Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]As is this http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Chiaroscuro/Misc/PixelSize.jpg.html john -----Original Message----- Howard yes no maybe depends and yes you have too much time on your hands ;-) This might be of interest 100% (pixel for pixel on your screen) crop http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/155191481 Cheers Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman On 12 April 2014 14:14, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: > As my work schedule slows down towards retirement, I seem to have way > too much time on my hands. So I decided to pursue a question I've been > wondering about for a long time. I got out some cameras and lenses and > a couple rolls of film and shot some photos of the house across the > pond, scanned the film, and cropped down to the small central portion > of the images to compare. I'd read that the best general-pupose > emulsions resolve as high as 150 line pairs/mm, which corresponds to > 300 pixels/mm, or 7200 x > 10800 pixels in a FF sensor. That's around 80 Mpx, which is also in > the same range for estimates of the information content that I've seen > quoted for 35mm film. This led me to expect that digital would fall > short of film, which puzzled me a bit as I have been not at all > impressed by the technical performance of the slides and negs I've been > scanning. > > I picked Fujicolor 200 and Tri-X to compare with the D800, M typ 240, > M8, and NEX-7, 35mm lenses for the FF cameras, and 24mm for the M8 and > NEX-7. I also shot the same scene with both the M8 and NEX-7 at 35mm > so I could compare performance at the same image scale on the sensor. > > Suffice it to say that I was surprised by the results, linked below. > Sure wish I could try Panatomic-X! > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hlritter/Res+Test+Crops/ > > I was also surprised to discover that even the highest pixel-count FF > sensor yet available does not match the capabilities of the lenses we use. > I've posted to that effect before, but here are the images to > illustrate the point. > > Comments and corrections of my misconceptions invited & appreciated. > > --howard >