On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 02:44:37PM +1000, Anthony Farr wrote: > Interesting concept, John. Providing the evidence that proves my claim. > Perhaps you should have done the math yourself before you offered an > opinion. > > The biggest CoC that is perceived as sharp is 1/100in, and the standard > print size for judging it is 8in x 10in (20.3cm x 25.4cm). So it follows > that the biggest CoC at the sensor that will enlarge to 1/100in at 12.69X > enlargement is 0.01in / 12.69, or just under 8/10,000in. > > But you say that the Bayer interpolation increases CoC "on the film" (I > suppose you mean at the sensor) by up to 1/2000in. That's 2.5 times more > than the threshold at which apparently sharp details become apparently > unsharp. > > What point were you trying to make?
Apparently, that I can do arithmetic rather better than you can. 1/2000 is not 2.5 times 8/10,000 > But please be careful when you accuse someone of operating under a flawed > premise, the claim is just as easily turned back your way. Were you saying something?
