On 11/4/2014 4:47 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the theory here. The simplistic theory only considers the maximum that is possible... not
the maximum that is likely.
When a theory doesn't predict actual results, it's of no use. If the problem is only simplicity, perhaps it can be made
useful. perhaps not.
As I mentioned with respect to film resolution, the maximum lab measured limit is highly dependent on contrast. The
same is true of digital. I expect that the higher dynamic range of the 5D results in higher contrast pixels than the
300D. Thus the effective or real resolution of the 5D is better than the 300D despite its extra pixels.
Nope. this was not lab measurement. This was me, looking at images layered in PS of exactly the same, rather complex,
3D, real world subject, with both high and low contrast bits. At the time, the term 'pixel level resolution' or some
such came into vogue, and is a reasonable description of what I saw.
I assume it's something to do with sensor system design, from micro lenses through sensors, through circuitry. I could
see in my first few 5D shots that the pixel level crispness(?) was a big step up from what I'd been using.
My only point was to say that number of pixels doesn't necessarily define
detail resolution.
As a side note, contrast isn't what it used to be with film. It can be boosted in post to bring out otherwise invisible
detail.
Dis Agreeable Moose
With respect to a MF digital in competition with a 6x7 film image I suspect you are correct about the digital making a
better image with even greater *visible* resolution. But I didn't need to go that far to make my point.
Chuck Norcutt
On 11/3/2014 3:37 PM, Moose wrote:
Running the numbers is fine, and useful, but not always the whole story.
When I upgraded from the APS-C 300D to a 5D, I calculated that the
theoretical resolution of the 300D is greater than that of the matching
size central portion of the larger FF sensor of the 5D.
However, as I suspected from review images, with actual test shots on a
tripod of static subjects, using the same lens, there was very slightly
more visible detail in the lower pixel count shots from the 5D.
As scientists find regularly, the theoretical calculations may or may
not match the experimental results. Sometimes the theory has to go.
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|