4 ms·

Can you back any of that with objective metrics? Right now it sounds a lot like what I hear from amateur audiophiles.

whyenot 10y ago
Lets just take resolution. IF you assume 4000 pixels per inch (which as far as I can tell is a reasonable estimate), then it is about (4000 * 4) * (4000 * 5) = 320MP for 4x5 film and (4000 * 8) * (4000 * 10) = 1280MP for 8x10. It's a very big difference.
Finnucane 10y ago
What he's talking about is partly an optical effect caused by the enlargement of the image in different formats. Consider three film cameras--a 35mm, a MF, and a 4x5 LF camera, each with a lens that covers the same angle of view. That means that for a given film, the small format is compressed relative to the larger format--less film is used to capture detail and tonal variation. An object covering 2mm of film in one format may be covering 10mm of film in the larger format, but the film itself has the same amount of grain per mm in either case. It may be difficult to make a direct comparison to digital, since pixel size and density vary so much across cameras, and those variable have a somewhat different affect on picture quality.
chongli 10y ago
It's all about depth of field. With a given focal length, a smaller sensor/film camera forces you to stand further away from your subject than a larger one. The further you stand from your subject, the closer you get to focusing at infinity. When you focus at infinity, your depth of field comprises a huge range! Large format cameras allow you to get closer to your subject (while achieving the same framing) and obtain an extremely shallow depth of field. Here's an example taken with a 4x5 camera [0]. Notice how her eyes are in perfect focus but the rest of the scene melts away into softness. A phone camera would put almost everything in this scene into sharp focus, making the foreground and background elements a lot more distracting. Combine that with camera movements [1] and you can achieve many effects that are simply impossible with an SLR, let alone a P&S or phone camera. [0] http://www.kendallpavanphotography.com/archives/6890 http://www.kendallpavanphotography.com/archives/6890 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JU-eHpk97Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JU-eHpk97Y

Lets just take resolution. IF you assume 4000 pixels per inch (which as far as I can tell is a reasonable estimate), then it is about (4000 * 4) * (4000 * 5) = 320MP for 4x5 film and (4000 * 8) * (4000 * 10) = 1280MP for 8x10. It's a very big difference.

Finnucane 10y ago

What he's talking about is partly an optical effect caused by the enlargement of the image in different formats. Consider three film cameras--a 35mm, a MF, and a 4x5 LF camera, each with a lens that covers the same angle of view. That means that for a given film, the small format is compressed relative to the larger format--less film is used to capture detail and tonal variation. An object covering 2mm of film in one format may be covering 10mm of film in the larger format, but the film itself has the same amount of grain per mm in either case. It may be difficult to make a direct comparison to digital, since pixel size and density vary so much across cameras, and those variable have a somewhat different affect on picture quality.

chongli 10y ago

It's all about depth of field. With a given focal length, a smaller sensor/film camera forces you to stand further away from your subject than a larger one. The further you stand from your subject, the closer you get to focusing at infinity. When you focus at infinity, your depth of field comprises a huge range! Large format cameras allow you to get closer to your subject (while achieving the same framing) and obtain an extremely shallow depth of field. Here's an example taken with a 4x5 camera [0]. Notice how her eyes are in perfect focus but the rest of the scene melts away into softness. A phone camera would put almost everything in this scene into sharp focus, making the foreground and background elements a lot more distracting. Combine that with camera movements [1] and you can achieve many effects that are simply impossible with an SLR, let alone a P&S or phone camera. [0] http://www.kendallpavanphotography.com/archives/6890 http://www.kendallpavanphotography.com/archives/6890 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JU-eHpk97Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JU-eHpk97Y