"J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > NOT TRUE, > > Even the best 35mm film is only about 200 lp/mm. > > Even using an excellent lens of 200 lp/mm results > in a film/lens combination of only 100 lp/mm.
Huh? Two times excellent equals only 1/2 of excellent? In the first place, where, pray tell, would you GET this so-called "excellent lens," capable of resolving 200 line pairs per mm? I know of no consumer level lens capable of that level of resolution. Understand, JC, I'm not calling you out. I really want to know! > The film DOES affect the result, even the best films.... > JCO Of course, you're right. I agree, but the question remains. If you can find a film that consistently delivers a resolution of 200 lp/mm, what are you going to use to impress an image on a frame or two? No, I mean a lens available to the average photographer? Even a rich professional photographer? keith whaley The only problem with this is that the only way to get that kind of resolution off either a film or lens is to photograph a resolution target. In the real world, the best lenses and film are closer to 50 lp/mm. I think right now, good film and good lenses are pretty closely matched resolution wise, film may actually have an edge, so to speak. William Robb 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 8 There are lenses capable of several hundred lp/mm but this is measured with an aerial image and 1000:1 contrast target. You also need to use a single wavelength of light and special fast lenses (stopping down reduces resolution). The film with 200lp/mm resolution is TMAX 100, technical pan is even better. I have heard of a few lens/film combinations reaching 100 lp/mm so it is possible. I think it was some of the 90/100mm macros on tech pan. Of course the easist solution to get true high resolution photographs is to use LARGE FORMAT. With 35mm you are in an endless pursuit of mediocrity... JCO
