Nothing can break the physics rule, you NEED at least two pixel to resolve
one line pair, the question here is you don't know how they interprete the
LPH.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
> As I suggested in my reply to C.H., I don't believe this is the case,
> logical as it may appear. Look at the dpreview report on the Nik*n
> Coolpix 5200
>
> Resolution Absolute Extinction pixels/LPH
> Horizontal LPH 1400 1650 1.4-1.2
> Vertical LPH 1350 1650 1.4-1.2
>
> The 5200 has 1944 vertical pixels. Now, whatever difference is between
> absolute and extinction resolution, both are much higher than the 972
> your calculation gives. Try the Oly 8080 with 2448 vertical pixels:
>
> Resolution Absolute Extinction pixels/LPH
> Horizontal LPH 1650 1950 1.5-1.3
> Vertical LPH 1600 1850 1.5-1.3
>
> And the original EOS 1Ds, with 2704 vertical pixels.
>
> Resolution Absolute Extinction pixels/LPH
> Horizontal LPH 2400 2600 1.1-1.0
> Vertical LPH 2000 2600 1.4-1.0
>
> Now I don't know just what this means, but the confluence of numbers
> with those in the Pop Photo review leads me to conclude both are using
> the same measure. On the dpreview site, you can see how these numbers
> are derived by observation of an image of a test target. Just click on
> the target to see the whole thing.
>
> I don't pretend to understand all this, but the theory that resolution
> is limited to half the linear number of pixels is clearly not valid for
> this method of measurement, however defined. And PP believes the
> measures they use are comparable for film and digital.
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|