Camera shake and lp/mm

"P. MacGahan" wrote in message
om...
(Hemi4268) wrote in message
...
...
Note, a 50mm lens operating at 300 l/mm has exactly the same image info
as a
300mm lens operating at 50 l/mm.

This is true unless the film (or other sensor) loses some of it (e.g.,
by being grainy or not being big enough).

Irrelevant. The subject of the statement is the lens, not the film.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"P. MacGahan" wrote in message
om...
(Hemi4268) wrote in message
...
...
Note, a 50mm lens operating at 300 l/mm has exactly the same image info
as a
300mm lens operating at 50 l/mm.

This is true unless the film (or other sensor) loses some of it (e.g.,
by being grainy or not being big enough).

Irrelevant. The subject of the statement is the lens, not the film.


I'm not so sure about that. 50mm lens at 300 cycles = 300mm lens at
50 cycles *only if* the MTF curves for both lens and film/sensor match
out to the respective spatial frequencies. It is nearly impossible
for this to happpen, unless the 300mm lens is really bad or used at a
tiny aperture and is used with really bad film.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"P. MacGahan" wrote in message
om...
(Hemi4268) wrote in message
...
...
Note, a 50mm lens operating at 300 l/mm has exactly the same image info
as a
300mm lens operating at 50 l/mm.

This is true unless the film (or other sensor) loses some of it (e.g.,
by being grainy or not being big enough).

Irrelevant. The subject of the statement is the lens, not the film.

I suppose there is a slightly academic stance that sees a need for a pure
answer to an abstract question about lenses.

Equally, relevant would be a slightly academic stance that sees a need
for a practical answer to (even) an abstract question about lenses that
includes that aspect of context that is this group (i.e., medium format
photography). Practical answers in such a context also include producing
an image that can be saved on a stable medium for later viewing with a
camera of loosely defined image size.

With a medium format camera, a 50 l/mm image might not have so much
information as a 300 l/mm image (assuming it can be produced).

If your point (for example) is that a 6x6 cm. image should be compared
to a 30x30 cm image the relevance to the context might also be
discussed (as might a comparison of 6x6 image to a 1x1 cm image).

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"P. MacGahan" wrote in message
om...
(Hemi4268) wrote in message
...
...
Note, a 50mm lens operating at 300 l/mm has exactly the same image info
as a
300mm lens operating at 50 l/mm.

This is true unless the film (or other sensor) loses some of it (e.g.,
by being grainy or not being big enough).

Irrelevant. The subject of the statement is the lens, not the film.

I suppose there is a slightly academic stance that sees a need for a pure
answer to an abstract question about lenses.

Equally, relevant would be a slightly academic stance that sees a need
for a practical answer to (even) an abstract question about lenses that
includes that aspect of context that is this group (i.e., medium format
photography). Practical answers in such a context also include producing
an image that can be saved on a stable medium for later viewing with a
camera of loosely defined image size.

With a medium format camera, a 50 l/mm image might not have so much
information as a 300 l/mm image (assuming it can be produced).

If your point (for example) is that a 6x6 cm. image should be compared
to a 30x30 cm image the relevance to the context might also be
discussed (as might a comparison of 6x6 image to a 1x1 cm image).

Never before in my life have i encountered such completely assinine
individuals. Come on people. Get over yourselves and quit being so
unbelievably ANAL.

Every post here seems to be an
ego-trip-i-know-it-all-you-arent-as-smart-as-me self serving puffy-chest
assemblage of irrelavnt BS in lieu of any useful answer.

How about we just answer the questions asked as best we can without simply
attempting to destroy the individual who posts them in order to inflate our
own ego's.

Its an imperfect world full of imperfect people who sometimes ask imperfect
questions. Deal with it, and have a little respect for others. If you think
you know more than they do you just might be sadly mistaken. Chances are
you'll never find out one way or another, so best to just check your ego's
at the door.

SHEESH!
Its enough to make one barf.

ML


"P. MacGahan" wrote in message
om...
"jjs" wrote in message
...
"P. MacGahan" wrote in message
om...
(Hemi4268) wrote in message
...
...
Note, a 50mm lens operating at 300 l/mm has exactly the same image
info
as a
300mm lens operating at 50 l/mm.

This is true unless the film (or other sensor) loses some of it (e.g.,
by being grainy or not being big enough).

Irrelevant. The subject of the statement is the lens, not the film.

I suppose there is a slightly academic stance that sees a need for a pure
answer to an abstract question about lenses.

Equally, relevant would be a slightly academic stance that sees a need
for a practical answer to (even) an abstract question about lenses that
includes that aspect of context that is this group (i.e., medium format
photography). Practical answers in such a context also include producing
an image that can be saved on a stable medium for later viewing with a
camera of loosely defined image size.

With a medium format camera, a 50 l/mm image might not have so much
information as a 300 l/mm image (assuming it can be produced).

If your point (for example) is that a 6x6 cm. image should be compared
to a 30x30 cm image the relevance to the context might also be
discussed (as might a comparison of 6x6 image to a 1x1 cm image).

Never before in my life have i encountered such completely assinine
individuals. Come on people. Get over yourselves and quit being so
unbelievably ANAL.

Every post here seems to be an
ego-trip-i-know-it-all-you-arent-as-smart-as-me self serving puffy-chest
assemblage of irrelavnt BS in lieu of any useful answer.

How about we just answer the questions asked as best we can without simply
attempting to destroy the individual who posts them in order to inflate our
own ego's.

Its an imperfect world full of imperfect people who sometimes ask imperfect
questions. Deal with it, and have a little respect for others. If you think
you know more than they do you just might be sadly mistaken. Chances are
you'll never find out one way or another, so best to just check your ego's
at the door.

SHEESH!
Its enough to make one barf.

ML


"P. MacGahan" wrote in message
om...
"jjs" wrote in message
...
"P. MacGahan" wrote in message
om...
(Hemi4268) wrote in message
...
...
Note, a 50mm lens operating at 300 l/mm has exactly the same image
info
as a
300mm lens operating at 50 l/mm.

This is true unless the film (or other sensor) loses some of it (e.g.,
by being grainy or not being big enough).

Irrelevant. The subject of the statement is the lens, not the film.

I suppose there is a slightly academic stance that sees a need for a pure
answer to an abstract question about lenses.

Equally, relevant would be a slightly academic stance that sees a need
for a practical answer to (even) an abstract question about lenses that
includes that aspect of context that is this group (i.e., medium format
photography). Practical answers in such a context also include producing
an image that can be saved on a stable medium for later viewing with a
camera of loosely defined image size.

With a medium format camera, a 50 l/mm image might not have so much
information as a 300 l/mm image (assuming it can be produced).

If your point (for example) is that a 6x6 cm. image should be compared
to a 30x30 cm image the relevance to the context might also be
discussed (as might a comparison of 6x6 image to a 1x1 cm image).

"Michael R. Lachance" wrote in message
ink.net...
Never before in my life have i encountered such completely assinine
individuals. Come on people. Get over yourselves and quit being so
unbelievably ANAL.

Just exactly how anal? In metric and American standards, please.

"Michael R. Lachance" wrote in message
ink.net...
Never before in my life have i encountered such completely assinine
individuals. Come on people. Get over yourselves and quit being so
unbelievably ANAL.

Just exactly how anal? In metric and American standards, please.