Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank and all, I believe that with all things, you have to look at the assumptions behind the figures. With select Leica lenses 100 line pairs is very doable with moderate speed film. In the real world using a film like the new Velvia or Provia 100F or most of the 100 speed B&W films with a decent amount of light you are using a fast enough shutter speed and a middle aperture that hand shake and minor focusing errors are not significant factors. The assumption behind the math that I am questioning is what can be delivered on film. I believe that the writer is assuming middle range gear that would be hard pressed to deliver 60-80 line pairs at say a 20 cycle MTF. The 135 APO, 90AA, 50 Summicron, either current 35, the 28 Summicron, and the 24 for the M system can all deliver almost 100 line pairs at apertures around F4 at a 20 cycle setting especially out to 12mm. I think that I will be trying my hypothesis out this week. Unfortunately, using an M lens on a digital camera will require very close focus, but at least I can duplicate the image from the digital body using a Viso rig. My question to the group is, what real world subject matter would provide enough detail to stress the system? Don dorysrus@mindspring.com - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Frank Dernie Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 3:23 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: digital in low light I don't think you are right here. Leica have said their 10 mpx digiback will match film. Surely somebody out there (other than Luminous-Landscape) can do the sums. I know a Leica with summicron at optimum aperture using slow B&W film and mounted on a tripod can produce incredible detail, but what about handheld using normal film. How does it actually compare in real life folks? FWIW the only comparison I have seen with actual examples is on Luminous-Landscape.com, others seem to be of a scientific or blustery "it just can't be" nature. Where's the meat? Frank On Sunday, February 1, 2004, at 01:14 am, JCB wrote: > At 11:59 PM 1/31/2004 +0100, animal wrote: > >> Hi from what i read every where,a 10+megapixel camera will do better >> resolution wise then a slow film. > > > A 10MP sensor _cannot_ give you more information than a good slow > film. Software/firmware interpolators that massage the pixels until > they look good (they basically create the image) are Photoshop like, > but without your input, and do a bang-up job. > > Let's face it, if you are trying to be the best digi camera mfgr on > the block, you pay for better programmers and you get better images. > Even most raw image files have at least one step of interpolation in > the camera before you see it. This can make a dandy raw image versus > just the raw pixels spewed out of the A/D converter into a file. True > raw is Ug-ly! > > The magnificent digital images, sharp, high dynamic range, low noise, > are all created by interpolators. Followed by Photoshop. > > Makes a silk purse out of a sow's ear. > > JB > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html