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



 From what I'm seeing, the 1.6X lenses (at least the Canon lenses I
have) produce significantly higher resolution than my older 35mm format
lenses, but these lenses are not as well corrected for distortion.  My
17-85 produces quite a bit of barrel distortion that only becomes
acceptable at about 25-30mm fl.  I believe that we will not see any
great developmental breakthroughs in new lenses until the industry
settles on an image format size(s).  I think that guidance from the
optical community will help establish format sizes that will be
compatible with optical quality that can be achieved without greatly
escalating the price.  Question is, how long will it take and how many
iterations will we, the consumer, be put through?  I'm not really
complaining - we're watching the evolution of digital imaging at near
real time.

Jim

gary wrote:
> I'm a person that needs "reach", if you define reach as getting shots of
> distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a
> telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup
> doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an
> advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you
> can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens
> design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal.
>
> http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> 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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.