Can’t comment on the lenses but I too only use HD or equivalent dot pitch monitors for retouching (which I do a lot of) you can’t retouch at 100 % on retina type screens or judge sharpening/sharpness well as the image is too small or at 200% you are using 4 pixels to interpolate 1 which seems to change the acuity of the image. I think there will come a time when I need to stockpile an Eizo monitor for future use as I expect high quality HD panels (or similar dot pitch 27in)will no longer be made.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Thoughts on Schnedier 35XL vs Rodenstock 40HR on iq4 150.
- Thread starter Boinger
- Start date
tashley
Subscriber Member
The actual number of pixels is irrelevant. It’s the number of pixels per inch that matters. For me, the best way to assess an image is to use a monitor that approaches in PPI the sort of resolutions at which I print. The lowest resolution at which I regularly print is 180PPI (whatever the printer’s output DPI is) and so I use an LG HD monitor that has 140 PPI display. That way, I know that if it looks sharp at 1:1 on that monitor then it will certainly look sharp in the print. Of course most people are printing at resolutions of well over 200PPI and so a MacBook Pro retina or even an iPad, which tend to have resolution in the region of 220PPI, is easily good enough. What I really want is a monitor with 180PPI but the Microsoft Surface Studio is the only one that does and... well... Microsoft.
Last edited:
This subject could easily be in its own thread but I am not alone in my thinking and practice of using a standard (non-HD) monitor for critical evaluation of images for printing. Anything in the HD range will produce images that although look sharp on screen will actually not print sharp. In the field I use a 13 inch MBP that is HD and everything looks sharp even though I know areas are not. 200% pixels is really not any better. So to comment again about the 40 Rody vs the 35 XL I can say that on my monitor at 100% pixels that there is, without a doubt, an advantage that the Rody has over the Schneider. If anyone is viewing those files on a HD monitor they may look alike or extremely similar..... not on my monitor.
Not that I am a devotee but Chambers has been praising the benefits of standard monitors over HD monitors for years for image evaluation. All of that information is public on his site so you can read for yourself. He goes into great detail.
As usual..... YMMV
Victor
Not that I am a devotee but Chambers has been praising the benefits of standard monitors over HD monitors for years for image evaluation. All of that information is public on his site so you can read for yourself. He goes into great detail.
As usual..... YMMV
Victor
dchew
Well-known member
Victor,
I too have the same conclusions about 4-5k monitors, and use (I think) the same monitor you do - NEC PA271Q. I am very happy I went that direction when debating monitors.
I also agree that in general the 40hr images look superior, especially the shift comparison. However, I do think we have drifted a bit from the OP's original question, which was specific to the extreme corners of the image circle (hmm... circles don't have corners - oh well). I showed a few examples above where that might be the case. Below is another. That could be due to a host of other factors like plane of focus, different DoF, camera alignment with the subject, standard alignment between the back and the lens board, or simply taking screen shots (from the PA271Q) of jpegs and turning those into jpegs!
Dave
Yup - based on the images provided (both sets), and the extreme edges in particular, the 35 has it (and given that the 35 is a much wider lens than the 40, this is more of a torture test for it). In this instance its got nothing to do with monitors, it's simply that some parts of the 40 images are slightly blurred and soft. Just why that is, I couldn't say - plane of focus, DOF, parallelism of standards, parallelism of front and rear groups, who knows. The 35 also handles specular reflections better (kinda expected though given its design).
Still can't get over just how amazing the 35 is when shifted on an IQ150. Wish this back had appeared a couple of years ago as it may have kept S/K 'in the game'. Maybe they'll make a return ?
Still can't get over just how amazing the 35 is when shifted on an IQ150. Wish this back had appeared a couple of years ago as it may have kept S/K 'in the game'. Maybe they'll make a return ?
I also agree that on the 'fall' images the 35 appears sharper. I didn't concentrate on those images but rather on the shifted images which definitely show the 40 to be the better of the two lenses. I probably would never shift with the 35 as I could always get away with panning but rise is another story and if the 4150 allows the 35XL to have 12mm worth of rise then that certainly is a big leap in lens compatibility.
Victor
Victor
dchew
Well-known member
Testing a wide angle at infinity is pretty tough, especially shifted. If you want to do that, I suggest trying Jim Kasson's process. One that involves moving the camera around so a target is positioned in the corner and shooting four images, one in each corner. Because you focus each image on the target independently, it removes field curvature from the variables. The only problem with his process is the target would have to be huge for the IQ4150. But, you don't have to print a target; just find an adequate subject that will do the job.
Part of this maybe f-stop. While f/8 is probably best for the 40hr in the center, I wonder if the edges will still clean up a bit @ f/11.
Dave
Wayne Fox
Workshop Member
I follow your logic, but I think there is so much difference in the way a display renders output vs an inkjet printer that I don’t feel I gain anything from judging output on a high dpi device.
But we use our computers and displays for more than one purpose, and judging lens quality and sharpness on a high DPI display is challenging because at 100% the pixels are so small and dense it’s tough to see subtle differences. I also prefer a more nominal DPI device most of the time, but when using my retina MacBook Pro for this, a pair of very strong reading glasses also works pretty well. (I use these for focusing in live view as well). I haven’t upgraded my NEC’s yet because I’ve found that I have no problem relating what I’m seeing on the screen to what I’m going to get on the print. At 50% view I’ve always felt I can judge how sharpening and noise reduction will appear in the final print.
Wow we strayed quite a bit off topic.
One thing also I had a thought of could the slight zoom from the 35 to the 40 add to the apparent sharpness off the perceived detail. After all it is going to be slightly more magnified.
I am curious to try the 43mm XL now too to see how it renders. If anyone is in the LA or Orange County area I would love to meet up and give it a shot.
I am going to try to repeat the test at infinity. The 0 distortion of schneider's is quite appealing.
Regarding the DPI to PPI issue with the displays and prints. You aren't comparing apples to apples.
The most basic way to explain this is that a pixel on your display has a definite color value based on the rgb leds.
But on a print the color value of that individual pixel has to be represented by a dot. So depending on the inks a printer has it can be several dots to represent one pixel. So when you read 2,400 x 1,200 dpi. It does not mean 2,400 x 1,200 pixels on a print.
It could take 4 dots from the various inks to make the specific rgb value that you see on your monitor. So that would mean 4 dots = 1 pixel. For our case of 2,400 x 1,200 you divide by 4 and get 800 x 300 pixels (now this is just an example).
In addition there is no standardization of printing in terms of dot size etc. So you have to see what works best for your printer. Also printing algorithms have advanced quite a bit so that complicates things. There is no set standard.
But the overall and more important point is that dpi does not equal ppi on screen.
One thing also I had a thought of could the slight zoom from the 35 to the 40 add to the apparent sharpness off the perceived detail. After all it is going to be slightly more magnified.
I am curious to try the 43mm XL now too to see how it renders. If anyone is in the LA or Orange County area I would love to meet up and give it a shot.
I am going to try to repeat the test at infinity. The 0 distortion of schneider's is quite appealing.
Regarding the DPI to PPI issue with the displays and prints. You aren't comparing apples to apples.
The most basic way to explain this is that a pixel on your display has a definite color value based on the rgb leds.
But on a print the color value of that individual pixel has to be represented by a dot. So depending on the inks a printer has it can be several dots to represent one pixel. So when you read 2,400 x 1,200 dpi. It does not mean 2,400 x 1,200 pixels on a print.
It could take 4 dots from the various inks to make the specific rgb value that you see on your monitor. So that would mean 4 dots = 1 pixel. For our case of 2,400 x 1,200 you divide by 4 and get 800 x 300 pixels (now this is just an example).
In addition there is no standardization of printing in terms of dot size etc. So you have to see what works best for your printer. Also printing algorithms have advanced quite a bit so that complicates things. There is no set standard.
But the overall and more important point is that dpi does not equal ppi on screen.
tashley
Subscriber Member
I think you might have misread me Wayne; I’m a proponent of using LOW dpi monitors to judge sharpness, ideally with a dpi that matches your output resolution.
People in the thread refer to “hd displays” as if that term means one thing, whereas it means another. It refers to a specific number of pixels of width and height, but it says literally nothing at all about the dpi resolution of the monitor. A ten foot wide HD monitor would have an extremely low dpi...
Wayne Fox
Workshop Member
Yeah, I almost didn’t post because of that, one reason I like getDPI is we tend to stay on topic and in this forum stay pretty focused on medium format without as many distractions that tend to show up on other sites. But I couldn’t resist.
Yeah, sorry about that. I was in a bit of a rush waiting to go into see the dr. about my sore ear, so I didn’t really read the post carefully and at first glance I interpreted “similar to printed output” to be high DPI because I tend to think of output as the dpi that the printer is going to end up with, so 300 or 360. sounds like our processes and approach are pretty similar.
again my apologies.
Shashin
Well-known member
My ultimate way to choose is which one do I actually use. Which is the one I reach for. There are other attributes more important, like the focal length/angle of view, that will out weigh the slight difference in quality. In three dimensional space, whether a lens reproduces a flat surface well is not that important. I would take a some time and see which you spend more time with.
Thanks, single malt my drink of choice. The Macallan Director's edition is a great scotch. Great price and taste. One I highly recommend is the Glenmorangie 18, best bang for the buck scotch I have had till date.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Looking at the IQ4 150 quite seriously now. Planning on maybe the end of the year or early 2020 due to my bonus schedule - no doubt by the time I bite P1 will come out with a 200/300mp sensor solution! :facesmack:
In the meantime, I'll join the Macallan club :thumbs:
In the meantime, I'll join the Macallan club :thumbs:
Hats off to you Graham..... so far I just can't see cost/benefit. I don't need more than 100MP and the GFX 100 will have all of the benefits of the 4150 sensor with a far more advanced delivery system. The only thing lacking is rise below 72mm which is my limitation for now on the GFX with my Actus. That will be solved in the near future. My mind could change but so far I'm staying put.
Victor
Victor
Wayne Fox
Workshop Member
This upgrade is about quite a bit more than the resolution for those shooting a tech cam. After seeing the preliminary results, and now testing this myself, the lack of significant lens casts makes the tech camera workflow so much more enjoyable, and actually brings the wides (23/28mm) back into play. I had given up using my 28 on any sunset shots because by the time the LCC removed the lens cast, the edges lost to much saturation. It was just too much work to fix them. Now unless I’m using 100% of the captured area I may not even need an LCC. Since I typically crop my images into a horizontal pano the corners are cropped off, leaving the image pretty useable without correction and having a 14,000 pixel wide image in a single capture without all that work, It will dramatically reduce the times I need to stitch.
So far I don’t believe Sony has a higher resolution MF sensor on their roadmap, so I think you’ll be good for a while. I’m pretty happy, I’m not sure I’ll buy into a high Rez sensor if that’s all it has to offer (OK 300mp would be tempting).
Last edited:
drunkenspyder
Well-known member
I don't ever argue with someone else's needs, but I am curious what you mean by "far more advanced delivery system."
Greg..... I am referring to the complete delivery system. The 100s will be far superior to anything a 4150 could do and will offer it in a menu system that will allow the user far more flexibility. The closest you will be able to get is to attach the 4150 to an antiquated XF and now you have much more than quadrupled the cost!! Couple that with a state of the art EVF and a complete package that will be lighter and smaller and it's a winner. Fuji learned a lot about what users wanted with the 50s - the 100s will be a killer camera.
As I always have, I applaud all early adopters of the 4150 and wish them all well.
Cheers.....
Victor
As I always have, I applaud all early adopters of the 4150 and wish them all well.
Cheers.....
Victor
drunkenspyder
Well-known member
I understand your view. I will grant you the XF is a bit long in the tooth in this mirrorless age, but I would not trade its menu system and UI for anything I have seen from Fuji (so far). And I have reason to believe that future firmware updates for both the back and the body will continue to reward the P1 users. I am pleased that Fuji is offering new choices to MF users and competitive pressures on other makers. This is good for all of us.
Cheers!