Re: Digicam vs. Scanner resolutions

[Kennedy McEwen <rkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <006e01c2111f$6debbf20$0100a8c0@KAIROS>, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@chello.nl> writes
>
>BTW, is there a list of filmsizes, general lens resolutions,
>grain size/filmspeed etc so you could use a combination where the
>image resolution is always near the grain resolution ? I know
>this is more a thing you have to learn while doing it but there
>must be someone with an urge to publish that.
>
You can get most of the information you need from the MTF curves 
published by the film and lens manufacturers.  Scale the MTFs to the 
same spatial frequency and then multiply them together to get EXACTLY 
what the limiting performance is for any combination of lens and film. 
Then do the same for the image reproduction phase, either the enlarger 
optical MTF and print emulsion resolution or the scanner MTF to get the 
performance of the final image.

That is why MTF is so useful - all the components just multiply together 
to give the end result.  The one exception is when you scan the image 
you also introduce a "brick wall" limit and any residual resolution 
above that is "reflected" to appear as the MTF of the aliased component. 
Thus, appropriately tuning the MTF of the scanner can eliminate grain 
entirely from the scanned image without loss of performance.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.