right, but it is not necessary at all that lens resolution evolve at the same space.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
I've had quite a lot of interesting talks about that with lens designers: Lots of the current prime lenses are only diffraction limited, and have therefore a resolution limit given by the wavelenght of light.
As explained above, for example we've reached the diffraction limit for white light at f5,6 with both the old Nikkor 1,8/50 AI-S (a lens design from 1978) and the modern Zeiss ZF 2/50. We've reached this physical limit at that f-stop in combination with the CMS 20 (Agfa HDP) film. And that at a quite low / moderate object contrast of only 1:4 (two stops). You need an 200 MP 24x36mm Sensor to get the same resolution under the same test conditions.
With Agfa Copex Rapid still extremely high 165 clearly separated linepairs per millimeter ( you need a 94 MP Sensor to get the same resolution under the same test conditions).
And even with my old trusty workhorse Ilford Delta 100 very high 130 clearly separated linepairs (you need a 58 MP Sensor to get the same resolution under the same test conditions).
The physical resolution limit (Nyquist frequency) of the D800E is about 105 lp/mm. No matter how high your object contrast is, it is impossible to surpass this limit. And a better lens wouldn't help you either.
So we see the lenses are not the main problem. In most cases their resolution capabilities are more than good enough.
Of course you have a much greater range in movements with LF cameras.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
But there have been just introduced some very nice new T&S lenses for 35mm camera systems by German lens manufacturer Schneider. I've seen them at Photokina. Very impressive, huge image circle, excellent mechanics and optics (new lens design). Really worth a look.
Well, no one is denying the outstanding quality of large format. But sometimes there are exceptions from the rule.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
When we test lenses, films and sensors, then we not only do that in standardised (lab) tests, but also always in real world shooting, 'out there in the fields'.
And there we've compared Agfa Copex Rapid and CMS 20 (in combination with their dedicated developers) in different formats to standard films in different formats.
Agfa Copex Rapid (CoRa) in 35mm surpassed APX 100, RPX 100, FP4+ in 6x6 medium format.
And CMS 20 35mm surpassed CHS 100 in 4x5".
We needed Acros 4x5" in the Arca Swiss to get better detail rendition compared to 35mm CMS 20.
And both CoRa and CMS 20 are available in 120, too.
yes, that has been the major problem during the last 12 years in 99,9% of all these film vs. digital comparisons.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
Almost all of these comparisons really have been digital vs. digital comparisons.
The digital capture medium scanner was compared to the digital capture medium camera sensor.
And the scans have been only max. 4000ppi scans in most cases. But a 4000ppi scanner can not resolve all the detail, which is in the film. Even the the best high-end drum scanners can not fully exploit the full potential of film.
One result of our numerous tests have been that you get the best detail rendition with optical enlarging with APO enlarging lenses and with slide projection (colour and BW slides).
A lot of these superficial and generalising "digital is better than film" statements are caused by comparisons of 4000ppi scans to sensors.
But film can do much better in the completely optical imaging chain.
If I look at 35mm slide projection with an excellent projection lens, then the quality is even surpassing digital medium format projected with a beamer. Because the imaging chain film+projection is much better than the digital imaging chain digital file+beamer. The beamer is the very weak part in this imaging chain and decreases the quality of the file to a big extent. From your 40,50, 60 or 80 MP only 1,2,4 or max 8 MP (most expensive gear) remain as beamer output.
Good point, Henning.
We should only compare things (pictures that is) as results of their own production line.
This does not say anything about the outcome though! And I don't start discussing issues like resolution etc.
This thread has been a delight to read. Thanks a lot for all the info Henning. It's always nice to be reassured that optical printing is the way to go.
I wish Spur HRX-3 was available in Turkey. Although part of me has stopped searching for a magic potion (good old ID-11 user here), the other part remains intrigued by potential improvements in neg quality.
I have been enjoying reading this thread that I started. I'm learning a lot, even though the conversation has gone away from the topic. This discussion brings up another good question.
I know companies like Freestyle and Photo Warehouse are big buyers of film for their house brand. Is it conceivable that they might drive some innovation in the film market? While they don't manufacture film directly, they might have enough buying power to have an exclusive emulsion made someday?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I know the direction of the OP was for improvements or innovations to commercial film, but I'll throw my take on the subject into the hat. (Those of you who already know what I'm going to say -- no groans please)
I think a significant part of the future of film is R&D in the home darkroom, with the goal of making diy film, plates, and paper as easy and satisfactory and accepted as other alternative processes have become.
O.k., than back to the original topic:
Originally Posted by madgardener
At Photokina I've had a very long talk with Mr Boll from Fujifilm (Product-&Key Account Manager, Photo Imaging Products), and we've also discussed the situation in R&D. He said that there is still quite a lot of 'silver halide R&D' at Fujifilm, resulting in new products like the latest Eterna archival films, two new silver halide colour papers (for photobooks, an increasing market in Europe) just introduced at Photokina (I've seen them there), and the re-introduced Neopan 400 (they have solved the problem with the raw material which caused the former discontinuation).
Furthermore they absolutely need this R&D in anti-oxidants etc. for their cosmetic line Astalift.
Henning, thanks a lot for the inside view. Is it valid to assume that this kind of R&D include benefits for either slide or negative film or can that be excluded? I am not very familiar with paper technology concerning how it corresponds to film technology.
Well Christian, progress in anti-oxidants for example is a field where film can benefit. They are used in films. And currently this film knowledge is indeed partly used in Fujifilms Astalift cosmetics. Perhaps we will see the opposite direction in R&D knowledge flow in the future. Maybe imaginable if the colour film market one time really has stabilised and then is growing again (well, the market for professional films is already in this stabilising process, but consumer CN film sales are still decreasing).
Originally Posted by j.c.denton