"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "Mark Roberts" > >> I think it's an excellent article. A bit overstated, perhaps, but it >> certainly provides at least part of the explanation why digital images >> look better than they *should* for a given pixel resolution - at least >> when taking photos of subjects that aren't monochrome test targets. > >One thing to consider, Mikey kinda touched on it, is that lenses and films >resolution drops off a lot when used in a normal contrast range scene type. >I don't think digital sensors have the same problem. >Even the highest resolution films are hard pressed to resolve more than 50 >lppm in real life.
Good point. As has already been mentioned, the digital-vs-film thing has been done to death. The only thing that concerns me is results, but I do have some interest in *why* the results are what they are. A lot of the "film is better" and "digital is better" screeds descend into technobabble that bores me because it doesn't seem to have any bearing on what happens in real life (and then there's the obvious question of "better for what?", which is a separate issue entirely). The true test of any hypothesis is "does it accurately predict the phenomena observed?" If it does, it becomes a useful theory. If not, it is of no use to me no matter how elegant the mathematical proofs might seem. The Luminous Landscape article pretty much accurately describes the effects observed in real life, so it passes the test of a useful theory. I've never been a test chart zealot, but I'm certainly going to pay less attention to photos of test charts in the future. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
