Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Austin writes: > The problem is "virtually any alignment". Not really. Only a handful of very precise alignments will produce artifacts, and those alignments are extremely improbable in practice. > Of course I disagree, because your claim is > wrong. It would be a range, equal to 53 lp/mm > down to 1/2 that. I didn't ask for a range, I asked for a specific figure. If you are going to give a range, then I expect to see the MTF curves themselves. > This is really really simple to understand. Perhaps, but since there is so much more to resolution, image capture, and visual perception, it may also be simplistic in consequence. > 1/2 that and I've explained why. No. You've mentioned it, but you haven't explained why. > You haven't explained why, nor have you > explained why my correction to your mistaken > assertion is not correct. In my previous post, I explained a great deal about why 53 lp/mm, apart from being quite achievable in the scanner, is also more than adequate for virtually all purposes. > Yeah...and isn't 44.1kHz slightly more than > 22kHz? Yes ... but you said 20 kHz. > Reliable is hardly amorphous. Well, provide some figures that define it, then. > I have given you a very clear definition of it. No. A clear definition is something like "50% modulation transfer at 40 lp/mm." Something with numbers, that is. > As I stated, it is a standard term in signal > processing, and if you have any experience in > signal processing, as you claim you do, you would > understand what "reliable" means, and that it > is a VERY specific term. I'll understand it when you put numbers behind it, as I have been doing for my assertions all along. > You made the original claim, and you still fail > to substantiate it. I gave the numbers and sources in my previous post.