If anyone has made any medium format stereos off of a ProPallete 8000
film recorder (or any other) using an MF back, I would be most
interested in seeing a couple.

I will be bringing some MF film-recorder slides from www.slides.com ,
as well a unique variation on the theme.

Thanks,

John

Hey John,

At 06:58 PM 7/6/2007, you wrote:

If anyone has made any medium format stereos off of a ProPallete 8000
film recorder (or any other) using an MF back, I would be most
interested in seeing a couple.

I will be bringing some MF film-recorder slides from www.slides.com ,
as well a unique variation on the theme.

Their FAQ says their "fixed device resolution can be as high as 8192 X 6758 pixels."

At what resolution were your MF chips produced and what are the dimensions?

And most importantly, are you pleased with the results?

Thanks,

Mike Davis

What is the cost for medium format slides?  I see no mention of medium format on their site.  The only reference to something other than 35mm is where they say "For larger slides and negatives" in the FAQ section.
 
Ted

---

To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
From: zilch0@primenet.com
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 07:43:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [MF3D-group] Digital MF at NSA/ISU

Hey John,

At 06:58 PM 7/6/2007, you wrote:

If anyone has made any medium format stereos off of a ProPallete 8000
film recorder (or any other) using an MF back, I would be most
interested in seeing a couple.

I will be bringing some MF film-recorder slides from www.slides.com ,
as well a unique variation on the theme.

Their FAQ says their "fixed device resolution can be as high as 8192 X 6758 pixels."

At what resolution were your MF chips produced and what are the dimensions?

And most importantly, are you pleased with the results?

Thanks,

Mike Davis

---

See what you’re getting into…before you go there. Check it out!

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Edwin Baskin wrote:

>
> What is the cost for medium format slides? I see no mention of

medium format on their site.

$5 per pop. Last run I did was 40 (20 stereo pairs). Came back on a
big roll of 70mm. Impressive.

This service is not on their website. I posted before that you need
to call David Sieverding (800 number on the slides.com website) and
ask about it.

Mike Davis asked:

Their FAQ says their "fixed device resolution can be as high as 8192
X 6758 pixels."

At what resolution were your MF chips produced and what are the
dimensions?

And most importantly, are you pleased with the results?


I'm not sure what the MF "resolution" is. As you may know, film-
recorders usually post resolution by the addressable space, which has
little to do with what you actually get!!!!

As I recall the files I sent were like 2048 pixels per inch, or
something thereabouts. Pretty much the max of my camera (16MP).

I wanted stereos I could easily show to museum directors and the like
using the simple and cheap 3D World viewer(s). MF is much more
impressive than 35mm to a newbie, and has less of the peepshow feel.
The colors and contrast were right on. There is granulation rivalry
in clear areas (but Provia 400X, even 100F to a lesser degree, does
that too). I think I can do a little better detail-wise by making a
large digital print, but the resolution appears adequate for most
subjects - far superior to 35mm output of the same files that I had
done on MGI Sapphire and Polaroid ProPalette for comparison
purposes. I don't feel reluctant about showing these to anyone.

John

Hey John,

At 10:38 AM 7/7/2007, you wrote:

> > What is the cost for medium format slides? I see no mention of
>medium format on their site.
>
>$5 per pop. Last run I did was 40 (20 stereo pairs). Came back on a
>big roll of 70mm. Impressive.

We can't get our MF chromes duped for so reasonable a fee. I'm
paying $22.00 per chip for dupes, and have to fight with the lab,
requesting remakes more often than not. It may seem cumbersome, but
scanning a pair of chromes at 4000 dpi, cleaning them up in PS, then
having them reproduced at $10.00 per view instead of $44.00 per view
could be a lot less hassle and less expense in the long run.

>Mike Davis asked:
>
>Their FAQ says their "fixed device resolution can be as high as 8192
>X 6758 pixels."
>
>At what resolution were your MF chips produced and what are the
>dimensions?
>
>And most importantly, are you pleased with the results?
>
>I'm not sure what the MF "resolution" is. As you may know, film-
>recorders usually post resolution by the addressable space, which has
>little to do with what you actually get!!!!
>
>As I recall the files I sent were like 2048 pixels per inch, or
>something thereabouts. Pretty much the max of my camera (16MP).

OK. If you're providing them with 4096x4096 files, once they are
recorded to a 52x52cm film chip, you've supplied about 2048 dpi. An
MF viewer isn't going to impose a magnification of more than about
4x, so the magnified image would have a "data" resolution of at least
500 dpi. That's awesome! Even if you multiply this by 0.7 to
account for the loss of resolution caused by the Bayer Algorithm and
AA filter common to all but Foveon sensors, you end up with an after
4x magnification resolving power of 350 dpi, equivalent to about 7
lp/mm! The fact that the recorder is resampling your data density
of 500 dpi up to 4000 (or 8000?) dpi does nothing for enhancing
actual subject detail, but it would certainly "smooth" the image seen
in the viewer.

Certainly there are many factors that can prevent you from achieving
an after-magnification resolution of 7 lp/mm. All I'm saying is that
this particular link in the resolution chain (use of 4096x4096 pixel
files to produce 2x2-inch film chips with a 4000 dpi film recorder)
can support a desired resolution of subject detail up to 7 lp/mm.

>I wanted stereos I could easily show to museum directors and the like
>using the simple and cheap 3D World viewer(s). MF is much more
>impressive than 35mm to a newbie, and has less of the peepshow feel.
>The colors and contrast were right on. There is granulation rivalry
>in clear areas (but Provia 400X, even 100F to a lesser degree, does
>that too). I think I can do a little better detail-wise by making a
>large digital print, but the resolution appears adequate for most
>subjects - far superior to 35mm output of the same files that I had
>done on MGI Sapphire and Polaroid ProPalette for comparison
>purposes. I don't feel reluctant about showing these to anyone.

It's promising to hear you say that, but I'm surprised you're not
more pleased with the results. When you say "the resolution appears
adequate for most subjects," I'm bewildered by what's causing you to
use the word "adequate." The numbers would say that you're providing
them with 500 dpi after 4x magnification and I dropped that down to
350 dpi to account for Bayer interpolation and the softening caused
by your sensor's AA filter. You shouldn't be disappointed in the
least with a data density of 350 dpi. When I make prints that have a
true data density that high, the subject detail is quite
satisfying. It's pointless to take the data density much higher than
about 400 dpi for viewing at a distance of 10 inches. Increase the
viewing distance and it only gets better.

Something's amuck with this process. It makes me think that if we
sent them 39 Megapixel files, we'd be no happier with the results
than you are with your 16 MP files. Maybe it's all in the rivalry
issue you mentioned.

What is your assessment of "the resolution" when looking at only one
chip in the viewer (with the other eye closed)?

Thanks,

Mike Davis

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

> We can't get our MF chromes duped for so reasonable a fee. I'm
> paying $22.00 per chip for dupes, and have to fight with the lab,
> requesting remakes more often than not.

Ugh. I didn't realize MF dupes were so expensive.

I have compared 35mm commercial lab dupes with 35mm film recorder
output (made by scanning the source slide at 5400dpi, then getting
the file recorded). Significant degradation in both cases, ending up
at about the same quality. Neither looks satisfying in a hand
viewer. Slide projection seemed marginally OK (unless you mixed
originals with dupes, etc.).

Haven't tried the same test with MF's....

> [Long interesting analysis... ] Something's amuck with this

process. It makes me think that if we sent them 39 Megapixel files,
we'd be no happier with the results than you are with your 16 MP
files.

I think what's amuck is that you have not included one important
factor. That is: a "Res80" (80 lines per millimeter, or ~2048 lines
per inch) fancy recorder (like a laser beam one, certainly a CRT one)
points the beam onto the film with this accuracy (or at least claims
to), but the spot blooms a little (or more than a little for some
recorders). Therefore, it is probably pointless to feed such a
device more than 2048 ppi data, and in fact the image probably won't
display all the data you do send, even at that level. This varies
from device to device. The best I ever got was from a Cymbolic
Science Laserjet2048 res80 machine, but still, in comparing the
output with the digital source (under magnification) there was some
perceptible loss. Nonetheless, my guess is (and it's just a guess)
that MF recorder output and MF dupes will be roughly similar in
quality.

But, for $5 per pop, maybe just try it (or come to Boise and see
mine :-). You may (or may not) like it. The images I didn't care
for so much in an MF viewer (I am severely picky, unfortunately), did
have blue-sky rivalry, and vast areas of low contrast fine texture
that seemed to lose it in the grain or in sharpness. One eye was
more pleasing, 'cause the grain wasn't rivalrous.

Hope that helps,

John

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

> We can't get our MF chromes duped for so reasonable a fee. I'm
> paying $22.00 per chip for dupes, and have to fight with the lab,
> requesting remakes more often than not. >
> Mike Davis
>

I have just had an email from 3D World offering dupes at the cost of
25 RMB for a pair, or 30 RMB mounted. You can work out your own
exchange rates on that for an exact figure but in Australian
dollars, that works out at AU$3.80 a pair unmounted and AU$4.60 in
the mount. Rough conversion would be US$3.25 and US$3.95 Having
seen the quality of their mounted slides, I would mount them myself
anyway. If you get them sent unmounted, they are apparently on a
single piece of film in a pair, already spaced to put in a mount.

I haven't had a chance yet to see the quality, but it sounds a
little better than US$22-00 per chip. Might be worth a try.

regards,

Harry Calderbank

John,

Thanks for your detailed follow-up.

At 11:40 AM 7/9/2007, you wrote:

>One eye was more pleasing, 'cause the grain wasn't rivalrous.

It sounds as if the laser recording process imparts a "grain" of its
own and that rivalry could be a significant contributor to the
overall quality problem.

My one and only digital camera is an 82 dollar 3.2 Megapixel Canon
A410, so I don't have any image files worth sending to them to sample
their service. :-)

Thanks again for all the info.

Mike Davis

Article:
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=ed1f56c4-07c2-41bf-8b25-09a2f2eb6b1d&rss=102

Video:
http://www.13wham.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=184835@video.wokr13.com

Mike Davis

Thanks Harry,

I drive 30 miles each way to avoid the risks associated with mailing my originals to BWC Imaging in downtown Dallas, but I appreciate the info regarding 3DWorld's dupes.  The price is incredible - like everything else they sell.   (Shhhh!)

Thanks,

Mike Davis


At 06:37 PM 7/9/2007, you wrote:

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

> We can't get our MF chromes duped for so reasonable a fee. I'm
> paying $22.00 per chip for dupes, and have to fight with the lab,
> requesting remakes more often than not. >
> Mike Davis
>

I have just had an email from 3D World offering dupes at the cost of
25 RMB for a pair, or 30 RMB mounted. You can work out your own
exchange rates on that for an exact figure but in Australian
dollars, that works out at AU$3.80 a pair unmounted and AU$4.60 in
the mount. Rough conversion would be US$3.25 and US$3.95 Having
seen the quality of their mounted slides, I would mount them myself
anyway. If you get them sent unmounted, they are apparently on a
single piece of film in a pair, already spaced to put in a mount.

I haven't had a chance yet to see the quality, but it sounds a
little better than US$22-00 per chip. Might be worth a try.

regards,

Harry Calderbank