The discussion of resolution misses something

On 4/19/2011 8:02 AM, RichA wrote:
On Apr 19, 6:09 am, wrote:
wrote:
What people can see when a print is made regarding resolution is a
mathematical question. But how a print looks because of enlargement
concerns more than resolution, there is almost an intangible quality
that diminish as a print gets bigger. It's even possible to have
superior resolution with inferior sharpness but you wouldn't want to
put up with that result. What is clear, and some reviewers are now
saying it, is that the resolution of current sensors is outstripping
the ability of some kit lenses to meet that resolution.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...22&message=382...



I own a lowly 8 megapixel Canon 30D.

I also own several Canon lenses.

All, including the equally lowly 18-55 kit lens, are adequate.
This includes the expensive 24-105 f/4L "pro" lens.
But neither of these is more than "adequate" and the pro one
is not really all that much better than the kit lens .. but,
of course, it covers a full frame, making it harder to design.

But I own other Canon lenses .. including the 50 mm f/1.8
for $85, a 70-300 mm non L series tele, and a 100mm f/2.8
macro. All three of these are better than the 30D's sensor
at f/3.5, one stop down from full open, and f/3.5 respectively.
The macro is awesomely better, and the 50mm is too at f/4-f/11.

These latter 3 should all do fine even at 25 megapixels crop frame,
though the tele would have a very small f/number range
between aberration and diffraction problems. The 18-55 and
the 24-105 would be problematical, due to lateral chromatic,
at some focal lengths, even stopped down. I mean problematical
even after computer removal of the scale difference between
the three colors ... the blur in one color would be problematical.

It is the lateral chromatic that is going to have to be addressed
by the manufacturers, seriously addressed, for these super resolution
sensors, as stopping down does not help.

Doug McDonald

On 4/19/2011 10:07 AM, Bruce wrote:


It is the lateral chromatic that is going to have to be addressed
by the manufacturers, seriously addressed, for these super resolution
sensors, as stopping down does not help.


Interesting. This helps to show us just how good film was.

Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays. It
simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
angle from which it came. Therefore there was no need for expensive
telecentric lens designs. Because film was much less reflective than
a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
expensive multi-coating of lens elements.

Film is much MORE reflective than a digital sensor ... by far.

You are only thinking specular reflection. Film has extreme
diffuse reflectivity. This reflects back from the lens
and generates diffuse fog which is, in toto, worse than
digital sensor reflection ... which is near negligible
due to good coatings.

And telecentic lens design is really a non-issue with most lenses.


Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
power of top quality film.

You mean extremely SLOW film. Sure, there were Kodachrome 25, Ektar 25, and
Tech Pan. Even my lowly 30D in fact produces pictures almost
as good as Kodachrome 64. Even the next generation of consumer-grade
SLRs equaled it. Current one annihilate it.


It appears that these sensors are causing
a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.


all of which are non-issues.

Doug McDonald

On 2011-04-19 11:14:20 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Bruce
wrote:

Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays. It
simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
angle from which it came. Therefore there was no need for expensive
telecentric lens designs. Because film was much less reflective than
a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
expensive multi-coating of lens elements.

except that lenses are significantly better than they were with film.
for instance, the nikon 14-24mm is better than fixed focal length
lenses in that range.

Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
power of top quality film. It appears that these sensors are causing
a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.

digital surpassed film years ago. full frame 35mm digital is matching
medium format film. crop sensor 35mm digital is outperforming 35mm
film.

"nospam" you might want to check your computer clock, it seems to be
running 3 hours fast.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-04-19 12:33:51 -0700, nospam said:

In article 2011041909231938165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

"nospam" you might want to check your computer clock, it seems to be
running 3 hours fast.

my clock is correct, synced to an ntp time server and the computer's
time zone is set correctly.

Strange, I live in California, and my correct PDT is 09:39. your reply
is showing as arriving at 12:33:51. There is a 3 hour discrepancy, and
it seems to be either wih your computer or server.
All other posts from other posters are time correct.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4/19/2011 10:41 AM, Bruce wrote:


It appears that these sensors are causing
a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.


all of which are non-issues.


I congratulate you on your self-delusion, which appears near total.

Meanwhile, thank you for making me laugh louder and longer than I have
for quite some time! ;-)


Ah ... the ad-hominem attack, so common!

In fact what I say is correct.

Doug McDonald

On 2011-04-19 09:57:58 -0700, Bruce said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-04-19 11:14:20 -0700, nospam said:
In article , Bruce
wrote:

Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays. It
simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
angle from which it came. Therefore there was no need for expensive
telecentric lens designs. Because film was much less reflective than
a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
expensive multi-coating of lens elements.

except that lenses are significantly better than they were with film.
for instance, the nikon 14-24mm is better than fixed focal length
lenses in that range.

Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
power of top quality film. It appears that these sensors are causing
a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.

digital surpassed film years ago. full frame 35mm digital is matching
medium format film. crop sensor 35mm digital is outperforming 35mm
film.

"nospam" you might want to check your computer clock, it seems to be
running 3 hours fast.


The best advice you could give to "nospam" is not to waste his time
posting such nonsense.

I suppose that, as with many people who have made very expensive
investments in digital SLR equipment, he cannot stand the pain of
admitting that it still does not surpass the quality that the best
35mm films can provide.

That seemed to be a pointless remark on your part, where I was
attempting to be a little helpful. If it doesn't bother him to be out
of sync, there isn'l much more I can do.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4/19/2011 11:57 AM, Bruce wrote:


I suppose that, as with many people who have made very expensive
investments in digital SLR equipment, he cannot stand the pain of
admitting that it still does not surpass the quality that the best
35mm films can provide.


That's utterly absurd. Even a 5D MK II is better, overall, far
better, than Kodachrome. Sure, Kodachrome 25 has about the same
overall luminance resolution. But the grain, yes, even Kodachrome 25,
is worse than the noise on a digital sensor at 100.

What you are doing is the standard thing a retro-advocate does:
grade the new thing by the standards of the old thing only, which old
standards always forgets to use as a criterion the things the old
thing did badly, i.e. grain. The new thing has a similar problem,
but really only one: bad "look" of the noise when printed at
an extremely elevated level. BUT ... sensors have an enormously
greater dynamic range than the useful range of the 25 speed color films
they need to be compared to to get a near-equal resolution.

Doug McDonald

On 2011-04-19 10:03:36 -0700, Alfred Molon said:

In article 2011041909430584492-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
Strange, I live in California, and my correct PDT is 09:39. your reply
is showing as arriving at 12:33:51. There is a 3 hour discrepancy, and
it seems to be either wih your computer or server.
All other posts from other posters are time correct.

Why is the computer clock an issue?

All of "nospam"s" posts to this thread this morning are 3 hours out of sync.

I thought he might have done something with his computer, a fresh OS
install, HD format or some such which might have screwed up his clock.
I thought he might want to fix it, but he might just like the idea of
keeping things out of sync.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:03:36 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article 2011041909430584492-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
Strange, I live in California, and my correct PDT is 09:39. your reply
is showing as arriving at 12:33:51. There is a 3 hour discrepancy, and
it seems to be either wih your computer or server.
All other posts from other posters are time correct.

Why is the computer clock an issue?

Why? WHY you ask?!? Because DaffyDuck is the MOST prolific pro RESIDENT
OFF-TOPIC TROLL that these newsgroups have ever had the misfortune to be
infested by.

Just look at every thread that he's dragged off-topic and managed to
perpetuate on ad-infinauseum. That would be EVERY thread he's ever
commented on.

"Why," you ask, indeed!

LOL!!!!!!

In article , Bruce
wrote:

Film cared very little about the incident angle of light rays. It
simply recorded the light where it landed, almost regardless of the
angle from which it came. Therefore there was no need for expensive
telecentric lens designs. Because film was much less reflective than
a digital sensor, there was also no need for the latest generation of
expensive multi-coating of lens elements.

except that lenses are significantly better than they were with film.
for instance, the nikon 14-24mm is better than fixed focal length
lenses in that range.

Digital sensors are only now approaching or equalling the resolving
power of top quality film. It appears that these sensors are causing
a great many problems that simply didn't arise with film.

digital surpassed film years ago. full frame 35mm digital is matching
medium format film. crop sensor 35mm digital is outperforming 35mm
film.