Full Frame v. Med. Format digital images side by side

[maris]

If you are in the Film Discussion and Q&A section of this forum because you want to make pictures out of light sensitive materials then your medium format film camera will beat anything digital. Elsewhere, out in the digital world, a MF film camera, despite the detail and resolution it offers, is a very inefficient way to go about getting pictures up on a monitor screen.....which is where most pictures end up these days.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Which just goes to prove that if you use two different cameras then even when you try you don't produce *equivalent* photos.

Photographers on forums will not let go of their base assumptions, or question the nature of the assumptions they make. The biggest assumption by far is that of, "I see it in the image and therefore it must be a property of that image and contained within the image." It is what we prefer to believe, that there is a mathematical equation that defines how we see images and it is contained in the nature of the way they were recorded.

So what is really going on here and what is the real lesson?

Why do we assume that we are looking at a precision comparison? There was no actual pre-amble explaining it or the test conditions...

They started by laying out the tools you need for *precision* drawing in a precise way. Note how clean, shiny and precise the tools are, they do not have the patina of an artists heavily used brushes, charcoal box, actual used pencils, crayons, squeezed tubes... They are what you associate with precise image making, not what people always use for it...

The title tells you what to see in the video...

You are comparing the *absolute* dof between two very capable high resolution cameras through a compressed video stream. Neither image looks like it is getting anywhere near the dof of a proper full res print from either camera.
The lighting is subtly different giving the impression of greater sharpness in the MF image. The camera angle is slightly different it gives a slightly greater impression of depth and distance in the MF image simply because the near object is nearer and the far object is further, (and this incidentally puts the subject closer to the focal plane and helps dof).

There are two screenshots below, open them in different browser windows and flick between them. An interesting thing, do you actually see the camera angle change? All images are a distortion because all photographic images remove the two most important parts of our vision that allow us the 3D understanding of our environment that we have and it's impossible for you to *see an image correctly* because of it, though it may not be impossible to record it correctly.

We make a lot of important assumptions about the nature of what we see that influence how we interpret what we see, but we rarely even question this. Instead we just make assumptions based on our understanding and area of expertise...

It's a clever advert, helpful, informative, reeks of precision and exactness, tells you what you wish to hear, and the real artistry comes with understanding the nature of the assumptions the viewer makes... The key is in understanding that images aren't absolute but relative to the position, memory and prejudice of the viewer - alongside our desire to form an absolute understanding of what's in the image and what it shows which is normally in line with what we wish to see to support the views we wish to have. And so we tend to believe that *if we see it in an image* that *it exists within the image* and that we can control what is in the image by the things that we understand such as camera settings. In my experience when viewed in isolation viewers will see little difference between the images, or even a single f-stop.

 

[IanG]

Which just goes to prove that if you use two different cameras then even when you try you don't produce *equivalent* photos.

Different cameras, different formats, different lenses some Coated & some Multi Coated, different films, different times as in days and years, and I can produce a set of images that sit coherently and are good equivalents although from varied view points.

That's what we can do with film and this thread IS in the Film Photography section.

I made some images in Cornwall UK around 8 or 9 years ago, two sit framed on a wall side by side, one shot with a Yashicamat 124 Delta 100, the other with my Wista 45DX and a 90mm f6.8 Grandagon N HP5. Aside from the fact I shoot to format and don't crop when printing one's a square image the other 5:4 ratio they look like they could have been made withe the same camera.

There's a third image printed but not yet framed made last October and it's an excellent match, shot with the Wistan45DX and a 240mm f5.6 Nikkor W.

In the same overall Exhibition set there's images made with a 1940 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View and a 12" Dagor (coated post WWII) shot on Fortepan 200 and EFKE PL25. A modest negative scan yields a file of around 1 gigabyte. In addition there's a few images made with a 6x17 camera.

Of course the differences become very apparent wit 24x20 and larger prints I won't take 120 negative to that size, but there's no problems with the 5x4 and 10x8 negatives.

I stopped using 35mm because prints from it don't work alongside LF negatives, MF/120 negative do.

Ian

 

[Soocom1]

Which just goes to prove that if you use two different cameras then even when you try you don't produce *equivalent* photos.

Different cameras, different formats, different lenses some Coated & some Multi Coated, different films, different times as in days and years, and I can produce a set of images that sit coherently and are good equivalents although from varied view points.

That's what we can do with film and this thread IS in the Film Photography section.

I made some images in Cornwall UK around 8 or 9 years ago, two sit framed on a wall side by side, one shot with a Yashicamat 124 Delta 100, the other with my Wista 45DX and a 90mm f6.8 Grandagon N HP5. Aside from the fact I shoot to format and don't crop when printing one's a square image the other 5:4 ratio they look like they could have been made withe the same camera.

There's a third image printed but not yet framed made last October and it's an excellent match, shot with the Wistan45DX and a 240mm f5.6 Nikkor W.

In the same overall Exhibition set there's images made with a 1940 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View and a 12" Dagor (coated post WWII) shot on Fortepan 200 and EFKE PL25. A modest negative scan yields a file of around 1 gigabyte. In addition there's a few images made with a 6x17 camera.

Of course the differences become very apparent wit 24x20 and larger prints I won't take 120 negative to that size, but there's no problems with the 5x4 and 10x8 negatives.

I stopped using 35mm because prints from it don't work alongside LF negatives, MF/120 negative do.

Ian

Its along these lines that I was asking.
Now the technical film v. digital aspect aside, the focus of the original aspect was to ask about the effect of format on the overall image.
I use digital now though I have shot all formats at one time or another.

There are mechanics involved that I will truncate the discussions at this point but fall into the format issue.

But what I am mostly interested in is if it will eventually be worth investing in the Med. Format Digital world.

The effect of Med. Format v. 35mm in film is well known to me, but I am also looking strongly at other aspects.
if those aspects cross over from film into the digital world.

 

[jcdeboever]

I have both or all. The image output of the GFX50R raw file is a night and day difference from a D610 raw file. Its not even in the same league. The dynamic range in the GFX raw image seems endless, in Capture One. In reality, you wouldn't really notice until you have to print something large for like a gallery print or where ultimate image output is critical, like in an advertising piece. The DP review was a joke, don't even get me started on that. Then there is the point of what kind of tool the photographer needs. If digital ultimate image output is the tool needed, the MF sensor is the place to start. It is the same for film.

 

[smoke665]

If digital ultimate image output is the tool needed, the MF sensor is the place to start. It is the same for film

Larger is always better. From graphic arts/newspaper days we always composed ads/layouts larger and reduced for a cleaner print. Going the other way amplifies imperfections.

Recently found some old 610 film negatives from the 50's, that were shot on an old Argus box camera. Despite the cheap camera and lens they were surprisingly sharp at 100%.

 

[IanG]

It's not as simple as just chip size and format because not all chips are equal. But with like or close to like quality a larger chip will always give better results

There also issues of the printer driver or RIP and interpolation when printing digital files. Some years ago I made a superb A3 print from a 2mb camera and it's quality was really all down to the Canon printer driver. I no longer make any Digital prints although I have the equipment. I've done a lot of commercial work with a DSLR and prints/posters to A0 as well as brochures and leaflets.

I've shot digital for 20+ years although I've not upgrade for some time and need to soon, it'll be a full frame Canon DSLR as I have the lenses. What ever you buy is superceded quickly, it's one reason I stick to film for Exhibition work. The other is I often need movements so shoot mostly LF and the cost of LF digital backs is prohibitive and many weren't very portable.

Ultimately you adapt to what ever camera you use and buy the best you can afford, although of course the camera body is less,important with LF.

Ian

 

[Soocom1]

It's not as simple as just chip size and format because not all chips are equal. But with like or close to like quality a larger chip will always give better results

There also issues of the printer driver or RIP and interpolation when printing digital files. Some years ago I made a superb A3 print from a 2mb camera and it's quality was really all down to the Canon printer driver. I no longer make any Digital prints although I have the equipment. I've done a lot of commercial work with a DSLR and prints/posters to A0 as well as brochures and leaflets.

I've shot digital for 20+ years although I've not upgrade for some time and need to soon, it'll be a full frame Canon DSLR as I have the lenses. What ever you buy is superceded quickly, it's one reason I stick to film for Exhibition work. The other is I often need movements so shoot mostly LF and the cost of LF digital backs is prohibitive and many weren't very portable.

Ultimately you adapt to what ever camera you use and buy the best you can afford, although of course the camera body is less,important with LF.

Ian

This opens up something I have long talked about in other industries.

If you are old enough, you might remember that the concept of audiophile was someone who had a stereo system made up of tweeters, woofers, whizzers, mid range, bass, etc. With all sorts of equipment in between. From the stereo to equalizers, cross overs etc. And the sound was amazing.
But things as they are, today a car audio system (many now don't even have CDs) are bare bones basic. No real sound interpolation and the like. No real fine tuning. All automatic and the sound is terrible.

In photography, the software from one platform to another is different.
The first scanner I bought could scan a document with an output file of literally 100Mb. This killed a 386 processor, but the image was beyond the capability of the video card on the monitor.

How good will the image be with the Windows dithering system vs. that of other software. The Nvidia is the primary go to system today, but how "true" is the driver to that of Adobe RGB, or CMTK, vs. the older system pre-adobe that tried unsuccessfully to create a 10 million color dithering system?

With film, it was direct and very clear difference.

 

[smoke665]

@Soocom1 everything in life changes. Sometimes better sometimes not. I'm reminded of this:

5000 years ago Moses said, "Pack up you camel, pick up your shovel, mount
your ass, and I will lead you to the promised land."

5000 years later, F. D. Roosevelt said, " Lay down your shovel, sit on your
ass and light up a camel, this is the promised land."

Today, the government will tax your shovel, sell your camel, kick your ass, and tell you there is no promised land.......

 

[Soocom1]

@Soocom1 everything in life changes. Sometimes better sometimes not. I'm reminded of this:

5000 years ago Moses said, "Pack up you camel, pick up your shovel, mount
your ass, and I will lead you to the promised land."

5000 years later, F. D. Roosevelt said, " Lay down your shovel, sit on your
ass and light up a camel, this is the promised land."

Today, the government will tax your shovel, sell your camel, kick your ass, and tell you there is no promised land.......

And I am in the system that says it....

go figure.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Which just goes to prove that if you use two different cameras then even when you try you don't produce *equivalent* photos.

Different cameras, different formats, different lenses some Coated & some Multi Coated, different films, different times as in days and years, and I can produce a set of images that sit coherently and are good equivalents although from varied view points.

That's what we can do with film and this thread IS in the Film Photography section.

I made some images in Cornwall UK around 8 or 9 years ago, two sit framed on a wall side by side, one shot with a Yashicamat 124 Delta 100, the other with my Wista 45DX and a 90mm f6.8 Grandagon N HP5. Aside from the fact I shoot to format and don't crop when printing one's a square image the other 5:4 ratio they look like they could have been made withe the same camera.

There's a third image printed but not yet framed made last October and it's an excellent match, shot with the Wistan45DX and a 240mm f5.6 Nikkor W.

In the same overall Exhibition set there's images made with a 1940 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View and a 12" Dagor (coated post WWII) shot on Fortepan 200 and EFKE PL25. A modest negative scan yields a file of around 1 gigabyte. In addition there's a few images made with a 6x17 camera.

Of course the differences become very apparent wit 24x20 and larger prints I won't take 120 negative to that size, but there's no problems with the 5x4 and 10x8 negatives.

I stopped using 35mm because prints from it don't work alongside LF negatives, MF/120 negative do.

Ian

Essentially, YES!

It was a little tongue in cheek. Some posters on some sites are so invested in the idea of *precise capture* and *logical mathematics* that they only look for and see the technical aspects of images to prove that their understanding of cameras is correct and what makes them good photographers. Most viewers look at an image and it's the one that most resonates with their memory and the emotions they associate with that memory to decide which is the best image.

What we see in images is largely down to viewpoint and prejudice. But we still believe what we see, we still assume that what we see is correct and accurate, and because we assume that we see things correctly and accurately we also assume that what we see is actually contained within the image.

I generally agree with your observations, with film and a static subject most people will not see the difference between MF and LF. I have more freedom with a LF camera because of the way I can influence dof independently of focal length. Which means I can get in close and maintain a large dof with standard/longer lenses. It influences how you interpret scale and distance in the finished image.

But essentially there is little difference between two similar photos displayed next to each other. Differences in the light, or even the strength of the wind can affect your assumptions of sharpness (dof) and the camera used. When we stop looking under a microscope to *prove* to ourselves that our technical understanding is what matters and controls what people see we generally find that it doesn't really matter that much. More realistic renditions look sharper than tone-mapped and sharpened images because we associate sharpness with reality, if it looks real we assume it is and therefore correct and therefore sharp.

Perceptual effects and the assumptions we make when we view influence our choice of liking one image over another far more than the noise performance between FF and MF digital or even MF and LF film.

Its along these lines that I was asking.
Now the technical film v. digital aspect aside, the focus of the original aspect was to ask about the effect of format on the overall image.
I use digital now though I have shot all formats at one time or another.

My personal opinion with digital is that there isn't really that much difference between between MF and FF digital other than the strengths that have always been present. Larger formats have more resolution but are suited to more static subjects. I think that MF digital will become a dead duck with the new range of FF mirrorless, they will even threaten 5"x 4" film... You can shoot it and marvel in knowing that you have less noise even if most people tend only to look at the scenery...

 

[Soocom1]

A long time ago (approx. 2002) I shot some 110, APS, 35mm, MF (120) and 4x5 of the exact same image. i used the same speed of film and measured out the distance to make sure the image was a close to the same as possible.
The intent was to show the end result of the diff. formats.
The pictures themselves showed various degrees of quality and overall image aspects.

Digital is a diff. beast. its sorta like having a fast speed film with uber grain. imagine a 400 speed film with a 6 ASA grain.
comparing a 24 Mp FF to a 6 Mp Med. F isnt too far fetched and can show differences for sure.
But imagine if they are capable of creating a 13Mp 1/1.7 iPhone sensor, and incorporating that into a genuine 6x9 Med. Format sensor (and it can be done) what the quality would be like?

 

[IanG]

Different cameras, different formats, different lenses some Coated & some Multi Coated, different films, different times as in days and years, and I can produce a set of images that sit coherently and are good equivalents although from varied view points.

That's what we can do with film and this thread IS in the Film Photography section.

I made some images in Cornwall UK around 8 or 9 years ago, two sit framed on a wall side by side, one shot with a Yashicamat 124 Delta 100, the other with my Wista 45DX and a 90mm f6.8 Grandagon N HP5. Aside from the fact I shoot to format and don't crop when printing one's a square image the other 5:4 ratio they look like they could have been made withe the same camera.

There's a third image printed but not yet framed made last October and it's an excellent match, shot with the Wistan45DX and a 240mm f5.6 Nikkor W.

In the same overall Exhibition set there's images made with a 1940 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View and a 12" Dagor (coated post WWII) shot on Fortepan 200 and EFKE PL25. A modest negative scan yields a file of around 1 gigabyte. In addition there's a few images made with a 6x17 camera.

Of course the differences become very apparent wit 24x20 and larger prints I won't take 120 negative to that size, but there's no problems with the 5x4 and 10x8 negatives.

I stopped using 35mm because prints from it don't work alongside LF negatives, MF/120 negative do.

Ian

Essentially, YES!

It was a little tongue in cheek. Some posters on some sites are so invested in the idea of *precise capture* and *logical mathematics* that they only look for and see the technical aspects of images to prove that their understanding of cameras is correct and what makes them good photographers. Most viewers look at an image and it's the one that most resonates with their memory and the emotions they associate with that memory to decide which is the best image.

What we see in images is largely down to viewpoint and prejudice. But we still believe what we see, we still assume that what we see is correct and accurate, and because we assume that we see things correctly and accurately we also assume that what we see is actually contained within the image.

I generally agree with your observations, with film and a static subject most people will not see the difference between MF and LF. I have more freedom with a LF camera because of the way I can influence dof independently of focal length. Which means I can get in close and maintain a large dof with standard/longer lenses. It influences how you interpret scale and distance in the finished image.

But essentially there is little difference between two similar photos displayed next to each other. Differences in the light, or even the strength of the wind can affect your assumptions of sharpness (dof) and the camera used. When we stop looking under a microscope to *prove* to ourselves that our technical understanding is what matters and controls what people see we generally find that it doesn't really matter that much. More realistic renditions look sharper than tone-mapped and sharpened images because we associate sharpness with reality, if it looks real we assume it is and therefore correct and therefore sharp.

Perceptual effects and the assumptions we make when we view influence our choice of liking one image over another far more than the noise performance between FF and MF digital or even MF and LF film. [/QUOTE]

It's all about knowing your equipment, and then how to get the best from the capture film or digital. If you come from film digital is easy but not vice versa.

My last 3 digital cameras paid for themselves in days, the next probably won't as I do little commercial work these days, thinking about it so did the last two digital video cameras. Those were the days ;D, however hard work 70-80 hr weeks it weeks.

Ian