1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you take?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Oct 30, 2012.

  1. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    2 1/4" square is almost equivalent to 6cm x 6cm..about 1/10th inch shy so is it close enough...
     
  2. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Each negative was printed in three strips each 1x3 metres to make a final image of slightly under 3 metres square. much in the way outside posters are done. (Did not use inches in Spain)

    Although13x18 cm film was used it was framed (cropped) to 13x13 to make up the 3 metre square prints that were required.

    There was no calculation needed as the projection wall was pre marked with strips and overlaps.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
  3. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    My understanding is that the Rollei format, being designed by a German company, is, and always was 6 by 6 cm (2.362 inches)- it just was translated into the approximate 2 1/4 inches for us peasants who insisted on using imperial measures

    Roger
     
  4. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Yah, but in der Deutsche precision ze 6x6cm ist actually 56mm x 56mm which is nicht szo precise, bitte, also ich bin ein Berliner! :eek:
     
  5. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    It sounds as if I am the doughnut, not you

    Roger
     
  6. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    May I remind you, 'we' weren't expecting that.

    'We' were told that the mp equiv of the 35mm frame was about 25, therefore a digi-cam had to be 25mp to compete with film. That theory went out the window - chased away by practice - some time ago. ;)

    Secondly, MF lenses, by and large, have been inferior to 35mm lenses for three to four decades. Prior to digital (and more recently) has seen some catch-up but in the meantime 35mm equiv lenses have also had to improve although mostly as far as the plane/depth of focus is concerned.

    Thirdly, 'twas not SO long ago that folk were getting excited about upgrading their Phase One backs from 11mp ...

    ... and here we are - I'm another one - with folk quite happy with twelve little Nikon mp tucked up all nice'n'cosy in a D700. Yes, a doubling would be something (or even trebling to a D800/800E) but it brings with it other problems, not least initial cost if an early adopter plus associated computer hassles.

    Finally, 24mp probably WILL give m/f digi equivalent resolution behind the superior 35mm equiv glass but you will need to print to A3, or more likely more - a lot more - to appreciate it. And by the time you sort all that out, the m/f digi brigade will be thinking their 65mp backs are a bit old hat and not quite sharp enough and, with P. 'The Pixel' Stoddart, will sitting in the corner dreaming of 100mp+ to 135mp! :p
     
  7. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    I 'dought' that! ;)

    I've just reminded myself what a friend e-mailed me with when I enquired whether he had enjoyed Photokina this year. I wanted to refresh my doughnut style memory which l/f lens had him dribbling until he heard the price. {It was a Rodenstock's new 90mm HR Digaron-SW - a snip at 4,500 Euros ;):)} The l/f guys are having to get their act together in response to these 20-36mp DSLR cameras!

    It may interest you that he also wrote in the same e-mail that they saw 'Loads of big prints that could have been from 645 but were actually 4/3s!!'

    'Nuff said!
     
  8. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak


    Outside the bound of digital without using interpolation I would say.

    If we assum the 130mm x 130mm negative is slow film and drum scanned it should yield 350-390MP.

    But if it was print 300ppi for the output that is 1251MP!

    Each 1x1 metre tile is around 140MP similar to a A0 print.

    So you are needing 300% interpolation.

    Of Course 13x13cm is not MF it is LF.

    But such large scale images in the digital age are mainly done using inkjet which is not 300ppi. But even then it is nice to have a large input file. That is why LF will have a long life.

    I assum the results were pretty good from the 13x13cm negatives. :)
     
  9. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    When they were mounted they were about 1.5 to 2 metres away behind window glass.
    They looked as good as a 10x8 would in the hand. Much better than multisheet screen print halftone posters do as they were real chlorobromide prints.

    I saw similar sized display Prints in Yaeger showroom in the 60's
     
  10. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Not me, camera makers. :D

    If makers put more pixels into consumer level product then it would be silly. The average shooter does A3 or just above, let say 12x18" that is only 20MP with borders 14MP (assuming 1" borders) so 24MP is enough for cropping etc.

    It's the pro who what large prints for exhibition or selling as art to highend market. Therefore A2 and above. But 24MP can reach that as well. Just it leaves you no cropping room.

    Hence the poll.

    But of course APs can buy pro gear if they want. :)

    It will get interesting what MF makers will do. There's not much room to move. Will they try and go after the 5x4" market at say 300MP? Must be fairly niche? Presuming that can make a proper 60x60mm sensor or 60x70mm.

    I was wondering if they could use the 36MP sensor by mounting a group close together and using software to correct any defects from mis-alignment. That way as 35mm goes up so does MF.

    Another approach is similar to pro video cameras I believe. Beam split the RGB to three identical sensor of say 48MP give you a total 144MP or even 192MP down the line. The only problem with that approach is losing optical quality as a result of the split plus exposure. Makes the camera bulky as well.
     
  11. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Very interesting - confirms my own observation that if I put one of my two best lenses onto 4/3 any print limitation is way above my capacity to print . If on the other hand I put my not quite so good telephoto on A3 is somewhere near the limit. All that is from looking at the four A3 prints that have already made it to various walls - of course that is on in house inkjet and commercial print systems may differ


    Roger
     
  12. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Go on, pull the other one! You're the one always goin' on about mp ... :rolleyes:

    So all this interpolation neurosis is just a front ... :confused:? Is that rising front or falling front? ;)


    Just to remind you, the l/f format was clobbered to extinction for static work by 3mp or was it 5mp, on the first PhaseOne back? When was that? 1996? 1997? That's what did for Polaroid.

    All the catalogue cos. jumped straight in, despite the £35,000+ investment required for the picture bits let alone the other stuff.

    See my post above about Rodenstock. There's not a lot of point in going pixel mad for l/f backs because the existing m/f backs work on l/f as well. The reason for using the l/f camera is more likely to be movements & depth of field related. I gather the Rodenstock guys are trumpeting that this is the first l/f lens to be totally designed to be compatible with digital rather than a hangover from the film era.

    The folk who use film now in larger than 120 format will be
    1. enthusiasts,
    2. St Ansel of Carmel wannabes,
    3. folk who've always used it and want to go on doing so (whether pro or am) because it gives them something they want or need,
    4. photographers who need to use it to access some particular process, or,
    5. newbies who have the wherewithal and are just plain curious: 'What'll it do, Mister?'.

    They are unlikely to have much desire to buy digital stuff dedicated to large format even if they could afford it.

    Even museums and the fine art market have been announcing recently that they are switching to digital. Many of the phogs who use l/f for work already use digital on it which they find entirely adequate although a friend of mine who we will refer to as 'Nikon Norman' {n/changed to protect the guilty} is now musing out loud whether a D800E plus shift lenses will be good enough and a lot easier in use instead of Arca plus Phase One! The lenses are the thing he moans about and Rodenstock's pricey innovation may be too little (or too much) too late.
     
  13. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak


    It seems that upping "pixel density" is easy compared to upping sensor size. Indeed the discussions on onlandscape.com suggest that the latest phase one backs can match even 5x4 for detail. I only ever worked with 6x6 ( or should I say 56 mm square) Bronica but I like that experience and would like to see a digital equivalent even if it is low pixel density per unit area.
     
  14. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    MF back at this time if you leave out Hasselblad H5D multi-shot thing are at 80MP.

    A good high quality drum scan of say 5x4" Velvia 50 should yeild at least 250MP. That what most 5x4" shooters report.

    So MF has along road to hit that.

    I reckon 250MP is low it should be around 280MP or even 300MP.

    Of course if you use a faster film or not a fine grain then the res could fall to 150MP maybe less. Still MF digital below that.

    I presuming a the optics in front of the film are top notch but that would not be the film's fault.

    The reason museum are probably going digital is cost, they have had their budgets cut. 5x4" film is expensive.

    But this is all fine art or highend pro stuff. Not my thing at all.

    For me 24MP on reasonable size sensor say 1" would be fine and I reckon alot other shooters would agree.
     
  15. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Absolutely, for 35 mm that ( I went for 16-20) is perfect and gives room for cropping etc. originally I just scaled this up to a MF size, 6x6 to 6x9, but probably a pixel density eqivalent to 10-12 at 35 mm would be enough. That would be smaller pixel count but bigger sensors cf. current offerings. I read somewhere that the current phase one sensors are composites ( more than one sensor stitched together) so some manufacturing breakthrough is needed.

    Amazing this thread is still running!
     
  16. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    And very pleasant that this thread doesn't appear to have attracted some of the strongly partisan views which have occurred with, and spoilt, some other threads.
     
  17. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Just wondering is it ok to comment on the poll?

    Abit surprised at the current leader so to speak.

    Did everyone vote? Or do some not care at all or think it is pointless?
     
  18. hhmr

    hhmr Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    I'm not at all surprised by the result! It reflects what is currently attainable without spending ridiculous amounts of money and it implies that people who are busy taking photographs, as opposed to exploring the future, are happy to work with current mainstream technology.

    As it happens my latest camera is a 'full frame' 18MP and was rather expensive but there is no way I'm going to part with my Pentax K10D (10MP) which still does a pretty good job with the things for which I use it (and a long zoom lens), or with the very second hand M8 (10MP) I've had for a couple of years. The M8's notorious extra sensitivity towards infra red is actually quite helpful for those of us who enjoy creating monochrome pictures. (Btw the panic about the display, however embarrassing to Leica and enraging to the individuals concerned, was based on a very small number of failures so I've never lost any sleep over that myself.)

    I was scanning 35mm film of all kinds quite often (and also 6x6 and larger negs from time to time) long, long before I bought the DSLR in in 2007. People talk about the MP equivalent of scanned film as a single number which strikes me as a bit unrealistic as there is a world of a difference betwen the beautiful (though very grainy) results you can get from Delta 3200 and the equally beautiful results you can get from scanning fine grain silver or dye images.

    If we cast our minds back I'm sure most of us can remember the different wet darkroom results you can get from enlargers with point source and those with a diffused source illumination. Scanners differ in similar ways (I've got both an Epson V700 and a Konica Minolta Dimage 5400II so I speak from first hand experience of two excellent but very different scanners.) It's quite instructive comparing darkroom and inkjet prints of the same neg made in various ways. 16MP seems to me to be more or else in the middle of quite a wide range of 35mm film resolutions, and that's before one considers the interesting (and often quite rewarding) task of reclaiming something from dye negatives which have deteriorated.

    So I'm not surprised that people quite like 16MP. I'd have thought the physical size of the sensor is no longer a particularly burning topic, considering how good 4/3 is proving to be.

    I don't think the quiz or thread was pointless at all but it does raise issues over which discussion isn't always entirely practical, however erudite. Few photographs are taken in lab conditions and not everyone wants to make 'Gursky size' prints.

    While I certainly don't claim to be, or even aspire to being a photographic guru, I have been snapping away since 1947 with a range of cameras from 35mm to 1/2 plate and I do have 3300 photos or so up on my picture site:

    http://www.pbase.com/hhmrogers

    So have got at least some "ink in my paybook".
     
  19. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

  20. Yebisu

    Yebisu Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    I almost agree. I'd like 10mp rather than 6mp though.

    I've printed wide yotsugiri (10x14.5 in.) from my 10mp D3000 and been very happy with the results. I don't print very often but when I do, I go to my local lab and talk through the print options with the staff. It's relatively expensive but I haven't been disappointed with the results yet.
     

Share This Page