- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
the curves are incomplete and showing no signs
of flattening out before data interruptus occurs
on the high end of the curve on this data sheet...
I'm not so sure about that,
theoretical
and technologies/designs are developed to try to achive real products
that come closer the theoretical maximums.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 5:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resoluti
nd the
SNR decreases because the amplifier isn't perfect and because the output is
clipped.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: USAF target and
...
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
> Wouldn't the theroretical SNR be infinity??? when noise = ZERO!
>
> If yo
OTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
> I am not talking floating point. digital
> camera sensors have same output voltages
> feeding 12 bit output A/Ds as they feeding
> 8 bit output A/Ds. There is SCALING involved
> an
who said that was an advantage or a disadvantage? is the maximum number
represented in 12 bits higher than 8 bits or not?
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:08
WARD.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
who said that was an advantage or a disadvantage? is the maximum number
represented in 12 bits higher than
ous,
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
JCO, you take any statement and twist it so that it opposes or is wrong
from any point of view you believ
no I am just the only one who bothered to reply
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
you are the only one that inferred that.
Herb
rom: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
> You posted """no scanner or DSLR Shel's been looking at have SNRs
> appreciably less
you are the only one that inferred that.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
> By saying it the way y
al Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
why isn't it clear we are talking about real pieces of hardware and not
some mathematical abstraction? i've
size.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
no-one uses floating point nonlinear encoding in a digital camera.
Herb
- Original Message
no-one uses floating point nonlinear encoding in a digital camera.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
no scanner or DSLR Shel's been looking at have SNRs appreciably less
than the theoretical maximum at their lowest ISO.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Mishka" &l
Herb:
> more bits means the maximum number you can represent is higher
true
Not necessarily true, depends on the format, numbering, or scaling
system used to encode the bits.
Bits translates into resolution, more bits means j
no scanner or DSLR Shel's been looking at have SNRs appreciably less than
the theoretical maximum at their lowest ISO.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:26 AM
S
: USAF target and resolution tests
WR> Even the widest range colour film on the market today would be hard
WR> pressed to come up with an 11 stop dynamic range, I believe 9 stops
WR> is closer to the present state of the art.
Huh? Such a nonsense from you? Are you just poking fun at poor
- Original Message -
From: "Frantisek"
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
Huh? Such a nonsense from you? Are you just poking fun at poor JCO
or
do you actually believe such nonsense?
Unless I have forgotten how to read a characteristic curve chart
(entirely possi
Shell:
> Greater bit depth provides greater dynamic range.
greater bit depth doesn't mean anything except that you files are larger
Herb:
> more bits means the maximum number you can represent is higher
true
> and so you can resolve shadow detail better.
not true. unless you factor in the
: USAF target and resolution tests
- Original Message -
From: "Frantisek"
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
>
> Huh? Such a nonsense from you? Are you just poking fun at poor JCO
> or
> do you actually believe such nonsense?
Unless I have f
WR> Even the widest range colour film on the market today would be hard
WR> pressed to come up with an 11 stop dynamic range, I believe 9 stops
WR> is closer to the present state of the art.
Huh? Such a nonsense from you? Are you just poking fun at poor JCO or
do you actually believe such nonsense
dynamic
range of film, we are talking about the second.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:46 AM
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
> Greater bit depth provi
>From the link of the link that William posted:
http://www.imatest.com/docs/tour_q13.html:
"The figure below illustrates results for the Canon EOS-10D, taken
from a JPEG image acquired at ISO 400 and converted with Canon Zoom
Browser set for low contrast. (...) The total dynamic range is 8.6
f-st
>From the link you mention:
"The total dynamic range of the EOS-10D is 8.5 f-stops."-- the verdict after
quite lengthy and detailed tests and computations.
It might be useful to actually RTFA before using it as a supporting argument.
mishka
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:43:29 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
Here is a good page by a guy who ran tests.
http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tutorials/360/technical/hdri/
He puts the dymanic range of reala color
film at about 15 st
nt: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
Well, John, it's time for another aspirin too many graphs and
charts and logs of this and that. However, one paragraph stood out
amongst all the techo talk:
"Befor
nce of the image but since this is a subjective
judgement I'm going to leave it at the calculated value
for now. I'll return to the subjective arguments later."
Shel
> From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: USAF target and resolut
namic
> range.
>
> JCO
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
>
>
> Greater bit depth provid
Over the last few years I've seen numerous things photographic that were
said, here and elsewhere, to not be possible.
I don't understand a lot of the techno-jargon, but I do believe my eyes and
experiences. Recently Rob Studdert provided a pointer to a page that
explained some of what we are dis
low light levels or maximum stop
down of pupil aperture at high light levels).
JCO
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:43 AM
To: Pentax Discuss
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
- Original Message -
From: &
I should add that I sharpened to 62 in the RAW converter. I may have
added a bit of unsharp mask after conversion.
Paul
On Nov 5, 2004, at 8:11 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
My gray day histograms were not clipped. I bracketed each shot by half
stops and the middle one looked best on most shots. T
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
I just know what I've seen and what the
experts have shown and told me.
Shel, what we actually see on paper is not germaine unless we can
come up with the correct technocrap to b
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
What I was referring to about specialized films is that super low
contrast films could have a greater DYNAMIC RANGE than digital
for extremely contrasty scenes and super high contr
es of
gray possible out of the same limited recorded dynamic
range.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
Greater bit depth provides greater dyn
My gray day histograms were not clipped. I bracketed each shot by half
stops and the middle one looked best on most shots. The histograms
generally were far from the shadow end, and the highlight end had a few
spikes from some of the white sky highlights but the meat of the curve
was centered.
i saw the image.
i haven't say that "there was no clipping only because it was a grey day".
but what i meant, was something different: you you have a low contrast
day, you can have your histogram shifted to the right (overexposed),
and still have
no clipping of highlights. and at the same time, yo
what the
experts have shown and told me.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 11/4/2004 10:29:16 PM
> Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
>
> I think you might have misunderstand
On 5 Nov 2004 at 1:24, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> What I was referring to about specialized films is that super low
> contrast films could have a greater DYNAMIC RANGE than digital
> for extremely contrasty scenes and super high contrast films could have
> a better amplitude
> resolution (bit depth)
amplitude
resolution (bit depth) for extremely low contrast scenes than digital.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
I'm saying that, from wh
On 4 Nov 2004 at 23:03, Mishka wrote:
> i guess "grey day" is the key here. that should be perfect for digital --
> you can fine-tune the histogram right on the spot, without risking
> to lose either end of it.
The histogram only reflects the post processing setting in camera, however it's
not
atched with
the scene, and there's control for manipulation throughout the workflow.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 11/4/2004 9:50:03 PM
> Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
I'm not sure your assessment of digital (especially 12-bit or greater
RAW
files) is correct. Maybe with the 8-bit dig
I'm not sure your assessment of digital (especially 12-bit or greater RAW
files) is correct. Maybe with the 8-bit digicams that are so much in use,
but not with a higher end DSLR with 12-bit or 14-bit capture.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Film has m
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
Film has major advantage over digital in that
the film type selection can be matched to the requirements.
Digital is more of a general purpose capture which I
do not think would do
ause the sensor process has
less generations.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 10:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
I think that what you say might be true in theory. But I know th
i guess "grey day" is the key here. that should be perfect for digital --
you can fine-tune the histogram right on the spot, without risking
to lose either end of it.
mishka
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:41:13 -0500, Paul Stenquist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that what you say might be true in
but film
doesn't need it
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
Hi Paul,
I can't help but wonder how photographers made photos under similar
gt; To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 11/4/2004 6:53:05 PM
> Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
>
> If you shoot and then scan film, you can do anything
> you could have with a DSLR image in terms of color balance.
> There are also many different films to choos
On 4 Nov 2004 at 18:15, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I can't help but wonder how photographers made photos under similar
> circumstances before the advent of digital.
The key is the use for which the images are destined. I think you'd find that
if you speak to anyone who has been in the
ROTECTED]>
> Date: 11/4/2004 7:01:08 PM
> Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
>
> For the most part, car shooters who wanted bright, contrasty, shiny
> sheet metal would cancel shoots if the skies were totally mud. Most
> still would. I almost did. But since I was the
For the most part, car shooters who wanted bright, contrasty, shiny
sheet metal would cancel shoots if the skies were totally mud. Most
still would. I almost did. But since I was there, I shot. I was
surprised at how much I could draw out of the RAW data. I've tried the
same with film to no ava
while using filmS give you a choice
of many different characteristics. RAW helps digital but film
doesn't need it
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF targe
Hi Paul,
I can't help but wonder how photographers made photos under similar
circumstances before the advent of digital.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
> about color accuracy, control and consistency of digital. I had to
> shoot a car a week or t
and i agree with you all.
mishka
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:05:36 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looked more like he was agreeing with you, John.
> Don't look for arguements, enough will find their way to you all on
> their own.
>
> William Robb
>
>
In regard to Rob's comments about the advantages of shooting digital. I
too shoot film only on 6x7 if at all. But I'll second what he says
about color accuracy, control and consistency of digital. I had to
shoot a car a week or two ago under muddy skies. it would have been
impossible with film
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
You are throwing out the "withs" in my statement
and then saying you don't agree. That doesn't make
much of an argument to me.
And then saying some somejects d
That wasn't my post/point of view Jens!
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 5:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
My point of view exactly, JCO!
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROT
My point of view exactly, JCO!
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. november 2004 20:03
Til: J. C. O'Connell
Emne: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
I think that most of u
PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Frantisek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. november 2004 18:06
Til: Jens Bladt
Emne: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
JB> Thanks for the link, Rob. My concern is, that he/she measure exaosed and
JB> dev
C> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:03 PM
JCOC> To: J. C. O'Connell
JCOC> Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
JCOC> I think that most of us who shoot DSLR's now would agree with your
JCOC> statement. One thin
On 4 Nov 2004 at 17:45, Jens Bladt wrote:
> True!
> Thanks for the link, Rob. My concern is, that he/she measure exaosed and
> developed FILM, not prints, that can never really reproduce what's recorded. In
> real life I believe there's no big difference, resolutionwise between prints or
> scans f
ruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:03 PM
JCOC> To: J. C. O'Connell
JCOC> Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
JCOC> I think that most of us who shoot DSLR's now would agree with your
JCOC> statement. One thing that se
subjects not somejects. oops!
Have I coined a new compound word?
hehe
JCO
-Original Message-
From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
You are throwing out the "
]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:03 PM
To: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
I think that most of us who shoot DSLR's now would agree with your
statement. One thing that seems to muddy the waters is that the
opportunity to get really good processing may not
; Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:45 AM
JCOC> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC> Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
JCOC> True!
JCOC> Thanks for the link, Rob. My concern is, that he/she measure exaosed and
JCOC> developed FILM, not prints, that can never really reproduce w
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
True!
Thanks for the link, Rob. My concern is, that he/she measure exaosed and
developed FILM, not prints, that can never really reproduce what's
recorded. In real life I believe there's no big difference,
resolutionwise be
- Original Message -
From: "Frantisek"
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
Not to be nitpicking (?) but I just wanted to remind the listers
that
they should not compare film prints via a Frontier or Noritsu or
Agfa
DLab machine with prints on same machine fr
JB> Thanks for the link, Rob. My concern is, that he/she measure exaosed and
JB> developed FILM, not prints, that can never really reproduce what's recorded.
JB> In real life I believe there's no big difference, resolutionwise between
JB> prints or scans from a 6 MP digital camera and files/prints
]
Sendt: 4. november 2004 13:23
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/page17.asp, on the bottom,
dammit!
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:28:08 +0100, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 1800??
> Strange figure. There'
:16
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
On 4 Nov 2004 at 7:28, Jens Bladt wrote:
> 1800??
> Strange figure. There's 3024 pixels (RAW) covering a little less than one
> inch. How is that 1800 line pairs?
Remember that the each pixel records the luminance of e
- Original Message -
From: "Mishka"
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/page17.asp, on the
bottom, dammit!
Down boy!
WW
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/page17.asp, on the bottom, dammit!
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:28:08 +0100, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1800??
> Strange figure. There's 3024 pixels (RAW) covering a little less than one
> inch. How is that 1800 line pairs?
On 4 Nov 2004 at 7:28, Jens Bladt wrote:
> 1800??
> Strange figure. There's 3024 pixels (RAW) covering a little less than one
> inch. How is that 1800 line pairs?
Remember that the each pixel records the luminance of either red, green or
blue, the luminance of any other colour at each point is a
ot. I can understand why the world is turning
to digital now. It's simply better value for the same money!
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. november 2004 01:53
Til: [EMAIL PROTECT
you have completely missed the point: the # of pixels along the dimension
has little to do with resolution. *istd it's 1800 *resolved* pixels
along 24mm edge.
sharpen and interpolate all you want -- that's all you have. the rest
is as relevant
as Cavo's famous 4-pixel image.
best,
mishka
On Wed,
nnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 3. november 2004 01:11
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
the main value in shooting test charts is comparing
the differences in films/sensors/lenses/fstops, etc
not the absolute numbers.
You have to be careful not to "taint&qu
-
Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 3. november 2004 01:24
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
I agree it can be informative, but don't you think that
a test subject such as dpreview uses, with several different
types of objects in addition to a c
Thanks, William. I understand beter now.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 3. november 2004 00:09
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
- Original
entax Discuss
Emne: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
> On 2 Nov 2004 at 19:32, Mishka wrote:
>
>> something doesn't add up -- "great" 11x14 prints and
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
On 2 Nov 2004 at 19:32, Mishka wrote:
something doesn't add up -- "great" 11x14 prints and 30 lpmm
system
resolution cannot be true at the same time.
The lack of
On 2 Nov 2004 at 20:14, Mishka wrote:
> care to email me a RAW file (preferrably with some fine detail)?
Sure, shot a few minutes ago with the A50/2.8 macro hand held. If you are
seriously interested in seeing what the *ist D can offer then use PS CS RAW to
convert it and load the preference fi
Seems that I need to repost my 4 pixels pic that can be printed stadium
size, all with perfect sharp edges.
;-)
Mishka wrote:
something doesn't add up -- "great" 11x14 prints and 30 lpmm system resolution
cannot be true at the same time.
This is all wearing kind of thin. We've seen small slices of Rod's
"istD images as well as others. It's obvious that they resolve enough
to make very nice large prints. Many of us have sold 20x30 prints .
We've sold photos to magazines and stock houses. The results speak for
themselves. All thi
care to email me a RAW file (preferrably with some fine detail)?
best,
mishka
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:41:25 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2004 at 19:32, Mishka wrote:
>
> > something doesn't add up -- "great" 11x14 prints and 30 lpmm system resolution
> > cannot be tr
On 2 Nov 2004 at 19:32, Mishka wrote:
> something doesn't add up -- "great" 11x14 prints and 30 lpmm system
> resolution cannot be true at the same time.
Yes it can if you don't know what "great" looks like.
Go see some nice 11x14 BW contact prints and then decide what
the word "great" should b
On 2 Nov 2004 at 19:32, Mishka wrote:
> something doesn't add up -- "great" 11x14 prints and 30 lpmm system resolution
> cannot be true at the same time.
It adds up fine, none of my big prints have nose grease or loupe marks on them.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT
On 2 Nov 2004 at 18:24, Don Sanderson wrote:
> I agree it can be informative, but don't you think that
> a test subject such as dpreview uses, with several different
> types of objects in addition to a chart would tell more
> about gear than the chart alone?
In concert with yes, but I and most ot
in this case an enlargement to 11x14, or 15x, would result in stunning
2 lpmm print.
or, circa 50 ppi. in fact, a 4x6 would be a 200 ppi print, which is
probably OK but
that's about it.
something doesn't add up -- "great" 11x14 prints and 30 lpmm system resolution
cannot be true at the same time.
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
>
>
> the main value in shooting test charts is comparing
> the differences in films/sensors/lenses/fstops, etc
> not the absolute numbers.
>
> You have to be careful not to "taint" the
TED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 7:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
>
>
> On 2 Nov 2004 at 17:55, Don Sanderson wrote:
>
> > By the time I read the comments below I realised that
> > all the chart will tell me
ent errors, etc.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 6:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
As I was reading this post I was printing off a copy
of the test chart on my new HP 7960 inkj
On 2 Nov 2004 at 17:55, Don Sanderson wrote:
> By the time I read the comments below I realised that
> all the chart will tell me is how well the ist D and
> my lenses take photos of test charts!
> I really don't plan on becoming a test chart
> photographer.
Photographing test charts is only impo
nest detail it could print. Now that's
impressive! If it's better than my eyeballs, it's
good enough for me. ;-)
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 5:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 6:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
> Thanks.
> I don'
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
Thanks.
I don't undserstand your note about a pictorial application
(1000:1),
William?
When you measure resolution, what you are doing is determining how
fine a detail the optical
On 2 Nov 2004 at 16:58, Jens Bladt wrote:
> Hello Mishka
> I admit to not having printed the taget in 600ppi, just 300ppi on an office
> printer - so the target is a bit "rusty". (I am consiodering odering an
> "official" test sheet (19 USD), showing all 5 or 9 USAF tagets on the same
> poster).
slove that much on
film.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. november 2004 19:20
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
- Original Message -
F
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests
Anyway, it's not possible to actaully PRINT 98 lpm from a neg. Only
the film
(or slide) can produce this kind of resolution.
Even this is unlikely in pictorial applications.
Do a qui
tice the difference between a print made from film or 6
Mp CCD, using the same lens, isn't all that different. Il, give it a try
sometime.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. november
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
