High resolution film

My primary application is
not pictorial photography ( for this I use "normal" film ) but lens
performance evaluations.

This is really hard to do with ANY film. You need to be looking directly at
the aerial image with a 100X microscope.

Larry

jjs wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:

When can we expect to see military lens charts hanging on gallery walls?


When can we expect to see your prints hanging on
any walls?

I did photography for publication, and none of it was of resolution targets.

A dog magazine?

Doesn't mean you need to be a smart ass all the time...

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


jjs wrote:

I did photography for publication, and none of it was of resolution
targets.

A dog magazine?

You are truly a case, TP. Get over it.

"Helge Nareid" wrote

Glass is the substrate type of choice for true high-resolution
applications, such as ... Lippmann photography.

I'll be. Someone is doing Lippman photography as more than
a parlour trick?

The main problems in a large format camera are the
precision of the film holders

OTOH, when one is tilting the back by 5 degrees and/or the
subject has a depth equal to its distance or one is stopped
down to f64 to get the both the flower and the mountain in focus,
what's 0.5mm error?

and the optical performance of the lenses used.

The eye, or my eye, becomes fixated on just the ultra-sharp
bit of the photo. If you can get one of the model's eyelashes
pin sharp the whole portrait looks sharp

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote

I've only ever seen two long-roll 5" aero cameras in person but both
had vacuum systems to ensure film flatness.

So do all process cameras.

Sinar sells adhesive backs and something that sounds like a Beseler
Nega-Flat. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with a home brew
vacuum back made from a Fidelity holder.

If you want to resolve at the limits of the lens it's flat-to-flat
or nothing.

I wonder if any of the aero backs have a slight dish to them to
compensate for the curvature of the earth (that's a joke).

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Helge Nareid" wrote


Glass is the substrate type of choice for true high-resolution
applications, such as ... Lippmann photography.


I'll be. Someone is doing Lippman photography as more than
a parlour trick?

Well, Gabriel Lippmann got a Nobel Prize for it.

My grandfather later got a Ph.D. for it at Johns Hopkins. He figured out
how to get the colors right.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:55:00 up 5 days, 8 min, 3 users, load average: 5.31, 5.32, 5.22

In article . net,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

I wonder if any of the aero backs have a slight dish to them to
compensate for the curvature of the earth (that's a joke).

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they did -- though, more likely,
to compensate for curvature of field of a particular lens mounted to
the front of the camera. Ever take a careful look at the film
transport in a Minox?

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:24:58 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

You folks are missing a huge part of photography if you are so concerned
about grain. Grain can be your friend. It's the last remnant of real
photography.

Everything adds to the mix. I have some TMY pushed to 1600
that's actually pretty nice. Of course it was shot on the RB.

Grainless can equal less accutance.

?? Care to explain that one ?


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:25:01 +0000, Helge Nareid
wrote:

The main problems in a large format camera are the
precision of the film holders ....

IMO that's the worst part right there.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

"John" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:24:58 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

Grainless can equal less accutance.

?? Care to explain that one ?

Certainly. Acutance is _perceived_ sharpness. It hasn't much to do with
resolution, per se, and the effect has much to do with contrast boundaries
in the subject. If I were to take a 4x5", very fine grain picture of the
palm of your hand and another with a lesser-fine grain film, although you
still could not see the grain on either, you would probably have the
impression that the very fine grain image was less sharp - lower acutance
than the grainer film. Of course, not all subjects are susceptible to this
kind of acutance.