What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

CFV-39 Vs CFV-16 Pixel Density

peterbkk

peterbkk

Member
Although I am quite happy with the results I am getting from my CFV-16 on my 205FCC, like many of you, I am mulling over the purchase of a CFV-39. More pixels is a good thing, isn't it? :)

One of the questions I am wondering about is pixel density and it's impact on image quality or the image's qualities.

The CFV-16 has 111 pixels per millimetre of capture surface. Right?
The CFV-39 has 147 pixels per millimetre of capture surface. Right?

This means that the pixel cells are packed in tighter. Or the cells are smaller. Right?

I thought that one of the advantages of the CFV-16 was its fat capture cells. Right? Is it an advantage?

Is some of this CFV-16 fat cell advantage lost in the CFV-39? Will this change the image quality in any way?

Can I use this reason to talk myself out of seriously dinting my credit card...

Regards
Peter
 
This is not a matter of more pixels for the sake of more pixels.

This is about a larger sensor!
 
more pixels give you more resolution not 'better' pictures..

arguably gives you better print quality as well...

polypal is right the main advantage is being able to shoot wide angle even thou is not in square format...
 
Obviously I did not type my question clearly enough.

I know all the wisdom about avoiding the "pixels for the sake of pixels" issue. Been around digital photography since the beginning. Run courses on the topic.

Also I am well-aware of the advantage of the wider rectangular shape of the sensor array, providing more lens coverage, at least in one dimension.

My question was regarding the impact of the smaller individual light-response cell size in the CFV-39 compared with the larger cell size in CFV-16 and the impact on the qualities (e.g. smoothness, light response, dynamic range, gradation) of the images. Yes, the CFV-39 will capture more pixels but will the qualities of the image be different?

Regards
Peter
 
Hello Peter,

One parameter influencing IQ with smaller pixels is that noise goes up.

That means more measures must be taken to avoid this becomes a problem.
Noise and noise control seem more difficult to control in MF than with 35 mm based cameras with smaller sensors.

My good friend Austin Franklin is dearly missed here.
Austin is an expert designer of digital devices and could shed more light on the subject.

He decided to stop visiting this forum after being seriously insulted by the one and only person to receive a permanent ban here.
 
Austin Franklin! I had forgotten about him.
I sold him a lens some years ago.
I recall his posts were most insightful.
Perhaps we could get him back.


Terry
 
A while ago I found an info about 6x6 digital back (full frame) for Hasselblad that had about 16 Mpix, real resolution, with some kind of liquid crystal filter that changed color in microseconds during the exposure. I can't remember it's name or brand, it wasn't a scan back.
Does anyone know what I'm talking about, I believe it was more than 10 years ago?!
 
One thing , I would like to mention is , the higher resolution you have with the CFV-39 also allows you to do bigger crops, if neccessary .

Jürgen
 
I have both the CFV/16 and a H3D-II/39 that I use with the same Zeiss lenses.

The obvious difference is the use of wide angle lenses with the 39 meg. sensor ... like more full use of the Zeiss 40 IF for example. The other advantage is some ability to print much larger or crop more severly with less up-rezing.

It has to be said that there is a certain pictorial "magic" that the CFV/16 produces due to the 9 micron pixels (so called "Fat Pixels). Technically I could not begin to explain it, nor would I want to if I could. All I care about is end results that come off the printer.

On the other hand, the 39 reproduces more detail in things like fabrics and small details of products, or things like leaves and textures. Not a lot, but visibly different from the 16 meg back.

IMO, the CFV-II/16 produces more immediate POP where the 39 meg back has less of that initially ... when using the same Zeiss lens.

Again, not a technical observation, instead a pratical application observation between the two backs.

-Marc
 
terrydent said:
Austin Franklin! I had forgotten about him.
I sold him a lens some years ago.
I recall his posts were most insightful.
Perhaps we could get him back.
Terry
Click to expand...

Wasn't an 80mm CF lens was it ?

I bought one off him, plus a PM45.

Very nice man.

Go get him Paul. :)
 
Hello Gary,


I have been in contact with Austin although not recently.
He expressed he lost interest, partly because of unhappy events here at the forum with a certain poster.

I was about to forget that unhappy history but whenever we miss Austin for his expertise and his good humour this comes up.

Next week I will give it another try.
He may have more time to spare and join us again.
Lets hope so!


Paul
 
fotografz said:
It has to be said that there is a certain pictorial "magic" that the CFV/16 produces due to the 9 micron pixels (so called "Fat Pixels).

All I care about is end results that come off the printer.
-Marc
Click to expand...

Marc, and others, thinking purely about square images, is there a practical limit to the quality of a CFV16 file/print size where it's 'necessary/appropriate' to move up from the 16 to the 39 ?

If Genuine Fractals is used to upRez, where does that take us ?

Reason for asking is I'm quoting for some advertising work and hoping to get started with the 16 without laying out money to bring work in (initially).

ps - should add, it's mainly brochure work, maybe A2 posters and box packaging.

[Sorry if that's unclear in any way.]

Gary
 
Very ggod result at 400 & 800 asa,but the exposition must be perfect. If you under expose at 50 to 200 asa then you may correct it with phocus for perfect result. If you do the same at 800 asa with an under exposed picture, the result may be poor.

800as with 110mm at 2.0 open new doors !

I have a portrait in 40x60cm taken at 800 asa: great.
 
That's a very impressive image

Thanks for sharing.... certainly has a "WOW" factor!


blowupster said:
Very ggod result at 400 & 800 asa,but the exposition must be perfect. If you under expose at 50 to 200 asa then you may correct it with phocus for perfect result. If you do the same at 800 asa with an under exposed picture, the result may be poor.

800as with 110mm at 2.0 open new doors !

I have a portrait in 40x60cm taken at 800 asa: great.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top