Andrew Gullen wrote:
>1) The fact that they probably aren't idiots (my assumption too) means they
>are probably trying to use a measure that applies to both film and sensors
>and allows comparison.
>2) Because a line pair requires two pixels to sense, (1) implies that two of
>these Lines make up a line pair - otherwise they wouldn't match up with
>pixels.
>
As I suggested in my reply to C.H., I don't believe this is the case,
logical as it may appear. Look at the dpreview report on the Nik*n
Coolpix 5200
Resolution Absolute Extinction pixels/LPH
Horizontal LPH 1400 1650 1.4-1.2
Vertical LPH 1350 1650 1.4-1.2
The 5200 has 1944 vertical pixels. Now, whatever difference is between
absolute and extinction resolution, both are much higher than the 972
your calculation gives. Try the Oly 8080 with 2448 vertical pixels:
Resolution Absolute Extinction pixels/LPH
Horizontal LPH 1650 1950 1.5-1.3
Vertical LPH 1600 1850 1.5-1.3
And the original EOS 1Ds, with 2704 vertical pixels.
Resolution Absolute Extinction pixels/LPH
Horizontal LPH 2400 2600 1.1-1.0
Vertical LPH 2000 2600 1.4-1.0
Now I don't know just what this means, but the confluence of numbers
with those in the Pop Photo review leads me to conclude both are using
the same measure. On the dpreview site, you can see how these numbers
are derived by observation of an image of a test target. Just click on
the target to see the whole thing.
I don't pretend to understand all this, but the theory that resolution
is limited to half the linear number of pixels is clearly not valid for
this method of measurement, however defined. And PP believes the
measures they use are comparable for film and digital.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|