...looks like our film Camera is here to stay .....

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Goondu


Sorry, way OT here, but got to say this.

'regardless of' is also wrong in this case. We can have 'regardless what....', 'regardless who....' but not 'regardless of....'.

However, 'irrespective of....' could be used in this case.

Just my 90 rupiah worth of thoughts.

Oh no, which means our Singapore Pledge is wrong:

...Regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society....

;p

Regards
CK

 

[Goondu]

Originally posted by ckiang


Oh no, which means our Singapore Pledge is wrong:

...Regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society....

;p

Regards
CK

You are right. :thumbsup: I am wrong. :thumbsd: Paiseh, paiseh. :embrass:

Shooting off my mouth just like that. Hmm, maybe should do more research on this subject.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by tsdh
Ian, you misread my post. I wrote; D1X sensor has 126 pixel/mm, that's equal to 63 lp/mm.

regards.

Indeed and I stand corrected. However pairing it to 63 lp/mm is better than all but a couple of films on the market so my original point stands, that the D1x outperforms all but a couple of films on the market when used in the real world and don't forget that's with a 10 bit dynamic range in effect which is more than a 6:1 ratio, it's closer in practice to a 10 stop range.

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by Ian
Indeed and I stand corrected. However pairing it to 63 lp/mm is better than all but a couple of films on the market so my original point stands, that the D1x outperforms all but a couple of films on the market when used in the real world and don't forget that's with a 10 bit dynamic range in effect which is more than a 6:1 ratio, it's closer in practice to a 10 stop range.

I still remember when I said that digicam has a wide dynamic range, then somebody argued, stated that digicam has a narrow dynamic range.
Now you say the D1X has 10 stop range, so who is right then?

The 10 bit A/D converter will map R-G-B into 1024 levels each at the output, but that doesn't mean the input is 10 stop. The CCD may be just accept up to 4 stops, and that 4 stops analog signal then being mapped into 1024 levels of digital data.
My Canon film-scanner has 12-bit A/D converter, resulting in 36-bit color range. But its dynamic range only 3.2

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Vadim

Here comes support for my arguments:

Page 14 of that technical publication. Look at MTF chart of T-Max 100. It says that MTF response of 40% at 150lp/mm. Got it?

Developed in D-76 at 68F, which is normal process.

From textbook on optics:

Rayleigh difraction limit = 1/(1.22*Fw) in lines per mm, where

F = the focal ratio, and w = the wavelength of light in mm.

In other words for aperture 5.6:
1 / (1.22 * 5.6 * 0.000555) = 263 lp/mm

Regarding difraction limited Zeiss lenses - there were threads on photo.net. Find them if you are interested. [/B]

Get back to me when you can differentiate fantasy from fact. Kodak make it abundently plain that at 6:1 contrast ratio Tmax 100 resolves 63 lpm which is backed up by real testing by independent experts. And their figures are based on real world testing, citing 1000:1 figures will only have you met with complete contempt as shooting test targets is not something most professional photographers do for a living.

Secondly your diffraction limit arguement while merritorious isn't backed up by real world shooting as you are citing a single wavelength of light, ie: a monochromatic lightsource of intensly narrow frequency, rather than broad spectrum lighting conditions found in the real world.

Thirdly your arguement assumes a 'perfect' lens which doesn't exist in the real world. Rayleighs Limit and Dawes Limits degrade rapidly once abberations are introduced in to the equation. Something I'm sure you're aware of.

Finally you conveniently neglect the minor issue of 'system resolution' which is defined thus

System resolution

1 / {{1 / lens resolution in lpmm} + (1 / film resolution in lpmm}}

This results in a considerable degradation to your limits .. and if you add enlarger optics to the equation then you can remove another 15-25% from the system resolution of film + lens.

Who mentioned Zeiss lenses .. get your facts straight and stop introducing new factors to try to bolster your arguement.

Given your thus far liberal misuse of the truth I'm not inclined to bother wasting my time arguing with you further on this matter.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by tsdh

I still remember when I said that digicam has a wide dynamic range, then somebody argued, stated that digicam has a narrow dynamic range.
Now you say the D1X has 10 stop range, so who is right then?

The 10 bit A/D converter will map R-G-B into 1024 levels each at the output, but that doesn't mean the input is 10 stop. The CCD may be just accept up to 4 stops, and that 4 stops analog signal then being mapped into 1024 levels of digital data.
My Canon film-scanner has 12-bit A/D converter, resulting in 36-bit color range. But its dynamic range only 3.2

The relationship between "D" units and stops (EV) is that each stop is 0.3 (approximately or log(2) exactly) D units.

Thus a dmax of 3 is equal to just under 10 stops dynamic range.

Refer to my much earlier post in this thread on computing the dynamic range of a CCD chip

According to www.macworld.com the D1x has a dynamic range of 12 stops, however I am unable to confirm this as the !@# page won't load at present.

D1x dynamic range information

In practice however you'd be hard pushed to get more than about 8-9 stops out of a CCD such as the D1x is equipped with according to the likes of Galen Rowel.

As I've said previously in this thread, the whole issue is pretty much a waste of time as finding a printing process capable of taking this level of dynamic range is the real crux of the matter.

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by Ian
The relationship between "D" units and stops (EV) is that each stop is 0.3 (approximately or log(2) exactly) D units.
Thus a dmax of 3 is equal to just under 10 stops dynamic range.
Refer to my much earlier post in this thread on computing the dynamic range of a CCD chip

We are not talking about just the CCD here, but the whole camera. Your "D" unit is refering to the signal going out from CCD, not the same as digital data after conversion by A/D converter.

According to www.macworld.com the D1x has a dynamic range of 12 stops, however I am unable to confirm this as the !@# page won't load at present.

ooo... really? the D1X has 12 stops dynamic range !
Jed must be very happy to hear that.
Jason will also happy too... :bsmilie:

Originally posted by jasonpgc
I think the bottom line is knowing the characteristic of the digital medium. If you take slides, you shouldn't have any problem with exposure for CCDs

Slide = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude

CCD/CMOS = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by tsdh

We are not talking about just the CCD here, but the whole camera. Your "D" unit is refering to the signal going out from CCD, not the same as digital data after conversion by A/D converter.

ooo... really? the D1X has 12 stops dynamic range !
Jed must be very happy to hear that.
Jason will also happy too... :bsmilie:

Your missing the point here tsdh,

Dmax (dynamic maxium) is based on the density range as measured by a densitometer. The equation is the same for both digital and conventional film density measurements. Dmax is measured after conversion by the way, at the output of the device.

Thus a system dmax of 3.0 is roughly equal to 10 stops EV or in other words 10 stops of exposure latitude. (9.6 stops to be more accurate).

Hope that clarifies the situation.

It's good to see jasonpgc is being 'helpful' and as inaccurate as always!

 

[Vadim]

Originally posted by Ian

Get back to me when you can differentiate fantasy from fact. Kodak make it abundently plain that at 6:1 contrast ratio Tmax 100 resolves 63 lpm which is backed up by real testing by independent experts. And their figures are based on real world testing, citing 1000:1 figures will only have you met with complete contempt as shooting test targets is not something most professional photographers do for a living.

Secondly your diffraction limit arguement while merritorious isn't backed up by real world shooting as you are citing a single wavelength of light, ie: a monochromatic lightsource of intensly narrow frequency, rather than broad spectrum lighting conditions found in the real world.

Thirdly your arguement assumes a 'perfect' lens which doesn't exist in the real world. Rayleighs Limit and Dawes Limits degrade rapidly once abberations are introduced in to the equation. Something I'm sure you're aware of.

Finally you conveniently neglect the minor issue of 'system resolution' which is defined thus

System resolution

1 / {{1 / lens resolution in lpmm} + (1 / film resolution in lpmm}}

This results in a considerable degradation to your limits .. and if you add enlarger optics to the equation then you can remove another 15-25% from the system resolution of film + lens.

Who mentioned Zeiss lenses .. get your facts straight and stop introducing new factors to try to bolster your arguement.

Given your thus far liberal misuse of the truth I'm not inclined to bother wasting my time arguing with you further on this matter.

Ian,

I am here not to argue with you about what the diffraction limit is, or what it equals to at f/5.6. I don't need to argue, because these are the well known facts. You asked me to support these facts, didn't you? These are your words, "Your argument is flawed, unsound and unsupportable regarding lpm and film resolution, diffraction limits and so on.", aren’t they? Are you calling me a liar?

Please calm down, relax, and pay a little attention.

[1] I claimed that T-Max 100 resolution is 150+lp/mm, and that it is achievable with normal processing, and you questioned that.

It is the fact, and all you need to do is open the KODAK T-MAX Professional Films publication, go to page 14, and look at T-Max MTF chart.

From that chart you'll find out that this film produces 40% response at spatial frequency 150lp/mm when developed in D-76 at 68F, which is a normal processing. This is the fact, and it confirms that this film can record details as low as 150lp/mm. If you still don’t believe me – there are quotes below that confirm these facts.

[2] You questioned diffraction limit figure at f/5.6 that I gave. There is no point to argue whether Rayleigh diffraction limit is 268lp/mm or not - it's the fact. Although you can argue about if 555nm is adequate or not, this wavelength is commonly used by physicists, and I hope you know that. Anyway, even for red spectrum, diffraction limit is well above 150lp/mm.

[3] You wrote "Who mentioned Zeiss lenses .. get your facts straight and stop introducing new factors to try to bolster your argument.".

Well, I am sorry, I was rushing to my job, and didn't give you the exact URLs to photo.net discussions this morning. I thought you would find them yourself. Instead you called me a liar the third time.

Remember I wrote that there are people on photo.net who claim that some Zeiss lenses reach 250lp/mm resolution? Well, I didn't make this story myself; these are the links to the photo.net:

thread 1
thread 2
thread 3

Few quotes:

I get 250 lp/mm with the Zeiss Distagon on Agfaortho 25

and

There are more Hasselblad users out there who reach 200 lp/mm and beyond.

and

Sonnar 250 and 150, which are the exact same designs as the Hasselblad counterparts, perform exactly the same way, which means: They resolve up to 160 line pairs per millimeter in the center on films like Fujichome Velvia (40 ISO) and Kodak Portra 160 VC (160 ISO). 160 lp/mm is the resolution maximum of these films, so no higher values could be achieved (With the Superachromat 5,6/250 CFi for Hasselblad I recently achieved over 250 lp/mm on my last roll of Agfaortho 25, which has been discontinued by Agfa).

You can believe Dr. Fleischer, or you can call him a liar too. Although he works for Zeiss, his information sounds more credible than yours. He also confirms that even color films like Velvia and Portra have resolution limit 150+lp/mm, that independently confirms what I said, and confronts your arguments.

I am here not to argue with you about these facts, because these are the facts, no matter if you like them or not. And I don’t care if you accept these facts or not.

P.S. You obviously don't understand what the resolution at 1:6 contrast ratio means.

Be careful next time you call someone, who you barely know, a liar. Why are you so rude?

No offence.

Best regards,
Vadim

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by Ian
Dmax (dynamic maxium) is based on the density range as measured by a densitometer. The equation is the same for both digital and conventional film density measurements. Dmax is measured after conversion by the way, at the output of the device.
Thus a system dmax of 3.0 is roughly equal to 10 stops EV or in other words 10 stops of exposure latitude. (9.6 stops to be more accurate).

Yes, your dmax is measured at the output of CCD.
Well, good luck for the D1x owners, they have state of the art equipment able to capture 12 stops range (according to Ian). More than twice of what film can do.

Originally posted by jasonpgc
Quote tsdh
"CCD = narrow latitude, wrong. It is wider than negative film, some hi-end digital sensor can achieve up to 12 f-stop."

I think you would like to post one of your favourate 12 f-stop picture to impress the Canon & Nikon DSLR owners.

Jason, look no further, as the statement from Ian testify that D1x is capable of producing 12-stop picture. Jed will be more than happy to show you the pictures.

We can see here, less known parameters such as dynamic range, is still creating a debate. According a test by DPreview, Nikon D1 has a range of 470:1 (2.7D) at ISO200, then drop to 97:1 (2.0D) at ISO1600.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0011/00111608dynamicrange.asp
Based on that test result, we can say that D1x has a wider dynamic range than film. (but not 12-stop, as Ian said).

Now back to Ian, the D1x has sensor able to capture at 63 lp/mm regardless of the contrast range. Velvia has max resolution of 160 lp/mm at contrast 1000:1 and 80 lp/mm at 1.6:1
That means, Velvia will surpass D1x resolution at any given contrast range within 1.6:1 to 1000:1

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Vadim

Are you calling me a liar?

Please calm down, relax, and pay a little attention.

[1] I claimed that T-Max 100 resolution is 150+lp/mm, and that it is achievable with normal processing, and you questioned that.

From that chart you'll find out that this film produces 40% response at spatial frequency 150lp/mm when developed in D-76 at 68F, which is a normal processing. This is the fact, and it confirms that this film can record details as low as 150lp/mm. If you still don’t believe me – there are quotes below that confirm these facts.

facts or not.

P.S. You obviously don't understand what the resolution at 1:6 contrast ratio means.

Be careful next time you call someone, who you barely know, a liar. Why are you so rude?

No offence.

Best regards,
Vadim

Vadim

Firstly if I thought you were a liar I'd call you a liar, what I have stated is that you don't know what your talking about, which is a BIG DIFFERENCE and that your arguements are falsely based on a lack of what I can only call interpretation skills of the data provided to you.

Now go back read my original posting on this thread very carefully.

I stated 150 lpm at a contrast range of 1000:1 which is an extremely high contrast range only encounted when shooting test targets where you have an extreme contrast level. At no point did I state that it was impossible to achieve using Tmax 100 and D-76.

6:1 is the standard contrast range used in evaluating film for shooting in daylight under 'normal' conditions, ie: those that apply in the real world of photography and under those conditions 63 lpm is all that is achievable, according to Kodak's own literature.

I'm sorry if this makes you mad, but this is the point you seem incapable of understanding!

As I've previous posted on two occasions in this thread lens resolution is largely theoretical as there are other factors that MTF and Rayleigh's law do not factor in, and included in that is the dynamic contrast ratio encountered in a normal scene.

 

[Vadim]

Originally posted by Ian
Now that means that by your own figures the Nikon D1x which you cite as having a 126 lpm resolution has nearly double the real world 6:1 resolution of the majority of film emulsions.

Ian, you miscalculated. As pointed out by tsdh, you have to divide by 2 in order to get "line pairs".

Originally posted by tsdh
Ian, you misread my post. I wrote; D1X sensor has 126 pixel/mm, that's equal to 63 lp/mm.

Although 63 lp/mm is a theoretical limit (called the Nyquist frequency), real tests show that D1X doesn't reach this limit.

I am referring to the D1X tests (page 25) published on www.dpreview.com. I find these tests credible, although you may have different opinion.

They found that D1X has the following absolute resolution:
* Horizontal - 1600 LPH
* Vertical - 1150 LPH
* Diagonal - 900 LPH
where the absolute resolution is defined as "still defined detail".

PIMA/ISO 12233 defines LPH as "lines per (image) height". In order to convert LPH to lp/mm you need to divide figure by sensor height (15.6mm), which gives you lines per millimeter, and further divide by 2 to arrive to line-pairs per millimeter.

Which gives us the following resolution in lp/mm:
* Horizontal - 51 lp/mm
* Vertical - 37 lp/mm
* Diagonal - 29 lp/mm

Thus with D1X you'll normally face 30-40lp/mm resolution, except for the details that are closely aligned to horizontal axis, where you get 51 lp/mm. It's not 63lp/mm, but close.

I want to stress out that the target used by dpreview.com appears to have contrast range of about 1:100, which is what you normally expect from reflective target like this. This is to clear out the 1:1.6 vs. 1:1000 matters.

Someone will hate this comparison (my apologies to them), but I mention, that because 35mm frame is 1.5 times larger of D1X's sensor, you only need 2/3 of that resolution on 35mm film to capture same details. In other words D1X resolution equals to 35mm film resolution of 35 lp/mm horizontally, and 20-27 lp/mm along other directions. Other posts mention resolution characteristics of some popular films, so you can draw your own conclusions about 35mm resolution vs. resolution of top DSLR.

In terms of resolution 35mm film still has big advantage over DSLR. That's what I wanted to explain to you guys in the last few days.

I absolutely agree that resolution is not all that matters. There are disadvantages that plague 35mm photography: grain, inconvenience, you mentioned them all. There are digital limitations as well. Both systems are worth owning, and game is still on for both 35mm and DSLRs, as long as we continue taking pictures.

 

[Vadim]

Originally posted by Ian
6:1 is the standard contrast range used in evaluating film for shooting in daylight under 'normal' conditions, ie: those that apply in the real world of photography and under those conditions 63 lpm is all that is achievable, according to Kodak's own literature.

Well, you need to compare apples to apples, and you are comparing apples to oranges.

In previous post I derived from the real test data that D1X resolution varies between 30-50lp/mm for target that appears to have about 1:100 contrast ratio. So you have to compare it to film resolution taken at similar contrast ratio, and not at 1.6:1.

If someone had credible D1X resolution test for 1.6:1 contrast, we would be able to do fair comparison at low contrast too.

Originally posted by Ian
BIG DIFFERENCE and that your arguements are falsely based on a lack of what I can only call interpretation skills of the data provided to you.

I have years of university behind and Master Degree in Physics that make me confident about myself speaking about optics, diffraction, resolution, reading MTF, and interpreting data.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Vadim

Well, you need to compare apples to apples, and you are comparing apples to oranges.

In previous post I derived from the real test data that D1X resolution varies between 30-50lp/mm for target that appears to have about 1:100 contrast ratio. So you have to compare it to film resolution taken at similar contrast ratio, and not at 1.6:1.

If someone had credible D1X resolution test for 1.6:1 contrast, we would be able to do fair comparison at low contrast too.

Excuse me. I've NOT compared any such thing. I've been arguing with you regarding resolution for T-max 100 ONLY, in respect of my dicourse with you Vadim. so that's arguing apples to apples.

You are the one who keeps insisting on quoting 1000:1 TOC figures and I keep on pointing out that for actual real world photography you have to use the TOC 6:1 contrast figures, rather than figures based on shooting test charts at high contrast.

So who's comparing apples to oranges? All it's doing is proving yet once again you don't know how to interpret data.

Secondly, do me the favour of actually reading the entire thread from front to finish, you'll find I have already acknowledged my mis-reading of tsdh's post on the 126lpm matter.

Finally, on your figures regarding the D1x. Indeed you have introduced them, in the post above this one in chronologicial order, so don't try pulling the wool over anyone's eyes by impuning that you've been hard done by as at no time have I had the opportunity to respond to such arguments as put forward by your good self. So do us all a big favour and one again present your arguement in a logical, reasoned manner.

I'll study those reults at my leisure as frankly I don't have time to be farting around with such a trivial issue as this at present as I have a business to run.

Originally posted by Vadim
I have years of university behind and Master Degree in Physics that make me confident about myself speaking about optics, diffraction, resolution, reading MTF, and interpreting data.

On a different note:
Incompetence knows no bounds .. a favoured saying of one of my professors in regards to many academics when I was unfortuate enough to be at university many many years ago.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by tsdh


Yes, your dmax is measured at the output of CCD.
Well, good luck for the D1x owners, they have state of the art equipment able to capture 12 stops range (according to Ian). More than twice of what film can do.

Jason, look no further, as the statement from Ian testify that D1x is capable of producing 12-stop picture. Jed will be more than happy to show you the pictures.

We can see here, less known parameters such as dynamic range, is still creating a debate. According a test by DPreview, Nikon D1 has a range of 470:1 (2.7D) at ISO200, then drop to 97:1 (2.0D) at ISO1600.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0011/00111608dynamicrange.asp
Based on that test result, we can say that D1x has a wider dynamic range than film. (but not 12-stop, as Ian said).

Now back to Ian, the D1x has sensor able to capture at 63 lp/mm regardless of the contrast range. Velvia has max resolution of 160 lp/mm at contrast 1000:1 and 80 lp/mm at 1.6:1
That means, Velvia will surpass D1x resolution at any given contrast range within 1.6:1 to 1000:1

Do me a favour and at least quote me in context if you please and your quips and snide comments really don't put you in a good light.

My exact comment was:

Originally posted by Ian
Refer to my much earlier post in this thread on computing the dynamic range of a CCD chip

According to www.macworld.com the D1x has a dynamic range of 12 stops, however I am unable to confirm this as the !@# page won't load at present.

D1x dynamic range information

In practice however you'd be hard pushed to get more than about 8-9 stops out of a CCD such as the D1x is equipped with according to the likes of Galen Rowel.

As I've said previously in this thread, the whole issue is pretty much a waste of time as finding a printing process capable of taking this level of dynamic range is the real crux of the matter.

Note that I never claimed a 12 stop range for the D1x. What I did say was according to an unverified macworld report it was reputed to be 12 stops and that Galen Rowel and others reported an 8-9 stop range.

That ties in nicely with your figure of 2.7 dmax at 1120 ISO (9 stop range) and close enough to a 7 stop range at 1600 ISO. Figures that are better than the majority of films.

Nor have I stated that the D1x outperforms Velvia.
What I stated was and again I quote.

Originally posted by Ian
Velvia is capable of just over 80 lpm under typical lighting conditions of 6:1 or thereabouts and 140 lpm when shooting high contrast images such as test targets with a dynamic range of 1000:1. Provia on the other hand cracks a mere 63 lpm at 6:1.

From memory the actual figure for Velvia is 83 lpm in the real world. The only emulsions to score higher than 100 lpm from Kodak, Fuji or Ilford are Kodak's Tech Pan and Ilford Pan F plus, both of which run out at 100+ lpm at 6:1 contrast levels. This matches very closely to best generally available B/W papers by the way.

Also I have stated:

Originally posted by Ian
Indeed and I stand corrected. However pairing it to 63 lp/mm is better than all but a couple of films on the market so my original point stands, that the D1x outperforms all but a couple of films on the market when used in the real world and don't forget that's with a 10 bit dynamic range in effect which is more than a 6:1 ratio, it's closer in practice to a 10 stop range.

I have also stated that the only effective method to measure the CCD and system's real dynamic range is as follows:

Originally posted by Ian
As far as I'm aware the only effective method to work out the dynamic range of a CCD and it's associated conversion from photonic energy to a digital equivalent of film density is via a long and complex method that runs roughly as follows.

In otherwords we are talking about knowing the Quantum effeciency of the CCD to start with

Firstly calculate the well depth of the pixels in electron volts.

Secondly calculate the noise level produced by the preamp of the CCD as electron volts/second.

Once you have these figures you can calcualte the dynamic range in dB and convert that to a 'bit' depth which is equivalent to the number of steps the CCD can record from low to high.

Needless to say this measurement is beyond all but very well equipped labs.

Besides it's all pretty much a waste of time for the average photographer as the limiting factor isn't the camera in most cases, but rather the print media which the image is printed on and of course the Mk.I eyeball.

Just setting the record straight.

 

[Jed]

Okay, enough is enough.

One bit of sanity first. I've done some checking up and yes, regardless can be used before "if".

As to the rest, for the first time I'm going to use my executive powers to close this thread. It's going nowhere fast. It's also plainly evident that the parties are not seeing eye to eye but if Vadim and tsdh can agree to live in their own little world, then I'm sure Ian can agree to do so too (sounding deja vu from my last post?). Since there was no agreement last time, I'm stopping the thread.

Before anyone accuses me of abusing this power, I'm stating for the record that I'm only doing so after I have ceased to become directly involved in this thread.

Now stop reading DPReview, stop reading Nyquist frequencies, stop reading Kodak tech literature. Go out there and take pictures.