Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Quite so. In many ways the potential resolution is not that important, since with a hand held camera the resolution is not always a limitation. Lack of flare and boke are both more important to me personally than resolution, but these are characteristics of lenses, not film/sensor. I have pictures from my 3.3 megapixel Canon D30 which I enjoy, and TBH I have rarely used film since I found that. FD >________________________________ > From: Bill Pearce <billcpearce at cox.net> >To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >Sent: Sunday, 13 April 2014, 2:07 >Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparing film and digital resolution > > >But aren't there other "measurements" of the quality of our photos than >just >resolution? > >-----Original Message----- >From: FRANK DERNIE >Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:35 AM >To: Leica Users Group >Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparing film and digital resolution > >But surely a single grain in film is either exposed or not, whereas a pixel >has, depending on the sensor, thousands of brightness levels. So they are >not directly comparable and it would require a big patch of film containing >thousands of grains to display the range of tones a single pixel is capable >of, though clearly a patch of pixels would be required to compare the >effect. > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> >>To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug at leica-users.org> >>Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2014, 14:07 >>Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparing film and digital resolution >> >> >>Several years ago, I did the calculations based upon the molecular >>particulate size of TMax100 film.? I picked that film because the density >>data was available, and it was the most consistent particulate size film >>available, and it was reputed to be the most consistent homogenous density >>mix of crystals within the sensitive film layer. >> >>My assumption was that the TMax100 crystalline molecule was the smallest >>discernible and quantifiable light capturing receptor.? Therefore, the >>closest analogy to a digital sensor pixel. >> >>As I remember it, the particulate size, and therefore the effective pixel >>density, was around 15MP per square inch.? The closest ( B+W only) >>comparison is the MM. >> >>The MM is about 10MP per square inch. >> >>Based upon this, and for all practical purposes, digital sensor technology >>resolution has caught up with chemical resolution. >> >>Too much time on your hands is a bad thing......you worry about things that >>are purely theoretical.? This happened to me as well when I first retired. >>Seems a pattern.... >> >>Frank Filippone >>Red735i at verizon.net >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Leica Users Group. >>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >