Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: Dipping our Toe Into Digital (LONG)

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Dipping our Toe Into Digital (LONG)
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:32:05 -0500
I'm on your side, Mark.  I shoot big stuff too.  I actually 
thought some of the numbers were quite impressive, especially 
considering that an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative is only a 2X 
enlargement, not 6X like 35mm.  That means a 35mm lens would have 
to resolve 200 lpm to equal a large format lens at 50 lpm.  I 
haven't seen any of those.

Walt

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "M. Lloyd" <royer007@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:  Sun, 22 Dec 2002 21:15:41 -0800 (PST)

>I was looking at Schniediers white paper stuff on
>their current lenses which can be found at
>www.schneideroptics.com . Maybe I misread. And I did
>say under lab conditions. I'm under no illusions that
>I can get anywhere near that but then again I'm pretty
>sure I can't get near 80-100 lpm with my OM or indeed
>if someone gave me that ultra zeiss lens that is
>reputed to have like 500 lpm (250/8?) either even with
>a tripod.
>
>Frankly, it kinda scares me when you look at all the
>stuff the image has to go through before it can be
>displayed that we get any image at all. Imagine you
>have a lens like the Zeiss capable of 500 lpm.
>
>500 immeditly goes down to 100 or less if you decide
>to use color film or 150 if you use TMAX. If you
>handhold the camera there goes another 50 lpm. If the
>subject is moving there goes some more. Then you send
>the film to be processed and then printed (lose
>another 10 lpm to the enlarger, lose some more to the
>laser printer or whatever it is that is used.  So
>eventually you have a 4x6 that has probably 10-20 or
>less lpm no matter what you do.
>
>Mark Lloyd
>
>--- Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> A look here might prove informative.
>> 
>> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
>> 
>> Walt
>> 
>> ---------- Original Message
>> ----------------------------------
>> From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date:  Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:39:04 +0800
>> 
>> >80-100lpmm! seems that it is better than the center
>> resolution 
>> >of all lenses from Contax AF 645 MF camera I have
>> seen from pop 
>> >photo test.
>> >The LF lenses must be a magic! If you are talking
>> about aerial
>> >resolution, may be, I'm not sure. If on film
>> resolution, I really
>> >doubt. Check what photodo said about MF/LF
>> resolution, they are 
>> >not much better than 35mm.
>> >
>> >C.H.Ling
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
>http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>< 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 >
>
>
 


 
                   

< 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