flickr are not at all a trustworthy way to jugde film characteristics.
because
- most are made with cheap scanners
- you don't know how good the scanning abilities of the photographer are
- you don't know what software was used and which / how much PP was used
- AFAIK flickr has a kind of automatic sharpening
- and don't forget you are looking at a picture on a computer screen: the worst medium to look at pictures
LCD monitores cannot disply real halftones, an optical print and a projected slide are the mediums which give you the full performance of the film.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning,

Wow, a wealth of information. thank you v ery much. I would be interested to see where good 400 speed films rate, like provia 400x, tmax 400 delta 400 and Rolei retro 400s.

thanks!


john

Henning Serger said:

Hello,



of course, but the OP has asked about resolution, grain and sharpness........

I just want to add that both Adox CHS 100 II and RPX 25 also give excellent results in reversal processing (tested in the Wehner process with best results for both films, and RPX 25 can also be developed in the modified Scala process at Photo Studio 13).



With all respect, but I have to completely disagree here. Pictures on flickr are not at all a trustworthy way to jugde film characteristics.
because
- most are made with cheap scanners
- you don't know how good the scanning abilities of the photographer are
- you don't know what software was used and which / how much PP was used
- AFAIK flickr has a kind of automatic sharpening
- and don't forget you are looking at a picture on a computer screen: the worst medium to look at pictures
LCD monitores cannot disply real halftones, an optical print and a projected slide are the mediums which give you the full performance of the film.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

All perfecly true. The useful thing about Flickr is not as a comparison tool but rather a crude indication of how folk have fared with a film and developer. It's nice to know your test results but as far as RPX25 goes for anyone wanting a full tone 25 ISO panchromatic silver chemistry film, that's all there is to choose from. It's a case of like it or lump it. Fortunately there is a lot to like about it...

Looking at a few images made with the film is going to be a more meaningful experience to a lot of photographers than looking at a set of tables depicting some test results in a series of numbers. An image makes it easier to "get it"...

In truth the best thing the OP could have done, and still can do, is buy some RPX25 and use it to find out first hand what the film is like...

RR

I think its worse than that guys because once one has got adept at fiddling with stuff like the tone curves, and softening/sharpening at different scales one can make almost any film result look like any other film result once it ends up as a 1Mp image on the net.

Henning Serger said:

Hello,
- AFAIK flickr has a kind of automatic sharpening

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Henning thanks ever so much for the work you have been doing, I am a scientist by trade and engineer by profession so it is a real joy to see the proper quantitative test results rather than the 'noise' of highly subjective opinion.

On the flickr thing I don't think they sharpen but they must be applying some level of image compression. All my images on flickr I downsize fully and keep to reasonable size jpeg to upload, I can compare them side by side and they always look slightly more digital, more lacking in nice tonal gradation once on flickr. Its is a real shame and travesty that in the 21st century photography as an art form is being killed by most of us being driven to such a god awful low quality medium for sharing our passion with a wider audience.

Is photography a technical exercise then?

Objective opinion is all that counts if we are technicians.

Subjective opinion is all that counts if we are artists..

RR

Having some kind of objective system means we can ignore magic potions or similar, and get on with making interesting photographs. Material reality doesn't change because we want to believe one thing or the other...

Tom

Tom Kershaw said:

Having some kind of objective system means we can ignore magic potions or similar, and get on with making interesting photographs. Material reality doesn't change because we want to believe one thing or the other...

Tom

Click to expand...

There's no magic potion to ignore. It's good film. That's all there is to it. Have you tried it yet? Surely using a film, to see if we like it or not, is better than looking up the "best" film from a table? Especially if several of the films in the table are no longer relevant as their manufacturers have decided not to make them anymore...

RR

Regular Rod said:

There's no magic potion to ignore. It's good film. That's all there is to it. Have you tried it yet? Surely using a film, to see if we like it or not, is better than looking up the "best" film from a table?

RR

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting RPX 25 is a magic potion.

Tom

Tom Kershaw said:

I'm not suggesting RPX 25 is a magic potion.

Tom

Click to expand...

Why use the phrase then?

Are grain and sharpness all that matters BTW? What about tonal range? Trying a film personally is surely the best way to assess if all the criteria that matter to oneself are acceptable?

RR

Henning Serger said:

Yes, of course, no problem:

Click to expand...

Thank you for the detailed response, Henning. That is very interesting.

Regular Rod said:

Why use the phrase then?

Are grain and sharpness all that matters BTW? What about tonal range? Trying a film personally is surely the best way to assess if all the criteria that matter to oneself are acceptable?

RR

Click to expand...

Well yes, trying a product to see what works is essential but that doesn't preclude or invalidate the basic principles that underly the process.

Tom

Hello John,

destroya said:

Henning,

Wow, a wealth of information. thank you v ery much. I would be interested to see where good 400 speed films rate, like provia 400x, tmax 400 delta 400 and Rolei retro 400s.

thanks!


john

Click to expand...

you're welcome.

O.k., your wish is my command . Here we go with the ISO 400/27° speed films.
Test method is exactly the same as described in my list above, therefore I don't repeat it.

BW films:
Kodak BW 400 CN: 100 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak T-Max 400 (TMY-2): 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Ilford XP2 Super: 80 – 90 Lp/mm

Ilford Delta 400 : 75 – 85 Lp/mm

Fuji Neopan 400: 70 – 80 Lp/mm

Kodak Tri-X: 65 – 75 Lp/mm

Bergger BRF 400 Plus / Orwo N74 Plus: 65 – 75 Lp/mm

Ilford HP5+: 60 – 75 Lp/mm

Rollei Superpan 200 / Rollei Retro 400S / Rollei Infrared (all the same film = Agfa Aviphot Pan 200): 90 – 105 Lp/mm (at ISO 40/17°).
This film has a real ISO range from ISO 40/17° to max. ISO 160/23° depending on the developer.
Therefore it does not belong in this category of ISO 400/27° films.
But as you have asked for this film, I give you the results.

Grain:
Finest grain in this class has BW 400 CN, on second position is TMY-2. Quite close behind is XP-2 Super, then Delta 400 and Neopan 400.
And all the others you use because you don't want fine grain, but clearly visible grain......

Colour films:

Fuji Superia 400: 120 – 130 Lp/mm

Fuji Pro 400H: 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Kodak Farbwelt 400 / Gold 400: 95 – 110 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 400 NC-3: 100 – 110 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 400 (new, current version): 80 – 100 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia X-Tra 800: 100 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 800: 90 – 100 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia 1600: 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Reversal, E6:

Fuji Provia 400X: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

Fuji Provia 400X (Push 1, ISO 800/30°): 100 – 110 Lp/mm

Fuji Provia 400X (Push 2, ISO 1600/33°): 85 – 95 Lp/mm

Finest grain has Fuji Provia 400X. Second is Portra 400 new, and only minimal behind is Fuji Pro 400H and Portra 400 NC-3 (the former Portra version). At fourth position Superia 400.
Looking at the overall detail rendition at very big enlargements (poster size, projection) Provia 400X is king: Its very fine grain for this speed overcompensate the bit higher resolution of Superia 400 (which is clearly visible under the microscope).
Or more precise:
If you project the Provia 400X slide e.g. on a 1 meter x 1,5 meter screen, and if you make an optical enlargement of Superia 400 (or Portra 400, Pro 400H) of the same size, then in direct comparison you have a better detail rendition with Provia 400X.
It is an outstanding film, one of the latest and most modern colour film emulsions (introduced 2007), and one of the best colour films ever made.

Best regards,
Henning

Hello,

Regular Rod said:

It's nice to know your test results but as far as RPX25 goes for anyone wanting a full tone 25 ISO panchromatic silver chemistry film, that's all there is to choose from. It's a case of like it or lump it. Fortunately there is a lot to like about it...

Click to expand...

well, there are more options in this speed range:

1. There is no problem in using Ilford Pan F+ as a ISO 25/15° or ISO 40/16° film. In lots of developers you get the best results at this speed.

2. Agfa Copex Rapid, developed either in dedicated Spur Modular UR New developer, or as a BW slide by Photo Studio 13, is also a panchromatic, full tone BW film in the ISO 25/15° to 50/18° (as slide) speed range.

(and for those who like ortho films: Ilford Ortho and Rollei Ortho 25).

Best regards,
Henning

Hello,

NJH said:

Henning thanks ever so much for the work you have been doing,

Click to expand...

you're welcome. It has been (and is) a hell lot of work. People who have never done it by themselves probably can't imagine how much work is involved in accurate, scientific tests.

NJH said:

I am a scientist by trade and engineer by profession so it is a real joy to see the proper quantitative test results rather than the 'noise' of highly subjective opinion.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I've worked some years in different scientific research programmes at the University.
Therefore I don't like esoteric stuff. I need valid, accurate information and exact test results.

Best regards,
Henning

Tony-S said:

Thank you for the detailed response, Henning. That is very interesting.

Click to expand...

You're welcome, Tony.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

Hello John,



you're welcome.

O.k., your wish is my command . Here we go with the ISO 400/27° speed films.
Test method is exactly the same as described in my list above, therefore I don't repeat it.

BW films:
Kodak BW 400 CN: 100 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak T-Max 400 (TMY-2): 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Ilford XP2 Super: 80 – 90 Lp/mm

Ilford Delta 400 : 75 – 85 Lp/mm

Fuji Neopan 400: 70 – 80 Lp/mm

Kodak Tri-X: 65 – 75 Lp/mm

Bergger BRF 400 Plus / Orwo N74 Plus: 65 – 75 Lp/mm

Ilford HP5+: 60 – 75 Lp/mm

Rollei Superpan 200 / Rollei Retro 400S / Rollei Infrared (all the same film = Agfa Aviphot Pan 200): 90 – 105 Lp/mm (at ISO 40/17°).
This film has a real ISO range from ISO 40/17° to max. ISO 160/23° depending on the developer.
Therefore it does not belong in this category of ISO 400/27° films.
But as you have asked for this film, I give you the results.

Grain:
Finest grain in this class has BW 400 CN, on second position is TMY-2. Quite close behind is XP-2 Super, then Delta 400 and Neopan 400.
And all the others you use because you don't want fine grain, but clearly visible grain......

Colour films:

Fuji Superia 400: 120 – 130 Lp/mm

Fuji Pro 400H: 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Kodak Farbwelt 400 / Gold 400: 95 – 110 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 400 NC-3: 100 – 110 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 400 (new, current version): 80 – 100 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia X-Tra 800: 100 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 800: 90 – 100 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia 1600: 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Reversal, E6:

Fuji Provia 400X: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

Fuji Provia 400X (Push 1, ISO 800/30°): 100 – 110 Lp/mm

Fuji Provia 400X (Push 2, ISO 1600/33°): 85 – 95 Lp/mm

Finest grain has Fuji Provia 400X. Second is Portra 400 new, and only minimal behind is Fuji Pro 400H and Portra 400 NC-3 (the former Portra version). At fourth position Superia 400.
Looking at the overall detail rendition at very big enlargements (poster size, projection) Provia 400X is king: Its very fine grain for this speed overcompensate the bit higher resolution of Superia 400 (which is clearly visible under the microscope).
Or more precise:
If you project the Provia 400X slide e.g. on a 1 meter x 1,5 meter screen, and if you make an optical enlargement of Superia 400 (or Portra 400, Pro 400H) of the same size, then in direct comparison you have a better detail rendition with Provia 400X.
It is an outstanding film, one of the latest and most modern colour film emulsions (introduced 2007), and one of the best colour films ever made.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

many thanks for your hard work. It is very impressive!

destroya said:

many thanks for your hard work. It is very impressive!

Click to expand...

could this be made a sticky?!

Quote Originally Posted by Henning Serger View Post
Hello John,



you're welcome.

O.k., your wish is my command . Here we go with the ISO 400/27° speed films.
Test method is exactly the same as described in my list above, therefore I don't repeat it.

BW films:
Kodak BW 400 CN: 100 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak T-Max 400 (TMY-2): 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Ilford XP2 Super: 80 – 90 Lp/mm

Ilford Delta 400 : 75 – 85 Lp/mm

Fuji Neopan 400: 70 – 80 Lp/mm

Kodak Tri-X: 65 – 75 Lp/mm

Bergger BRF 400 Plus / Orwo N74 Plus: 65 – 75 Lp/mm

Ilford HP5+: 60 – 75 Lp/mm

Rollei Superpan 200 / Rollei Retro 400S / Rollei Infrared (all the same film = Agfa Aviphot Pan 200): 90 – 105 Lp/mm (at ISO 40/17°).
This film has a real ISO range from ISO 40/17° to max. ISO 160/23° depending on the developer.
Therefore it does not belong in this category of ISO 400/27° films.
But as you have asked for this film, I give you the results.

Grain:
Finest grain in this class has BW 400 CN, on second position is TMY-2. Quite close behind is XP-2 Super, then Delta 400 and Neopan 400.
And all the others you use because you don't want fine grain, but clearly visible grain......

Colour films:

Fuji Superia 400: 120 – 130 Lp/mm

Fuji Pro 400H: 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Kodak Farbwelt 400 / Gold 400: 95 – 110 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 400 NC-3: 100 – 110 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 400 (new, current version): 80 – 100 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia X-Tra 800: 100 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 800: 90 – 100 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia 1600: 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Reversal, E6:

Fuji Provia 400X: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

Fuji Provia 400X (Push 1, ISO 800/30°): 100 – 110 Lp/mm

Fuji Provia 400X (Push 2, ISO 1600/33°): 85 – 95 Lp/mm

Finest grain has Fuji Provia 400X. Second is Portra 400 new, and only minimal behind is Fuji Pro 400H and Portra 400 NC-3 (the former Portra version). At fourth position Superia 400.
Looking at the overall detail rendition at very big enlargements (poster size, projection) Provia 400X is king: Its very fine grain for this speed overcompensate the bit higher resolution of Superia 400 (which is clearly visible under the microscope).
Or more precise:
If you project the Provia 400X slide e.g. on a 1 meter x 1,5 meter screen, and if you make an optical enlargement of Superia 400 (or Portra 400, Pro 400H) of the same size, then in direct comparison you have a better detail rendition with Provia 400X.
It is an outstanding film, one of the latest and most modern colour film emulsions (introduced 2007), and one of the best colour films ever made.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning's work is interesting and useful, but comparing film resolution numbers is only really important for a very small subset of photographic tasks, and only in those circumstances where photographers' procedures are incredibly exacting.

They are, for instance, essentially meaningless for anyone who shoots hand held.

MattKing said:

Henning's work is interesting and useful, but comparing film resolution numbers is only really important for a very small subset of photographic tasks, and only in those circumstances where photographers' procedures are incredibly exacting.

They are, for instance, essentially meaningless for anyone who shoots hand held.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. To get the best out of your equipment and film requires a huge commitment. It requires that you take every step possible to eliminate the accumulation of image degrading factors. Most people really are not interested in following through with the demanding technique required.

Most photographers don't even have the proper technique necessary to get the best out of their HP5+ films.