> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> On 9/13/2018 11:15 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
>> With the 616 film, it's probably about 500 MP.
>
> I'm thinking more like 6 MP, perhaps (probably) less. I can gets lots of
> pixels in a scan, but no more actual detail than a low rez scan. Simple,
> cheap, uncoated lenses, poorly rigid front standards holding the lens,
> guesstimate focus and film notoriously not far from flat all contribute to
> lack of sharpness.
>
> The film wasn't that spectacular, either.
I agree that cheap old cameras were never as good as expensive old cameras, and
that a thrift-store camera with original 616 film is unlikely to achieve 500
megapixels.
But larger formats are more forgiving of thinks like film flatness, lens
coatings, etc.
I used to make 250 megapixel scans of Velvia 50 4"x5" trannies on my
ColorGetter Falcon drum scanner, oil-mounted. You could pixel-peep them and see
gobs more detail than one might expect.
I recall shooting in the Tom McCall reserve in the Columbia Gorge with a 90mm
f8 Schneider-Kreutznacht. (Uncoated, but not a "cheap" lens.) When
pixel-peeped, you could see the windows in cars on the other side of the gorge,
perhaps ten miles away. Those cars were not even discernible with the human
eye. And this from a wide-angle! I never tried it with a normal-range lens.
I'm not trying to be argumentative; I just think that there *could be* a lot
more going for MF/LF film than meets the eye. Literally! Conceivably, one could
cut down Velvia 50 4"x5" to fit the 616 format.
Jan
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|