Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,954   Posts: 1,586,012   Online: 677
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    Besides the fact that ALL image capturing makes stuff up - Imagine putting film in a digital camera. I have some of these - they are 16mm cameras. I had to re-learn photography. Sure - the lens will stop down to f22 but the image will have so much diffraction from the 25mm lens that it will look very bad. So you have a film like CCD with a 25mm lens that has 35mm like resolution, you will still be no better off than 16mm in projective geometry. I would rather see the density of the CCD become less important and the SIZE of it increase. Then you could better manipulate your DOF. Then - use Zeiss lenses ... is that Sony?

    Frank
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    Look up aerial lens resolution. Film can't keep up at wider apertures. Some lenses can reportly hit 400 lp/mm. None of this matters for digital. Digital is over loaded at much lower levels. That why the low pass filter is stuck on them. There is no use putting on a high resolution lens on a digital camera.
    A crappy consumer zoom is likely better then the sensors can handle.


    Second issue. I thought digital was hitting the wall in terms of size. Soon basic physics won't let them put more pixels into that small sensor. That means if they do make a 64M sensor it will need to be a bigger sensor. Meaning the number of pixels per sensor area will be the same. So no increase in quality other then bigger.


  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Robert @ May 14 2003, 05:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Look up aerial lens resolution. Film can&#39;t keep up at wider apertures. Some lenses can reportly hit 400 lp/mm. None of this matters for digital. Digital is over loaded at much lower levels. That why the low pass filter is stuck on them. There is no use putting on a high resolution lens on a digital camera.
    A crappy consumer zoom is likely better then the sensors can handle.


    Second issue. I thought digital was hitting the wall in terms of size. Soon basic physics won&#39;t let them put more pixels into that small sensor. That means if they do make a 64M sensor it will need to be a bigger sensor. Meaning the number of pixels per sensor area will be the same. So no increase in quality other then bigger. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Question Robert. If what you say is correct, why are lensmakers making lenses specially designed for digital, such as the digitars? They market these lenses as having better quality than a "normal" lens. Do you know if this lenses actually perform better? or is this anothe digital world con?

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    Go to:

    http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/white_papers/

    And download the white paper on digital lenses.

    Better that somebody who understands optical engineering explain it but the way I read it the better the lens the more false info. There for the "digital" lenses are actually dumbed down.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sarajevo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,801
    Just one of the may CCD possibilities. Now, Big brother is child game... See http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/overview.shtml
    Bosnia... You don't have to be crazy to live here, but it helps...
    No things in life should be left unfinis

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Binghamton, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    264
    glbeas,

    I remember seeing a review a few months ago where they compared one of the 6MP digilars to scanned MF. The upshot was they thought it was higher res, until they looked closely and found that the corrugated metal building was just the right size in the frame to set up a &#39;beat&#39;, and create a sharp (but non-physical) corrugation pattern.

    I like the randomness of film, even the grain (though I do go to some lengths to minimize it). Thankfully, most digis are only interpolating between pixels, and not inserting new scenic elements, changing the colors, or correcting the composition.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Just north of the Inferno
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    27
    Those opaque IR filters are nothing new. A few years back Sony came out with a near-IR sensitive CCD on some of its&#39; camcorders. It was learned that if you slammed an IR filter on it and turned it on during the DAY that you could, in certain circumstances, see through (sort of) clothing.

    Christmas for peeping toms....

    Anyway, Sony has since fixed the "problem"....
    Official Photo.net Villain
    ----------------------
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]

  8. #18
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,594
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    I&#39;ve been trying to find some more info about lens resolution and ccd&#39;s. For example if there is a 100megapixel ccd, what good does that do if the lens only resolves 40 megapixels? Is this a roadblock that digital is about to hit? Anyone know how many &#39;pixels&#39; a lens can resolve on a ccd the size of a MF film back? Does film already exceed the maximum resolution of the lens?

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Just north of the Inferno
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    27
    A bit of this gets into the weird apples and oranges thing....

    Traditonally (at least as I understand it) lens resolution was measured by how many lines per mm could be resolved on film.

    But digital doesn&#39;t use film. It uses little dots.

    Now, from what I understand, there is an absolute limit on len resolution due to physics. You simply won&#39;t be able to resolve past a certain point.

    Now here is where I see it getting tricky.

    Say you "hit the wall" resolution wise and have a CCD that is say twice as good as the lens. In other words each pixel is 1/2 the width of the smallest resovable line.

    You just market it. Nobody can really tell the difference right? I mean sure only 1/2 the pixels will be "used" (o.k. will be needed....), but why stop there?



    Official Photo.net Villain
    ----------------------
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    Physics limits the size of the pixel also and I think the limit is a bigger pixel then current lenses.

    The diffraction limit with white normal light is something like

    1600lp/mm / the F stop

    So at F/1 1600 would be a perfect lens. I doubt this exists in anyplace.

    At F/4 it would be 400 lp/mm. Supposedly some of the best 35mm lenses are already close to this limit.

    A lab could test with monochromatic light and get higher numbers but that&#39;s not exactly usefull for most of us.

    Now check your films. How many come close to even the F/8 number of 200 lp/mm?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin