Have sensors really passed the resolution of lenses? NO!

Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Kenneth Scharf wrote:
On 02/11/2012 01:34 PM, David J Taylor wrote:

To get the full resolution out of a 36 MP sensor will likely require the
best of lenses, and some of the best of photographic techniques (such as
tripod, best focusing, reducing mirror-slap etc. etc.)
Consider that many consider the resolution of Kodachrome 35mm film to be
around 100-250 mega pixels.

According to the modulation-transfer diagram for Kodachrome 25 a good
estimate for an equivalent digital image is about 20 megapixels.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bs/e55/e55.pdf

(70 cycles/mm * 2 pixels/cycle * 35mm) * (70 * 2 * 25)

You want more than 2 pixels/cycle[1]. You want to seriously
oversample[1]. You want 0% response, not 10%[2].

Absolute accuracy is neither the goal nor is it possible.
This is a useful guideline.

If you want to indulge yourself in pointless pedantry then go ahead.

Ah, that's how you react to facts.

Ah, that's how you lie. By claiming that you have "facts".

You didn't see/remember the URLs? Could be a brain tumor.
Could be just you.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Kenneth Scharf wrote:
On 02/11/2012 01:34 PM, David J Taylor wrote:

To get the full resolution out of a 36 MP sensor will likely require the
best of lenses, and some of the best of photographic techniques (such as
tripod, best focusing, reducing mirror-slap etc. etc.)
Consider that many consider the resolution of Kodachrome 35mm film to be
around 100-250 mega pixels.

According to the modulation-transfer diagram for Kodachrome 25 a good
estimate for an equivalent digital image is about 20 megapixels.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bs/e55/e55.pdf

(70 cycles/mm * 2 pixels/cycle * 35mm) * (70 * 2 * 25)

You want more than 2 pixels/cycle[1]. You want to seriously
oversample[1]. You want 0% response, not 10%[2].

Absolute accuracy is neither the goal nor is it possible.
This is a useful guideline.

If you want to indulge yourself in pointless pedantry then go ahead.

Ah, that's how you react to facts.

Ah, that's how you lie. By claiming that you have "facts".

You didn't see/remember the URLs?

The ones that did not actually support your silly claims?

Sure, provide a URL that shows how absolute accuracy can be achieved.
I'll be very interested.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Kenneth Scharf wrote:
On 02/11/2012 01:34 PM, David J Taylor wrote:

To get the full resolution out of a 36 MP sensor will likely require the
best of lenses, and some of the best of photographic techniques (such as
tripod, best focusing, reducing mirror-slap etc. etc.)
Consider that many consider the resolution of Kodachrome 35mm film to be
around 100-250 mega pixels.

According to the modulation-transfer diagram for Kodachrome 25 a good
estimate for an equivalent digital image is about 20 megapixels.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bs/e55/e55.pdf

(70 cycles/mm * 2 pixels/cycle * 35mm) * (70 * 2 * 25)

You want more than 2 pixels/cycle[1]. You want to seriously
oversample[1]. You want 0% response, not 10%[2].

Attention, now Ray puts words into my mouth:

Absolute accuracy is neither the goal nor is it possible.
This is a useful guideline.

If you want to indulge yourself in pointless pedantry then go ahead.

Ah, that's how you react to facts.

Ah, that's how you lie. By claiming that you have "facts".

You didn't see/remember the URLs?

Attention: Here Ray has already forgotten that "absolute
accuracy" is *his* creature.

The ones that did not actually support your silly claims?

No, the ones that do support what I marked with "[1]" and "[2]",
not the ones that don't support your putting words into my mouth.


Sure, provide a URL that shows how absolute accuracy can be achieved.
I'll be very interested.

Sure, provide an URL that shows I claimed absolute accuracy could
be archived. I'll be very interested.

While you are at it: also provide proof that the Earth is
flat, as you claimed.


-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Kenneth Scharf wrote:
On 02/11/2012 01:34 PM, David J Taylor wrote:

To get the full resolution out of a 36 MP sensor will likely require the
best of lenses, and some of the best of photographic techniques (such as
tripod, best focusing, reducing mirror-slap etc. etc.)
Consider that many consider the resolution of Kodachrome 35mm film to be
around 100-250 mega pixels.

According to the modulation-transfer diagram for Kodachrome 25 a good
estimate for an equivalent digital image is about 20 megapixels.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bs/e55/e55.pdf

(70 cycles/mm * 2 pixels/cycle * 35mm) * (70 * 2 * 25)

You want more than 2 pixels/cycle[1]. You want to seriously
oversample[1]. You want 0% response, not 10%[2].

Attention, now Ray puts words into my mouth:

Weisselberg is lying.

Absolute accuracy is neither the goal nor is it possible.
This is a useful guideline.

If you want to indulge yourself in pointless pedantry then go ahead.

Ah, that's how you react to facts.

Ah, that's how you lie. By claiming that you have "facts".

You didn't see/remember the URLs?

Attention: Here Ray has already forgotten that "absolute

And again, Weisselberg is lying.

The ones that did not actually support your silly claims?

No, the ones that do support what I marked with "[1]" and "[2]",

Nobody is interested in your stupid little opinions.

Sure, provide a URL that shows how absolute accuracy can be achieved.
I'll be very interested.

Sure, provide an URL that shows I claimed absolute accuracy could
be archived.

So you're just arguing about non sequiturs because you like being an
asshole.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Kenneth Scharf wrote:
On 02/11/2012 01:34 PM, David J Taylor wrote:

(70 cycles/mm * 2 pixels/cycle * 35mm) * (70 * 2 * 25)

You want more than 2 pixels/cycle[1]. You want to seriously
oversample[1]. You want 0% response, not 10%[2].

Attention, now Ray puts words into my mouth:

Weisselberg is lying.

So you didn't write "Absolute accuracy is neither the goal nor
is it possible."?

Ray Fischer wrote:
Absolute accuracy is neither the goal nor is it possible.
This is a useful guideline.

If you want to indulge yourself in pointless pedantry then go ahead.

Ah, that's how you react to facts.

Ah, that's how you lie. By claiming that you have "facts".

You didn't see/remember the URLs?

Attention: Here Ray has already forgotten that "absolute
accuracy" is *his* creature.

And again, Weisselberg is lying.

So you didn't write "Absolute accuracy is neither the goal nor
is it possible."?


The ones that did not actually support your silly claims?

No, the ones that do support what I marked with "[1]" and "[2]",
not the ones that don't support your putting words into my mouth.

Nobody is interested in your stupid little opinions.

Ray is not interested, that's clear, he's only interested in his
own opinion and lies, cheats, mangles quotes (corrected) etc.


Sure, provide a URL that shows how absolute accuracy can be achieved.
I'll be very interested.

Sure, provide an URL that shows I claimed absolute accuracy could
be archived.

So you're just arguing about non sequiturs because you like being an
asshole.

Actually, you are the asshole who claims he hasn't written
"Absolute accuracy is neither the goal nor is it possible."
and then tries to claim that *I* should "provide a URL that shows
how absolute accuracy can be achieved."

In other words, the usual Ray tactics: claim something and then
ask me to provide proof of the opposite.


Will your mirror burst out of shame if you look into it?


-Wolfgang