Conversations

Photos

Files

All groups

About

<< Previous Thread Provia 400X 120: First Impressions Next Thread >>

Subject: Provia 400X 120: First Impressions
Date: 2007-01-22 21:55:31
From: Sam Smith

I picked up my first rolls from the lab today, eagerly anticipating
the results form this new "revolutionary" film that has been the buzz
of the internet for months.

My day of shooting in the mountains was not ideal. It was windy,
mostly cloudy and lots of snow. That said I did my best to take a
couple of rolls in various conditions, using the TL-120 Stereo Camera,
lens shades, but no filters.

After careful examination with a loupe, mounted as stereo pairs in a
high quality viewer, and by comparison with other films, my first
impression was:

"Is there some kind of mistake"?!?

I do not see ANY difference between 400X and 400P. NO grain reduction,
no pronounced difference in color saturation, no increase in D-max. As
I purchased this directly from Japan, I wondered if I had been
scammed. Not so. This is genuine Fuji Provia 400X film, with the code
"RXP" right on the film.
Not only was there no improvement, but there was also a pronounced
color shift in the high midtones and the shadows, similar to the
infamous Velvia magenta cast. As for the suggested ISO rating this
film at 320 instead of 400, I can't substantiate that either. I set my
meter at 400 and had more overexposed shots than underexposed.

This is not good news at all. It cost me top dollar to ship this from
Japan, and I had to buy 20 rolls. But it also makes me wonder why
there was such a favorable review of the 35mm version of this film.
Why would the 120mm version be any different?

I have to say I am deeply disappointed, especially with the grain. I
am going to try another lab to see if their processing improves this,
but I don't expect those big chunks of grain to improve too much. This
is NOT Velvia 50, and is certainly not even remotely close to
Kodachrome 25. I will be awaiting other's reviews as the film slowly
trickles through North America.

Sam Smith

Subject: Re: Provia 400X 120: First Impressions
Date: 2007-01-22 22:41:09
From: Harry Calderbank

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Smith" wrote:
But it also makes me wonder why
> there was such a favorable review of the 35mm version of this film.
> Why would the 120mm version be any different?

I have just had a friend send me a slide taken with the new 400X in
35mm format. I must say that the grain was bigger than I had hoped
but I did definitely find it better than my last roll of Provia 400.
The grain in the sky was noticeable but smaller than the old 400. The
colours were more saturated but quite natural looking. I didn't
detect any colour cast at all. It struck me as an improvement but
definitely not up to the "hype". I was expecting something close to
the grain of a 100 film.

Harry Calderbank

Subject: Re: Provia 400X 120: First Impressions
Date: 2007-01-23 15:58:09
From: John Hart

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Smith" wrote:

> (400X)
> NO grain reduction, no pronounced difference in color saturation, no

increase in D-max.....

Sad to hear this. In my work where I wrote digital files to MF slides
for use in high mangnification MF viewers (like Don Lopp's), grain
noise (and the resulting rivalry when viewing stereo pairs) in uniform
color areas like skies and grey canyon walls, was sometimes a serious
issue.

I'll make a perhaps slightly self-serving plug for print viewing (as in
with the MirScope Viewer), because, before making the digital print
(e.g. from a good scan), grain noise in likely offensive areas can
easily be minimized. I routinely do this in large prints made from
scans of 6x7's.

John
www.mirscope.com

Subject: Re: Provia 400X 120: First Impressions
Date: 2007-01-23 20:13:30
From: Sam Smith

This is only one 120 slide film out of several, all of which
outperform digital in terms of resolution.

No problem with the plug, always appreciate new viewing concepts. When
you make a model that fits into a coat pocket and is backlit, you will
definately have some MF3D converts!

Sam

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "John Hart" wrote:
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Smith" wrote:
> > (400X)
> > NO grain reduction, no pronounced difference in color saturation, no
> increase in D-max.....
>
> Sad to hear this. In my work where I wrote digital files to MF slides
> for use in high mangnification MF viewers (like Don Lopp's), grain
> noise (and the resulting rivalry when viewing stereo pairs) in uniform
> color areas like skies and grey canyon walls, was sometimes a serious
> issue.
>
> I'll make a perhaps slightly self-serving plug for print viewing (as in
> with the MirScope Viewer), because, before making the digital print
> (e.g. from a good scan), grain noise in likely offensive areas can
> easily be minimized. I routinely do this in large prints made from
> scans of 6x7's.
>
> John
> www.mirscope.com
>

Subject: Re: Provia 400X 120: First Impressions
Date: 2007-01-23 21:02:37
From: John Hart

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Smith" wrote:

>
> This (400X) is only one 120 slide film out of several, all of which
> outperform digital in terms of resolution.
>
> No problem with the plug, always appreciate new viewing concepts.

When you make a model that fits into a coat pocket and is backlit, you
will definately have some MF3D converts!

Yeah Sam, I know it's gunna be a tough sell on this forum :-). But
what the heck. My point was that for some venues, prints, being much
better when made from MF vs. 35mm, might serve even MF3D'rs well,
especially when the advantages of the digital darkroom can be employed!

As for your first comment, well, I'll leave it for those who are
interested to read:

http://www.normankoren.com/EOS-10D_3.html#Res_vs_35mm

who concludes

"I'd estimate that the sharpness advantage of the (35mm) film image is
around 10-20% (over 6Mpix Canon 10D), and I won't try to pin it down
any closer. It's quicksand. Image quality involves more than sharpness.
When you look at real images and observe the grain and color quality,
the 10D is competitive with the best 35mm film."

If 6Mpix ~ 35mm, then 17Mpix ~ MF's best film, plus or minus. I am
sincerely disappointed that 400X didn't make a 'quantum' leap in
quality (but really, who actually would'a thought a 400 film could
surpass a 50 or a 25, or even 100F, in grain and quality), 'cause I
like good photography in all its forms! Keep shoot'n dude.....

John

Subject: Re: Provia 400X 120: First Impressions
Date: 2007-01-24 07:41:33
From: Patrick Dube

For more general information about film vs digital I have found this web site :

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

Patrick

From: "John Hart"
Reply-To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MF3D-group] Re: Provia 400X 120: First Impressions
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:02:09 -0000

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogro ups.com, "Sam Smith" wrote:
>
> This (400X) is only one 120 slide film out of several, all of which
> outperform digital in terms of resolution.
>
> No problem with the plug, always appreciate new viewing concepts.
When you make a model that fits into a coat pocket and is backlit, you
will definately have some MF3D converts!

Yeah Sam, I know it's gunna be a tough sell on this forum :-). But
what the heck. My point was that for some venues, prints, being much
better when made from MF vs. 35mm, might serve even MF3D'rs well,
especially when the advantages of the digital darkroom can be employed!

As for your first comment, well, I'll leave it for those who are
interested to read:

http://www.normanko ren.com/EOS- 10D_3.html# Res_vs_35mm

who concludes

"I'd estimate that the sharpness advantage of the (35mm) film image is
around 10-20% (over 6Mpix Canon 10D), and I won't try to pin it down
any closer. It's quicksand. Image quality involves more than sharpness.
When you look at real images and observe the grain and color quality,
the 10D is competitive with the best 35mm film."

If 6Mpix ~ 35mm, then 17Mpix ~ MF's best film, plus or minus. I am
sincerely disappointed that 400X didn't make a 'quantum' leap in
quality (but really, who actually would'a thought a 400 film could
surpass a 50 or a 25, or even 100F, in grain and quality), 'cause I
like good photography in all its forms! Keep shoot'n dude.....

John

Buy what you want when you want it on Sympatico / MSN Shopping

Subject: Re: Provia 400X 120: First Impressions
Date: 2007-01-24 10:49:30
From: John Hart

Patrick Dube wrote:

"For more general information about film vs digital I have found this
web site :

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
"

Hi Patrick,

Yes, Clark's is another of a whole range of analyses, theories, and
experiments on this topic. His conclusions are similar to Norman
Koren's and mine (e.g. see his AIQ table). Unfortunately, few if any
of these works are oriented towards 3D, and even fewer have tested
film vs. high-end digital in the arena containing the complete stereo
package (shooting + viewing). In spite of Sam's blanket statement
about 400X et. al. being sharper than (all?) digital, I would rather
not get drawn into THAT debate again. The above references, I think,
point to the rough equivalence of certain digitals with MF films,
especially at large ASA/ISO.

My point was that high-magnification MF viewing (and even worse, high
magnification 35mm slide viewing) with grainy film suffers from
granulation rivalry, which BTW, I have seen in Don Lopp's viewer even
with Velvia 50. If 400X is as bad as has been suggested (I have not
seen it), then users of such film might consider digital post
processing to minimize such rivalries in offending areas. This leads
naturally to print-viewing or film-recorder slide viewing.

John
www.mirscope.com

Subject: Re: Provia 400X 120: First Impressions
Date: 2007-01-24 11:36:27
From: Don Lopp

Patrick Dube wrote:

> For more general information about film vs digital I have found this web
> site :
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

From an initial look at the above URL, I considered that it is not
based on sound science. It starts out by using a 500mm focal length
lens, which, IMO, is a bad place to start,

I am not aware of any 500mm lenses that offer high resolution images !

Why did they not start with a high resolution lens ? There are plenty
of them available, IMO.

Best regards,

DON

Subject: Plasticity in 3D
Date: 2007-01-24 14:39:40
From: Michael K. Davis

In addition to their quest to capture accurate perspective and the nuances
of light and shadow, the Dutch painters Pieter de Hooch and Jan Vermeer
were noted for using brush strokes so fine they were undetectable at
normal viewing distances. Their goal was to produce images that were, in
a word, believable, and the avoidance of any signature style to their
brushwork was mandatory. This was seen at the time as a self-effacing
characteristic of their paintings. They wanted their paintings to have
tremendous plasticity and were willing to forfeit a commonly-practiced
mechanism of self-promotion to achieve it.

In any medium, plasticity requires a lack of noise at the plane of the
canvas. The building blocks of the image must be invisible to the eye of
the beholder. An almost magical degree of plasticity can be achieved with
MF3D transparencies, if and only if, the visible noise screen has been
eliminated at the plane of the mount. When every "building block" has
been made so small as to be undetectable in the viewer, users can embrace
the scene as something that's "real" instead of "photographic." When film
grain, circles of confusion (defocus), or Airy disks (diffraction) are
large enough to be resolved by the human eye, the illusion of plasticity
is destroyed. This sense that the image plane does not exist can also be
undermined by surface reflections and dust.

These variables are very difficult, if not impossible, to control with the
smaller stereo formats. With MF3D, the question becomes, "What are we
willing to forfeit to achieve a stereo view that offers no resistance to a
user's natural inclination to step right through the window and into the
scene?"

Mike Davis

Subject: Film grain
Date: 2007-01-24 19:25:51
From: Don Lopp

In my opinion, I have many MF stereo slides, (Provia F), that do not
show excessive grain in their image, because the scenes are busy with
details that hide the signs of grain. I do have MF slides, that
include a blue sky, which at certain densities, do show a grainy
emulsion. I have seen Fuji 400 speed, Provia F film, pushed 2
f/stops, which looked great because the scene was so interesting. The
grain was easily overlooked.

I do not fret about any grain that may appear in any of my MF slides, as
I can remember what grainy Ektachrome looked like before the advent of
Velvia 50, about 15 years ago. I consider a grainy emulsion to be of
less importance than is good composition.

I did see the Mirscope at NSA, Miami, and the images were stunningly sharp.

I will withold any comments as to a comparison between prints and MF
slides until I have the opportunity to see the same scene presented in
each format.

Best regards,

DON

Subject: Re: Plasticity in 3D
Date: 2007-01-24 19:43:28
From: John Hart

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Michael K. Davis"
wrote:

> When every "building block" has been made so small as to be

undetectable in the viewer, users can embrace the scene as something
that's "real" instead of "photographic." When film grain, circles of
confusion (defocus), or Airy disks (diffraction) are large enough to be
resolved by the human eye, the illusion of plasticity is destroyed.
This sense that the image plane does not exist can also be
undermined by surface reflections and dust.

> With MF3D, the question becomes, "What are we willing to forfeit to

achieve a stereo view that offers no resistance to a user's natural
inclination to step right through the window and into the scene?"

"Plasticity" Nice, where'd you come up with that - smooth glass-like
immersion is perhaps implied (Glassticity?, has a cleaner more eco ring
to it ;-).

It all comes down to the viewing ratio (or magnification, or viewing
angle, etc.). The issue is basically: how far back do you have
to "sit" (or what is the viewing ratio VR = distance/imagewidth?), so
that you can't see any artifacts or flaws? Fortunately, stereo
is 'saved' by the fact that you don't want to be too close (inside the
orthopoint).

A typical MF hand viewer has a VR of about 1.5 (plus or minus). It
shouldn't be too hard to figure out the constraints on DOF,
granularity, S/N and the like to make that work. Or vice versa. I.e.
given the flaws, what VR do you need to not see'm. My recent
experience with full HDTV plasma screens is that if I sit somewhat past
the point where I can see pixels (which, for me, is VR ~ 1.7), images
from good sources are incredible (where admittedly motion too does help
to minimize the perception of flaws).

John

Subject: Re: Plasticity in 3D
Date: 2007-01-27 00:01:02
From: Michael K. Davis

Hi John,

At 07:38 PM 1/24/2007, you wrote:

>"Plasticity" Nice, where'd you come up with that - smooth glass-like
>immersion is perhaps implied (Glassticity?, has a cleaner more eco ring
>to it ;-).

The word "plasticity" is used with some frequency in the art world. For
any 2D work, such as a painting or photograph, plasticity refers to the
ability of an image to convey a realistic sense of the subject space in
three dimensions. Let me emphasize that this term refers to the
"three-dimensionality" of 2D works. The noise screen created by visible
brush strokes or insufficient resolution in a painting or by visible film
grain, defocus, diffraction, or insufficient resolution in a 2D photograph,
destroys the plasticity that might be enjoyed otherwise. When you pull out
all the stops to achieve a high level of plasticity in each 2D frame of a
stereo pair, you can enjoy a significantly enhanced 3D experience when
viewing the pair in stereo.

>It all comes down to the viewing ratio (or magnification, or viewing
>angle, etc.). The issue is basically: how far back do you have
>to "sit" (or what is the viewing ratio VR = distance/imagewidth?), so
>that you can't see any artifacts or flaws? Fortunately, stereo
>is 'saved' by the fact that you don't want to be too close (inside the
>orthopoint).
>
>A typical MF hand viewer has a VR of about 1.5 (plus or minus). It
>shouldn't be too hard to figure out the constraints on DOF,
>granularity, S/N and the like to make that work. Or vice versa. I.e.
>given the flaws, what VR do you need to not see'm. My recent
>experience with full HDTV plasma screens is that if I sit somewhat past
>the point where I can see pixels (which, for me, is VR ~ 1.7), images
>from good sources are incredible (where admittedly motion too does help
>to minimize the perception of flaws).

I hear you. Enlargement factor and viewing distance must be considered
when determining the CoC diameter that will be used for DoF calculations,
for example - ultimately influencing aperture selection. I believe that
plasticity (or glassticity, as you've coined it) can't be achieved in the
images we view at up to 4x magnification in our stereo viewers until we've
limited the "building blocks" (CoC's, Airy disks, etc.) to a diameter no
larger than 0.125 mm after magnification, or 0.03 mm before magnification,
on-film. The system as a whole must achieve a resolution of something
around 33 lp/mm, on-film, with no visible grain.

Mike Davis

Subject: Re: Plasticity in 3D
Date: 2007-01-27 10:10:24
From: John Hart

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Michael K. Davis"
wrote:
The system as a whole must achieve a resolution of something

> around 33 lp/mm, on-film, with no visible grain.

That's a useful ballpark number to have, Thanks!! I assume it will
apply to all other 3D viewing systems that have a similar viewing ratio
of around 1.33. I'm guessing that's about what you get out of an MF
viewer with an 80mm lens looking at a ~50mm wide slide with the focus
racked in pretty close (VR ~ 1.6 with focus set at a distance >>
80mm). This should help in evaluating all viewing systems just by
rescaling? E.g. VR = 2.66 => 16 lp/mm or ~ 800lp across the image.

John

Subject: Re: Plasticity in 3D
Date: 2007-01-27 11:35:37
From: Don Lopp

> The system as a whole must achieve a resolution of something
> around 33 lp/mm, on-film, with no visible grain.

I disagree, as I consider a, 'true', 33 lp/mm as setting the resolution
bar too high, and impossible to reach. I can see 16 lp/mm as being
possible I am not aware of any, grainless, consumer level
transparency film that is available, on this day, 1-27-07, that will not
produce images with visible grain in some blue sky images.

Best regards,

DON

Subject: Re: Plasticity in 3D
Date: 2007-01-27 16:41:45
From: Michael K. Davis

John,

At 10:10 AM 1/27/2007, you wrote:

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Michael K. Davis"
wrote:
The system as a whole must achieve a resolution of something
> around 33 lp/mm, on-film, with no visible grain.

That's a useful ballpark number to have, Thanks!! I assume it will
apply to all other 3D viewing systems that have a similar viewing ratio
of around 1.33. I'm guessing that's about what you get out of an MF
viewer with an 80mm lens looking at a ~50mm wide slide with the focus
racked in pretty close (VR ~ 1.6 with focus set at a distance >>
80mm). This should help in evaluating all viewing systems just by
rescaling? E.g. VR = 2.66 => 16 lp/mm or ~ 800lp across the image.

John

I prefer to calculate the maximum CoC and Airy Disk diameters needed on-film, by using this formula:

Max. CoC or Airy disk diameter (mm) = 1 / desired print resolution / enlargement factor

To eliminate the "noise screen" that attacks the plasticity of our 3D views, we should seek a "desired print resolution" of 8 lp/mm after magnification in a viewer that can achieve an Image Distance of 10-inches. For viewers fixed at a focus distance of Infinity, we can achieve that same plasticity by seeking a resolution that's 25% less, or about 6.4 lp/mm. This is because we can reduce our "desired print resolution" whenever the viewing distance is increased.

For a viewer with 4x magnification, the formula above says that we must limit CoC's and Airy disks to a diameter of 0.03 mm. (1 / 8 lp/mm / 4 = 0.03125 mm)

A viewer's magnification (its enlargement factor, for use in the formula above) can be calculated with this formula:

Viewer Angular Magnification = (254mm / Viewer FL) + (254 / (Image Distance * 25.4))

(When focused at an Image Distance of Infinity, Viewer Angular Magnification = 254 / FL, but when focused at something less than Infinity, you must use the formula given above.)

The Image Distance at any particular focus setting can be calculated with this formula:

Image Distance, inches = 10 / (( 254 / Viewer Lens-to-Film Distance) - (254 / Viewer FL))

To bypass any consideration of Image Distance, you can just use this formula if you're confident that you know the how to measure the Viewer Lens-to-Film Distance:

Viewer Angular Magnification = 254 / Viewer Lens-to-Film Distance

Mike Davis