It all comes down to the print

I'm resurrecting this thread, not to revive the argument, but because those infamous map pictures have recently been shown in other threads as 'Gospel proof' of something or other.

So let's just get it clear:

There are 2 different maps shown.

Taken by 2 different people in 2 different locations.

There are no missing lines on the digitally shot image.

The lines are missing from the map itself, and the maps obviously have different colouring.

Now that we have that cleared up.

10 years have passed, and this needs a bit of an update. So here's the current state of play WRT digital imaging.

First a straight crop from a Sony a7Riv - currently probably the most affordable camera that offers a 60 megapixel plus image size.

Next a 'pixel shifted' image of the same chart, at an effective 200 megapixels! Cropped obviously.

The inset is the full frame.

The lens was a humble 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor @ f/5.6. The chart was at a distance of 5.65 metres from the camera, and at that distance the bar resolution figures need to be multiplied by two.

So. Anyone care to try and match 200 line-pairs per millimetre on Velvia? Or any other colour film you care to choose really.

No. Resolution isn't everything, but it's something.

I'm resurrecting this thread, not to revive the argument, but because those infamous map pictures have recently been shown in other threads as 'Gospel proof' of something or other.

 

So let's just get it clear:

There are 2 different maps shown.

Taken by 2 different people in 2 different locations.

There are no missing lines on the digitally shot image.

The lines are missing from the map itself, and the maps obviously have different colouring.

Now that we have that cleared up.

 

10 years have passed, and this needs a bit of an update. So here's the current state of play WRT digital imaging.

 

First a straight crop from a Sony a7Riv - currently probably the most affordable camera that offers a 60 megapixel plus image size.

[ATTACH=full]1351859[/ATTACH]

Next a 'pixel shifted' image of the same chart, at an effective 200 megapixels! Cropped obviously.

[ATTACH=full]1351861[/ATTACH]

The inset is the full frame.

The lens was a humble 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor @ f/5.6. The chart was at a distance of 5.65 metres from the camera, and at that distance the bar resolution figures need to be multiplied by two.

 

So. Anyone care to try and match 200 line-pairs per millimetre on Velvia? Or any other colour film you care to choose really.

 

No. Resolution isn't everything, but it's something.

 

[ATTACH=full]1351860[/ATTACH]

Mauro passed away a number of years ago, so he will obviously not be replying. As to differing maps, they were also passed around and comparisons were made showing the detail between all the maps to be the same. A nice MF Chrome will still outresolve the Sony...nothing has changed there.

A nice MF Chrome will still outresolve the Sony...nothing has changed there.

Oh dear. Here we go again.

Someone's been reading too much of Ken Rockwell's fiction about film having 'infinite resolution' - LOL.

Proof is needed for that outrageous assertion Dave.

Where is it?

And how can a medium using overlapping fuzzy-edged 3 micron diameter dye-clouds for its capture possibly exceed the resolution of a medium with, effectively, tesselating1.9 micron sharply defined squares? And that can capture millions of different hues of colour at each and every one of those squares.

As to differing maps, they were also passed around and comparisons were made showing the detail between all the maps to be the same.

Only in your head did that happen Dave.

In reality there were two different maps that stayed in two different locations.

Read the preceding saga carefully. Nowhere does it mention the passing around of maps.

Like I said above. When someone can show 200 line-pairs per millimetre being resolved on any colour film, then film might be back in the resolution fight.... until then.

So get your USAF targets or whatever out and 'put up, or shut up'.

Oh dear. Here we go again.

Someone's been reading too much of Ken Rockwell's fiction about film having 'infinite resolution' - LOL.

 

Proof is needed for that outrageous assertion Dave.

Where is it?

And how can a medium using overlapping fuzzy-edged 3 micron diameter dye-clouds for its capture possibly exceed the resolution of a medium with, effectively, tesselating1.9 micron sharply defined squares? And that can capture millions of different hues of colour at each and every one of those squares.

 

 

Only in your head did that happen Dave.

In reality there were two different maps that stayed in two different locations.

 

Read the preceding saga carefully. Nowhere does it mention the passing around of maps.

 

Like I said above. When someone can show 200 line-pairs per millimetre being resolved on any colour film, then film might be back in the resolution fight.... until then.

 

So get your USAF targets or whatever out and 'put up, or shut up'.

I was involved in some of the testing. We compared maps. You are wrong. End of story.

Here’s a scan sampling showing the actual Rez of MF Provia in a high Rez scan slightly exceeding the IQ180. The IQ 180 greatly outresolves the Sony. In B&w, the MF film far, far outresolves the IQ180 and thus the Sony. Thus, you are incorrect here as well. Don’t tell me to shut up. You are clearly out of your depth here.