Image size off-set is, of course, the savior of MF. Interesting to consider that the MF segment wholly accepted lower resolution lenses to dominate as a way of increasing profits.
Jack --- Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 35mm lenses are typically of higher resolution in terms of lpmm as > compared to MF lenses. However MF still has higher effective > resolution > because the increase in negative size is larger than the decrease in > lens resolution. a 25% decrease in lens resolution per mm (pulling a > number out of a hat, based on lens resolution numbers I've seen in > the > past) is much less notably when the size of the negative is increased > by > 75% or more in each dimension. And that's only the case of 645, > larger > formats have more notable increases (6x9 for example has more than > 100% > increase in both dimensions). > > -Adam > > > Jack Davis wrote: > > This may not be true any longer, if it ever was, but 35mm lenses > have > > been tauted as having greater resolving power than MF lenses. > Reason > > that I heard offered many years ago was that wedding photographers > used > > mostly MF and they found a "creamy" image more acceptable to the > > customer. > > Lens tests, over the years, seemed to bare out the disparity. > > LF lens resolving power v image size is another matter, obviously, > and > > one I'm not even prepared to guess about. > > > > Jack > > > > --- Perry Pellechia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I think you missed the point of the research. You do not > necessarily > >> need the sensor to be large. With their method an array or matrix > of > >> mirrors form the image area. > >> > >> Do I think this will reach us in a consumer camera? Probably not. > >> But they do demonstrate that higher resolutions can be achieved by > >> manipulating light before it reaches the sensor. > >> > >> On 10/6/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> High resolution ( like LF ) will always be impossible > >>> With APS/FF sensors because the lenses will be the limiting > >>> Factor. Only by going to larger sensors and longer lenses > >>> With bigger image circles can LF type resolution ever > >>> Be achieved in digital because small format lenses > >>> Just don't image well enough...Y'all need to start > >>> Dreaming about way better lenses instead... > >>> jco > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of > >>> Perry Pellechia > >>> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 10:03 PM > >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels? > >>> > >>> I agree with you Paul. We tend to limit our expectations based > on > >>> what we have seen before. It is usually better to just sit back > >> and > >>> watch where the technology leads us to. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/6/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Interesting. And it demonstrates that digital technology is far > >> from > >>>> its zenith. Something to think about when you hear the whines > >> about > >>>> how low noise and high resolution are impossible without large > >>> sensors. > >>>> Paul > >>>> On Oct 6, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Perry Pellechia wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> When a single pixel may be all you need: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0003FA95- > >>>>> AAB6-1526-AAB683414B7F0000&ref=rss > >>>>> or/ > >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/kezzp > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope you find this interesting too. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perry. > >>>>> -- > >>>>> <----------------------------------------------------> > >>>>> Perry Pellechia > >>>>> > >>>>> Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>> Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>> Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry > >>>>> <----------------------------------------------------> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> <----------------------------------------------------> > >>> Perry Pellechia > >>> > >>> Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry > >>> <----------------------------------------------------> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> <----------------------------------------------------> > >> Perry Pellechia > >> > >> Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry > >> <----------------------------------------------------> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
