Back to the Future

[stever]

In nose to print inspections the big digital backs will out do film every time. The dynamic range of today's common digital backs is 12 stops ...

Not with only one exposure. That violates the laws of physics for the digital sensors. Please send me a case of whatever you are drinking or smoking.

Steve

 

[stever]

The 4490 can't touch a digital back either ...

I never said that it competes with a drum scanner. It is at least as good as the most digital backs [16 bits versus 12 bits; samples per inch, ...] and a hell of a lot cheaper. It is good enough for my purposes of posting on the internet, sending email and scanning 35mm film to make 12"x18" prints at Costco for one of my customers [it is good enough for his purposes].

Steve

 

[fotografz]

Not with only one exposure. That violates the laws of physics for the digital sensors. Please send me a case of whatever you are drinking or smoking.

Steve

It isn't what I'm smoking or drinking Steve ... apparently it's what the engineers at Phase One are indulging in ... LOL!

Here's a quote directly from their web site for the "single shot" P40+ digital back: (I was wrong, it's 12.5 stops dynamic range).

"The versatility of the P 40+ system is important for those who seek quality medium-format 16-bit capture under a variety of working conditions. Both modes feature a 12.5 f-stop dynamic range. From high-end wedding, fashion and fine-art photographers to photojournalists, the choice of capture modes in a single camera system frees photographers to focus on the job at hand rather than worry over equipment."

-Marc

 

[michaelhcothran]

Marc - When comparing digital backs that can produce the pixel counts that scanned film can, I strongly agree with you. But in some instances, film is the better technical choice.
Allow me to play the devil's advocate here in my own world:

In my own work, the CFV has measurable limitations compared to scanned film. My CFV produces an image 4080x4080 pixels. Scanned film with my Nikon LS9000 produces a pixel image approximately 8500x8500 pixels. Simply put, no matter how great other qualities may be in the CFV image, a 4000 pixel image cannot compete with an 8000 pixel image in detail clarity. 24x24" is the absolute largest print I would make with the CFV on an image with fine detail. And yes, this is strictly subjective. But in my subjective opinion, the CFV's lack of detail in finer areas becomes quite noticeable at this enlargement level. With scanned Fuji Reala, I've not yet had an image I had to worry about as far as detail goes. But comparing scanned 6x6 film to the CFV is hardly a fair game. Level the playing field with a 39 mpix back, or a 50 or 60 mpix back, and I believe the digital image will soar like an eagle.

Michael H. Cothran

 

[fotografz]

I never said that it competes with a drum scanner. It is at least as good as the most digital backs [16 bits versus 12 bits; samples per inch, ...] and a hell of a lot cheaper. It is good enough for my purposes of posting on the internet, sending email and scanning 35mm film to make 12"x18" prints at Costco for one of my customers [it is good enough for his purposes].

Steve

If you were saying that digital backs are 12 bit Steve, you should know that there isn't one single MF digital back being made today that ISN"T 16 bit capture.

If "good enough" is okay with you, then keep at it ... "good enough" is most certainly a lot less expensive.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Marc - When comparing digital backs that can produce the pixel counts that scanned film can, I strongly agree with you.
But allow me to play the devil's advocate here in my own world:

In my own work, the CFV has measurable limitations compared to scanned film. My CFV produces an image 4080x4080 pixels. Scanned film with my Nikon LS9000 produces a pixel image approximately 8500x8500 pixels. Simply put, no matter how great other qualities may be in the CFV image, a 4000 pixel image cannot compete with an 8000 pixel image in detail clarity. 24x24" is the absolute largest print I would make with the CFV on an image with fine detail. And yes, this is strictly subjective. But in my subjective opinion, the CFV's lack of detail in finer areas becomes quite noticeable at this enlargement level. With scanned Fuji Reala, I've not yet had an image I had to worry about as far as detail goes. But comparing scanned film to the CFV is hardly a fair game. Replace the CFV with a 39 mpix back, or a 50 or 60 mpix back, and I believe the digital image will soar like an eagle.

Michael H. Cothran

I don't disagree with that completely Michael ... the CFV is pretty ancient sensor technology wrapped in a very nice package that made digital more doable for V camera users. But we all knew it's limitations going in ... and it's heading toward being history now.

The quality of sensors, and more importantly the electronics, have drastically improved since the Imacon days back when that sensor was developed by Kodak. I seriously doubt that there will be any MF digital back under 30 meg with-in a year or two. Probably nothing from Hasselblad for the H system under 50 meg. Dalsa isn't asleep at the wheel either. Pretty inventive stuff coming from them.

One other thing that gets overlooked is that digital is a direct process ... camera to screen to print. Scans that have "bigger math" do not necessarily translate into superior results. I can pull some pretty hefty meg count scans from a 35mm film @ 8000 ppi but the stuff from a 24.5 meg D3X can be cleaner and feature more detail @ approx. the same ISO.

The strides being made in the area of software has been a true rocket ride into the future ... a new version of Phocus due in a month or so, and Capture One has version 5 soon.

(Listen to me, a film lover taking the side of digital ... LOL! ... but I have to call 'em as I see 'em.) Again, it's the look and feel of film, not the technical aspects that keep me shooting 12 frames at a crack as oppose to 1000 like I can with my H camera : -)

=Marc

 

[stever]

If you were saying that digital backs are 12 bit Steve, you should know that there isn't one single MF digital back being made today that ISN"T 16 bit capture.

If "good enough" is okay with you, then keep at it ... "good enough" is most certainly a lot less expensive.

-Marc

I specifically said that many 35mm digital cameras are still 12 bits/color. If that is a reflection of your reading comprehension, I can see now see why you are claiming 12.5 f stops.

Steve

 

[fotografz]

I specifically said that many 35mm digital cameras are still 12 bits/color. If that is a reflection of your reading comprehension, I can see now see why you are claiming 12.5 f stops.

Steve

Here's what you said in reference to your Epson flatbed: "I never said that it competes with a drum scanner. It is at least as good as the most digital backs [16 bits versus 12 bits; samples per inch,..." Which is why I questioned it. This is a Medium Format forum, not a 35mm one so the context is Medium Format.

Steve, perhaps you haven't figured out that this forum is a well mannered one and we all have our opinions .... right, wrong, or indifferent ... but we tend not to sling personal insults even if we disagree.

BTW, if you do not grasp how a medium format digital back can capture 12 stops of dynamic range as published, feel free to contact Hasselblad, Phase One or Leaf and have them explain it to you.

Thanks,

-Marc

 

[stever]

BTW, if you do not grasp how a medium format digital back can capture 12 stops of dynamic range as published, feel free to contact Hasselblad, Phase One or Leaf and have them explain it to you.

They do it in four images because the focal plane does not have the dynamic range to do it in one image. That means if there is any movement in the image, the scene cannot be captured. That is somewhat less than useless for photographers. I can just see the photographers shouting to the basketball players to hold their position mid air so that they can take the next three images.

When digital photography can really compete with film, let me know. That is ten years off baring a major breakthrough in solid state technology.

Steve

 

[fotografz]

They do it in four images because the focal plane does not have the dynamic range to do it in one image. That means if there is any movement in the image, the scene cannot be captured. That is somewhat less than useless for photographers. I can just see the photographers shouting to the basketball players to hold their position mid air so that they can take the next three images.

When digital photography can really compete with film, let me know. That is ten years off baring a major breakthrough in solid state technology.

Steve

Most digital backs are single shot SLR cameras ... one image captured the same way as a film camera does. Medium Format units that take 4 shots are called Multi-Shot cameras, and are used for still life work to capture greater detail without Moiré ... they have nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

The Phase One P40+camera mention above as having 12.5 stop dynamic range (according to Phase One, not me) is a single shot MF digital back. It does NOT take 4 shots to do it.

However, this is a fruitless discussion as most here know all this already, and you do not ... nor are you interested in getting up to speed on it either.

Believe what you want.

Adios,

-Marc

 

[simonpg]

Well I for one can only endorse Marc's comments - because he so generously ran 3 of my 6x6 trannies through his scanner and the 400+MB files were simply magnificent! Obviously the 3 key factors are: the film image quality; the scanner and the person operating the scanner!

 

[polypal]

Simon,

In all modesty you forgot the fourth key factor: the person pressing the release button after setting the camera for a great shot.



Paul

 

[sperera]

amen brother....i posted a few shots on the Black n white section of this forum myself.....long live V film Hasselblad....

Dear friends,

I have gone back to film only for my V system. No more digital capture on a V ... only film.

I applaud Hasselblad for continued digital support of the V system with their latest CFV/39 at a relatively reasonable price ... which has breathed new live into the V systems and seems to be bringing back many to the franchise.

But I was hoping for a 9 micron, larger square sensor. I already have the H3D-II/39 on which I can mount any 500 series Leaf Shutter lens. So this new back was just to redundant for me.

More importantly, digital had a corrosive effect as I tended to indulge my impatience every time I picked up the 203FE ... and opted for the siren's song of CFV-II digital capture and immediate need gratification. But always I longed for the look of film ... especially B&W film ... which with a V camera is sublime and elegant in use and results.

So the only answer for my weaknesses is to discipline myself and eliminate the digital option when it comes to my 203FE system.

Okay, I admit I have a bit of an advantage ... I own an Imacon 949 Scanner ... so it's not a totally analog transition backwards ... LOL!

Your thoughts?

-Marc

 

[simonpg]

Thanks Paul!

Marc's comments surprised me a little I must say - he was so enthusiastic about the image quality from the first CFV, the 16MP despite its 50% crop factor. But, obviously his reference to the CFV 39mp back makes sense given his use of both the V and H systems.

But there certainly is something sublime about B&W film that I've not yet seen replicated in digital capture.

A QUESTION:
Given the reference to the Hassy / Zeiss effect on B&W results, does anyone think that the German (Zeiss, Leica etc) lens tonality produces a different / better look from B&W. I certainly find that it does in colour, so maybe it does in B&W - your views..??

 

[fotografz]

Thanks Paul!

Marc's comments surprised me a little I must say - he was so enthusiastic about the image quality from the first CFV, the 16MP despite its 50% crop factor. But, obviously his reference to the CFV 39mp back makes sense given his use of both the V and H systems.

But there certainly is something sublime about B&W film that I've not yet seen replicated in digital capture.

A QUESTION:
Given the reference to the Hassy / Zeiss effect on B&W results, does anyone think that the German (Zeiss, Leica etc) lens tonality produces a different / better look from B&W. I certainly find that it does in colour, so maybe it does in B&W - your views..??

Oh Simon, I do hope my move away from the CFV is not taken the wrong way. It is a fabulous solution for die-in-the-wool V shooters.

However, times have changed and supporting two digital systems and upgrades that are pretty redundant in end result is just too expensive.

I am seriously investigating the possibility of selling off all my V gear as I slide into retirement from my advertising career, and will be doing Photography full time until they plant me.

I have already sold my 60/3.5 CFi, 120/4CFE and 350/5.6CF ... and am entertaining offers for my entire 203FE system. The remaining CFi and CFE lenses will go piece by piece.

I am keeping the entire H system, and am investigating replacing most all of my 35mm DSLR systems (Nikon and Sony) with a Leica S2.

I recently neared completion of the M kit with a M9, 24/1.4 ASPH and Noctilux 0.95 ASPH added to the other M lenses I already have.

Interesting times.

-Marc

P.S., Yes, Film is still not equalled by B&W digital IMHO.

And yes, Leica and Zeiss produce stunning B&W results ... but I must say that some Nikon and Canon lenses have made great strides ... but just a few.

Still, there is an unmistakable level of subtile micro contrast from the Leica and Zeiss optics as yet unmatched by anyone save tech lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider.

 

[simonpg]

You have mail!

Thanks Marc. You have mail re your kit!!

I understand and did see the logic in your equipment "consolidation".

Actually it was very interesting to read your post about your consolidation, especially the DSLR kit/s. It is the sort of logic I expect Leica is counting on with the S2.

IMHO, Canon, Nikon and Sony alike are trying to push the boundaries of a 24x36 frame with zillions of pixels to effectively achieve medium format results for pros. Alas it seems that just as in the case of film, digital capture needs real estate!

Hopefully (for Leica's future) the S2 will prove a winning mid-point for pros - the convenience (or close to it) of DSLR and the quality of MF. Even possibly the one kit (albeit a very expensive one at that) may suit many professionals.

BUT, as history has proven time and again, products that seek to be all things to all men and sit in the "middle" of 2 options often end up fitting nowhere - neither one thing nor another. Personally I don't think that will be the case for the S2. I can't wait to see prints of S2 images with the new lenses.

Although off topic now, you must let us know how good that amazing Noctilux 0.95 50mm lens is and even post an example in the "Off Topic" section"!

 

[simonpg]

Marc, you have more mail - CFi 100mm!

 

[polypal]

Hello Marc,


Keep in mind there will allways be evilbay and other sources to find a nice selection of Hasselblad V series cameras and lenses.
You would not be the first who came back to the V series after selling what you got.

If on the other hand for your current work the Leica M9 and possibly at a later stage the S2 camera fill your needs and wishes all the better.

Lets see what the future brings.


Paul

 

[bensonga]

Marc, you have more mail - CFi 100mm!

Simon,

By all accounts....a terrific lens. I need to get out and use mine more often.

I keep hearing what an incredible lens the Zeiss 110/f2 is as well.....makes me think I should be looking for a 203/205 series camera.

Gary

 

[bladdered]

I keep hearing what an incredible lens the Zeiss 110/f2 is as well.....makes me think I should be looking for a 203/205 series camera. Gary

Gary,
I have a superb 110FE f2 lens that will be listed as soon as the 203FE + CFV offered in the Classifieds here finds a new home.

If you want a CFV as well ~ you've found everything you need.
Gary