Yes, I realize that, but the film analysis does compare still camera film such as provia 100f, velvia, etc. I gather the DOD does frame by frame analysis, so think of it more like a series of stills where failure is not an option. The lack of high resolution digital movie cameras more or less forced them to study CCDs used in still photography. The combination of the lens, film and scanner MTF is interesting as well. I also suggest checking out the Norman Koren website.
They start the analysis somewhat biased if you take this statement into account: "The obsolescence of film technology will undoubtedly occur; the question of “when” is subject to immense speculation." One thing the article glosses over is the notion of "boosted" film, i.e. the MTF exceeds 100%. I've seen this in the charts and really never got a good feel for why MTF can exceed 100%. The article hand waves a bit about the structure of the film exaggerating the line boundaries. Anyway, a little off topic but the challenges discussed in the article are quite relevant to still photography. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >this is for movie cameras btw not still images. > > >On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:14:36 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>http://jcs.mil/RCC/manuals/Assessment_Digital_Optics/Assmt_DigOptics.pdf >>The Tonopah Test Range is where they film planes and missiles doing >>fly-bys for analysis. They currently use film and a scanner, but did >>this study to determine if CCD technology could be used as a >>replacement. The winner was film and a better film scanner for now. It's >>pretty up to date, even mentioning Foveon sensors. >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
