Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 5/20/2003 7:57:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> B&W film can handle eleven stops without any adjustment at all.
> 
All negative films, color or Black and White can handle more linear 
information than can be printed on paper with a 7 stop density range, so how 
do you make it fit?

It's all about Contrast Index of the film vs. Scene Luminance Range. Just 
remember you lose tonal separation, and effective speed when you pull 
development.

Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 5/20/2003 7:57:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> Fine grain film can resolve 80 lp/mm (or better - Panatomic-X could 
> easily do over 100 lp/mm).   So do the math.   It takes (a MINIMUM 
> of) two pixels to resolve a line-pair.  So a 36x36mm sensor such as 
> the type used in MF photography would need to have 160 elements/mm to 
> resolve 80 lp/mm.  That would be over 33 MP.   Sinar's best is 22 MP 
> and it's 36x49mm, which means it's even lower-res than what I used in 
> the above example.
> 
> So get over it: digital sensors are NOT as sharp as film.   Actually 
> digital sensors are even worse than the above math suggests because 
> of the need for bayesian reconstruction.   The color resolution is 
> even lower than the luminance resolution.

Rather than just theorize with math, how about you invest in a digital camera 
and see for yourself how, in terms of final image quality, it's the opposite 
of what you say. I used to think the same way until I tried it.

I just printed a 13x19 Piezo print from a Sigma XD-9 sensor in a $1,500 Sigma 
camera from a $250 macro lens that IN THE PRINT shows more micro detail than 
I could ever get from a 4x5 TriX optical print. Never liked the idea of 
scanning (slow, dusty, second or third generation data). But, hey whaterver 
works best for you is all that matters.

I have color 30x40's from a Kodak Pro Back that looked better than 4x5 neg 
optical prints, so it's good enough to hand on walls and get top dollar for. 
End of theory for me.

Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> So do the math.   It takes (a MINIMUM
> of) two pixels to resolve a line-pair.

Correct, but only if the two pixels line up with the line pair.  That is the
best you can expect.  It's actually a range...between two and four pixels to
resolve a line pair.  To "reliably" detect a line of width N, you need to
sample at 1/2N, but that doesn't mean that N is the limit of your
resolution, as I stated above.  The limit is 1/2N, but not with %100
reliability.

> So get over it: digital sensors are NOT as sharp as film.

Hum.  Actually digital sensors are sharper than film...but that doesn't mean
they resolve more.  Sharpness and resolution are two different things.

Regards,

Austin

Claude,

> I just printed a 13x19 Piezo print from a Sigma XD-9 sensor in a
> $1,500 Sigma
> camera from a $250 macro lens that IN THE PRINT shows more micro
> detail than
> I could ever get from a 4x5 TriX optical print.

Good grief, you make me laugh.  This is simply a foolish statement, and I
can't imagine how you expect anyone to take you seriously.  I don't mean to
be mean here, but you just say things that have no basis in reality.  What
did you do to the poor Tri-X 4x5 to make it come out so horribly?  I
absolutely know my 35mm Tri-X gives FAR more detail than the Signal SD-9,
which is what I assume you meant.

> I have color 30x40's from a Kodak Pro Back that looked better
> than 4x5 neg
> optical prints, so it's good enough to hand on walls and get top
> dollar for.

Again, simply utterly silly.  Good for a laugh though...

> End of theory for me.

It appears from your claims here, and like on the Piezo list, you simply
don't know how to use film!

Austin

Ah yes, we all thought it...but only Austin could say it quite that way!

I'd like to think that Jerry is smiling in photographers paradise where he
printing 40x60in prints from his D60!

:-)

Robert

On 5/20/03 6:14 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Claude,
> 
>> I just printed a 13x19 Piezo print from a Sigma XD-9 sensor in a
>> $1,500 Sigma
>> camera from a $250 macro lens that IN THE PRINT shows more micro
>> detail than
>> I could ever get from a 4x5 TriX optical print.
> 
> Good grief, you make me laugh.  This is simply a foolish statement, and I
> can't imagine how you expect anyone to take you seriously.  I don't mean to
> be mean here, but you just say things that have no basis in reality.  What
> did you do to the poor Tri-X 4x5 to make it come out so horribly?  I
> absolutely know my 35mm Tri-X gives FAR more detail than the Signal SD-9,
> which is what I assume you meant.
> 
>> I have color 30x40's from a Kodak Pro Back that looked better
>> than 4x5 neg
>> optical prints, so it's good enough to hand on walls and get top
>> dollar for.
> 
> Again, simply utterly silly.  Good for a laugh though...
> 
>> End of theory for me.
> 
> It appears from your claims here, and like on the Piezo list, you simply
> don't know how to use film!
> 
> Austin
> 
>

I knew that some day someone would bring Austin out. Welcome!

bgs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Morrison" <rmorrison@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1514


> Ah yes, we all thought it...but only Austin could say it quite that way!
>
> I'd like to think that Jerry is smiling in photographers paradise where he
> printing 40x60in prints from his D60!
>
> :-)
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 5/20/03 6:14 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:
>
> > Claude,
> >
> >> I just printed a 13x19 Piezo print from a Sigma XD-9 sensor in a
> >> $1,500 Sigma
> >> camera from a $250 macro lens that IN THE PRINT shows more micro
> >> detail than
> >> I could ever get from a 4x5 TriX optical print.
> >
> > Good grief, you make me laugh.  This is simply a foolish statement, and
I
> > can't imagine how you expect anyone to take you seriously.  I don't mean
to
> > be mean here, but you just say things that have no basis in reality.
What
> > did you do to the poor Tri-X 4x5 to make it come out so horribly?  I
> > absolutely know my 35mm Tri-X gives FAR more detail than the Signal
SD-9,
> > which is what I assume you meant.
> >
> >> I have color 30x40's from a Kodak Pro Back that looked better
> >> than 4x5 neg
> >> optical prints, so it's good enough to hand on walls and get top
> >> dollar for.
> >
> > Again, simply utterly silly.  Good for a laugh though...
> >
> >> End of theory for me.
> >
> > It appears from your claims here, and like on the Piezo list, you simply
> > don't know how to use film!
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

> I knew that some day someone would bring Austin out. Welcome!
>
> bgs

Hi,

I've been very very busy on a project, which for those interested in this
kind of stuff, as it is digital imaging related ;-)...it's a 3D "Super
Computer" Visualization system...clients name for it, not mine...that uses
between 128 and 1024 (scales to as many as you want, but the max
configuration we plan on testing is 1024) rendering nodes to do real time 3D
rendering...I'm designing the graphics (dual DVI)/interconnect (Infiniband)
card...so I've only been lurking here recently...but yes, I just couldn't
let these claims go unchallenged ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Hello,

Happy to hear that your busy. I just did a jazz album cover with for a trio
and the organ player is listed as Gene Ludwig....Hammond B-3 Organ. Ironic,
isn't it. Glad your ok.

bgs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:06 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1514


>
> > I knew that some day someone would bring Austin out. Welcome!
> >
> > bgs
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been very very busy on a project, which for those interested in this
> kind of stuff, as it is digital imaging related ;-)...it's a 3D "Super
> Computer" Visualization system...clients name for it, not mine...that uses
> between 128 and 1024 (scales to as many as you want, but the max
> configuration we plan on testing is 1024) rendering nodes to do real time
3D
> rendering...I'm designing the graphics (dual DVI)/interconnect
(Infiniband)
> card...so I've only been lurking here recently...but yes, I just couldn't
> let these claims go unchallenged ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Sorry, folks, I just HAVE to agree with Austin on this. 

(My Coolpix can do that too--so??)

It's just an incomplete argument. In a Sinar view camera with a Schneider
lens --or what? 

I am NOT arguing film vs. digital, or anything close. Just incomplete data
as a basis for theories of fact.

Seth

=From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
=Claude,
=
=> I just printed a 13x19 Piezo print from a Sigma XD-9 sensor in a 
=> $1,500 Sigma camera from a $250 macro lens that IN THE PRINT shows 
=> more micro detail than
=> I could ever get from a 4x5 TriX optical print.
=
=Good grief, you make me laugh.  This is simply a foolish 
=statement, and I can't imagine how you expect anyone to take 
=you seriously.  I don't mean to be mean here, but you just say 
=things that have no basis in reality.  What did you do to the 
=poor Tri-X 4x5 to make it come out so horribly?  I absolutely 
=know my 35mm Tri-X gives FAR more detail than the Signal SD-9, 
=which is what I assume you meant.
=

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth Rossman" 
<seth@m...> wrote:
> Sorry, folks, I just HAVE to agree with Austin on this.

Keep in mind that as you go up in format lens quality tends to go 
down, just 'cause it's really hard to make a good lens to cover that 
much film real estate.   There are plenty of 35mm camera lenses that 
can resolve 90 lp/mm, for instance, whereas a 2-1/4 camera lens that 
resolves 70 lp/mm is considered quite good.   60 lp/mm is considered 
quite good for a 4X5 lens, and I've seen some 4x5 lenses that were 
lots worse.

On the other hand, notice that lens quality goes down slower than 
format goes up, so the larger format should still have more 
resolving power.   Thus I suspect the original poster really IS out 
to lunch, but we can't rule out that he's using a Really Bad 4x5 
lens, not to mention Really Bad experimental design.


 
> (My Coolpix can do that too--so??)
> 
> It's just an incomplete argument. In a Sinar view camera with a 
Schneider
> lens --or what? 
> 
> I am NOT arguing film vs. digital, or anything close. Just 
incomplete data
> as a basis for theories of fact.
> 
> Seth
> 
> =From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@i...] 
> =Claude,
> =
> => I just printed a 13x19 Piezo print from a Sigma XD-9 sensor in 
a 
> => $1,500 Sigma camera from a $250 macro lens that IN THE PRINT 
shows 

> => more micro detail than
> => I could ever get from a 4x5 TriX optical print.
> =
> =Good grief, you make me laugh.  This is simply a foolish 
> =statement, and I can't imagine how you expect anyone to take 
> =you seriously.  I don't mean to be mean here, but you just say 
> =things that have no basis in reality.  What did you do to the 
> =poor Tri-X 4x5 to make it come out so horribly?  I absolutely 
> =know my 35mm Tri-X gives FAR more detail than the Signal SD-9, 
> =which is what I assume you meant.
> =

>...
>Keep in mind that as you go up in format lens quality tends to go
>down, just 'cause it's really hard to make a good lens to cover that
>much film real estate.   ...

I have tested a lot of 35mm and medium format (mf) lenses.  While it is
certainly true that it is more expensive to make a medium format (or any
wider-image-circle) lens with resolution equal to a good 35 mm lens, most mf
lenses are, indeed, more expensive.

Bottom line -- most of the mf lenses I've used and tested are about "as good
as" the 35 mm lenses I have, which has included Canon "L" serious lenses.
("As good as" means to me equal central resolution, equal or better
resolution at the 35 mm image size, but usually slightly lower resolution at
the edge of the mf frame -- where size of negative more than makes up the
difference.)  The most consistent differences are that the mf lenses are
more expensive and the 35 mm lenses have a larger maximum aperture.

The major problem I've had with most mf cameras that decreases their on-film
performance is the lack of film flatness.  The curls that most mf backs put
in the film cause the film to pop off the film plane (unless you have a
Contax with 220 film and a vacuum back).  With my Rolleis, I overcame this
problem by shooting only every other frame, so that I never used the film
that had been bent around a roller.  Many newer, straight-film-path mf
cameras are now as good as the 35 mm cameras in this regard.

The only lens I ever tested that would resolve 100 lp/mm, on film, at the
center and edge of a 35 mm frame, wide open, was my 150 mm Zeiss Sonnar that
I adapted to my Canon (so as to make a tilting 150 telephoto).

Probably the softest lens I have in terms of edge performance at f8 is the
45mm Canon Tilt and Shift lens (58 mm image circle with radical retrofocus
design required by TS mechanism).  The 24 TS mm was so bad I sent it back --
fun lens, but just not up to display print enlargements.

The Bronica RF 645 that is now my favorite landscape camera will out-shoot
my Canon on a light tripod and within the 35 mm frame with no problem -- due
to both outstanding optics and -- often overlooked -- virtually
vibration-free leaf shutter.  When I go to the full frame mf, of course,
there is no contest at all.

Given the importance of vibration from focal plane shutters and film
flatness in mf cameras, I often think the focus on lens tests is
over-emphasized.  These other problems, if ignored, wipe out the advantages
of our expensive glass.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com