I think you are over-reacting. I did agree with you. I then went on to give some perspectives why others might not agree with what you said.
-- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, November 4, 2004, 12:15:40 PM, you wrote: JCOC> You are throwing out the "withs" in my statement JCOC> and then saying you don't agree. That doesn't make JCOC> much of an argument to me. JCOC> And then saying some somejects don't need it JCOC> which I agree but that doenst make what I said JCOC> false. In fact, it is sort of like saying I know JCOC> your right, but I don't always need it, so your wrong. JCOC> I just said that ***using best 35mm films, lenses and processing JCOC> you can exceed the RESOLUTION **** a DSLR JCOC> with a 6Mp APS size sensor (non-foveon) can resolve. JCOC> JCO JCOC> -----Original Message----- JCOC> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:03 PM JCOC> To: J. C. O'Connell JCOC> Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests JCOC> I think that most of us who shoot DSLR's now would agree with your JCOC> statement. One thing that seems to muddy the waters is that the JCOC> opportunity to get really good processing may not be readily available JCOC> to some. On top of that, there are many subjects that don't demand high JCOC> resolution. In those cases, the digital image can look as good or JCOC> better due to the lack of grain. For many practical purposes, digital JCOC> resolution (6mp aps sensor)is good enough. For those cases where it JCOC> isn't, shoot film. JCOC> Bruce JCOC> 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 JCOC> 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 JCOC> and JCOC>> files/prints made freom 35mm negs. My test show this very clearly. JCOC> 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, JCOC> green JCOC>> or blue, the luminance of any other colour at each point is a JCOC> 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 JCOC> data. JCOC>> Regardless of the factor of over- sampling (interpolation) you JCOC> will JCOC>> still end up with approximately the same actual line pairs per mm JCOC> 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
