Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
>
> A color camera being used to produce black&white pictures cannot have better
> resolution than the color with the greatest resolution, typically green.
>
> Because digital cameras are either 1:1:1 or 1:2:1, green is always a good
> choice for determining spatial resolution. So, I use the green channel, and
> also compare it directly with B&W only pictures as well.
>
Yes, I know about the 1:2:1 color filter distribution, but the
resolution seem not much affected by this, I suspected it will only
affect the color accuracy (wrong interpretation of color on fine
details) but every pixel will contribute to the scene details.
> Yes, it will be some time before digital can beat film in resolution. Where
> digital already exceeds film is reportedly in dynamic range, linearity, and
> noise, at least in the expensive cameras. Not that 8 bits is enough, though.
> The top grade scanners use 12 bits or more per color, and the astronomers
> use 16 bits per color.
>
Ok, I know it is not 8 bit but just an example, my E-10 is 10 bit and
my first Nikon LS-10 in 93 is 8 bit, second Nikon LS2000 in 98 is 12
bit and now the LS4000 is 14 bit...
> The linearity is probably why good digital cameras are reported to handle
> skin, sparkles, eyelights, et al, so well.
>
That is the point and I heard long ago in DC news group that some
professional photography (at least they said they live on this) think
their "new" Nikon 990 is better than their Hass for studio portrait on
output quality.
> >
> >http://www.accura.com.hk/50-02.jpg (200K)
>
> I looked at the picture, but I don't know how to interpret it. What is the
> purpose of a lens test slide? To test slide duplicators?
>
The test was performed in around 1990 to test the performance of my
Zuikos, all shots were taken at around 1:50 or something similar. To
interpret it is easy, you should download it in photo editing
software, there should be dimension information on your software.
Check which point you think you can still identify the lines. I would
say at least the "200" position. Measure the width of this group of
lines, there is total 15lp and at the point "200" the width is 0.2mm,
so 5*15=75lp/mm.
>
> To my eye, the E-10 shot is nicer-looking, but the scanned film has higher
> resolution. Sort of as expected. So, there you have it.
>
You really see the scanned film has higher resolution? Yes, it may
look to have more details but to me they are just film grain :-)
> If you have the energy, could you make test shots like these, only with wider
> dynamic range, and including some specular highlights? Thanks. The claim is
> that digital does better than film in such situations.
Ok, I will try it out later but to my experience the E-10 has very
good shadow details (although a bit noise), but for very bright spots
most DC are much poorer than film, it blow out and enlarged the spots.
C.H.Ling
>
> Joe Gwinn
>
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.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 >
|
