LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:

rafe b wrote:

I went looking back through the thread for Tom's "cite."
Could not find it.

Rafe,
Here it is (below). Apparently the journal ended in 2005. One has to
really question the validity of comparing image quality
of 4x6 consumer prints! The author works for Fuji. I consider
myself an imaging scientist, and I would say such a claim
can probably be made but the thing is, it would be considering
the low tail of the MTF curve that is very low response and does
not contribute much to the image. e.g.:

You mean like the typical response of
consumer one shot digitals? The "claim"
is widely accepted by imaging professionals...

4x6 consumer prints is what MOST people get
from either their film or digital cameras.
If you want to talk larger...well there's
a reason for this LF newsgroup...


Resolving Power area
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/st....1.4.9.6&lc=en
E.g. fuji velvia resolves 160 lp/mm with 1000:1 contrast.

Roger

From "Progress and future prospects of silver halide photography
compared with digital imaging." Journal of Imaging Science and
Technology, vol 42, no. 1, 1998, Tadaaki Tani, Ashigara
Research Laboratories, Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (Japan)

"The pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is assumed
to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact that a
color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format contains
24 million pixels....For a CCD the number of photoelectrons in
a pixel...is plotted as the number of absorbed photons per pixel.
For [a film] emulsion layer, the fraction of developable grains
is plotted as a function of the number of absorbed photons in
an area equivalent to a film pixel. In an evaluation of image
quality of [4x6 consumer prints] taken with ISO 400 color
negative film vs.CCD digital camera, the film image quality was
on par with that of a CCD with 6 million pixles."

Scott W wrote:

I note that they did not say that 400 ISO print film was equivalent to
a digital image of 24MP but put it closer to 6 MP.

You note wrong as usual, plus reinterpret
according to your ignorant bias.) Also
never had the courage or knowledge to
respond to my orignal post, I notice...

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Tom Phillips spake thus:

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

SNIP

When I tell some of these off topic posters that it's established
by photoscientists that 24 mp is generally considered the
equivalent pixel resolution of 35mm 400 speed color negative film
they scoff. The reason is they're 100% ignorant and never read
anything besides marketing promos...

You assume they are 100% ignorant,

I assume nothing. They are 100% ignorant... My sources are scientific
journals, Kodak, and industry professionals...their's are merely
opine on USENET and we all know what that means...

and maybe they are, but it's an assumption nevertheless. Has it
occurred to you that they might be surprised with the lack of
supporting information about how resolution relates to graininess,
and how both relate to perception of detail?

Wait: "lack of supporting information about how
resolution relates to graininess..."

And vice versa, this topic does not lack supporting
scientific data at all... contact RIT in the future.

snip remaing B.S. ...

... including his request for your credentials. What are they, Tom? Why
should we believe you?

At least I read and provide cites.

You never do....

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:25:07 -0800, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:

rafe b wrote:

I went looking back through the thread for Tom's "cite."
Could not find it.

Rafe,
Here it is (below). Apparently the journal ended in 2005. One has to
really question the validity of comparing image quality
of 4x6 consumer prints! The author works for Fuji. I consider
myself an imaging scientist, and I would say such a claim
can probably be made but the thing is, it would be considering
the low tail of the MTF curve that is very low response and does
not contribute much to the image. e.g.:
Resolving Power area
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/st....1.4.9.6&lc=en
E.g. fuji velvia resolves 160 lp/mm with 1000:1 contrast.

Roger


Well, that's the classic argument that Dave Littleboy used to
have with good old Bob Monaghan.

Interesting that the report comes from a date/time well
before digital capture became useful in any phtoographic
sense.

I was just reviewing some ancient (2003) usenet archives
where Bob M. was claiming as much as 40 Mpixels or more
for 35mm, again based on extreme MTF values measured
for certain film and lenses.

Those buying into the 24 Mpixel value should ask
themselves, why, if that figure were true, has digital
capture with 1/4 or 1/3 the pixels completely destroyed
the 35mm film and camera market.

My scan snippets project has convinced me that 4000 dpi
an overly generous estimate for film resolution -- even with
the best taking lenses and technique, the finest films, and
the best scanners that money can buy.

All the math and MTF curves don't amount to a hill o' beans
if you can't match the theoretical results with best-practice.

Speaking of which, I've yet to see a single submission
of a scan of an optical print from those claim otherwise.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...

From "Progress and future prospects of silver halide photography
compared with digital imaging." Journal of Imaging Science and
Technology, vol 42, no. 1, 1998, Tadaaki Tani, Ashigara
Research Laboratories, Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (Japan)

Thanks for that, Roger. I am not certain I agree with the comparison to a
consumer 4x6" print, but the study stands 'as is' for purposes of further
readings: 6mp.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

"Progress and future prospects of silver halide
photography compared with digital imaging." Tani,
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, vol 42,
no. 1, 1998."

If I have time today, I will print out the full article at work. By reading
the abstract it appears that the scope of the study is limited to metrics
which apply to an abstract case (ideal, high-contrast photomicrography), not
photography typical of our interests here.

You can understand the whole SPSE Handbook and not know a thing about making
pictures.

"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message
...

My scan snippets project has convinced me that 4000 dpi
an overly generous estimate for film resolution -- even with
the best taking lenses and technique, the finest films, and
the best scanners that money can buy.

Theorists measure resolution through a microscope - counting the particles
visually. They don't use any conventional, applied photographic lenses; in
other words, there is no image to speak of. Methinks "Phillips" is most
comfortable in that particular paradigm. It has nothing to do with
photography, really.

rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

Those buying into the 24 Mpixel value should ask
themselves, why, if that figure were true, has digital
capture with 1/4 or 1/3 the pixels completely destroyed
the 35mm film and camera market.


You mean the way the cellphone is destroying the digital camera market?
Digital cameras are dead.

Nick

--
---------------------------------------
"Digital the new ice fishing"
---------------------------------------

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:


Those buying into the 24 Mpixel value should ask
themselves, why, if that figure were true, has digital
capture with 1/4 or 1/3 the pixels completely destroyed
the 35mm film and camera market.

Why? Because it:

Has nothing to do with wether film is good or bad.
Has everything to do with perceived advantages by
the P&S photographer which equals the bulk of film sales.

Pro's and advanced amateurs make up about a 5-10% (estimate) of the
consuming public. And even out of those 5-10% a lot have no care
as long as they can quickly turn work around.
--
http://www.bushislord.com/index.php
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
http://www.mallofchrist.com/merchand...hrist.38583002
http://teambush.net/

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


ah2 wrote:

Phillips is feeling insecure, as usual.

I'm never insecure...

Then there is no hope for you. One who is perfectly secure with his
self-assesment has the worst assessor.