Full resolution of film!

[faberryman]

My Nikkor 50mm f/2's resolve an incredible amount of detail.

How many lines per millimeter is "incredible"?

 

[George Mann]

How many lines per millimeter is "incredible"?

200 + would suffice.

 

[George Mann]

It is said they are one of the sharpest Nikkor lenses…!

Well, I find it to be the most accurate lens I have tested.

 

[faberryman]

Well, I find it to be the most accurate lens I have tested.

What lenses have you tested and how have you tested them?

 

[faberryman]

200 + would suffice.

And does the Nikon 50mm f/2 have "200+" [measurement unspecified]?

 

[Nikon 2]

I thought you had a 50mm f/2? Are you shooting wide open?

Only when I have to…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Here is something interesting…!

 

[George Mann]

Here is something interesting…!

An interesting claim which seems silly when one considers that photographs are limited to a max resolution of 250lp/mm due to the limits of light itself.

 

[Nikon 2]

An interesting claim which seems silly when one considers that photographs are limited to a max resolution of 250lp/mm due to the limits of light itself.

The author of that last statement might take umbrage with your reply...!

 

[George Mann]

The author of that last statement might take umbrage with your reply...!

If you understood the absurd complexity of thought possesed by the German intellectual, you would understand their habit of going to extremes.

I should have made my position clear by stating that the practical limit of the light/optic/film interface is 250lp/mm, which you need a laboratory-grade microscope to resolve!

 

[faberryman]

If you understood the absurd complexity of thought possesed by the German intellectual, you would understand their habit of going to extremes.

Edwin Puts certainly had a passion for Leica cameras and lenses, and was able to parlay that passion into a successful career, but I don't think that by itself qualifies him as a German intellectual.

 

[snusmumriken]

Here is something interesting…!

There must surely be something missing from that final equation? Unfortunately that undermines my confidence in the rest.

 

[SHOLOJOV]

hi guys
i use drum scanner Crosfield
in one ocation a customer request to me
1 scan slide 35mms. to 1.000 megas
for printing photo quality 3 meters wall
and the machine do that
the drum scanning turtle speed..
45 minutes of scanning
5 hours of cleanning, dots, scratches etc...

 

[SHOLOJOV]

another example de oil mounting scanning and blue not
and color correction

 

[SHOLOJOV]

• 2 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #189

another example de oil mounting scanning and blue not
and color correction

 

[chuckroast]

While many modern lenses benefit greatly from things like aspheric elements, others achieve their corrections through the computers in the camera digitally correcting the image after it is captured. DP Review, shortly before it was closed down, stated that their reviews would evaluate lenses based on the in-camera corrections, not on the raw characteristics of the lenses.

That's fair. But even before the digital revolution, Nikon (and presumably Canon) were beginning to really improve their zooms in the autofocus film era, primarily because cheap computing made the calculations involved tractable.

 

[chuckroast]

I apologize. I relied on memory in making my post. I offer a correction below.

First of all, I found the article. It is in Modern Photography, October, 1978. The article starts on p. 108. The title of the article is "How Sharp Can You Get?". The authors were Bennett Sherman and Al Gordon.

They did not achieve 100 LPM using Panatomic X. With Panatomic X the best results were at infinity focus with the apertures set at f/4 for six different lenses. The results and resolution in lines/mm were as follows:

Sumicron 50mm f/2 lens: 88 at f/4
Nikor 50mm f/1.8 lens: 88 at f/4
Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens: 86 at f/4
Minolta 50mm f/1.7 lens: 86 at f/4
Pentax 50mm f/1.7 lens: 86 at f/4
Olympus 50mm f/1.8 lens: 86 at f/4

With Tech Pan film focused at infinity the results were a little better for the same lenses, ranging from 92 lines/mm to 96 lines/mm.

High contrast Copy film did a little better, reaching 102 to 106 lines/mm.

For Kodachrome II the results ranged from 80 to 86 lines/mm.

For Micro-Ektachrome the results ranged from 100 to 102.

They also tested some close focusing and macro lenses under under close up conditions. I couldn't quite figure out exactly what those close up conditions were. However, the results were somewhat less sharp than the tests of the 50mm prime lenses at infinity, roughly 10% lower resolution.

That same issue of Modern Photography also had an article addressing that age old question "Can you really "push" film???" I won't comment on that, except to say that their conclusion could be summarized with the somewhat vague characterization of "yes, sort of." (Not a quote from their article, but my condensed version of how I interpret their results.)

You cannot push film, or at least not very much. If you extend development time, you can get the "real" EI to match box ISO, but not a lot more than that.

What passes for "pushing" is something altogether different - it's the intentional underexposure of the shadows while cranking up the highlight contrast to the point of blocking. This may- or may not be aesthetically pleasing but people claiming EIs of 1000 from FP4+ are kidding themselves.

 

[Nikon 2]

There must surely be something missing from that final equation? Unfortunately that undermines my confidence in the rest.

Back to square one...!

 

[BrianShaw]

Back to square one...!

Go to Jail (card)

There is a Go to Jail card each in both the Chance and Community Chest piles. Community Chest: Go To Jail Go directly to Jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200 (Features a truncheon-wielding policeman grabbing a surprised Rich Uncle Pennybags by the neck.) Chance: Go Directly To Jail Go...

monopoly.fandom.com

 

[grain elevator]

You cannot push film, or at least not very much. If you extend development time, you can get the "real" EI to match box ISO, but not a lot more than that.

What passes for "pushing" is something altogether different - it's the intentional underexposure of the shadows while cranking up the highlight contrast to the point of blocking. This may- or may not be aesthetically pleasing but people claiming EIs of 1000 from FP4+ are kidding themselves.

You can absolutely push film, because that's exactly what it means: underexposed and overdeveloped, and it has its applications. Nobody in their right mind claims they get much improved ISO/shadow speed. Can we please stop it with that strawman?

 

[chuckroast]

Back to square one...!

We never left square one.

With respect, the underlying premise of your original question is faulty - that a lens alone is the determinant of whether we can exploit the full resolution of the film. Let me see if I can summarize the many things you've heard here that are relevant variables in this matter:

- Camera shake
- Mirror shake
- Vibration from the triggering mechanism (finger or cable release or self timer) and/or shutter action
- Resolving power of the film
- Resolution variability with developer type and method of development
- Enlarger film to lens stage alignment
- Enlarger lens stage to easel alignment
- Native resolving power of the enlarging optics
- Resolving power of the enlarging optics as a function of f/stop
- Correct focusing plane of the scanner, if scanned
- Scanner resolving power
- Size of film
- Magnification ratio
- Resolving power of the final display or viewing medium
- Color apochromaticity for all the above if working in color

On top of that are all the psychovisual effects that cause humans to see things as more- or less "sharp", among them including overall contrast, local contrast, edge transition sharpness, viewing distance, ad infinitum, ad nausem. Oh, and don't forget that most of us over the age of about 18 do not have perfect vision anyway.

The question "can any lens of type X fully exploit the resolving power of film" is like asking whether your brake pads can let you go 250kpm. A lens is a component in a chain of many things that determine final resolution. I would kindly suggest that mastering that chain as a whole is hard enough without getting distracted with brake pads MTF curves...

 

[chuckroast]

You can absolutely push film, because that's exactly what it means: underexposed and overdeveloped, and it has its applications. Nobody in their right mind claims they get much improved ISO/shadow speed. Can we please stop it with that strawman?

Better tell that to everyone you ever see that says "I'm pushing my FP4+ to ISO 1000". It is a widely held belief by many photographers that overdevelopment increase effective film speed dramatically. I'm glad you know that's not true, but in my experience, at least, this is not widely understood.

 

[Nikon 2]

We never left square one.

With respect, the underlying premise of your original question is faulty - that a lens alone is the determinant of whether we can exploit the full resolution of the film. Let me see if I can summarize the many things you've heard here that are relevant variables in this matter:

- Camera shake
- Mirror shake
- Vibration from the triggering mechanism (finger or cable release or self timer) and/or shutter action
- Resolving power of the film
- Resolution variability with developer type and method of development
- Enlarger film to lens stage alignment
- Enlarger lens stage to easel alignment
- Native resolving power of the enlarging optics
- Resolving power of the enlarging optics as a function of f/stop
- Correct focusing plane of the scanner, if scanned
- Scanner resolving power
- Size of film
- Magnification ratio
- Resolving power of the final display or viewing medium
- Color apochromaticity for all the above if working in color

On top of that are all the psychovisual effects that cause humans to see things as more- or less "sharp", among them including overall contrast, local contrast, edge transition sharpness, viewing distance, ad infinitum, ad nausem. Oh, and don't forget that most of us over the age of about 18 do not have perfect vision anyway.

The question "can any lens of type X fully exploit the resolving power of film" is like asking whether your brake pads can let you go 250kpm. A lens is a component in a chain of many things that determine final resolution. I would kindly suggest that mastering that chain as a whole is hard enough without getting distracted with brake pads MTF curves...

I shoot corrected...!

 

[Mr Bill]

There must surely be something missing from that final equation? Unfortunately that undermines my confidence in the rest.

There are a couple of sorta standard empirical equations used in the business to estimate a "system resolving power" given separate film and lens numbers. One is: 1/system_resolution = 1/lens_res + 1/film_resolution. The other is similar, except that the res numbers are squared, meaning 1/R^2 (I presume this is what Erwin Puts was saying but was perhaps lost in a conversion to straight text).

In application say that a hypothetical lens and film each resolved 200 lpmm. When combined the first method suggests 100 lpmm system resolving power; the second, using the squares, suggests 141 lpmm. The uninitiated might expect to still get the entire 200 lpmm.

 

[chuckroast]

I shoot corrected...!

Only if your lenses are well corrected

I kid, I kid, but it IS interesting how - even the best manufacturers - have some vintages of lenses that have, shall we say, "other" issues. I recently bought a Nikkor Ai-S 35mm f/1.4 that needed a bit of work (which I supplied). I wanted the extra speed to replace an Ai 35mm f/2.8. Well, imagine my surprise to discover that the Ai-S has terrible coma problems at 1.4. It's quite usable and even has a sort of "veiling effect" that may be nice for portraits, but it's clearly not well "corrected". Down range at about f/11, the lens is just tack sharp, though. By comparison, the 85mm f/1.4 Ai-S is a razor blade.

Don't even get me started on my pre-war 50mm f/3.5 collapsible uncoated Elmar. It's super sharp but when faced with specular highlights or very bright light sources, the lack of coating gives it an ... interesting look. Again, this can be useful aesthetically for a kind of dream like look.

Yet more stuff that impacts image quality and perceived sharpness, I guess