I always enjoyed some of his careful discussions, but it always bothered me
when he is doing his
comparisons with film, using a 4000dpi scanner, which of course is another
digital camera which
adds its own optical and digitisation errors,grain aliasing and transfer
function to the film. In
a particular example, we know how difficult it is to get good scans from say
kodachrome, where the
contrast (dynamic range)seems to suffer substantially. It would have been nice
if he had been able
to use something like a scanning microscope photometer for some of the film
resolution tests. Also
given the lenses he used, they may have become quite limiting, making both
digital and film look
similar at the higher resolutions, even if they were not. Once you multiply the
MTF's together the
lens has to have a lot higher MTF to be able to see any meaningful differences
in the rest of the
system. It always seemed like in particular, low speed B&W films would really
have been short
changed in his tests.
Tim Hughes
--- "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think some of you might have seen this:
>
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
>
> Details here:
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.6mpxl.digital.html
>
> Clark's conclusion is Velvia film is equal to 15MP DC in resolution. 3MP is
> really hard to believe!
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|