You are throwing out the "withs" in my statement and then saying you don't agree. That doesn't make much of an argument to me.
And then saying some somejects don't need it which I agree but that doenst make what I said false. In fact, it is sort of like saying I know your right, but I don't always need it, so your wrong. I just said that ***using best 35mm films, lenses and processing you can exceed the RESOLUTION **** a DSLR with a 6Mp APS size sensor (non-foveon) can resolve. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:03 PM To: J. C. O'Connell Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests I think that most of us who shoot DSLR's now would agree with your statement. One thing that seems to muddy the waters is that the opportunity to get really good processing may not be readily available to some. On top of that, there are many subjects that don't demand high resolution. In those cases, the digital image can look as good or better due to the lack of grain. For many practical purposes, digital resolution (6mp aps sensor)is good enough. For those cases where it isn't, shoot film. Bruce Thursday, November 4, 2004, 10:37:56 AM, you wrote: JCOC> with really good lenses and film and processing JCOC> 35mm can exceed the resolution of a 6MP non- JCOC> foveon APS digital sensor. I don't think there is JCOC> any debate on that.... JCOC> JCO JCOC> -----Original Message----- JCOC> From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:45 AM JCOC> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests JCOC> True! JCOC> Thanks for the link, Rob. My concern is, that he/she measure exaosed and JCOC> developed FILM, not prints, that can never really reproduce what's JCOC> recorded. In real life I believe there's no big difference, JCOC> resolutionwise between prints or scans from a 6 MP digital camera and JCOC> files/prints made freom 35mm negs. My test show this very clearly. If JCOC> there were, I'm sure I would use my filmcameras more :-). JCOC> Jens Bladt JCOC> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt JCOC> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- JCOC> Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> Sendt: 4. november 2004 10:16 JCOC> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> Emne: RE: USAF target and resolution tests JCOC> On 4 Nov 2004 at 7:28, Jens Bladt wrote: >> 1800?? >> Strange figure. There's 3024 pixels (RAW) covering a little less than >> one inch. How is that 1800 line pairs? JCOC> Remember that the each pixel records the luminance of either red, green JCOC> or blue, the luminance of any other colour at each point is a calculated JCOC> guess. Interpolating to produce an image with greater final pixel JCOC> dimensions will provide no more data it just produces transitional JCOC> values pixel to pixel that are calculated based on the measured data. JCOC> Regardless of the factor of over- sampling (interpolation) you will JCOC> still end up with approximately the same actual line pairs per mm but JCOC> they will be spread over more pixels. >> So, as far as I'm concerned, a 200 ASA superia and a 35mm pentax >> camera JCOC> and lens >> can't really outperform a 5 MP digital camera. JCOC> The following article should interest you: JCOC> http://pws.prserv.net/varney/iso/digflmres.htm#top JCOC> Cheers, JCOC> Rob Studdert JCOC> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA JCOC> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 JCOC> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours JCOC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ JCOC> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
