1Ds, 4x5 film, 4x5 scanning back

[tingm]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...er-light.shtml

go see for yourself.
at this rate, what's the point of shooting 4x5 ?!

[kahheng]

Originally Posted by tingm http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...er-light.shtml go see for yourself. at this rate, what's the point of shooting 4x5 ?!

1. http://www.betterlight.com/rest_of_the_picture.asp - points to a ridiculous flaw in the comparison between the 1DsII and the Betterlight back.

2. Maybe the comparison might also be more meaningful if a drumscanner and not a flatbed scanner (albeit a high end one) was used. Also, what if USM was properly applied to the drumscan?

3. Is Fuji Acros - a black and white film - a sharp enough film for this comparison? What if Provia 100F was used instead (possibly the lowest granularity colour film around)? What if a higher acutance developer was used? What developer was used anyway?

It's a flawed comparison, and a little sensationalistic despite the "er take it for what it's worth" warnings that Sexton tries to give.

At the end of the day, the comparison is neither useful nor valuable at all..............

I had stopped reading the Luminous Landscape site a long time ago until your post brought me there again. It only makes me remember the reasons why I shouldn't visit Reichmann's site. There's a lot of crap masquerading as meaningful information there.

[benny]

http://www.betterlight.com/rest_of_the_picture.asp

Looks like Canon's 1Ds MK2 is not as great as folks make it out to be in the follow up detail comparision.

Cheers,

[kahheng]

Originally Posted by benny http://www.betterlight.com/rest_of_the_picture.asp Looks like Canon's 1Ds MK2 is not as great as folks make it out to be in the follow up detail comparision. Cheers,

The 1DsMkII is a marvellous camera. It's the manner of comparison to the Betterlight back that's ludicrous.

[eawtan]

Originally Posted by tingm http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...er-light.shtml go see for yourself. at this rate, what's the point of shooting 4x5 ?!

Another earlier article : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

[Russ]

I am trying to think of situations/subjects that do not move for 6-9 minutes - yes I can think of a few, perhaps 0.1% of my shots. The 1Ds shots in the comparison isn't that much worse and is far far far more convenient.

[ricohflex]

notice reviewer stayed away from colour
inability to reproduce colour and skin tones faithfully will be the killer factor
it is an advertisement disguised as a review

[zekai]

the article make for too tedious a read....
waste time because a professional photographer is def capable of buying a MF digital back... scanning back are a waste of time.

time is money is this modern age pf photography.

[hongsien]

Originally Posted by zekai the article make for too tedious a read.... waste time because a professional photographer is def capable of buying a MF digital back... scanning back are a waste of time. time is money is this modern age pf photography.

Yeah, read the Betterlight comments on the images of Luminous.........

Scanning backs are used for special purposes only, and even comaprsions with MF digital backs are still flawed. They are mostly used for reproductions in musea all over the world and interioirs for their near perfect colour rendition, and resolution off course........

Hong Sien

[tingm]

well.. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the Canon, with its pricetag, it's versatility, speed, array of lenses (f1.0, f1.2, IS, zooms, etc), and yet quality of image is very close to all the hassle of the 4x5!

really, i find it hard to believe.

i've been shooting with the 1Ds for all short of stuff.. I don't think the resolution is lacking. Especially some shoots, you start to do stitching, what you get is 8x10 resolution. what is lacking with the canon is the tonality, esp with shadows and dark midtones. 4,096 levels of capture is just not enough.. compared to the creamy tonality of the latest 16bit capture digital backs. Browse through the latest US lifestyle magazines (i.e esquire, GQ) and you can immediately see the medium format back images.

[kahheng]

Originally Posted by tingm well.. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the Canon, with its pricetag, it's versatility, speed, array of lenses (f1.0, f1.2, IS, zooms, etc), and yet quality of image is very close to all the hassle of the 4x5! really, i find it hard to believe.

Mike no offence but I think you still don't get it. The comparisons are flawed. The 1Ds MkII is not even close to the Betterlight back, and the choice of 4X5 film, manner of scanning (and the possible lack of proper USM) is not even sensible to say the least.

Originally Posted by tingm i've been shooting with the 1Ds for all short of stuff.. I don't think the resolution is lacking. Especially some shoots, you start to do stitching, what you get is 8x10 resolution. what is lacking with the canon is the tonality, esp with shadows and dark midtones. 4,096 levels of capture is just not enough.. compared to the creamy tonality of the latest 16bit capture digital backs. Browse through the latest US lifestyle magazines (i.e esquire, GQ) and you can immediately see the medium format back images.

That's a given. The backs have much better tones because of the higher bit depths of the recorded images, and I'd dare say, partly because of the lenses and the quality of data processing as well.

That said, I think at the end of the day, it also depends on whether your clients can tell a difference, or if the difference matters enough to them, for YOU to want/need to use a back.

Full frame self-contained DSLRs like the Canon ones have their pros and cons, strengths and limitations, but so does ANY digital or film capture solution, no matter what the price.

[tingm]

kahheng,
Look again Man.

I expected the 1Ds Mk II to be blown off by the betterlight back. But look at the Detail1 shot - the shutter shot. Yes the Canon has some CA, but detail, perhaps 97% of what's in the betterlight back. Although when I look at the other detail shots, the canon might be losing depth of field - thus the implying lack of detail.

I am not claiming the 1Ds II > 4x5. But combined with the speed, ease of use, versatility, the Canon is looking very strong.

It is NOT a flawed comparison. Comparisons like this are real world comparisons. How many times in a real world would you really have all the variables PERFECT? (perfect dev, perfect scan, perfect USM) And people've been making inter-format comparisons for as long as I can remember. It's useful, perhaps a photographer got an assignment to shoot a factory. After reading this comparison, he knows, that he can just use the Canon and get a really close result to using a 4x5.

of course, at the end of the day, for every logical argument one make, someone with a different belief makes ten different arguments to contradict the first one.

[tingm]

actually, someone should do a medium format back vs. betterlight scan back comparison. Cause the last time I check, a medium format back totally blow off anything Canon makes.

[tingm]

but you know, maybe they really should've done a landscape shot test. after all, a product shot only requires so much detail.

[hongsien]

Originally Posted by tingm but you know, maybe they really should've done a landscape shot test. after all, a product shot only requires so much detail.

I think the real test is ot show two of the same subject images and let your client choose the one they like.........;-)

But all depends how large you print it out, and I have seen very large billboards here in HK (Causeway Bay above the SOGO bldg., yes overhere they are still running business), about 7 stories high! Heard they did it with a Casio cam.

Hong Sien

[kahheng]

Originally Posted by tingm kahheng, Look again Man. I expected the 1Ds Mk II to be blown off by the betterlight back. But look at the Detail1 shot - the shutter shot. Yes the Canon has some CA, but detail, perhaps 97% of what's in the betterlight back. Although when I look at the other detail shots, the canon might be losing depth of field - thus the implying lack of detail.

Mike, you need to read the whole thing again, INCLUDING THE REPLY FROM MIKE COLLETTE FROM BETTERLIGHT, and see his pictures and comments.

Resampling the Betterlight's shot DOWNWARDS to compare, and then conclude that the 1Ds II doesn't loose out by too much (as most people might) is just well, faulty thinking.

Originally Posted by tingm I am not claiming the 1Ds II > 4x5. But combined with the speed, ease of use, versatility, the Canon is looking very strong.

And I do NOT disagree with you Mike. Which is why I said earlier that different image capture systems have their own strengths and weakness, and, they each have their suitability to task.

Originally Posted by tingm It is NOT a flawed comparison. Comparisons like this are real world comparisons. How many times in a real world would you really have all the variables PERFECT? (perfect dev, perfect scan, perfect USM) And people've been making inter-format comparisons for as long as I can remember. It's useful, perhaps a photographer got an assignment to shoot a factory. After reading this comparison, he knows, that he can just use the Canon and get a really close result to using a 4x5.

It's is a stupefyingly flawed comparison (which is exactly what Mike Collette's reply makes pointedly, and even a little sarcastically).

How on earth would it be sensible to draw a fair and useful conclusion by comparing the image quality from two different image capture systems at a lower resolution than what the higher resolution system is capable of?

It's like comparing a Ferrari F90 with say a BMW 325, both driven in a straight line at the latter's top speed, and then concluding that hey, both are capable of achieving the same max. speed of, the BMW. Duh. (And "Duh" is the point Collette makes in his reply)

It's not only a flawed comparison, even worse, it's meaningless, a waste of time. It also becomes highly misleading for all the "for what it is worth" type of disclaimer the author applies to the article since there are obviously enough folks who do not analyze the underlying premises enough.

The only thing that can be concluded from Sexton's 4x5 scan of a Fuji Acros shot in comparison with the 1DsII capture is that the 1Ds II appears to perform better if you scan that film with an expensive flatbed scanner. Again, duh. What's the point?

If the 4x5 comparison with the 1DsII shot is meant to be 'useful', he should be comparing it using materials more suited to giving useful data. We're talking about a colour picture, so why not use colour chrome film? Since it's film being compared to a digital capture, why not use the lowest granularity film around for that format, Provia F, since digital is so clean in the first place. And why use a flatbed when in the real world, most photographers who care about quality would either be drumscanning their chromes or using one of the Imacons, either in their own studio or at a service bureau?

At the end of the day, it's about making meaningful comparisons. And Sexton's little shootoff is simply not.

Originally Posted by tingm of course, at the end of the day, for every logical argument one make, someone with a different belief makes ten different arguments to contradict the first one.

It's not about arguing for the sake of arguing which is what you're suggesting Mike. It's also not about beliefs which is the domain of the supernatural, superstitious and religion.

It's about being logical and sensible when examining the premisses used to support conclusions.

[kahheng]

Originally Posted by hongsien I think the real test is ot show two of the same subject images and let your client choose the one they like.........;-) But all depends how large you print it out, and I have seen very large billboards here in HK (Causeway Bay above the SOGO bldg., yes overhere they are still running business), about 7 stories high! Heard they did it with a Casio cam. Hong Sien

Simple as it may sound, you may have hit the nail upon its head when it comes to making useful real world comparisons: Make prints using the same kind of process and media that your pictures will end up printed on, at the sizes they would likely be used, seen from the distances, and in the kind of lighting that they would likely be viewed under.

About 2 years ago, I went to Sydney to train a camera company's techs, trainer and sponsored photographer on the intricacies of their new (then) soon-to-be-launched DSLR system. The question came down to, well, just how good is this camera system compared to what's existing in the market, especially against other professional bodies and lenses?

We went to Ilford's rep office and got them to make 8x12, 15x20, 22.5x30 and 40"x30" prints using the commercial large format inkjet system they were selling (I think it was basically an ENCAD combined with a proprietary Ilford RIP and inks).

Compared to a 1Ds, the camera we were using was only a 5MP model. When shots from both cameras were placed side by side (with the 1Ds shots suitably cropped to fit these ratios), the results were that at the viewing distances which people would best view each size, there was little significant difference. Shots from the 5MP camera even showed better apparent tonality. The 1Ds had the best L lens we could find for it that had the most similar angle of views that the 5MP camera's kit lens had.

What conclusion/s can be drawn from this test?

That if your work is going to end up on a large format inkjet output using a good RIP at those sizes, that if you don't need to crop your 5MP pictures, you MAY not need to buy a 1Ds for that kind of work. Of course we were sensible enough to realise that if the pictures were to have been cropped a lot and then printed at those sizes, the 1Ds would have been much more suitable platform.

BUT that's about as far as the conclusion can go. On other types of output media through other processes, it's hard to say if the conclusions can be the same.

The best 'real world' tests always take into account end use, suitability to task, and cost of ownership.

[+evenstar]

Originally Posted by kahheng The best 'real world' tests always take into account end use, suitability to task, and cost of ownership.

Well said!

[ricohflex]

technology : better & bigger sensors over time will wipe out scanning back. this guy will go out of business on the scrap heap of history. give him a good try certificate.

economics : the only reason someone bothered to make a scanning back (now)

real world user needs : are all your subjects still life? wow. always? 100% ? then you are a "not so versatile" photographer.

who likes to wait? definitely not you.
DEFINITELY NOT YOUR CLIENT, WHO PAYS YOU.

[hongsien]

Originally Posted by ricohflex technology : better & bigger sensors over time will wipe out scanning back. this guy will go out of business on the scrap heap of history. give him a good try certificate. economics : the only reason someone bothered to make a scanning back (now) real world user needs : are all your subjects still life? wow. always? 100% ? then you are a "not so versatile" photographer. who likes to wait? definitely not you. DEFINITELY NOT YOUR CLIENT, WHO PAYS YOU.

Sorry Ricohboy,

Not so sure about what you saying is true, but who wants to pay USD 50,000 or maybe more for a 9x11 cm CCD or CMOS? There are subjects that does permit the use of these scanbacks, that's the reason they are still being made, market rules.........

And the client doesn't wait indeed, they only see the final image, they don't care much how you made that image as long as they get what they want to see. Some clients do understand the difficulties of getting that image though, and they are the ones you need to nurture.......some, if not many in the west do understand the high costs involved and are willing to pay for it too.

Hong Sien