Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Pistach said:
“Theoretical” maybe means that it is not possible to build a lens of higher res from reasons of diffraction (I doubt tho that this is he case) but first of all “theoretical” means that for a 15X enlargement of a 35mm neg to 40X50cm the human perception ends between 90 and 150 lpmm.
That makes it superfluous to speak about the fact, that even a Tech Pan achieves hardly more than 300 lpmm , even if developed with a special developer to an extreme halftone B&W suited for document imaging only.
There is no relevant sharpness outside of our perception.
bertram
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
Huck Finn
Well-known
Bill, if you put it through babelfish, you'll get a rudimentary translation.
http://babelfish.altavista.com
http://babelfish.altavista.com
Last edited:
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Bertram 2 look,
There are no doubts about my statement. That's physics not guess. Why don't you ask Zeiss itself about the meaning of diffraction limit?
Also what Zeiss meant to say is that the lens will not be the weaker ring of the chain as your comments confirm.
Last but not least, even though one cannot follow up to that resolving power, it will leave a trace on the signature of the lens. Resolving power is linked to many other features as rendering of edges textures etc.
I appreciate your points but no argument please on scientific sides.
Just kidding
have a nice day
Pistach
There are no doubts about my statement. That's physics not guess. Why don't you ask Zeiss itself about the meaning of diffraction limit?
Also what Zeiss meant to say is that the lens will not be the weaker ring of the chain as your comments confirm.
Last but not least, even though one cannot follow up to that resolving power, it will leave a trace on the signature of the lens. Resolving power is linked to many other features as rendering of edges textures etc.
I appreciate your points but no argument please on scientific sides.
Just kidding
have a nice day
Pistach
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
a hurryingly found ling to diffraction limit:
http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node15.html
Pistach
http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node15.html
Pistach
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Pistach said:
Pistach,
it is not really important for me, but your last remark earns an answer I'd say.
Which perceivable tracks a not perceivable resolution might leave , I don't care. It wasn't the issue either !
Fact is tho, that to make 400 lpmm perceivable, you would need a print from a 35mm neg which should be about ten feet wide. And don't forget: From a half tone neg !
I don't like scientific discussions either in photography, but when it comes to a discussion about the meaning of a test result like the above mentioned ,then this IS a scientific discussion, all Voodoo does not help.
so, if this now turns into discussing which tracks are left by things we cannot perceive, sorry, not my cup of tea. Reminds me a bit to some HiFi freaks I know, who frankly admit that a human ear cannot perceive more than 20.000 Hertz, nonetheless they do not hesitate to embarrass themselves by claiming, music played from a system which achieves 25.000 Hertz would sound better. It is simply incredible what stuff people are willing to believe if they WANT to blieve it from what reason ever.
That's it for me so far , I am going back to photography and to my cheap lenses, which are still better than my eyes tho. Ahh, and good luck with the 10ft enlargments of the halftone portraits!
Sorry, that was naughty, but not serious , couldn't resist !
Bertram
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Pistach said:
Pistache, don't get me wrong:
It wasn't about the technical limits of diffraction, this shall be what ever it is.
I spoke about why 400 lpmm is a theoretical resolution performance.
bertram