Assuming you're talking about the article comparing 8x10 vs 645
digital... agreed. I didn't read the entire article nor any of the
"peer review" (whatever that is) but immediately concluded that the
problem for the 8x10 was shooting at f/32. The diffraction limited
resolution of the lens at that aperture is probably 25-30 lp/mm and
system resolution (film, lens and scanner) undoubtedly drop it lower
than that. The film scan was done at about 30 lp/mm so the scan has
recovered whatever was there. I think they knew all that to begin with
which is why they didn't scan at a higher resolution... and that's why a
follow-on scan at higher resolution didn't change anything.
Dr. Diffraction
On 9/26/2011 10:16 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> I'm not opinionating in any way, but there is another eyebrow twister on
> Luminous Landscape. The peer review is quite fascinating.
>
> OK, you know that I'm barely refraining from launching...but my wife tells
> me that a little restraint is a good thing.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|