Hi Q.G.,
You can make that claim all you want, but that doesn't make it correct.
Contrast MAY BE a direct measure of image fidelity, but claiming it always
is, is simply wrong. I know, you don't like to be wrong. Bummer.
Regards,
Austin
-----Original Message-----
From: hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Q.G. de Bakker
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 7:37 AM
To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: Imacon out - Zeiss in?
Mark Rabiner wrote:
> Well every lens review I ever read stated what the contrast was.
> Some lenes are more contrasty than others.
> Normally you get what you pay for.
> Other parameters are resolution.
> I suppose those basic lens test parameters have given way to the MTF
> Modulation transfer function number which few people have any
> understanding
> of. But the previous parameters have not just disappeared.
> Especially older lenes from the 60's and before will have less
> contrast.
> Part of this is coatings.
> And the non coated optics exhibit way low contrast usually.
> These are shown as a number in a lens test.
That is because contrast is a direct measure for image fidelity.
Lenses decrease (not increase) contrast. By how little is a measure for
quality.
==================================================================
===========================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon
to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up
when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
