The discussion of resolution misses something

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 19, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    What people can see when a print is made regarding resolution is a
    mathematical question. But how a print looks because of enlargement
    concerns more than resolution, there is almost an intangible quality
    that diminish as a print gets bigger. It's even possible to have
    superior resolution with inferior sharpness but you wouldn't want to
    put up with that result. What is clear, and some reviewers are now
    saying it, is that the resolution of current sensors is outstripping
    the ability of some kit lenses to meet that resolution.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&message=38201930&changemode=1
     
    RichA, Apr 19, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >What people can see when a print is made regarding resolution is a
    >mathematical question. But how a print looks because of enlargement
    >concerns more than resolution, there is almost an intangible quality
    >that diminish as a print gets bigger. It's even possible to have
    >superior resolution with inferior sharpness but you wouldn't want to
    >put up with that result. What is clear, and some reviewers are now
    >saying it, is that the resolution of current sensors is outstripping
    >the ability of some kit lenses to meet that resolution.
    >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&message=38201930&changemode=1



    There has apparently been some debate within Sony about whether to
    release the new A77 with a 25 MP APS-C sensor, because none of the
    current Sony lens range can supply the resolution necessary to get the
    best out of the sensor. The same debate has been going on at Nikon
    because the D300s replacement is expected to use the same sensor. But
    at least Nikon has some lenses that will deliver the necessary
    resolution.

    The debate at Nikon is actually more important. That's because the
    only way a 25 MP sensor will make money for Sony is by selling it to
    other camera manufacturers. The sales of Sony Alpha DSLRs and SLTs
    have dwindled to such a low point that they are irrelevant. Now, only
    NEX is making Sony any money in the interchangeable lens market.
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 19, 6:09 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >What people can see when a print is made regarding resolution is a
    > >mathematical question. But how a print looks because of enlargement
    > >concerns more than resolution, there is almost an intangible quality
    > >that diminish as a print gets bigger.  It's even possible to have
    > >superior resolution with inferior sharpness but you wouldn't want to
    > >put up with that result. What is clear, and some reviewers are now
    > >saying it, is that the resolution of current sensors is outstripping
    > >the ability of some kit lenses to meet that resolution.
    > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&message=382...

    >
    > There has apparently been some debate within Sony about whether to
    > release the new A77 with a 25 MP APS-C sensor, because none of the
    > current Sony lens range can supply the resolution necessary to get the
    > best out of the sensor.  The same debate has been going on at Nikon
    > because the D300s replacement is expected to use the same sensor.  But
    > at least Nikon has some lenses that will deliver the necessary
    > resolution.


    Except now the APS camera pushes you into a higher price class than
    before, simply because you must buy the FX lenses to do it justice.

    >
    > The debate at Nikon is actually more important.  That's because the
    > only way a 25 MP sensor will make money for Sony is by selling it to
    > other camera manufacturers.  The sales of Sony Alpha DSLRs and SLTs
    > have dwindled to such a low point that they are irrelevant.  Now, only
    > NEX is making Sony any money in the interchangeable lens market.


    Much like Olympus's predicament. But then they've more or less
    officially bailed out of DSLRs.
     
    RichA, Apr 19, 2011
    #3
  4. On 4/19/2011 8:02 AM, RichA wrote:
    > On Apr 19, 6:09 am, Bruce<> wrote:
    >> RichA<> wrote:
    >>> What people can see when a print is made regarding resolution is a
    >>> mathematical question. But how a print looks because of enlargement
    >>> concerns more than resolution, there is almost an intangible quality
    >>> that diminish as a print gets bigger. It's even possible to have
    >>> superior resolution with inferior sharpness but you wouldn't want to
    >>> put up with that result. What is clear, and some reviewers are now
    >>> saying it, is that the resolution of current sensors is outstripping
    >>> the ability of some kit lenses to meet that resolution.
    >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&message=382...

    >>



    I own a lowly 8 megapixel Canon 30D.

    I also own several Canon lenses.

    All, including the equally lowly 18-55 kit lens, are adequate.
    This includes the expensive 24-105 f/4L "pro" lens.
    But neither of these is more than "adequate" and the pro one
    is not really all that much better than the kit lens .. but,
    of course, it covers a full frame, making it harder to design.

    But I own other Canon lenses .. including the 50 mm f/1.8
    for $85, a 70-300 mm non L series tele, and a 100mm f/2.8
    macro. All three of these are better than the 30D's sensor
    at f/3.5, one stop down from full open, and f/3.5 respectively.
    The macro is awesomely better, and the 50mm is too at f/4-f/11.

    These latter 3 should all do fine even at 25 megapixels crop frame,
    though the tele would have a very small f/number range
    between aberration and diffraction problems. The 18-55 and
    the 24-105 would be problematical, due to lateral chromatic,
    at some focal lengths, even stopped down. I mean problematical
    even after computer removal of the scale difference between
    the three colors ... the blur in one color would be problematical.

    It is the lateral chromatic that is going to have to be addressed
    by the manufacturers, seriously addressed, for these super resolution
    sensors, as stopping down does not help.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Apr 19, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    >
    >I own a lowly 8 megapixel Canon 30D.
    >
    >I also own several Canon lenses.
    >
    >All, including the equally lowly 18-55 kit lens, are adequate.
    >This includes the expensive 24-105 f/4L "pro" lens.
    >But neither of these is more than "adequate" and the pro one
    >is not really all that much better than the kit lens .. but,
    >of course, it covers a full frame, making it harder to design.
    >
    >But I own other Canon lenses .. including the 50 mm f/1.8
    >for $85, a 70-300 mm non L series tele, and a 100mm f/2.8
    >macro. All three of these are better than the 30D's sensor
    >at f/3.5, one stop down from full open, and f/3.5 respectively.
    >The macro is awesomely better, and the 50mm is too at f/4-f/11.
    >
    >These latter 3 should all do fine even at 25 megapixels crop frame,
    >though the tele would have a very small f/number range
    >between aberration and diffraction problems. The 18-55 and
    >the 24-105 would be problematical, due to lateral chromatic,
    >at some focal lengths, even stopped down. I mean problematical
    >even after computer removal of the scale difference between
    >the three colors ... the blur in one color would be problematical.
    >
    >It is the lateral chromatic that is going to have to be addressed
    >by the manufacturers, seriously addressed, for these super resolution
    >sensors, as stopping down does not help.



    Interesting. This helps to show us just how good film was.

    Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays. It
    simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
    angle from which it came. Therefore there was no need for expensive
    telecentric lens designs. Because film was much less reflective than
    a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
    expensive multi-coating of lens elements.

    Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
    power of top quality film. It appears that these sensors are causing
    a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2011
    #5
  6. On 4/19/2011 10:07 AM, Bruce wrote:

    >>
    >> It is the lateral chromatic that is going to have to be addressed
    >> by the manufacturers, seriously addressed, for these super resolution
    >> sensors, as stopping down does not help.

    >
    >
    > Interesting. This helps to show us just how good film was.
    >
    > Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays. It
    > simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
    > angle from which it came. Therefore there was no need for expensive
    > telecentric lens designs. Because film was much less reflective than
    > a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
    > expensive multi-coating of lens elements.


    Film is much MORE reflective than a digital sensor ... by far.

    You are only thinking specular reflection. Film has extreme
    diffuse reflectivity. This reflects back from the lens
    and generates diffuse fog which is, in toto, worse than
    digital sensor reflection ... which is near negligible
    due to good coatings.

    And telecentic lens design is really a non-issue with most lenses.

    >
    > Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
    > power of top quality film.


    You mean extremely SLOW film. Sure, there were Kodachrome 25, Ektar 25, and
    Tech Pan. Even my lowly 30D in fact produces pictures almost
    as good as Kodachrome 64. Even the next generation of consumer-grade
    SLRs equaled it. Current one annihilate it.


    > It appears that these sensors are causing
    > a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.
    >


    all of which are non-issues.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Apr 19, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    >On 4/19/2011 10:07 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>
    >>> It is the lateral chromatic that is going to have to be addressed
    >>> by the manufacturers, seriously addressed, for these super resolution
    >>> sensors, as stopping down does not help.

    >>
    >>
    >> Interesting. This helps to show us just how good film was.
    >>
    >> Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays. It
    >> simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
    >> angle from which it came. Therefore there was no need for expensive
    >> telecentric lens designs. Because film was much less reflective than
    >> a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
    >> expensive multi-coating of lens elements.

    >
    >Film is much MORE reflective than a digital sensor ... by far.
    >
    >You are only thinking specular reflection. Film has extreme
    >diffuse reflectivity. This reflects back from the lens
    >and generates diffuse fog which is, in toto, worse than
    >digital sensor reflection ... which is near negligible
    >due to good coatings.
    >
    >And telecentic lens design is really a non-issue with most lenses.
    >
    >>
    >> Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
    >> power of top quality film.

    >
    >You mean extremely SLOW film. Sure, there were Kodachrome 25, Ektar 25, and
    >Tech Pan. Even my lowly 30D in fact produces pictures almost
    >as good as Kodachrome 64. Even the next generation of consumer-grade
    >SLRs equaled it. Current one annihilate it.
    >
    >
    >> It appears that these sensors are causing
    >> a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.
    >>

    >
    >all of which are non-issues.



    I congratulate you on your self-delusion, which appears near total.

    Meanwhile, thank you for making me laugh louder and longer than I have
    for quite some time! ;-)
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2011-04-19 11:14:20 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >> In article <>, Bruce
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays. It
    >>> simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
    >>> angle from which it came. Therefore there was no need for expensive
    >>> telecentric lens designs. Because film was much less reflective than
    >>> a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
    >>> expensive multi-coating of lens elements.

    >>
    >> except that lenses are significantly better than they were with film.
    >> for instance, the nikon 14-24mm is better than fixed focal length
    >> lenses in that range.
    >>
    >>> Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
    >>> power of top quality film. It appears that these sensors are causing
    >>> a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.

    >>
    >> digital surpassed film years ago. full frame 35mm digital is matching
    >> medium format film. crop sensor 35mm digital is outperforming 35mm
    >> film.

    >
    >"nospam" you might want to check your computer clock, it seems to be
    >running 3 hours fast.



    The best advice you could give to "nospam" is not to waste his time
    posting such nonsense.

    I suppose that, as with many people who have made very expensive
    investments in digital SLR equipment, he cannot stand the pain of
    admitting that it still does not surpass the quality that the best
    35mm films can provide.
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2011
    #8
  9. On 4/19/2011 10:41 AM, Bruce wrote:

    >>
    >>> It appears that these sensors are causing
    >>> a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.
    >>>

    >>
    >> all of which are non-issues.

    >
    >
    > I congratulate you on your self-delusion, which appears near total.
    >
    > Meanwhile, thank you for making me laugh louder and longer than I have
    > for quite some time! ;-)
    >


    Ah ... the ad-hominem attack, so common!

    In fact what I say is correct.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Apr 19, 2011
    #9
  10. On 4/19/2011 11:57 AM, Bruce wrote:

    >
    > I suppose that, as with many people who have made very expensive
    > investments in digital SLR equipment, he cannot stand the pain of
    > admitting that it still does not surpass the quality that the best
    > 35mm films can provide.
    >


    That's utterly absurd. Even a 5D MK II is better, overall, far
    better, than Kodachrome. Sure, Kodachrome 25 has about the same
    overall luminance resolution. But the grain, yes, even Kodachrome 25,
    is worse than the noise on a digital sensor at 100.

    What you are doing is the standard thing a retro-advocate does:
    grade the new thing by the standards of the old thing only, which old
    standards always forgets to use as a criterion the things the old
    thing did badly, i.e. grain. The new thing has a similar problem,
    but really only one: bad "look" of the noise when printed at
    an extremely elevated level. BUT ... sensors have an enormously
    greater dynamic range than the useful range of the 25 speed color films
    they need to be compared to to get a near-equal resolution.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Apr 19, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Doug McDonald <> wrote:

    >On 4/19/2011 10:41 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>>> It appears that these sensors are causing
    >>>> a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> all of which are non-issues.

    >>
    >>
    >> I congratulate you on your self-delusion, which appears near total.
    >>
    >> Meanwhile, thank you for making me laugh louder and longer than I have
    >> for quite some time! ;-)
    >>

    >
    >Ah ... the ad-hominem attack, so common!
    >
    >In fact what I say is correct.



    Proof by assertion? You're even more of a joke than I thought. :)
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Doug McDonald <> wrote:

    >On 4/19/2011 11:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I suppose that, as with many people who have made very expensive
    >> investments in digital SLR equipment, he cannot stand the pain of
    >> admitting that it still does not surpass the quality that the best
    >> 35mm films can provide.
    >>

    >
    >That's utterly absurd. Even a 5D MK II is better, overall, far
    >better, than Kodachrome. Sure, Kodachrome 25 has about the same
    >overall luminance resolution. But the grain, yes, even Kodachrome 25,
    >is worse than the noise on a digital sensor at 100.
    >
    >What you are doing is the standard thing a retro-advocate does:
    >grade the new thing by the standards of the old thing only, which old
    >standards always forgets to use as a criterion the things the old
    >thing did badly, i.e. grain. The new thing has a similar problem,
    >but really only one: bad "look" of the noise when printed at
    >an extremely elevated level. BUT ... sensors have an enormously
    >greater dynamic range than the useful range of the 25 speed color films
    >they need to be compared to to get a near-equal resolution.



    What you are doing is the standard thing a neo-advocate does:
    grade the old thing (film) by the standards of the worst example you
    can find - Kodachrome.

    By worst example, I mean an emulsion that had no significant R&D
    applied to it for the last 25 years of its life. It was out of date
    in the 1980s, and kept in production only because of its archival
    qualities and a surprising level of demand.
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays. It
    > simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
    > angle from which it came. Therefore there was no need for expensive
    > telecentric lens designs. Because film was much less reflective than
    > a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
    > expensive multi-coating of lens elements.


    except that lenses are significantly better than they were with film.
    for instance, the nikon 14-24mm is better than fixed focal length
    lenses in that range.

    > Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
    > power of top quality film. It appears that these sensors are causing
    > a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.


    digital surpassed film years ago. full frame 35mm digital is matching
    medium format film. crop sensor 35mm digital is outperforming 35mm
    film.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 19, 11:07 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    >
    > >I own a lowly 8 megapixel Canon 30D.

    >
    > >I also own several Canon lenses.

    >
    > >All, including the equally lowly 18-55 kit lens, are adequate.
    > >This includes the expensive  24-105 f/4L "pro" lens.
    > >But neither of these is more than "adequate" and the pro one
    > >is not really all that much better than the kit lens .. but,
    > >of course, it covers a full frame, making it harder to design.

    >
    > >But I own other Canon lenses .. including the 50 mm f/1.8
    > >for $85, a 70-300 mm non L series tele, and a 100mm f/2.8
    > >macro. All three of these are better than the 30D's sensor
    > >at f/3.5, one stop down from full open, and f/3.5 respectively.
    > >The macro is awesomely better, and the 50mm is too at f/4-f/11.

    >
    > >These latter 3 should all do fine even at 25 megapixels crop frame,
    > >though the tele would have a very small f/number range
    > >between aberration and diffraction problems. The 18-55 and
    > >the 24-105 would be problematical, due to lateral chromatic,
    > >at some focal lengths, even stopped down. I mean problematical
    > >even after computer removal of the scale difference between
    > >the three colors ... the blur in one color would be problematical.

    >
    > >It is the lateral chromatic that is going to have to be addressed
    > >by the manufacturers, seriously addressed, for these super resolution
    > >sensors, as stopping down does not help.

    >
    > Interesting.  This helps to show us just how good film was.
    >
    > Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays.  It
    > simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
    > angle from which it came.  Therefore there was no need for expensive
    > telecentric lens designs.  Because film was much less reflective than
    > a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
    > expensive multi-coating of lens elements.  
    >
    > Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
    > power of top quality film.  It appears that these sensors are causing
    > a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.  


    No depth, no microlenses, no problems!
     
    RichA, Apr 19, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 19, 2:14 pm, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Bruce
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays.  It
    > > simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
    > > angle from which it came.  Therefore there was no need for expensive
    > > telecentric lens designs.  Because film was much less reflective than
    > > a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
    > > expensive multi-coating of lens elements.  

    >
    > except that lenses are significantly better than they were with film.
    > for instance, the nikon 14-24mm is better than fixed focal length
    > lenses in that range.


    Almost. Wide open some Zeiss's beat it.
     
    RichA, Apr 19, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 19, 11:14 am, Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    > On 4/19/2011 10:07 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >> It is the lateral chromatic that is going to have to be addressed
    > >> by the manufacturers, seriously addressed, for these super resolution
    > >> sensors, as stopping down does not help.

    >
    > > Interesting.  This helps to show us just how good film was.

    >
    > > Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays.  It
    > > simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
    > > angle from which it came.  Therefore there was no need for expensive
    > > telecentric lens designs.  Because film was much less reflective than
    > > a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
    > > expensive multi-coating of lens elements.

    >
    > Film is much MORE reflective than a digital sensor ... by far.
    >
    > You are only thinking specular reflection. Film has extreme
    > diffuse reflectivity. This reflects back from the lens
    > and generates diffuse fog which is, in toto, worse than
    > digital sensor reflection ... which is near negligible
    > due to good coatings.
    >
    > And telecentic lens design is really a non-issue with most lenses.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
    > > power of top quality film.

    >
    > You mean extremely SLOW film. Sure, there were Kodachrome 25, Ektar 25, and
    > Tech Pan. Even my lowly 30D in fact produces pictures almost
    > as good as Kodachrome 64. Even the next generation of consumer-grade
    > SLRs equaled it. Current one annihilate it.
    >
    > > It appears that these sensors are causing
    > > a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.

    >
    > all of which are non-issues.
    >
    > Doug McDonald


    100 ISO colour neg film was passed with 8 megapixel sensors. There
    are still some 35mm specialist films that exceed the 16 megapixel
    sensors on the market, but normal shooters don't use them.
     
    RichA, Apr 19, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 19, 1:36 pm, Geoffry <> wrote:
    > On 19/04/2011 04:04:44, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > What people can see when a print is made regarding resolution is a
    > > mathematical question. But how a print looks because of enlargement
    > > concerns more than resolution, there is almost an intangible quality
    > > that diminish as a print gets bigger.  It's even possible to have
    > > superior resolution with inferior sharpness but you wouldn't want to
    > > put up with that result. What is clear, and some reviewers are now
    > > saying it, is that the resolution of current sensors is outstripping
    > > the ability of some kit lenses to meet that resolution.

    >
    > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&message=382...

    >
    > You been consulting the cheese underneath your foreskin again?
    >
    > Plastic for ever!


    Sock puppet alert.
     
    RichA, Apr 19, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2011041909231938165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > "nospam" you might want to check your computer clock, it seems to be
    > running 3 hours fast.


    my clock is correct, synced to an ntp time server and the computer's
    time zone is set correctly.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 19/04/2011 18:15, Doug McDonald wrote:
    > On 4/19/2011 11:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >
    >> I suppose that, as with many people who have made very expensive
    >> investments in digital SLR equipment, he cannot stand the pain of
    >> admitting that it still does not surpass the quality that the best
    >> 35mm films can provide.

    >
    > That's utterly absurd. Even a 5D MK II is better, overall, far
    > better, than Kodachrome. Sure, Kodachrome 25 has about the same
    > overall luminance resolution. But the grain, yes, even Kodachrome 25,
    > is worse than the noise on a digital sensor at 100.


    The quality of the lens is now the limiting factor rather than the
    sensor - they are already good enough to show faults in weaker lens
    specimens at the corners with lateral colour and purple halos.
    >
    > What you are doing is the standard thing a retro-advocate does:
    > grade the new thing by the standards of the old thing only, which old
    > standards always forgets to use as a criterion the things the old
    > thing did badly, i.e. grain. The new thing has a similar problem,
    > but really only one: bad "look" of the noise when printed at
    > an extremely elevated level. BUT ... sensors have an enormously
    > greater dynamic range than the useful range of the 25 speed color films
    > they need to be compared to to get a near-equal resolution.


    And unlike silver halide based films CCDs do not suffer from bad
    reciprocity failure when exposures are either very short or very
    extended. They also don't fail to correctly record the prominent visual
    green OIII nebula emission line which happens to be sat on the safelight
    wavelength for colour panchromatic emulsions.

    If the OP had claimed that digital SLRs cannot yet surpass half plate
    film cameras resolution then I think they probably would have a point.
    But the latter are not mainstream or convenient to use.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Apr 19, 2011
    #19
  20. On 4/19/2011 4:21 PM, nospam wrote:

    >
    > a nikon d3s and certainly a d3x or canon 5d ii is *much* better than
    > any 35mm film slr could do, especially at higher isos.


    in color that is

    Tech Pan with the best possible lens, at the best possible f number,
    with a camera that could really keep it flat, would beat them at resolution.
    Notice that Tech Pan had 30% MTF out to 200 CYCLES per mm. That's a 2.5
    micron line pitch! And it had a whopping 120% MTF at say 20 cycles per mm
    due to local developer exhaustion. Of course, the big cost of that film was ISO.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Apr 19, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ants
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,815
  2. RH tOWNSEND

    Water Well Drilling Accidents or near misses

    RH tOWNSEND, Jul 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    553
    RH tOWNSEND
    Jul 28, 2004
  3. Dunf

    Nobody misses guys like Norm

    Dunf, Jan 31, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    183
    Views:
    3,192
    DVDfanatico
    Feb 8, 2004
  4. Rick

    S2 IS -- Canon still misses the boat

    Rick, Apr 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    467
    Mark²
    Apr 24, 2005
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: The discussion of resolution misses something

    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 20, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    231
Loading...

Share This Page