Full resolution of film!

[George Mann]

an Ai 35mm f/2.8.

My second best lense.

 

[faberryman]

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. 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.

 

[BrianShaw]

… only if that additional resolution is worthwhile. For some it may be and for some not at all.

 

[DREW WILEY]

All of this is so ludicrous. Before WWII there were contests to see how many entire texts of the Bible could be placed on a single microfilm "microdot". No, that didn't involve continuous gradation pictures. But it does tell you about the capacity of specially designed flms and lenses long before our present manufacturing era, or alleged zoom lens performance, etc. Likewise, all along there have been classified lenses and films far ahead of public expectations. Pop Photo etc should be read with popcorn; it's more amateur entertainment than scientific substance.

If one wants to see what Nikon can really do with optics, seek out its medical division and seriously expensive microscopes. They also have an industrial optics line. Every lens we shoot is a toy by comparison. But I admit the fun factor is part of it; so I'm perfectly satisfied with my 85/1.4 Ais, which, by the way, ain't got no plastic to it. And in terms of veiling flare and other accusations against various other lenses like the 50/1.2 - heck, that's why certain people shoot those wide open. Better is in the eyes of the beholder. Now there's even a clone on the market of the 50/1.2, deliberate flaws n all.

 

[faberryman]

… only if that additional resolution is worthwhile. For some it may be and for some not at all.

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.

 

[chuckroast]

[Further Veering Off Into The Rabbithole .... Briefly] While this thread has been unfolding today, I've been contact printing, and will soon silver print, some 35mm Double-X (Kodak 5222) that I shot with the aforementioned 35mm f/1.4 and EMA developed for 60min in dilute Pyrocat-HD.

The sharpness under the loupe is ... breathtaking, the edge transitions are like sushi knives, and the dynamic range looks like what you see in an 1930s 8x10. Hopefully full sized prints will confirm this.

[Now Returning To The Prior Rabbithole]

Film, developer, and development technique matter too....

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

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.

 

[Mr Bill]

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

My interpretation of that sentence is different than yours.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

Yes, but to answer the OP’s original question literally, there is no way one can achieve the resolving power of the film unless the resolving power of the lens is equally good.

…but even then, as everyone has said, the actual resolution achieved is the net result of image degradation at every step in the process.

 

[Mr Bill]

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.

I would. But... I sorta presume that things may have gone amiss moving from his original website. As an example I used to see posting I made on a certain website 20+ years ago lose their original formatting, becoming hard to read. So I tend to presume there is a good likelihood of similar things happening when the original website owner is no longer in control.

 

[faberryman]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

Which is what Sirius Glass said in post #155 and what chuckroast fleshed out in Post #196.

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

Yep. Over the years I've been going the opposite direction. You should see my collection of soft focus filters! They all destroy lens/film resolution in very different yet artistic ways.

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://spur-photo.com/wp-content/uploads/SPUR-bw-high-resolution-photography-guideline.pdf

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] But the guy who tested the lens, Kornelius Fleischer, I believe used only a low contrast target. Erwin Puts disputed his result.
There is little data for recent lenses as the resolution is generally quoted as MTF not lppm.

 

[Mr Bill]

My interpretation of that sentence [about lens and film combination] is different than yours.

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?

 

[chuckroast]

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.

Science is dispassionate. Scientists are not.

 

[chuckroast]

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

 

[Mr Bill]

This is a time honored formal proof: Proof By Repeated Assertion

Equally powerful is the proof by assertion, by those with lesser knowledge, of who the expert is ("I don't know much about this topic, but I DO KNOW that the expert here is so-and-so.).

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

It's funny, I am trained as an engineer and quite comfortable with many forms of mathematics and willing to learn new mathematical methods as they make sense. But I have never once felt the need to resort to drilling through
Maxewell's Equations (which would require knocking a LOT of dust off the old cabesa) or, for that matter, MTF curves in any serious way. I want to see things not measure them.

I do admit to occasionally using algebra in the darkroom, but have never once resorted to quantum chemistry to figure out my Dektol behavior ...

 

[chuckroast]

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.

Well, I really feel its time to get everyone to weigh in on what makes something look "sharp". It should lead to endless circles of confusion ...

 

[George Mann]

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].

This mystery film is 3.5 times the resolution of the highest commercially available film that I know of, which is ADOX CMS 20 II.

 

[faberryman]

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?

I don't know which, if either, of the formulas you set forth in post #199 is correct, so I'll refrain from speculating.