[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

["gary" <lists@lazygranch.com>]

If you are using autofocus, that will be the limiting factor in
resolution. IIRC, they quit at about 50lpmm. Then there is the
antialiasing filter, which reduces resolution. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has
an AAF that doesn't filter much, so it is more prone to aliasing
problems, but also produces a sharp image.

Hanna, Mark (x9085) wrote:
> This makes good sense Art, however I'm curious about pixel density.
> (apart from the obvious larger pixel = more photons landing in it
> sensitivity advantage which is often the case with the larger sensor)
>
> Can the lenses being used on the cameras in question, satisfactorily
> resolve the number of lines per mm required for the smaller pixel
> density of the smaller sensor?
>
> I have read about lenses having 40LPmm (crap consumer zoom)or 100LPmm
> (reasonably good lens), is this figure in relation to the intended
> projected plane? If so, 40LPmm for a 35mm film plane or FF sensor would
> be 24mm by 36mm which at 40LPmm, equals 1.3824 MPixels. 100LPmm =
> 8.64MP.
>
> For an APSC sized sensor, 15 by 24mm I think, you're looking at 0.576MP
> and 3.6MP for 40LPmm and 100LPmm respectively.
>
> So in theory, you may be able to crop the FF pic to emulate a 1.3 or 1.6
> sized sensor, and despite possibly having less pixel density, the sensor
> may be capturing the same actual sharpness or resolution, in which case
> you could simply upsize the resolution to match in PS, and get the same
> resolution, same sharpness, but lower noise photograph, due to larger
> pixels, but pixels that may actually match the resolution of the lenses
> better than the smaller sensor.
>
> I don't know much about lens resolution, however if the average L series
> lens is around 100 to 120LPmm, I know I'd be wanting the larger sensor
> if my above assumptions are correct. I have a 5D, and the size and
> resolution of the images never fail to amaze me, as good as my old
> Mamiya M6451000S.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 9:47 AM
> To: Hanna, Mark (x9085)
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>
> Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP.  One is FF the other smaller
> using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF,
> you have crop  about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced
> the resolution by that much.  If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the
> smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage.
>
> Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as
> it first appears.
>
> Art
>
> gary wrote:
>
>> I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I
>> spent pixels. This makes no sense to me.
>>
>> Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of
>> the sensor to save space on the memory card.
>>
>> R. Jackson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sure, but you "spend" pixels of your total sensor resolution to get
>>> there.
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think
>>>> about
>>>> it, you could just crop a full size image to get more "reach."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or body
> Notice
> This email, and any attachments transmitted with it, is confidential and may 
> contain sensitive or privileged information. If you are not the named 
> recipient you may not read, use, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise act 
> in reliance of the message or any of the information it contains. If you have 
> received the message in error, please inform the sender via email and destroy 
> the message. Opinions expressed in this communication are those of the sender 
> and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Crown Castle 
> Australia Pty Ltd. No responsibility is taken for any loss or damage 
> sustained from the use of the information in this email and Crown Castle 
> Australia Pty Ltd makes no warranty that this material is unaffected by 
> computer virus, corruption or other defects.
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body