Really? Using him as a source? He freely admits that he makes stuff up as fodder for the believers!
well you can judge me, no problem what so ever, I believe I had my fair share in different fields.The article you posted is utter nonsense. If you want to believe it, then fine - but that just means you'll be ridiculed.
The 'character' of light is oft misunderstood.
Learn about light - not lenses, it'll make you a better photographer and somewhat less gullible.
That was one of the first results I came up with when I went looking, and seemed to support my mental reference point of somewhere in the (rounded) region of 100Mp. There appear to be many others, most that I've seen appear to sustain my perspective, but hey, feel free to post any link that argues. It is always possible that something on the Internet might be wrong, unlikely as that sounds. And no I don't want to get into a discussion of the relative merits of the different types of dot screens and technologies used in digital, each which has an impact on resolution.
Anyhow, as I say, it is complicated. The type of film, the lens, the paper, the nature of the image and the impression on the human eye all go toward the ultimate resolution. Again, there are a wide range of films, and without getting into things like monochrome microfilm, some of the film compounds blast digital out the water, without disucussing the nature of grain vs noise. Whether it is 50Mp, 60, 100, it's irrelevant (plus you get a new sensor every shot). One of the reasons it's irrelevant is that to be any use at all, you have to be able to look at it. So, what then? You scan it? You print it? What to, what with? Sit in a dark room and project your Ektar 25? Theoretical resolution doesn't matter. The dots don't matter, what it looks like matters.
The comment was in the context of a post that suggested our modern display screens were somehow superior and contained more information to printing on 10 x 8. They're not, even if looking at a modern screen can be more fun and possibly more vibrant.
That often keeps me awake at night.Have you ever wonder, why Tarantino used Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2 in Django Unchained ?
It’s not that complicated, thousands of us used to shoot film, many of us medium format.There appear to be many others, most that I've seen appear to sustain my perspective, but hey, feel free to post any link that argues. It is always possible that something on the Internet might be wrong, unlikely as that sounds. And no I don't want to get into a discussion of the relative merits of the different types of dot screens and technologies used in digital, each which has an impact on resolution.
also I recommend others to study a bit physics and elec. as it goes to science a magnet can bent light....
It’s not that complicated
Waffle.Really? Remembering there are two questions going on here. The first, which you are referring to is the ultimate resolving power of film compared to digital sensor. There are huge number of variables here, both in specification and technical details of the capture and output but more relevantly also with the processing software. I stand by my passing assertion that film is capable of higher resolution capture than most digital sensors, but I'm happy to differ and can see little merit or benefit in arguing one side or the other, and nothing I do requires or depends on that theoretical difference - if there is one.
The second question is the point I was making, that the output and resolution on screen is lower than printing on 10 x 8. If you have a 4k monitor that 3840 x 2160, at a 300 dpi, a digital* printer outputs 3,000 x 2,400, at 600 dpi that's 6,000 x 3,600. The context was, because we have these Big! New! Shiny! screens we will see more than we did previously, I'm not sure that is the case for the reasons stated.
*No, I'm NOT going to get started on the relative quality of photographic output.....
Waffle.
Borderline impenetrable b******t.
haha you blocked my id for days ?
copyright with link to source and name writer doesn't have issue.
even I use " " marks !!!!!!
Waffle.
Borderline impenetrable b******t.
I’ve got 20x16 prints, from film and digital, and I can categorically state that digital beats 35mm film at around 10mpix.
You could step from the realms of the theoretical and do the comparison yourself. As I have, and others here too.TL;DR?
1) I'm happy if you think you are right, theoretical capability isn't worth arguing over because, reasons
but
2) Dots is dots is dots.
This is so wrong it's laughable.light is energy, every time pass glass it become weaker, doesn't matter X nano coat on one side of lens and... it lose its character.
those they didn't study there are books about.
basically glass is like a capacitor and damage the wavelength.
less glass more fidelity, every pass of light through, losing more character....
thats why today lenses with +16 element have sharpness but they photo is ironed, it like process food.
The film from the EOS-3 was then sent to a good quality lab and a high-res scan was done using a Noritsu scanner. The 6D was set to produce a JPEG at its highest/finest resolution.
As @Phil V has already said, the 6D resolved more detail than the scanned negative produced.
Don't forget to add a still, cool, clear day, as heat haze and shimmer can also add to the adverse stochastic equation. How far do we go in search of fidelity?I assume in the final analysis, that if "less glass more fidelity, every pass of light through, losing more character.... " the best images would be made with a pinhole and have no glass involved. Presumably in a vacuum though, to prevent air damage to the light?
Personally, I'm still puzzling over basically glass is like a capacitor and damage the wavelength.
Damn it! Of course, that's where I've been going wrong... I should have been using valve powered lenses on my digital camera! :banghead: I don't suppose you happen to know if Dumble do a 24-70 f/2.8 in Canon EF mount?I know - bizarre. I have a little electronics background from building and even designing guitar amps. We would use capacitors to control frequency in the signal, but it's all about shaping and control - there's no damage, although poor design might cause the loss of some signal.
If one were to compare modern lenses using the amplifier analogy, one would say that the tones have never previously been so transparent, clear and un-distorted.
Damn it! Of course, that's where I've been going wrong... I should have been using valve powered lenses on my digital camera! :banghead: I don't suppose you happen to know if Dumble do a 24-70 f/2.8 in Canon EF mount?
Conduct and behaviour
- Don't swear.
- Post in English.
So, so, so, so very tempting......
Exactly
So, so, so, so very tempting......
I enjoy watching Inspector Montalbano with subtitles. I've learned lots of Italian swear words.* Don't swear.
* Post in English.
It's probably a bit like vinyl records. Partly hipster fashion, partly a genuine fondness for things that are technically defects, but can give pleasing effects. Records sound 'warm', lenses with certain uncorrected aberrations can be nice for portraits, hence the revived Thambar and Petzval designs. The Nikon DC lenses, obviously designed with portraits in mind, let you control the degree of spherical aberration, which has a subtle effect on the transition between focus and background 'bokeh'. When I first used an old Leitz Elmar, a simple 4 -element design, the pictures had a certain 'look' I rather liked, distinct from modern primes. A recent lens like the Leica 35/2 ASPH, an excellent low aberration design with great sharpness and contrast, is superior in every measurable way. But it would probably be hard to tell its results apart from those of other well-corrected modern lenses, like the Nikon f/1.8 primes. Sometimes it's nice to have the option of something a bit different.The last 400 years of the development of optics, since the invention of the achromatic doublet in 1729, has been about reducing these defects. But it is these defects which create "character". Anamorphic lenses have character. Petzval lenses have character. But the point is that modern lenses don't take away character, because light doesn't have character to start with. What you're complaining about is that modern lenses don't have all the annoying defects that lenses used to have in the old days.
I just want to take photos and allow me to remember places I have been to. All this mumbo jumbo to me doesn't mean a thing. I would suggest he (the OP) goes out and takes photos and forget all the science behind it
Yup! I've had as much fun shooting with £20 MF lenses as I've had with £1000+ modern ones, but it's not all about the gear, it's about being out there. The fun is in the exploration, the freedom, the creativity. This is all down to you, not the lens you're using.
I recently went to a talk by a highly respected photographer who shoots exclusively on a mamiya 6 using film and processes in the darkroom. The prints were nice but looked distinctly soft and lacking in detail compared to what I’m used to from a 36mp DSLR.
Something must be wrong there then. Processing, choice of materials or in the picture taking.I recently went to a talk by a highly respected photographer who shoots exclusively on a mamiya 6 using film and processes in the darkroom. The prints were nice but looked distinctly soft and lacking in detail compared to what I’m used to from a 36mp DSLR. Now I realise that darkroom prints from film have a different look to the somewhat clinical look of digital so there is a definite shift in expectations but I think the improvement in lenses has played a big part as well.
I imagine if they were high res scans from slide film, printed on an inkjet then there would have been less of a difference.
As a matter of interest, how large were the prints?
Something must be wrong there then. Processing, choice of materials or in the picture taking.
Well I shoot Mamiya 645 and 67 and Im puzled if medium format prints should look soft and lack details since it's not my experience. Thats why Om thinking something is not quite optimal in the workflow. Could be the RF needs adjustment, perhaps.Can’t remember exactly, 15x10 and upwards. A couple were easily twice that.
I doubt any of those would have been at fault given the guys credentials. Like I say, it’s more likely due to an expectation shift with modern technologies.
I am giving up, since double standards running in this forum
I've been blocked few times with out any explanation.....
have a good one!!!!!