Future of Film

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm going to try the ISO 25 speed!

[Guest nafpie]

This leads especially to finer grain.

 

I see. Now film tries to copy the 'digital look'.

 

Stefan

[Posto 6]

I see. Now film tries to copy the 'digital look'.

 

Stefan

 

YAWN

[Guest nafpie]

YAWN

 

Go to bed.

[fotohuis]

Do you know if the new Adox B&W film is the same as the old Agfa B&W film?

 

If a film production line is closed, you will NEVER get the exact film back again.

 

Leverkusen (Agfa APX production line) is finished since end 2005 so that means the end of this film. Sold till 5 years later under Rollei Retro 100/.400 from a big freezer.

 

Even companies who have a lot of experience in producing films on different locations are not able to reproduce after years the same emulsion.

Maco PO100C at Efke (Croatia) is not now 100% the same as the Rollei Retro 100 TONAL made by Gevaert (Belgium) now.

 

So Adox 400 will be not Agfa APX 400, neither will Rollei RPX 400 (this month new) be a 100% copy of the APX 400 emulsion.

 

On this moment classical (cubical) iso 400 films (except from those new Adox 400, Rollei RPX 400):

Digitaltruth Photo

 

Rollei Retro 400S: very sharp, Gevaert Aviation (extended red) emulsion.

Legacy 400/Neopan 400: smallest grain

Fomapan 400: iso 250 only (no details in the shadow)

Tri-X (400) / HP5+ : overall good quality

 

Add the new Adox 400 and Rollei RPX 400 (BTW there will be also a RPX 100 version) and:

T grain type iso 400 films: Delta 400 and TMY-2 (Tmax) 400 so the choice is still pretty large. Even not mentioned chromogenic XP2 super (C41) iso 400 B&W film.

[jaapv]

Sixty megs for a 35 mm film scan is nothing. Check this out:

 

- ADOX CMS Film -

 

I predict that in ten years there will be a few film cameras and iPhones. Big digital cameras are already 'obsolete'.

 

That little marketing blurb means absolutely nothing. It it does not tell us the contrast at which the resolution was achieved, it shows no MTF curve for the film. And I can get a sharper crop of the bicycle using a 10 Mp camera... It may well be that the claims are true, but proof is lacking.

[marcusperkins]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It means you are over-sampling. Once the scanner resolution is resolving the grain, a higher sampling rate only gives you sharper grain edges, not more image detail. I saw no difference in detail between my 4000 dpi scans of Kodachrome slides and 5400 dpi drum scans of the same slides. The files were big but the meaningful data in those files is much less than in the 19.5MB RAW files from the DMR.

 

Assuming a good lens was used (which I'm sure it was), your results would also depend on whether the original file suffered any micro movement at the point of exposure, and the lens was perfectly focused.

 

Many (but not all) medium format photographers simply cannot get a (perfectly) sharp picture handholding their cameras under 1/1000 because of the high resolution. And I would confidently state that it would be practically impossible to capture all of the possible detail shooting a 60mp or 80mp camera handheld.

 

Whilst I can get acceptably sharp pictures when shooting at quite slow speeds on 35mm equipment, I know it is pointless scanning above 4000dpi. Shoot at optimum aperture, and with a high shutter speed/tripod on a relatively static subject, a 6500dpi scan (which is more than double the resolution of 4000dpi, about a 22MP sensor, 6500dpi is equivalent to about a 52MP sensor in a 35mm size) picks out fine details that 4000dpi simply cannot see.

 

So it is possible to capture detail beyond what is currently possible with digital equipment on matching 35mm or MF equipment - but you do need a modern lens and a good scanner - two items that are very expensive.

[andybarton]

Is it a mixture of both that makes grey?

 

I would think it would be the same case on the photo paper too.

 

It's the way your eye sees the grain that creates the greys

[Posto 6]

I do not feel tired, thanks, as I just got up- but was a bit bored.

 

On a more serious note, has anyone ever tried, or have any information on, any of the new films which supposedly are coming out of Asia and Eastern Europe? Also, it seems that some camera manufacturers are staring to sell own-brand films- what are these like, and where do they come from?

 

Would it be viable for Leica to reintroduce, say, Kodacolor as a premium product, for example?

[Guest nafpie]

Would it be viable for Leica to reintroduce, say, Kodacolor as a premium product, for example?

 

Everything is possible.

 

But this one is less than unlikely.

 

Stefan

[fotohuis]

Would it be viable for Leica to reintroduce, say, Kodacolor as a premium product, for example?

 

Fomapan T200 in R09. Can be also used as premium film in a Leica M7

 

I am pretty good aware of all Eastern Europe production possibilities.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

Praha?

[fotohuis]

Yes, Prague in Winter 2005.

[jaapv]

I thought so - walking down from the castle towards Charles Bridge I guess.

[pgk]

Assuming a good lens was used (which I'm sure it was), your results would also depend on whether the original file suffered any micro movement at the point of exposure, and the lens was perfectly focused.

I seem to remember an advert for Tech Pan (Kodak) of a watch movement which was shot on a micro-Nikkor. If I remember correctly the precautions taken to isolate subject and camera from movement were pretty extreme, optimum aperture was used, etc., etc. I can't remember the details but the fact that they were published has stuck in my memory.

[wildlightphoto]

Is it a mixture of both that makes grey?

 

Yes, and this is why resolution in a grayscale image on film will never approach the theoretical resolution Erwin measured in his film-vs.M9 test with a B&W test target. Theoretical maximum resolution in color film is further reduced by the need to dither Red, Green and Blue dye clouds to create the illusion of a full color spectrum.

 

I would think it would be the same case on the photo paper too.

 

Yes, but resolution in photo paper isn't ordinarily a problem because we rarely enlarge images on photo paper.

 

Assuming a good lens was used (which I'm sure it was), your results would also depend on whether the original file suffered any micro movement at the point of exposure, and the lens was perfectly focused.

 

280mm f/4 APO-Telyt, tripod, focussed with the Leicaflex SL viewscreen (which is better IMHO than the R8 viewscreen I have to use with the DMR). I used a real-world 3-dimensional subject in bright sunlight; I used a 1/500 sec shutter speed, and since it was a 3-dimensional subject I as able to pick the plane of best focus for the comparison of detail.

 

Since I didn't use MLU and a subject bolted to a slab of granite, some will undoubtedly claim there's some micro-motion that is degrading the image. That might be so, but I care more for the detail I can get in real-world images than in the theoretical maximum and in the real world my subjects are full color, they aren't bolted to granite and they don't stick around long enough to use MLU. The same limitations apply to my photos made with the DMR.

 

So it is possible to capture detail beyond what is currently possible with digital equipment on matching 35mm or MF equipment - but you do need a modern lens and a good scanner - two items that are very expensive.

 

And a very limited type of subject matter: black and white only, no gray scale or color.

[jaapv]

Why do so many digital ambassadors (it doesn't matter wether they once were film users or not, they made their decision) keep posting to the film forum,

Because many are not provincially digital bound? There is no law that prevents using film, even if the majority of one's work is digital.

[Xmas]

Yes, and this is why resolution in a grayscale image on film will never approach the theoretical resolution Erwin measured in his film-vs.M9 test with a B&W test target. Theoretical maximum resolution in color film is further reduced by the need to dither Red, Green and Blue dye clouds to create the illusion of a full color spectrum.

 

 

 

Yes, but resolution in photo paper isn't ordinarily a problem because we rarely enlarge images on photo paper.

I'm confused film and tripack paper is not dithered... you did not mean that?

 

 

280mm f/4 APO-Telyt, tripod, focussed with the Leicaflex SL viewscreen (which is better IMHO than the R8 viewscreen I have to use with the DMR). I used a real-world 3-dimensional subject in bright sunlight; I used a 1/500 sec shutter speed, and since it was a 3-dimensional subject I as able to pick the plane of best focus for the comparison of detail.

 

Since I didn't use MLU and a subject bolted to a slab of granite, some will undoubtedly claim there's some micro-motion that is degrading the image. That might be so, but I care more for the detail I can get in real-world images than in the theoretical maximum and in the real world my subjects are full color, they aren't bolted to granite and they don't stick around long enough to use MLU. The same limitations apply to my photos made with the DMR.

 

 

 

And a very limited type of subject matter: black and white only, no gray scale or color.

Some of us film types are still using mono, film and paper, admittedly the paper has two layers...

 

Noel

[marcusperkins]

 

Since I didn't use MLU and a subject bolted to a slab of granite, some will undoubtedly claim there's some micro-motion that is degrading the image. That might be so, but I care more for the detail I can get in real-world images than in the theoretical maximum and in the real world my subjects are full color, they aren't bolted to granite and they don't stick around long enough to use MLU. The same limitations apply to my photos made with the DMR.

 

Exactly. And because it was a 280mm lens, that too would have accentuated any micro movement by a substantial amount.

 

As an extreme example, mount a 600 on a solid tripod, turn on Image stabilisation, turn on LiveView, and see just how much movement there still is. A 280mm will be more forgiving, but there will undoubtably be movement there, particularly if you are touching the camera to take the picture.

 

Had the lens been bolted to a big block of concrete, and MLU been used, I think we can both agree more detail could have been captured, perhaps even twice as much.

 

I know it's not practical, and maybe not desirable, but under the correct conditions it is entirely possible to get huge amounts of detail on film. And that is my point.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

And take the image on a very cold day. As distance increases movement of the air degrades the image.