Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

If you are using autofocus, that will be the limiting factor in
resolution. IIRC, they quit at about 50lpmm. Then there is the
antialiasing filter, which reduces resolution. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has
an AAF that doesn't filter much, so it is more prone to aliasing
problems, but also produces a sharp image.

Hanna, Mark (x9085) wrote:
> This makes good sense Art, however I'm curious about pixel density.
> (apart from the obvious larger pixel = more photons landing in it
> sensitivity advantage which is often the case with the larger sensor)
> Can the lenses being used on the cameras in question, satisfactorily
> resolve the number of lines per mm required for the smaller pixel
> density of the smaller sensor?
> I have read about lenses having 40LPmm (crap consumer zoom)or 100LPmm
> (reasonably good lens), is this figure in relation to the intended
> projected plane? If so, 40LPmm for a 35mm film plane or FF sensor would
> be 24mm by 36mm which at 40LPmm, equals 1.3824 MPixels. 100LPmm =
> 8.64MP.
> For an APSC sized sensor, 15 by 24mm I think, you're looking at 0.576MP
> and 3.6MP for 40LPmm and 100LPmm respectively.
> So in theory, you may be able to crop the FF pic to emulate a 1.3 or 1.6
> sized sensor, and despite possibly having less pixel density, the sensor
> may be capturing the same actual sharpness or resolution, in which case
> you could simply upsize the resolution to match in PS, and get the same
> resolution, same sharpness, but lower noise photograph, due to larger
> pixels, but pixels that may actually match the resolution of the lenses
> better than the smaller sensor.
> I don't know much about lens resolution, however if the average L series
> lens is around 100 to 120LPmm, I know I'd be wanting the larger sensor
> if my above assumptions are correct. I have a 5D, and the size and
> resolution of the images never fail to amaze me, as good as my old
> Mamiya M6451000S.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 9:47 AM
> To: Hanna, Mark (x9085)
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
> Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP.  One is FF the other smaller
> using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF,
> you have crop  about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced
> the resolution by that much.  If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the
> smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage.
> Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as
> it first appears.
> Art
> gary wrote:
>> I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I
>> spent pixels. This makes no sense to me.
>> Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of
>> the sensor to save space on the memory card.
>> R. Jackson wrote:
>>> Sure, but you "spend" pixels of your total sensor resolution to get
>>> there.
>>> On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote:
>>>> A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think
>>>> about
>>>> it, you could just crop a full size image to get more "reach."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or body
> Notice
> This email, and any attachments transmitted with it, is confidential and may 
> contain sensitive or privileged information. If you are not the named 
> recipient you may not read, use, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise act 
> in reliance of the message or any of the information it contains. If you have 
> received the message in error, please inform the sender via email and destroy 
> the message. Opinions expressed in this communication are those of the sender 
> and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Crown Castle 
> Australia Pty Ltd. No responsibility is taken for any loss or damage 
> sustained from the use of the information in this email and Crown Castle 
> Australia Pty Ltd makes no warranty that this material is unaffected by 
> computer virus, corruption or other defects.

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.