View Full Version : Just 10Mp??? What was Leica thinking?
This has been the tendency of some posts around here... I've been crunching some numbers over the weekend, working from the other end, i.e. what is the biological resolution limit.
It is well-known that if a negative is good enough for A4 it is good enough for any enlargement, as the viewing distance will increase with the print size, making the net result about equal.
I postulated a 75x50 cm print, viewed at 75 cm distance. That would even tax film.
The finest detail the human eye can resove at that distance, for a relatively young person of say, 25 years old, is 0,25 mm.
We need, then, 4 points per mm. That makes 3000x2000 points, which is, obviously, 6 Mp. So 10Mp has plenty of reserve.
How does that compare to film? Well, normal 100 ISO slide-film resolves about 50 points/mm at 30% contrast transmission. That is just 1800x1200 pixels = 2.6 MP !!
Let's make the competition stiffer, use Technical Pan or Delta 100.
Those will resolve, used with an Apo-Summicron 90mm about 100 point/mm@ 30%.
Now we are talking! That means 3600x2400 pixels. Nearly 9 Mp. Very close to Leica's 10 Mp. But we needed the finest film and the best lens in the world to get that close.
But wouldn't more Mp's carry the M8 into the realm of medium format camera's? Not with a 1.33 crop sensor. The resolving power of the lens is, at 10Mp with a 1.33 crop, or 16 Mp with a 35 mm sensor, exactly the same as the sensors.So any increase in the number of pixels would necessarily involve reduction of the size. The only result would be that the same point projected by the lens would be picked up by more than one pixel, not creating any increase in resolution.
In terms of resolution sensors and lenses have reached the boundary of biological need. If we find one that we are happy with in terms of colour rendition, contrast and dynamic range, the only reason to"upgrade" will be mechanical, not electronic.
There is a myth that sensors do not have the dynamic range of film. That may still be true of the softest B&W film, provided they are developed accordingly, or with small second-rate sensors. In normal use however, a high-end sensor will render about 10 stops, which just happens to be the same as the number of zones in Ansel Adams' time-honoured zone-system. There is no way a normal slide film can better that.
There remains the issue of sensor noise. For one part I cannot understand that we accept grain in film as normal or even desirable, and will not grant sensors the same courtesy, on the other side sound engineers have been fighting noise for decades now, with some result, but it seems to have levelled out. I doubt there is much to be gained in that department.
Is this the death-knell of film then? I don't think so. There are - and always will be - artistic differences between the two media. I spent a lovely weekend listening to vinyl records - yes they sound nicer, albeit less perfect than a CD and they are still available, as are turn-tables and cartriges and tube amplifiers, and my daily car has been pushed into second place by my TR4 these summer days, which, even if cars have evolved dramatically the last 40 years, drives as well, but with more character. Morgans are still being sold.
Will the M8 turn into a vintage digital camera over the years? It seems to be fairly certain.
How does that compare to film? Well, normal 100 ISO slide-film resolves about 50 points/mm at 30% contrast transmission. That is just 1800x1200 pixels = 2.6 MP !!
I'm afraid there might be some flaws in your argument.
First, resolution is measured in line pairs per mm, meaning just that - two lines, normally black and white. To approximate two lines with discrete digital sensor you need 4 pixels (quantization theorem). Then, film has no Bayer color array over it, which effectively reduces resoultion by about 1/3rd. Also, I'm not so sure about 50 lp/mm of "average slide film", IIRC normally it's around 110-135 lp/mm for 100 ISO E6 transparency shot at contrast of 1:6 (typical for real-life shooting conditions).
I had scans from 35mm TMY handheld showing detail for about 17-19Mp resolution. They were taken on $15 Kiev with $10 Helios-103 lens, and I wasn't aiming for making technically perfect shot. Even with worst lens of my bunch, J-12, I normally have what amounts to 7-9 megapixels of detail on 100 ISO color neg.
That said am sure hope M8 will be great user camera, and all odds are for it. It is also clear that digital sensors will surpass film in resolution at some point, but this moment is yet to come. However, many of us folks sticking to film do that not for pixel bragging but for different still just as vaild reasons :)
EDIT: the film was TMY, not TMZ, sorry.
Jaapv is correct with his estimate that 10MPixel will be plenty for most uses as is varjag when he points out the flaw in Jaapvs reasoning :-)
I have another way to estimate my MPixel needs, I look at what I have at hand which suits me just fine.
I have an old Canon FS2720 slide scanner with some 2700dpi which gives me some 3600x2400 pixels, make that 8.6 MPixel, which is good enough for my 20x30cm prints and I'm just waiting for a 30x40cm.
My digital is a Canon D60 and I feel no need to replace it yet. Sure, I want the 5d viewfinder but I don't need the faster AF nor the 12 MPixel and I bought a 17-35 Zoom for my moderate wideangle needs, so the smaller sensor is not too much of a compromise.
If I can live with a 2nd generation 6MPixel DSLR and a very old slide scanner for years now, I think a 10MPixel Leica M8 will be fine for years to come.
And another thing, compared to newer Canon DSLRs the D60 is quite limited with noise at higher ISO, it's visible at ISO400 and anoying at 800, but newer PC software works wonders on the RAW files. Shooting RAW I get most of the high ISO qualtiy a newer Canon offers.
Yep, I wouldn't dispute that 10mp is entirely satisfying for most real-life needs. Even 6mp is adequate for majority of publishing purposes.
boilerdoc2
07-03-2006, 04:58
With the M8 not having an AA filter It should retain all of the lenses native sharpness straight out of the camera and before any sharpening in the computer. This should produce an immediate boost in quality of images, right? And if the M8 can produce clean high ISO files (which it should) then this camera should be darn near perfect. Look at what the R-D1 has done with 'only' 6 MP and bump that a factor of ~ 2!
It's gonna be a long wait until Photokina.
Steve
I'm afraid there might be some flaws in your argument.
First, resolution is measured in line pairs per mm, meaning just that - two lines, normally black and white. To approximate two lines with discrete digital sensor you need 4 pixels (quantization theorem). Then, film has no Bayer color array over it, which effectively reduces resoultion by about 1/3rd. Also, I'm not so sure about 50 lp/mm of "average slide film", IIRC normally it's around 110-135 lp/mm for 100 ISO E6 transparency shot at contrast of 1:6 (typical for real-life shooting conditions).
I had scans from 35mm TMY handheld showing detail for about 17-19Mp resolution. They were taken on $15 Kiev with $10 Helios-103 lens, and I wasn't aiming for making technically perfect shot. Even with worst lens of my bunch, J-12, I normally have what amounts to 7-9 megapixels of detail on 100 ISO color neg.
That said am sure hope M8 will be great user camera, and all odds are for it. It is also clear that digital sensors will surpass film in resolution at some point, but this moment is yet to come. However, many of us folks sticking to film do that not for pixel bragging but for different still just as vaild reasons :)
EDIT: the film was TMY, not TMZ, sorry.
Sorry,mate I used line-pairs /mm and that is what my numbers are based on. I understand the confusion,it may be my fault for not being clear, both line-pairs/mm and lines/mm are used indiscriminately in literature, making a lot of confusion. I used this correctly,I believe. But as we all seem to agree on the conclusion the argument is moot anyway.
As you are apparently well versed in theory, you'll be able to confirm that resolution for film is measured at contrast transmission. At a transmission of 90% the resolution is about 15 lp/mm, at 10% of far over 150. Usual is to take the resolution at 30% contrast transmission. You are certainly correct at the Bayer filter, however the AAfilter Canon uses is even more of a degradation. That is the main reason that the DMR outperforms the Ds II by a fair margin. Having said that, we can agree that resolution alone is a pretty meaningless parameter for picture quality. A better meausure are MTF or OTF, but I am not sure that a discussion of those would result in a manageble post.......
Having said that, resolution alone is about the worst
Jaap, if you account for contrast transmission, you can't just relate lp/mm to megapixels, unless you either shoot test chart through the same lens (giving you resolution of film/sensor and lens combo) or contact-print microchart directly onto film and digital sensor. Some magazines do the former in their digital camera tests, and resulting lp/mm figures, let's just say, not something unseen on film. If anyone here seriously believes that 35mm ISO 100 slide equals to 2-something megapixel resolution, I could mail them some of Powershot A60 snaps to try printing at sizes over 5x7" :)
P.S. Realising that I might sound like a film freak, I'm not. I would actually love to get hands on M8 at some point :)
All very true,of course it does not, but my argument is not the technical side, but that higher resolutions than say, 6 MP enter the realm of diminishing returns on account of the limitations of the human eye. Of course a close viewing distance for large enlargements and "100% crops" on the monitor will reveal far,far more, but for practical purposes that is meaningless. Otherwise we would fall into the same trap of senseless tests that the photomagazines tend to do.
Another thing to consider is that 6MPixel are worth 6Mpixel only on a Foveon Sensor (I think the biggest available is 3MPixel), on traditional CFA Bayer sensors you really need to halve that figure.
All very true,of course it does not, but my argument is not the technical side, but that higher resolutions than say, 6 MP enter the realm of diminishing returns on account of the limitations of the human eye. Of course a close viewing distance for large enlargements and "100% crops" on the monitor will reveal far,far more, but for practical purposes that is meaningless. Otherwise we would fall into the same trap of senseless tests that the photomagazines tend to do.
I agree with all this but in marketing terms 10mp is old news. If leica want to really make an impact in the digital market they will have to do better because of the camera magazine obsession with pixel counting. Look at the Oly E-1 -a fine camera but no one looks beyond its pixel count.
That said of course I am perfectly happy with my RD-1 with "only" 6MPixel.
I agree with all this but in marketing terms 10mp is old news. If leica want to really make an impact in the digital market they will have to do better because of the camera magazine obsession with pixel counting. Look at the Oly E-1 -a fine camera but no one looks beyond its pixel count.
Looking beyond it's megapixel count it gets ugly :)
Too noisy and where are the small and light lenses a 4:3rds sensor makes possible?
I'm sooooo disapointed by the Pana L1, 1Kg without a lens and then that big brute of a slow zoom in front of it.
That said of course I am perfectly happy with my RD-1 with "only" 6MPixel.
If it only had framelines for something in the 60° FoV range :(
The 28 is a tad too tight for my liking and I hate external viewfinders.
All very true,of course it does not, but my argument is not the technical side, but that higher resolutions than say, 6 MP enter the realm of diminishing returns on account of the limitations of the human eye. Of course a close viewing distance for large enlargements and "100% crops" on the monitor will reveal far,far more, but for practical purposes that is meaningless. Otherwise we would fall into the same trap of senseless tests that the photomagazines tend to do.
Amen to that. And people who line up for the coming M8 likely do so not for pixel count either: otherwise it's better to save for PhaseOne back or something :)
I shot the same scene with my DMR and Velvia. Same camera, same lens. I scanned the Veliva using an Imacon 646 at 6300dpi. The DMR had higher clarity, the Velvia had better color, and the overall resolution was pretty close. The velvia fades away into blobs, and the digital fades away into squares, so at gargantuan picture sizes, I think film decays more gracefully. But up to its limits, the digital is crisper and has higher clarity. The film had the better color, dealt with highlights better (particularly blown highlights), and the finest detail looked more natural (softness vs. pixelation). I choose between the two based on what I feel like shooting, at a given time, but I still prefer film for black and white. I just cannot get the look I like from Acros in Rodinal using digital. Plus, I like to make fiber prints, so digital makes that impossible. But for certain types of work, (particularly with artificial lighting), digital is the easy choice.
Look at what the R-D1 has done with 'only' 6 MP and bump that a factor of ~ 2!
It's gonna be a long wait until Photokina.
Steve
Where do you get this factor of 2 from? 10MP gives you a 30% linear increase in resolution over 6MP. In the real world this is fairly small and does not make a huge difference (10"x7" vs 13"x9" at 300dpi). Also, the M8 isn't here yet and who knows how it will perform.
I've been trying to find a link to some work done by a respectable source with regard how many mega pixels one "needs", but can't find it. His conclusion was that based upon normal viewing distance (visual acuity) you didn't need any more than 4MP. Clearly the bigger the picture the further away you would normally stand to view it - think about the paintings of Pissarot (hope I have the correct one) - just made up of dots that don't make sense close up.
I've also seen double page magazine spreads from the D2H - only 4MP.
Whilst I am at it. Viewing files on screen at 100% is a pretty pointless exercise. You need to look at the file at about 25% on screen to get an impression of what it will look like printed at 300dpi (300/72).
I agree with all this but in marketing terms 10mp is old news. If leica want to really make an impact in the digital market they will have to do better because of the camera magazine obsession with pixel counting. Look at the Oly E-1 -a fine camera but no one looks beyond its pixel count.
I am convinced that those who would buy a M8 on just on basis of a photomagazine "test" are bound to be deeply disappointed. I doubt that Leica even wants them as customers. It is a sad fact of life that having a red dot on the front of the camera alone does not make one take better photographs, as I myself have proven time and time again......
After all this theoretical, scientific, and engineering discussion, I have one question: Has anyone seen a PRICE on this dreamed-of M-8?
Mark Norton
07-03-2006, 06:34
We think it's going to be $4995 + tax, but none of us really know.
After all this theoretical, scientific, and engineering discussion, I have one question: Has anyone seen a PRICE on this dreamed-of M-8?
Just think of the old Rolls-Royce salesman crack: "If you have to ask you can't afford it!" :D :p (or did I mean this post for the snobbery thread??)
It is well-known that if a negative is good enough for A4 it is good enough for any enlargement, as the viewing distance will increase with the print size, making the net result about equal.
This "well-known" premise sounds like a good rule of thumb, but I'm not sure it's firmly founded enough to use as a basis for this entire technical presentation.
For example, it isn't the case for print publication. The reader is going to view a photo enlarged to fill a double-page spread at the same distance from which s/he views a small one-column photo.
This "well-known" premise sounds like a good rule of thumb, but I'm not sure it's firmly founded enough to use as a basis for this entire technical presentation.
For example, it isn't the case for print publication. The reader is going to view a photo enlarged to fill a double-page spread at the same distance from which s/he views a small one-column photo.
That I will not dispute, shooting photo's for print is a whole different ball-game as the photog. must be familiar with, and allow for, the printing process.It is one of the things we must keep in the back of our minds, what we are going to do with our picture. For instance, in your example the effect of the DOF will be different as well.
Whilst I am at it. Viewing files on screen at 100% is a pretty pointless exercise. You need to look at the file at about 25% on screen to get an impression of what it will look like printed at 300dpi (300/72).
Gid
Good point, to approxiamate 300dpi, one would have to reduce the file to 25% at 1280 pixels across a 15" laptop. I recently purchased a laptop with 1680 resolution which is giving me nearly 130dpi. I find this more nearly replicates the print experience. There are subjective factors that make 130dpi on a LCD look like nearly doubly the resolution on paper. Anyway, I find 100% to be fine at a 130 pixel per inch on an LCD screen. At 50% it really seems sharp i.e. if I cant see it it doesn't exist.
For photographic uses, It seems to me that screen resolution should approxiamate print resolution as closely as practical.
One other note. When doing a percent reduction, use an even number divisor, as in 50%, 25%, not 66%. I may be full of it, but it seems those pixels liked to be divided neatly.
Your results may vary
Rex
Jaap,
Posts like yours make me keep coming back to RF Forums...
Thank you,
Mark
Bob Ross
07-03-2006, 14:02
I'm afraid there might be some flaws in your argument.
First, resolution is measured in line pairs per mm, meaning just that - two lines, normally black and white. To approximate two lines with discrete digital sensor you need 4 pixels (quantization theorem).
It was my understanding that a line pair, one black line and one white line, could be represented by two pixels. This seems to be the general use of the terms in discussions and articles on digital imaging. It also shows up in digital printing, with 300dpi equal to 150 lpi. I have read several discussions about thre and four pixels being needed, but they all end up coming back to two pixels.
It was my understanding that a line pair, one black line and one white line, could be represented by two pixels. This seems to be the general use of the terms in discussions and articles on digital imaging. It also shows up in digital printing, with 300dpi equal to 150 lpi. I have read several discussions about thre and four pixels being needed, but they all end up coming back to two pixels.
That`s what I have learned about prepress and screening. But there 1000lp\mm are equivilant to 300dpi with a dot being just a dot and anything from 4 to 64 dots needed to represent a pixel.
In germany I used a "48er Raster" for better newspaper and a "54er Raster" for magazin quality. We could get to the "48er Raster" with a 1200 dpi (not ppi) Laserprinter, which was quite an achievement in 1993 and it cost in A3+ not much less than a Phase One 22Mpixel back today :).
48er Raster is 120 lpi and 54er Raster is 138lpi which was a stretch for the 1800 dpi Lasermaster laserprinter. Marketing promissed a 150lpi 60er Raster (actualy, they promissed a > 100 Raster), but the printers told me somethting else which usualy began with words like crap :)
Bob Ross
07-03-2006, 14:32
That I will not dispute, shooting photo's for print is a whole different ball-game as the photog. must be familiar with, and allow for, the printing process.It is one of the things we must keep in the back of our minds, what we are going to do with our picture. For instance, in your example the effect of the DOF will be different as well.
In the good old film days :) we either made prints or projected slides. Some who made prints even gauked at the grain with grain magnifiers..;) With digital, more people are making prints on inkjet printers and very few are projecting, but rather viewing images on monitor screens. We still have the pixel/grain/noise gaukers doing the 100% thing.
I have found that the digital printing process is the great equalizer in the resolution comparison game. 300dpi is 5.9 lpm, about what our vision can handle from 10 inches. As I remember chemical color print paper can resolve 75 lpm, so digital printing is on the border of our vision, where the chemical print goes beyond. In digital printing the advantage of no grain narrows the film advantage in resolution. For people used to the print sizes from 35mm film, 10MP is going to be fine, even with cropping.
Inkjets go far beyond 300dpi, more like 2400 and some even 9600. With modern 6 or 8 colour printers and raster diffusion as well as wet in wet printing you get much more than what you know from old offset presses.
Why buy an Epson capable of 5400 dpi and then print at 300?
Bob Ross
07-03-2006, 17:25
I think you are confusing the print head resolution with the line step resolution. The print head resolution is what goes into making each dot and line step resolution lays down each line. My Canon S800 can print 600dpi when I want to make high rez postage stamps. It is sort of agreed that printing past 240dpi, doesn't produce enough visible improvement for the ink expended(HP tech paper). The author of Q-Image also has some interesting approaches to the contrary.
that needs some qualification. same vinyl, and same cd? what if the CD of the album was sourced from a copy of the master tapes, or deteriorated master tapes? Or as many CD's are, suffer from bad EQ and mastering?
The limit of 10mp is often for price, and to not show deficiencies in lenses, which high mp sensors will show.
This has been the tendency of some posts around here... I've been crunching some numbers over the weekend, working from the other end, i.e. what is the biological resolution limit.
It is well-known that if a negative is good enough for A4 it is good enough for any enlargement, as the viewing distance will increase with the print size, making the net result about equal.
I postulated a 75x50 cm print, viewed at 75 cm distance. That would even tax film.
The finest detail the human eye can resove at that distance, for a relatively young person of say, 25 years old, is 0,25 mm.
We need, then, 4 points per mm. That makes 3000x2000 points, which is, obviously, 6 Mp. So 10Mp has plenty of reserve.
How does that compare to film? Well, normal 100 ISO slide-film resolves about 50 points/mm at 30% contrast transmission. That is just 1800x1200 pixels = 2.6 MP !!
Let's make the competition stiffer, use Technical Pan or Delta 100.
Those will resolve, used with an Apo-Summicron 90mm about 100 point/mm@ 30%.
Now we are talking! That means 3600x2400 pixels. Nearly 9 Mp. Very close to Leica's 10 Mp. But we needed the finest film and the best lens in the world to get that close.
But wouldn't more Mp's carry the M8 into the realm of medium format camera's? Not with a 1.33 crop sensor. The resolving power of the lens is, at 10Mp with a 1.33 crop, or 16 Mp with a 35 mm sensor, exactly the same as the sensors.So any increase in the number of pixels would necessarily involve reduction of the size. The only result would be that the same point projected by the lens would be picked up by more than one pixel, not creating any increase in resolution.
In terms of resolution sensors and lenses have reached the boundary of biological need. If we find one that we are happy with in terms of colour rendition, contrast and dynamic range, the only reason to"upgrade" will be mechanical, not electronic.
There is a myth that sensors do not have the dynamic range of film. That may still be true of the softest B&W film, provided they are developed accordingly, or with small second-rate sensors. In normal use however, a high-end sensor will render about 10 stops, which just happens to be the same as the number of zones in Ansel Adams' time-honoured zone-system. There is no way a normal slide film can better that.
There remains the issue of sensor noise. For one part I cannot understand that we accept grain in film as normal or even desirable, and will not grant sensors the same courtesy, on the other side sound engineers have been fighting noise for decades now, with some result, but it seems to have levelled out. I doubt there is much to be gained in that department.
Is this the death-knell of film then? I don't think so. There are - and always will be - artistic differences between the two media. I spent a lovely weekend listening to vinyl records - yes they sound nicer, albeit less perfect than a CD and they are still available, as are turn-tables and cartriges and tube amplifiers, and my daily car has been pushed into second place by my TR4 these summer days, which, even if cars have evolved dramatically the last 40 years, drives as well, but with more character. Morgans are still being sold.
Will the M8 turn into a vintage digital camera over the years? It seems to be fairly certain.
shutterflower
07-03-2006, 23:33
jaapv : I like your thread opening. Well said. Very thoughtfully written.
Perhaps the 2.6MP is slightly off. . . but that is really of no consequence given your apparent intent.
After spending a weekend admiring my cousin's Casio EX-Z750, and printing very decent 8x10s from it, I'm sure the Leica will be a totally amazing camera.
Rich Silfver
07-03-2006, 23:40
After spending a weekend admiring my cousin's Casio EX-Z750, and printing very decent 8x10s from it, I'm sure the Leica will be a totally amazing camera.
I hope the digital M-Leica will be an amazing camera as well....but, and I may be missing something here, what does the Casio EX-Z750 have to do with how you reached the conclusion that the Leica will be an amazing camera? (Handing, build quality, image quality, size/weight, etc)
Harry Lime
07-04-2006, 00:12
There is a myth that sensors do not have the dynamic range of film. That may still be true of the softest B&W film, provided they are developed accordingly, or with small second-rate sensors. In normal use however, a high-end sensor will render about 10 stops, which just happens to be the same as the number of zones in Ansel Adams' time-honoured zone-system. There is no way a normal slide film can better that.
Digital is better than slide film, but still falls short of color negative. At least that holds true for anything short of a digital MF back and even then I would have to see it with my own eyes.
While it is true that most digital cameras like the Canon 1D mk II will see 10-11 stops from black to white, they do not have the exposure latitude of film negative.
The closest thing out there is the Fuji S3 and even it falls short.
I really wish the manufacturers would start to back off from the megapixel armsrace and instead concentrate on solving this problem. My guess is we will see some serious movement on this front over the next 5 years.
I think you are confusing the print head resolution with the line step resolution. The print head resolution is what goes into making each dot and line step resolution lays down each line. My Canon S800 can print 600dpi when I want to make high rez postage stamps. It is sort of agreed that printing past 240dpi, doesn't produce enough visible improvement for the ink expended(HP tech paper). The author of Q-Image also has some interesting approaches to the contrary.
Interesting, the HP Indigo Press3050 is sold as 812x812dpi/230lpi resolution and 4000 A4 pages an hour.
The printer I work with got one because it's better for colour prints than the Xerox DocuColor 8000 he has for less demanding jobs.
It was my understanding that a line pair, one black line and one white line, could be represented by two pixels.
Unfortunately it can't. Quantization/Shannon sampling theorem tells us that the sampling interval (in our case, pixel size) should be choosen to be less or equal to half of the smallest interesting detail in image. I.e. you need 2 pixels to represent a line, and 4 pixels for pair of adjacent lines of same width. Quantization theorem is a fundamental part of information theory and has major consequences for signal transmission, sound encoding (e.g. you need 22KHz to capture typical 11KHz spectrum of human voice) and other everyday practical applications.
Plus, I like to make fiber prints, so digital makes that impossible.
You could make contact prints using Dan Burkholder's technique. I am sure someone could come up with a filter to turn grayscale images into higher-resolution black-and-white images replicating the look of certain films, but the market is too small to make it viable.
I myself am in the camp of those wanting fewer, lower-noise pixels. I tried the R-D1 with my Summicron 50 and Noctilux, and was blown away by the quality, far superior to my Rebel XT, despite the latter sporting a Canon 35mm f/1.4L
Digital is better than slide film, but still falls short of color negative. At least that holds true for anything short of a digital MF back and even then I would have to see it with my own eyes.
While it is true that most digital cameras like the Canon 1D mk II will see 10-11 stops from black to white, they do not have the exposure latitude of film negative.
The closest thing out there is the Fuji S3 and even it falls short.
I really wish the manufacturers would start to back off from the megapixel armsrace and instead concentrate on solving this problem. My guess is we will see some serious movement on this front over the next 5 years.
And how are you going to show your more than 10 stops exposure latitude in print, may I askhttp://www.freewebdesign.be/smileys/images/other/ssst.gif. That would be by dodging and burning. Have you ever tried to do that to a colour print? I did-never again. http://www.freewebdesign.be/smileys/images/other/smilie_schreck.gifYour colour lab certainly won't do that for you - or maybe for a horrendous price and not to your taste. http://www.freewebdesign.be/smileys/images/sad/sad-smiley-067.gifWith a digital file it is pretty easy to do your own darkroom work.So scan your negatives and do it then. You'll find that if you scan colour negative film it will go lumpy and will not reach the quality of either slide film or a digital file. By shooting RAW there is no way a shot with a digital camera is inferior to film in this respect. Having said that, latitude for mis-exposing is always welcome ;)
shutterflower
07-04-2006, 00:56
I hope the digital M-Leica will be an amazing camera as well....but, and I may be missing something here, what does the Casio EX-Z750 have to do with how you reached the conclusion that the Leica will be an amazing camera? (Handing, build quality, image quality, size/weight, etc)
Yes, there IS a weak link in my logic there. Of course, I don't think my failure on that line is of any real consequence (or value as a discussion point) here. . . but :
I guess I was pleased with its performance, low light as nice as I've seen, and its other handling characteristics, and got to be momentarily hopeful for the future of digital. A larger sensor, faster manual controls, and a Leica M style body would lift things to a higher level. I dislike the heavy, bulky, loud nature of DSLRs, and never really played with a smaller, quieter digicam before. The Casio taught me alot about what I was missing with the D70. And what I should look forward to in future digital rangefinders. The M8, for instance.
that needs some qualification. same vinyl, and same cd? what if the CD of the album was sourced from a copy of the master tapes, or deteriorated master tapes? Or as many CD's are, suffer from bad EQ and mastering?
I don't even think a lot of my Lp's have ever been issued on Cd.... The best records I have are direct cut, I also have some pre-issue demonstrators. Those are indeed very-very good. I doubt any Cd I know reaches that level of presence and dynamics.
Harry Lime
07-04-2006, 01:22
And how are you going to show your more than 10 stops exposure latitude in print, may I askhttp://www.freewebdesign.be/smileys/images/other/ssst.gif.
Well, according to that logic we shouldn't be shooting anything but slidefilm.:rolleyes:
With a digital file it is pretty easy to do your own darkroom work.So scan your negatives and do it then. You'll find that if you scan colour negative film it will go lumpy and will not reach the quality of either slide film or a digital file.
By shooting RAW there is no way a shot with a digital camera is inferior to film in this respect. Having said that, latitude for mis-exposing is always welcome ;)
Trust me, over the past 15 years I have made a very good living as a professional, manipulating more scanned film and digitally captured images than than I care to admit in polite company. ;) We are not there yet, but it's just over the horizon.
Digital certainly has the edge in the noise area, no argument there, but it still has a way to go in terms of exposure latitude. Note how I say latitude, not over all exposure range.
Trust me, over the past 15 years I have made a very good living as a professional, manipulating more scanned film and digitally captured images than than I care to admit in polite company. ;) We are not there yet, but it's just over the horizon.
Digital certainly has the edge in the noise area, no argument there, but it still has a way to go in terms of exposure latitude. Note how I say latitude, not over all exposure range.
Let's hope Leica IS the horizon :) I bow to your expertise, but I think you'll agree that latitude of the end print is one of the bottlenecks.
Pherdinand
07-04-2006, 01:38
Jaap, the idea with a wide latitude on the film is, that you have it all there recorded, and you can print the range you want. At least that's what it means to me.
Jaap, the idea with a wide latitude on the film is, that you have it all there recorded, and you can print the range you want. At least that's what it means to me.
You're right, and that is the way RAW works as well, with the added bonus of exposing different elements of the image differently.If the latitude of RAW would be larger, as it will be in the future, that would give more scope in that respect. But it will also lead to sloppy shooting, as so many "advantages"of digital do. It may be a corny and well-worn cliche, but I firmly believe, both in film and on digital, that, ideally, the final print should be visualised at the moment of pressing the shutter, also in repect to the exposure.
On the subject of sloppy, I hate the term "digital" for sensor photography. The only truly digital medium is film, as a Halide crystal is either activated or not and, after developing, present or not, whereas a sensor is a collection of analog devices. But I fear I am, as we say in Holland, rowing against the stream here.:(
If you look deep enough, all the world is discrete, being made from quantum compounds :) In film though, a single halide crystal is far less in size than minimal resolving unit: the grain that one can see is not single crystals but enormous clumps of them.
That is more philosophy than science, Varjag, as those two blend when we descend into subatomics.....
When we've reached a point where we have to proof the superiority of film on a quantum level, we might as well take a shot from Schrödingers cat :-)
Black Schrödinger's cat in black hole? :P
When we've reached a point where we have to proof the superiority of film on a quantum level, we might as well take a shot from Schrödingers cat :-)
You mean from inside the box?
Why not: you have a cat in a box, and a camera with the shutter connected to a button near the cat's paw, the longer the cat stays in the box, the more likely the cat has tripped the shutter and taken a picture of himself.
So we need a wave function that describes both the presence and absence of the cat's photograph.
With the added bonus that no cat dies (except of starvation if you leave them in the box long enough).
Not just Erwin Puts, Erwin Schrödinger as well..... I side with
Stephen Hawkinghttp://www.freewebdesign.be/smileys/images/weapons/violent-smiley-099.gif
the nyquist theorum?
Unfortunately it can't. Quantization/Shannon sampling theorem tells us that the sampling interval (in our case, pixel size) should be choosen to be less or equal to half of the smallest interesting detail in image. I.e. you need 2 pixels to represent a line, and 4 pixels for pair of adjacent lines of same width. Quantization theorem is a fundamental part of information theory and has major consequences for signal transmission, sound encoding (e.g. you need 22KHz to capture typical 11KHz spectrum of human voice) and other everyday practical applications.
Bob Ross
07-04-2006, 09:04
Unfortunately it can't. Quantization/Shannon sampling theorem tells us that the sampling interval (in our case, pixel size) should be choosen to be less or equal to half of the smallest interesting detail in image. I.e. you need 2 pixels to represent a line, and 4 pixels for pair of adjacent lines of same width. Quantization theorem is a fundamental part of information theory and has major consequences for signal transmission, sound encoding (e.g. you need 22KHz to capture typical 11KHz spectrum of human voice) and other everyday practical applications.
I will bow to your math here, because my math degree warrantee expired in 1965...:D Please check my numbers, if you would. With the 6.8µm pixel we would get max 147 pixels per mm (1/6.8µm) and at 4 pixels per line pair, we would get 36.75 line pairs per mm or 933.45 lpi (again max). How does this reconcile with the resolution charts on the various reviews? My own experience with an Oly E-1 that has the same size pixel would favor the two pixel per line pair approach give an efficiency of 78%. (147/2=73.5; 73.5 * 25.4=1866.9; 1866.9*78%=1456.18 = approximately what shows on rez charts on review sites). I realize that this is sort of mechanical vs. quantum, but can we guess at what the photographer might see?
BTW, I notice that you have a Contax II. That was my first 35mm (in 1961) given to me together with a 50mm and a high speed 28mm f/8.0..:) by someone who bought an M3.
Bob Ross
07-04-2006, 09:09
Socke, I realized after writing my blurb on inkjet, that youknow way more than I ever will about prepress and high end printers. Going from the darkroom trays to the inkjet for hobby printing has been an interesting transition.
Socke, I realized after writing my blurb on inkjet, that youknow way more than I ever will about prepress and high end printers. Going from the darkroom trays to the inkjet for hobby printing has been an interesting transition.
I dug out a book on digital colour printing just to find out that screening angles, dot forms (they vary too), clustered or stochastic raster and halftone frequencies and their influence on what we see in a print are not mine to translate into english :-)
It all starts with the often confused pixel per inch in scanning and dot per inch in printing. Then add to that that we want every dot of the 300 per inch representing a halftone value from 0 to 256 in colour!
At a pixeldepth (my poor translation) of one bit (either full colour or nothing) you need a 16x16 matrix to create 256 shades of a colour. Starting at 300dpi we are down to 18.75lpi. And that's just enough for greyscale images since the human eye can discern between some 150 greys.
Lasermaster used drums from Toshiba intended for A3+ copyers and exposed them with a more acurate laser and used a very fine grained toner to get to 1200dpi, I never believed the 1800 dpi printer was better than the 1200 dpi one, under a loupe (we call them "Fadenzähler" a loupe made to evaluate screening etc.) it didn't show a higher resolution.
We had two customers who bought recycled toner cartridges from the company they bought their copyer toner at. The cartridges looked the same and worked in the printer, up to 600dpi. At 1200 they got a real mess.
The modern inkjets print wet in wet, so they can create shades of a colour in one dot, unluckily the accuracy is severly limited in the vertical direction, the printhead traveling from side to side can be controlled much more acurate than the paper traveling under the printhead. Thus there is a limit to the number of halftones created by wet in wet printing since we can't hit the same place several times.
As far as I know, the Indigo uses 8 2 picolitre drops to create one pixel which means every pixel has 64 shades of the colour used, mixing colours you get a slightly higher count depending on the purity of the colour, i.E. 64 shades of either cyan, magenta, yellow or black. That's why they use seven instead of four colours, adding a light cmy to the normal cmy they can create more than 64 shades of any colour, although I don't know how much.
Harry Lime
07-04-2006, 12:36
Jaap, the idea with a wide latitude on the film is, that you have it all there recorded, and you can print the range you want. At least that's what it means to me.
Exactly.
The more information that is captured at the moment that the image is taken, the better off you are later on.
Bob Ross
07-04-2006, 13:37
Thanks for the information Socke. There was an article on Luminous Landscape about commercial printing and prepress. At least it introduced me to the various terms and concepts that live in the land of CYMK..:-)
...and my daily car has been pushed into second place by my TR4 these summer days, which, even if cars have evolved dramatically the last 40 years, drives as well, but with more character. Morgans are still being sold.
Totally OT, I know, but do the people who love Leica have this nostalgic treat that makes us also go for classic cars?
I sold my Jag E type and MG TC last year, to buy, wait for it...
a brand new Morgan Roadster.
If I find the time, I'll open a thread about this somewhere else...
I will bow to your math here, because my math degree warrantee expired in 1965...:D Please check my numbers, if you would. With the 6.8µm pixel we would get max 147 pixels per mm (1/6.8µm) and at 4 pixels per line pair, we would get 36.75 line pairs per mm or 933.45 lpi (again max). How does this reconcile with the resolution charts on the various reviews? My own experience with an Oly E-1 that has the same size pixel would favor the two pixel per line pair approach give an efficiency of 78%. (147/2=73.5; 73.5 * 25.4=1866.9; 1866.9*78%=1456.18 = approximately what shows on rez charts on review sites). I realize that this is sort of mechanical vs. quantum, but can we guess at what the photographer might see?
That's actually interesting. A simple example illustrating Shannon theorem (also known as Nyquist as ampguy pointed out) would be to imagine what happens when we have a line 1 pixel wide, and the boundary for line pair falls in the middle of pixel: we lose it. Hence the detailwidth/2 sampling (or pixel size) criterion.
Now, if you count line boundary as a line pair, it could be represented by 2 pixels. I have certain doubts on how correct is that though, since for a typical chart it should result in moire pattern at this level of detail.
Also, there is certain subjectiveness in chart measurement. With some of lines you might get lucky and they'll fall on the pixel rows perfectly, making impression the sensor "nearly" resolves this level of detail, while other lines (esp. in different spatial directions) might be far less clear. The rest is issue of enthusiasm and magazine's affiliation with camera manufacturer :)
BTW, I notice that you have a Contax II. That was my first 35mm (in 1961) given to me together with a 50mm and a high speed 28mm f/8.0..:) by someone who bought an M3.
It's a nice camera, although it is older than my father by a decade :) Apparently it was used by press or wedding photographer, as serrated limbs are nearly polished down with fingers and aftermarket flash synch socket also seen some use. Picked it up fairly cheap, to replace a Kiev body that I wore out, amazing that it still works.
Totally OT, I know, but do the people who love Leica have this nostalgic treat that makes us also go for classic cars?
I sold my Jag E type and MG TC last year, to buy, wait for it...
a brand new Morgan Roadster.
If I find the time, I'll open a thread about this somewhere else...
I know about Morgans, I sold mine of 20 years some time ago, as the dog didn't fit in it....
You must have a huge dog, I even manage to fit my mother-in-law in there...
A Komondor, pretty large, sadly deceased now....
Mark Norton
07-05-2006, 02:30
You must have a huge dog, I even manage to fit my mother-in-law in there...
Are you saying your mother-in-law is a dog?
Totally OT, I know, but do the people who love Leica have this nostalgic treat that makes us also go for classic cars?
I sold my Jag E type and MG TC last year, to buy, wait for it...
a brand new Morgan Roadster.
If I find the time, I'll open a thread about this somewhere else...
Nope. I am perfectly happy with a modern, comfortable automatic with good fuel mileage. I drive a VW...
An interesting read I had just now. NaturFoto of Feb. 2002, a test of the Canon D30, a 3.2 MP camera of at least 4 generations back:
" The contrast latitude of the sensor is superior to slide film. The detail in the shadows is kept."
[about final prints for professional use] In sizes from A4 to A3 "a quality difference between analog and digital is scarcely, if at all, noticeable"
I might add that this magazine, back then, could be firmly placed in the digital-sceptic group.
I might add that this magazine, back then, could be firmly placed in the digital-sceptic group.
You know that saying.. an honest journalist sells only once, but for a good price :)
I have given up saying film wins on x digital wins on x, X megapixels at 11x14 makes a better print than xISO film...it really doesn't matter. The point is THEY LOOK DIFFERENT. And they look different from members of the same family too. By that I mean that digital from a 20D looks different from digital from a Fuji S3 and different from a PowerShot A620 and different from the DMR. At the same time, E100G in 35mm looks different than Velvia 4x5 and Lucky film looks different than Acros and so on. The key is not to get in a pissing contest about what is better, who can make a larger print and so on. It is about choosing the right medium for your intended use! If I want to make a 16x20 black and white fiber print, I am going to choose a film like Acros in 120 or 4x5. If I am going to be shooting wildlife I am going to choose a digital SLR. Obviously preference comes into it, but the most important thing to know is how to select the right tools for your job. The right tools for one person might be different for another.
Nachkebia
07-05-2006, 04:36
Owning D200 I can asure you 10mpix is enough for almost all the apliactions and print sizes, but again digital is lifeless :)
I have given up saying film wins on x digital wins on x, X megapixels at 11x14 makes a better print than xISO film...it really doesn't matter. The point is THEY LOOK DIFFERENT. And they look different from members of the same family too. By that I mean that digital from a 20D looks different from digital from a Fuji S3 and different from a PowerShot A620 and different from the DMR. At the same time, E100G in 35mm looks different than Velvia 4x5 and Lucky film looks different than Acros and so on. The key is not to get in a pissing contest about what is better, who can make a larger print and so on. It is about choosing the right medium for your intended use! If I want to make a 16x20 black and white fiber print, I am going to choose a film like Acros in 120 or 4x5. If I am going to be shooting wildlife I am going to choose a digital SLR. Obviously preference comes into it, but the most important thing to know is how to select the right tools for your job. The right tools for one person might be different for another.
Well said!!!
Are you saying your mother-in-law is a dog?
Well...., let's just say that I wouldn't like to be bitten...
Bob Ross
07-05-2006, 08:22
That's actually interesting. A simple example illustrating Shannon theorem (also known as Nyquist as ampguy pointed out) would be to imagine what happens when we have a line 1 pixel wide, and the boundary for line pair falls in the middle of pixel: we lose it. Hence the detailwidth/2 sampling (or pixel size) criterion.
It's a nice camera, although it is older than my father by a decade :) Apparently it was used by press or wedding photographer, as serrated limbs are nearly polished down with fingers and aftermarket flash synch socket also seen some use. Picked it up fairly cheap, to replace a Kiev body that I wore out, amazing that it still works.
One website that digs into this and tries to cover the film vs. digital issue is Norman Koren's at http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
The Contax II was made 1936 to 1940. Mine saw the most use by a U.S. Army officer observing the Japanese invasion of China. I also had a Contax IIa made 1950 to 1961. When I got the Contax there was a competition between Leica and Contax users (we haven't changed:rolleyes: ) and Contax bragged about the vertical travel metal shutter, combined rangefinder-viewfiner, bayonet lens mount, higher shutter speed and lens focus on the body. Well, it looks like we are going to see Leica adopt all but the last with the M8....Contax died, but Leica carries on the tradition....:cool:
or an adapter for m42 lenses on your d200
Owning D200 I can asure you 10mpix is enough for almost all the apliactions and print sizes, but again digital is lifeless :)
Bob Ross
07-05-2006, 08:48
but again digital is lifeless :)
Now, this deserves some discussion:) My experience is about four decades of making all the mistakes possible in a home-hobby dark room. Digital to me looks like some of my better mistakes:rolleyes: ....but not lifeless, since some of my mistakes have a life of their own...:D
Digital is different. The biggest difference to me is the rate at which detail falls off in the highlights. The noise shows up in the shadows and diminishes towards the high lights, the opposite of the way grain revealed itself. This alters the tactileness of images. Many people cure this by eliminating noise, when they should be adding it. I think too, that much of the lifelessness might be a result of inexperienced post processing, because people aren't aware of what brings life to an image. For some digital users, the only thing they have to go by is the image on their TV or monitor screen & magazines. They have never visited a gallery of fine art prints.
What do you think makes digital lifeless and is there any hope?
...What do you think makes digital lifeless...?
Nothing.
Ever tried the R-D1 with Leica lenses?
More life than Leica M with same lenses and Kodachrome 200.
Less grain though.
http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/sifflet.gif http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/clin d'oeil_droit.gif
Best,
LCT
Is anyone still using Kodachrome 200?
Bob Ross
07-05-2006, 13:02
Nothing.
Ever tried the R-D1 with Leica lenses?
More life than Leica M with same lenses and Kodachrome 200.
Less grain though.
Best,
LCT
No, but I use R lenses on my E-1.....:)
I don't think I ever shot a roll of Kodachrome 200.
Bob
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.