Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > It is an inaccurate statement. > > It is an accurate statement. I'll explain further, since you > seem unwilling to > believe it. How convenient for you to clip your original claim! I'm willing to believe things that are true, but so far, your claims on this thread are unsubstantiated and faulty, so I am hard pressed to believe you are making accurate statements. > So, most lenses really just barely manage 40 lp/mm Show me the data for "most" lenses. Any way, who cares about "most", I only care about the best lenses, since that's all I use. > much less 53 > lp/mm You need 5400 SPI to reliably sample 53 lp/mm. There are only a few CCD based film scanners that sample near that high. > Eastman Kodak and Fujifilm Ltd. for the > film MTF charts. Where is this information and for what films? > Finally, examine the limits of human vision. "Viewing distance" is only a stated condition, and not valid for this discussion, and this is therefore irrelevant to this discussion. > Does this make things clearer? You didn't tell me anything I didn't know. > See above. I work with facts, not beliefs. If that were true, you would not be insisting that 2700 SPI can reliably scan 53 lp/mm. Oh, you'll claim you never said "reliably"...but that's not how scanners are specified. They have to provide the stated specifications across all conditions, unless the conditions are stated. Anyone who has done even a wit of engineering design understands that. > > What about Zeiss lenses for Contax 35mm SLRs? > > I have no data for Zeiss lenses. How convenient for you to leave out some of the best lenses made from this discussion. I guess your claim of belief in facts should have a condition stated that you believe in facts only if they don't prove you wrong.