Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] megapixel madness?

Subject: Re: [OM] megapixel madness?
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:51:27 -0700
If you are talking lppm on the film, that's generally true. If you are talking lppm on a printed image, it ain't necessarily so. In simplest terms, a 50mm lens with 50 lppm resolution on 35mm film will deliver the same sharpness on any given size print as a 125mm lens with 20 lppm resolution on 6x9cm film. (Only talking taking lenses here, not grain, tonal range, enlarging lens, film base, yada, yada, yada) The MF image on film is 2.5 times larger, so it needs 2.5x less magnification to print size. When the question goes beyond the exact plane of focus, the answers get even more interesting.

Moose

Winsor Crosby wrote:

It is well known that 35mm lenses are sharper than medium format and large format lenses.

That is true but the original poster, I believe, just made a statement regarding sharpness and lens size that I was responding to.

Later I was turning over the idea of a terrific medium format digital cam about the size of an OM 1 with the increases in pixel count coming down the pike. However it may not work after all because medium format and large format do depend on a large film for increased resolution. Unless there are striking breakthroughs in lens design. Current lenses will probably need medium format sized CCDs besides pixel counts.

I also wonder how much sharper a lens designed for a tiny CCD can be compared to a lens for a 35mm sized frame. That is, if a really good lens can resolve 80-90 lines per mm and one CCD is 36 mm across and the other one with an equal number of pixels is 20mm across, which one will put the most lines in the final print.

There is another big change coming down the pike too. People who were not pros popped for good cameras because many of them projected slides. It takes a bit of resolution in that 24 x 36 mm frame to fill a 50x50 or 60x60 inch screen. All that quality was not needed for 4 x 6 prints. Since the preferred picture display is quickly becoming a computer screen there is one less reason for a good high res camera. That may explain why digital is being embraced so quickly by people even before it is able to duplicate performance of a good camera and good film. News pros don't need film, amateurs don't need film as much, consumers only need it for the sake of simplicity using the existing film processing infra structure. About the only people still need 35 film are those that make large prints for exhibit and those who take pride in the capability of their tools even though they seldom push them to their limits. Really capable cameras are going to get even more expensive, I think, than the digital wonders coming out now. How many of you using digital equipment have it set on the highest resolution and best quality TIFF now? Hmmm.

--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz