Correct. I always forget about that line pair stuff. But I'd like to
see the actual comparison. Digital seems to surprise with images that
look like they have higher resolution than they should. As Moose's
tests with the 300D and 5D point out there's more to resolution than pixels.
Chuck Norcutt
C.H.Ling wrote:
> You have to remember the resolution is lp/mm, you need at least two pixels
> per lp.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt"
>
>
>> Probably hard to pay royalties for exhibition space in the Venetian,
>> Mandalay Bay and Caesar's on income from 5x7's and 8x10's. :-) I'll
>> have to take a look next time I'm in Vegas to see my dad.
>>
>> Unless shot on Velvia 50 (resolution 80 lines/mm) the resolution on most
>> slide films is in the 50-63 lines/mm range. Therefore, no matter how
>> impressive the prints look, that 60mm wide film is only resolving
>> somewhere between 3000 and 4800 lines. A Canyon 5D comes pretty close
>> to matching the lesser of those numbers in the vertical direction and
>> the greater of those horizontally. I always remember a 24x36" poster
>> created by a friend of his daughter. It was a half-body shot and nearly
>> life size. It looked great when viewed from a couple feet away as it
>> should be at that size. But it was shot with a Canon D30... only 3MP.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|