Djarum
All-Pro
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Name
- Jason
Batman vs Superman
Picard vs Kirk
Picard vs Kirk
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Ideas for Contentious Threads
- Thread starter drd1135
- Start date
Lawrence A.
Hall of Famer
- Location
- New Mexico
- Name
- Larry
I don't know. Picard vs Kirk is treading dangerous ground.
OH! And it's Picard, by a light year at warp speed.
OH! And it's Picard, by a light year at warp speed.
D
dalethorn
Guest
Heard in a tavern: "Kirk may be a swaggering, overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood, but he's not soft."
D
dalethorn
Guest
I don't have feelings one way or the other, but I do believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. Ever since I attended the seminar in Atlanta.
Djarum
All-Pro
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Name
- Jason
D
dalethorn
Guest
Humans (and presumably Vulcans) are strongly driven by their hormones from birth, and especially at puberty. And given what medical science says about those hormones through middle age, it plagues people then too. But Data has no such burdens on his logical thinking.
bilzmale
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Perth, Western Australia
- Name
- Bill Shinnick
Have we missed an obvious one? Film vs Digital.
D
dalethorn
Guest
You might have to dig for it, but Ken Rockwell (in his most competent tech persona) finds that digital needs about 175 mp to reproduce the full quality of a good 35 mm color slide. I get the idea, even from using the Leica Monochrom, that current digital tech at the 24x36 level is still not doing everything film does, although it's excellent in its own way.
Lightmancer
Legend
- Location
- Sunny Frimley
- Name
- Bill Palmer
Digital doesn't smell as good, either 
Sent from another Galaxy
Sent from another Galaxy
I normally ignore everything KR says, and I think that's a good rule of thumb given his lack of interest in being consistently truthful and informative, but alas. I took a look into this, as the 175mp figure seemed absurdly above what is commonly held as the MP equivalent of film (8-25MP depending on whom you ask). So here goes my short list of things that are, in the real world at least, wrong with KR's claim.
-I doubt any lens for 135 film resolves 175mp worth of detail. With the introduction of the Nikon D800 and its 36mp sensor, it turned out that only a handful of lenses is sharp enough to consistently outresolve the sensor. The reason no-one ever noticed the unsharpness in loads of lenses is that film never got above 36mp either. So you can imagine what the chances are of any lens resolving 175mp. Besides, at 175mp, any lens no matter how good will be diffraction limited by f/5.6.
-He uses Fuji Vevlia 50, the sharpest of all films - most films don't come close to this.
-He bases his calculation on the lines/mm for a 1000:1 contrast, wayyy stronger than what you'll encounter in any setting other than astrophotography. For normal situations, a contrast of 1.6:1 is used, giving 80 lines/mm and making the resolution "only" 22mp - or neatly at the limit of what people report for real-world prints from film.
-the "lie factor" he's talking about, due to Bayer interpolation: I don't have any hard data to back this up, but I don't think it's as strong as he states. A good sensor/lens/software combination can give critically sharp images at 100%. Also, at the 1000:1 black/white contrast he used for his calculations, I'm pretty sure it doesn't really matter what colour filter is added to an individual pixel, because the contrast will be visible anyway. At more reasonable contrast rates, sure it might make a difference, but as I showed above, even Velvia 50 is only at 22mp if you use reasonable contrast.
Oops, now I discussed a contentious topic anyway...
