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



I honestly don't know enough about lens/optical mechanics to tell you
what the limitations are.

As I understand it, the "sweet spot" of most lenses in terms of
resolution is toward the middle of the lens, which is the area used on a
smaller sensor camera using lenses designed for larger frames.

However, when we get into issues like light falloff and losses due to
the angle of the light striking the sensor, I have no idea which becomes
more critical in the end result.

Art


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 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.