On Sunday, October 21, 2007 21:53, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Correct. I always forget about that line pair stuff. But I'd like to
> see the actual comparison. Digital seems to surprise with images that
> look like they have higher resolution than they should. As Moose's
> tests with the 300D and 5D point out there's more to resolution than
> pixels.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
> > You have to remember the resolution is lp/mm, you need at least two
> > pixels per lp.
> >
> > C.H.Ling
Wouldn't you have to have 4 pixels? It seems to me a line must consist of a
black "line" next to a white "line". By resolution do you mean sharpness or
perceived sharpness? I suspect that edge gradient has as much an influnence
on percieved sharpness as absolute resolution. I remember working on a vision
system at RPI in the 80's. We determined that you could "see" a filament that
was about one fifth the size of the pixel size of the camera we were using.
It darkened the pixel enough that in an uniform lighted field it was easy to
threshold and do what we had to from there.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|