[rollei_list] Re: OT / prove it !
- From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:04:10 -0500
Austin Franklin wrote:
> "suffers". Kind of dramatic. 35mm can easily be equally as sharp as MF at
> 5x7 and even up to 8x10 and perhaps beyond. When talking grain or tonality,
> that's a different story, you can still have very sharp prints, but start to
> see grain. Obviously, this is film dependant (film
> choice/exposure/development/shutter speed/camera shake etc.).
>
> If human visual acuity is 1 arc minute (which is the definition of 20/20
> vision), that corresponds to .0029" at a distance of 10" from the eye. That
> is 6.88 lp/mm. So, the most you can distinguish from an 8x10 print held 10
> inches from your face is 175 lp/inch, or 1400 x 1750.
>
> To match human visual acuity of an 8x10 at 10" with 35mm, you would have to
> have only recorded 55 lp/mm on the film. Hardly unreasonable to do so on
> 35mm film.
>
> So, unless you're a really shaky dude and working from a really out of focus
> image, I can't imagine how you can see any difference in sharpness on a 5x7
> print made from a 35mm vs a 5x7 made from a Rollei.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
Hi Austin -
Your imagination aside, we've been through this before... I can easily tell
the difference between a 5 x 7 from a 35 mm neg and one from an MF neg.
Others on the list can, too. I don't know what that does to your calculus,
but there's life for you. If you can't, then you are blessed with a much
less demanding personal photographic baseline, and I guess you should be
grateful as life is simpler for you. 8-) And btw 55 lp/mm on a piece of neg
is not a gimme by any stretch of the imagination...
I suspect it has much to do with the fact that perceived sharpness is not
solely a function of resolution.
Eric Goldstein
Other related posts:
