Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (
More info?)
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> > Dave Martindale wrote:
> > > Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> writes:
> > >
> > > >So you do know nyquist. It the little thing that limits
> > > >pixel resolving abilities of all CCD and CMOS sesnors.
> > > >Film doesn't suffer from nyquist. Ever.
> > >
> > > But film systems have useful resolution limits just like digital systems
> > > do. If you shoot resolution charts, you can measure the resolution
> > > limit of both systems. And some digital systems have higher resolution
> > > than some film systems. You can't mean that film resolution is
> > > infinite, because that's nonsense. So why does it matter what physical
> > > process causes the resolution limit?
> >
> > Pragmatically silver halides don't suffer from nyquist.
> > Digital is inherently limited by it.
>
> Film suffers from a far worse problem than Nyquist: it suffers from
> statistical clumping.
More obfuscation on your part. Of _course_ silver grains
clump. This relates to granularity, not Nyquist.That's why
silver images are continuous, as opposed to digital's
discontinuous pixels. Granularity is a function of the
resolving ability of the film AND development. Not exposure
as you keep saying (i.e., scene signal frequency and Nyquist...)
>
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students/handbook/sensitometric6.jhtml
>
> The grain phenomenon occurs at a scale orders of magnitude larger than the
> size of the silver halide crystals.
>
> > Whether something is infinite or not is irrelevant. There are
> > limits to everything. Film is limited by the size of the
> > halide crystal. But digital is limited by the electronics.
>
> And, for practical imaging purposes, those limits are _lower_ for film than
> for either consumer dcam sensors (which typically resolve well over 100
> lp/mm at a useful contrast) or dSLR sensors. Film's response (even the best
> film) to normal contrast subjects is essentially zero above 60 lp/mm and low
> enough at 45 lp/mm to correspond to serious degradation in image quality.
> (Again, film's limiting resolution only occurs in high contrast
> subjects/targets.)
>
> > > I'd argue that the shape of the MTF curve is significant, but you
> > > haven't said anything about that. (Besides, with a digital system of
> > > sufficiently high resolution, you can always simulate the film MTF
> > > curve).
> >
> > Well, Mr. "Littleboy" has also (in other posts) implied MTF
> > isn't a function of the entire imaging system, which it
> > most certainly is....
>
> You misunderstood something I said and responded with the ridiculous claim
> that the individual elements had no MTF, which is simply wrong. The system
> MTF is the product of the MTFs of the components. Anyone who knows what MTF
> means know that, so I assumed that there was no need of stating it.
>
> I made the mistake of assuming that because you were using the term you knew
> what it meant.
LEt's see what you said:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
> > > Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> writes:
> > > >Let's keep things in pragmatic context here. MTF is the
> > > >ability of the _entire_ imaging system to resolve detail:
> > > >imager, optics, etc.
>
> If this were correct, then neither Canon nor Zeiss (in their lens specs) nor
> Fuji nor Kodak (in their film specs), would provide MTF charts. But,
> surprise: they all do.
Now, _I_ said MFT was a function (pragmatically) of the
entire imaging system (imager, optics, equipment, etc.)
which is _true_.
_YOU_ said "if this were correct..."
Now, either your saying it's not correct, or you have
a serious problem being clear about what you;re saying....
>
> > > I must say that, so far, David both seems to have a better grasp of the
> > > fundamentals, and has been more polite. You seem to know film imaging
> > > well, but regard every way in which digital imaging differs as being
> > > necessarily inferior, without bothering to look deeper.
> >
> > Most people conversing on digital simply repeat marketing
> > claims.
>
> No one here has been doing that.
Yes they have...
> > Of course marketers never mention Nyquist when they
> > sell digital cameras. If they told people most films actually
> > resolve detail better, offer greater exposure laitude, and
> > is more permanent, people might not buy.
>
> The manufacturers provide test cameras to the test sites, and the test sites
> publish resolution chart images. So anyone buying a digital camera can know
> exactly what they are getting. They can also download sample images and
> print them themselves.
>
> If anything, the situation from the camera buyer's standpoint is far better
> than it's ever been. Previously, all they had to go on was the religious
> beliefs of the film partizans.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram