how much resolution ...

In theory, infinite resolution when analog, Paul. Meaning it depends on the film how much optical resolution is "useful".

I remember Zeiss demonstrating over 400 lp/mm on B+W film when the ZM 25/2.8 was released. The higher the system's (lens, film, etc.) resolution, the smaller the point will be. 400 lp/mm corresponds to a point of 1.25 um diameter.

When digital, a point is a pixel, and you have to convert lp/mm into pixel. For example, for the M9, the sensor has a size of 35.8 x 23.9mm / 6144 x 4088 pixel, so you need at least an optical resolution of about 86 lp/mm to distinguish a pixel from its neighborhood.

Roland.
 
Depends on the subject, I guess. If the photo has a strong emotional impact, not much.

If you want a MP answer.... as above... maybe 6mp's?
It really depends on how much finer detail you "Need" for your photograph.
I'd say at least 10-12mp for good finer detail, and around 16-21mp for extreme detail needs.. But, you will have to have TOP GRADE glass to resolve that high (2300+ LPPM). Most consumer glass and mid level glass gets to around 2000 LPPM tops! but averages around 1600 LPPM.
 
Say what?
How much focus does it take to make a point?
I have been pondering all of the discussion here and at other photo forums re: sharp lenses, sharp scanners, soft corners, distortion, flare, ad nausea.
As Bill Murray said, "It just doesn't matter."
Some of my own favorite photos are full of precise detail from corner to corner. Others have little or or almost nothing in focus.
In the end, "It depends."
Based on my hodgepodge of optical marvels, sometime before the turn of the turn of the previous century, lenses were capable of phenominal resolution and that subjective quality known on forae like this as "sharpness".
I do chuckle when I read complaints about size, minumum focus, weight, and myriad other disqualifying defects in perfectly splendid optical devices.
Thank goodness my O.C.D. Is in remission instead of running at Warp Factor 1 like some folks.
Lenses don't make good photos. Good eyes and talented brains do.

Wayne
 
In photography or in US politics? No, only kidding. Let's not go there. And, besides, not much of anything ever gets resolved in politics.

Back on topic. Are we making enormous prints? And if so, do we care more about detail than anything else? Are we conducting surveillance? If we're doing portraits, do we not only want to see pores, but also see deep into those pores? Are we making very large scale landscapes? These all seem like situations where super duper hi-res might be a tool. As an end-in-itself? That's a different story.

So, I guess it depends for me on the subject matter in question and exactly what point I might be trying to make.

Sometimes in my worm's eye view road shots, I like the sense that we are almost looking at the looming pavement in the foreground at an atomic level, where one can pick the individual grains of the aggregate that makes up the road surface. It captures a false essence of ashes-to-ashes--ness when I'm shooting road kill with CMS 20 or Copex Rapid to kind of see that crystaline structure of the road as if the suggest that we and everything around us constantly is disintegrating and reforming into something else. So, that would be an instance where resolution and detail are part of my exploration in a photograph. I also seem to use extreme shallow depth of field in these situations as if the set the subject apart from the fabric of everything around as if to suggestion infinity lurking in the background (infinite what? I don't know). But, I certainly don't want to photograph everything that way.

Paul, I'm curious about why you ask the question and what your thoughts on it are as of now.
 
Are you asking about the relationship between pixels (image resolution and image pixel dimensions) and dpi (printing resolution and print size)?
 
Mathematically: infinite resolution (as has been pointed out).
In real life: zero resolution.

You're just trying to lead us on, right?
 
yes, placement of the rhetorical question in this forum is the key to "getting" the question. i suppose the answers might be down whole other highways if i had posed the question in optics ... :)
so, lash the muses and keep those answers coming!
 
If your photo doesn't have a point, no amount of resolution, absence of distortion, sharp corners, flare resistance, etc. will fix it. Something I am learning every day.

"I was on acid and I looked at the trees and I realized that they all came to points, and the little branches came to points, and the houses came to point. I thought, 'Oh! Everything has a point, and if it doesn't, then there's a point to it.'" – Harry Nilsson
Click to expand...

Wayne
 
ferider said:
In theory, infinite resolution when analog, Paul. Meaning it depends on the film how much optical resolution is "useful".

I remember Zeiss demonstrating over 400 lp/mm on B+W film when the ZM 25/2.8 was released. The higher the system's (lens, film, etc.) resolution, the smaller the point will be. 400 lp/mm corresponds to a point of 1.25 um diameter.

When digital, a point is a pixel, and you have to convert lp/mm into pixel. For example, for the M9, the sensor has a size of 35.8 x 23.9mm / 6144 x 4088 pixel, so you need at least an optical resolution of about 86 lp/mm to distinguish a pixel from its neighborhood.

Roland.
Click to expand...
A very unique, and to me, good answer. At least something I can relate to.
It took an exceptional lens, tripod and very high resolution, slow ISO film with perfect processing to approach this type of resolution (86 lp/mm) on film. Typically a very good lens, like a 50 Summicron@5.6 would resolve about 45mm.

Since (and not everyone agrees) the largest print possible from a 35mm was 11x14, this analogy makes perfect sense to me.

Now I have to dig out my calculator and figure out the lp/mm for my M8.2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom