If you start to compare medium format and DSLR, you have to think about
lenses.
Image quality, file size, resolution... it is only for pixel-peepers.
Even at A4 print size you can see difference how out of focus areas are
rendered. Medium format lenses draw image differently. And bokeh from
Your sideways sneering, implying that anyone looking to assess
objective print quality is only for pixel peepers, is insulting.
The coupling of DoF and FoV is different between the two formats. I
didn't say that medium format film and the output from my DSLRs was
identical. I said print
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:41 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: mid format cameras - running cost?
On Mar 22, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Markus Maurer wrote:
At what print size would you see a difference from mid format to
digital, A3 or bigger?
Using 6Mpixel
format cameras - running cost? was:RE: DS vs DL
viewfinder?
Scanner capable of 120 film is a must.
It can be Epson flatbed, or whatever.
Depending on print size - you can choose scanner.
Dedicated roll film scanner is better, but costs a lot.
Roll film costs less than 35mm film.
At least slide film
good.
greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:41 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: mid format cameras - running cost?
On Mar 22, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Markus Maurer wrote:
At what print size would you
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: mid format cameras - running cost?
Comparing against ASA 100-200 35mm color negative film scanned at 4000ppi
rather than medium format film scans, the 6Mpixel images at A3 Super
(13x19) full bleed size look better
On Mar 23, 2006, at 12:56 PM, William Robb wrote:
Comparing against ASA 100-200 35mm color negative film scanned at
4000ppi rather than medium format film scans, the 6Mpixel images
at A3 Super (13x19) full bleed size look better.
Of course, that assumes an excellent quality capture for
Markus, my experiences are all out of the ordinary because up until May
I owned and operated my own lab. 120 format film is harder to find but
still readily available -- you might simply need to call the local
distributor and have them recommend a store to shop from.
Contact sheets are
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: mid format cameras - running cost? was:RE: DS vs DL viewfinder?
Many one-hour style labs are capable of processing 120 film, however that
does not mean that the operators of the lab know how to do it or are any
good
On Mar 22, 2006, at 9:48 AM, William Robb wrote:
While many 1hr labs can process 120 C-41 (I think all Noritsu film
processors can do it), very few will have the needed masks and lenses
to print it.
True. Though a lot of places that do have the masks and lenses still
don't know what to do
Scanner capable of 120 film is a must.
It can be Epson flatbed, or whatever.
Depending on print size - you can choose scanner.
Dedicated roll film scanner is better, but costs a lot.
Roll film costs less than 35mm film.
At least slide film, like Velvia/Provia/Astia.
Reala/NPS/NPH are similar
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: mid format cameras - running cost? was:RE: DS vs DL viewfinder?
When I was in Prague, I needed to find a lab to process my film before I
returned home, since I was shooting ISO 800 and had to go through Heathrow
both ways
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/03/22 Wed PM 03:12:04 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: mid format cameras - running cost? was:RE: DS vs DL viewfinder?
On Mar 22, 2006, at 9:48 AM, William Robb wrote:
While many 1hr labs can process 120 C-41 (I think
of the reasons I started to look
into digital. I can only guess that the situation is even worse 2 1/2
years later.
--
Bruce
Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 6:48:47 AM, you wrote:
WR - Original Message -
WR From: Aaron Reynolds
WR Subject: Re: mid format cameras - running cost? was:RE: DS vs DL
On the way to working entirely with digital capture, I spent a year
or two working a lot with 6x4.5 and 6x6 formats with Zeiss Ikon,
Mamiya, Fuji and Hasselblad cameras. I found the cost and aggravation
of doing color work entirely too much and worked nearly exclusively
with BW films. Did
Hi Godfrey
thanks. At what print size would you see a difference from mid format to
digital, A3 or bigger?
greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:15 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: mid format
On Mar 22, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Markus Maurer wrote:
At what print size would you see a difference from mid format to
digital, A3 or bigger?
Using 6Mpixel DSLR captures as a baseline and comparing against
6x4.5cm or 6x6cm 2400ppi scans with a good if not top of the line
scanner:
Up to A3
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:14 AM, Gasha wrote:
Roll film costs less than 35mm film.
At least slide film, like Velvia/Provia/Astia.
In dollars per square cm you're right. In my experience 6x7cm is
about half the price of 35mm.
However, because you're shooting four times the area, the cost per
On Mar 23, 2006, at 5:29 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
even though my lab had all the masks and lenses to print the 67
negs, they
were using the crappy scanners on the Agfa D-Lab, so once you got past
a 12 X 18, the image quality started to suffer because of the scan.
I had a couple of 12x18
19 matches
Mail list logo
