But it's worse, Walt. The magnification for 8x10 from 35mm is nearly
8.5x....
-Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Dipping our Toe Into Digital (LONG)
> 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|