Re: [Leica] Whose confused??? Erwin didn't say that....

[Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>]

on 1/11/00 4:44 pm, Birkey, Duane at dbirkey@hcjb.org.ec wrote:

> Johnny,
> 
> Where in the world did you come up with Erwin saying a 960 x1440 pixel image
> was functionally equivalant to film???
> 
> No wonder you are confused.....   :  )

This is the bit I was referring to, Duane. He says that 40 l/mm on the
negative, which he says is equivalent to a digital capture of 960x1440
pixels, is roughly equivalent to the quality 'most people would dream about'
in hand held picture taking. If I have misunderstood it, please illuminate!!

> Now for some  steps. It is very difficult and often considered unnecessary
> (pace Mike Johnston) to get on film more than 40 line pairs or 80 lines. And
> if we be even more general, 20 lp/mm are the best. most people would dream
> about. Assume now 20 lp/mm or 40 lines per mm (the best you can get in hand
> held picture taking, generally speaking).
            *** BEGIN ASSERTION ***
> Again: 24 x 40 x 36 x 40 = 960 x 1440 = 1.382.400. Three colours would be 3
> times this number, which is 4Mb. And with 40 lp/mm we et 5.529.600 bytes
> times 3 = 16.588.800 bytes or 17 Mb, quite close to the 20 MB I quoted as
> the conventional wisdom.
            *** END ASSERTION ****
> So any digital capture of 20Mb would be close to the resoluton of 40 lp/mm
> that some on this list would consider as the most one would want in 35mm
> photography and to go beyond this number would qualify as being a freak
> obsessed with lines and test targets and all that. Reread  the mails by Mr
> Johnston and Mr. Grant and Mr Goodman at all.
- -- 
Johnny Deadman

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com