My second best lense.
an Ai 35mm f/2.8.
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.
… only if that additional resolution is worthwhile. For some it may be and for some not at all.
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.
But we haven't been talking about system resolving power, at least initially.
I disagree. Here's the original question, "Is it true in order to get the full resolution of the highest grain film, one must have a lens capable of allowing this?" So the OP is asking about the combination of a film and a lens - a "system," in my view.
But we haven't been talking about system resolving power, at least initially. The question, has been, in essence, as between the lens and the film, ignoring all other variables, which is the limiting factor? If the film is the limiting factor, then buying a more resolving lens will not yield an improvement, whereas if the lens is the limiting factor, buying a lens with better resolution might make some sense.
Since Puts was so fussy about lens performance measures, you’d kinda expect the guy to be equally fastidious about quoting formulae, wouldn’t you? I never did figure out whether he was in the pay of Leica.
As far as resolution goes, it's all back to, You're only as good as your weakest link, whether that be the lens, the film, stability, development choice, etc etc etc. So of course, if a film is inferior to the task, blame that; if the lens is inadequate, blame it instead, or more realistically blame all kinds of interactive factors, including using too small a film format to begin with.
Which is what Sirius Glass said in post #155 and what chuckroast fleshed out in Post #196.
Which is why I said "might make some sense". Speaking for myself, I haven't been chasing lenses with the highest resolution. Lens resolution is among the least of my problems.
I hear you but I don't understand your thinking.My interpretation of that sentence [about lens and film combination] is different than yours.
Since Puts was so fussy about lens performance measures, you’d kinda expect the guy to be equally fastidious about quoting formulae, wouldn’t you? I never did figure out whether he was in the pay of Leica.
Which is what Sirius Glass said in post #155 and what chuckroast fleshed out in Post #196.
This is a time honored formal proof: Proof By Repeated Assertion
I find that I have a pdf on my computer of a book by Puts about Leica lenses. (I don't know the original title - it looks as though someone used an OCR to generate this file.)Science is dispassionate. Scientists are not.
I find that I have a pdf on my computer of a book by Puts about Leica lenses. (I don't know the original title - it looks as though someone used an OCR to generate this file.)
In his introductory chapters about the theory of lens design and testing, he says:
<<
It is best to relegate the resolution test to find the maximum number of lines a lens can resolve, to the dustbin of history and I have to strongly advice you [sic], not to
look at resolution figures as a serious tool for the evaluation of optical performance and not to try to do your own resolution tests, as there are too many unchecked variables involved.
>>
He goes on instead to discuss MTF graphs and what you can learn from them. That is, if you can find the brain space, and aren't out taking photos, or in the darkroom.
LOL... and implied several times before that...
The OP appears to be asking a very limited scope question that does not have much to do with the production of actual photographic products, other than a "perfectly resolved" negative.
Clarity has never really been provided, nor has there been much evidence that any knowledge provided in this thread has been absorbed. It's interesting conversation, though.
The resolution of the best lens reported tested by Zeiss at that time [400 lppm] has only half the resolution of the best film tested at that time [800 lppm].
I hear you but I don't understand your thinking.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to make an opinion about the example I gave: if a lens, alone, can deliver max 200 lpmm and a film , alone, can deliver a max 200 lpm, what would you say is the max resolution that the combination can produce? Do you think it would still be 200 lpmm? Or something less?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?