Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]i went for the practical contribution on this by posting part of a file from the S. The reaction was deafening ;-) Cheers Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman On 13 April 2014 17:22, FRANK DERNIE <frank.dernie at btinternet.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >