Average lpm from various color negative films for subjects of normal contrast from the real world.
And 63 lpm is close enough to 50 lpm to hardly show a difference on the print. In fact the numbers are probably well within the margin of error for the testing procedure, and also within the batch to batch variation of the film. Therefore your comment is specious. I forgot everybody else on the list takes photos of test charts with their 7000 lpm super-duper-multi --the sun does not show up on the film even when it is in the frame-- coated oil immerged lenses on micrograined high contast litho film. And what does this have to do with my point that lpm and ppi are entirely different things, or didn't you bother to read that far? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:42 AM Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 > This is a sloppy, unspecified, over simplified generalization. The > target chart contrast has to be specified for the lp/mm figure. For Fuji > Superia 100 (CN) the resolution is 63 for a 1.6:1 chart contrast and 125 > for 1000:1 chart contrast. (Fuji 2001, Professional Data Guide). > Numbers without a reference are worse than no numbers at all, because > they have an air of verisimilitude. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Well, color negative film is pretty much limited to about 50lpm max > > > >
