[cfraz]

The problem is that the officers in the US patent office don't do their job.

True- many (most?) U.S. patents that are approved would have no chance to survive a challenge.

Another problem is that patent troll companies, who use trivial and valid patents alike, prevent even good ideas embodied in patents from ever coming to market. They use the patent system at cross purposes to its intent. I count that as abuse.

Now, I feel I should apologize for my off topic rant. I should go try to make some night time photographs.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Color film can only resolve 40 lp/mm? That is an absolute crock of dung.

[ogl]

Color film can only resolve 40 lp/mm? That is an absolute crock of dung.

Some can 80 lp/mm

[lithos]

If you know that Einstein once worked as a patent officer you know what I mean

Ja, he was.

The time has arrived that a patent officer be sent to jail for not protecting the interest of the general public which is (or should be) partially paying him (tax payers). Interestingly, the EU patent office issues far less trivial patents.

I'm wondering what f*ckwit though it was OK for companies to patent our genes: the basic premise of Patents is that they're for inventions, not discoveries...

[falconeye]

Color film can only resolve 40 lp/mm? That is an absolute crock of dung.

Ivan, I made a more serious statement further down. I conceded what ogl wrote, up to 80 lp/mm. And that most color films when scanned only very rarely exhibit more than 40 lp/mm.

Ja, he was.
[...]
Patents is that they're for inventions, not discoveries...

Very funny.

BTW, his hairdo was different during that time
(cf. attachment)

Einstein must have realized that the "Smith' theory of relativity" is a discovery and so he went away to get it published to the right audience. Smith shouldn't have tried to get a discovery patented by a Swiss patent officer

[lithos]

Wait, if some companies own my genes, can I sue them for not giving me a 12" *****...?

[kenyee]

The problem is that the officers in the US patent office don't do their job. They leave it to lawyers and expert panels to do so.

You think that's bad? I was involved in a UK case where a patent was overturned, but in their retarded system, the patent writer can then say "oh I didn't mean that, I meant this other stuff" and can then fork off a bunch of other patents in an attempt to make the overturned one more specific. The patent holder then has to waste time defending against lots of other stupid patents after overturning the original stupid patent. I wrote something that was being used to overturn the derivative patents, but the company gave in to the blackmailers and gave them money instead

[Tommy]

Wait, if some companies own my genes, can I sue them for not giving me a 12" *****...?

ehhh, you mean a 12 mm prime?
Given the thread topic (645d) I 'd say that is extremely wide.
Wouldn't you want to have something longer...

/Tommy

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Regardless of the common-disseminated internet fiction that you must halve these amounts based on line pairs resolved.

Provia= 160 lpmm
Velvia= 160 lpmm
Astia = 140 lpmm
Ektar= 200 lpmm

These numbers are for high contrast 1:1000 lighting.

The lower numbers seen in the data sheets, typically 60-100 lpmm are for low contrast 1:5 lighting.

[Asahiflex]

What name do we think this baby will bear? Personally, I think it will be...

K-645

Because the "D" suffix is soooooooo 2001!

[glanglois]

The problem is that the officers in the US patent office don't do their job. They leave it to lawyers and expert panels to do so. This renders the entire system absurd as going to court was always an option... If you know that Einstein once worked as a patent officer you know what I mean
.

I'm showing my ignorance but I've not found another way to remedy that lack.

If patent applications are examined by lawyers from a legal basis and an expert panel (whatever that is) from a technical (prior art, non-obvious to a practitioner, etc.) basis, what is left for the patent officer but to assemble document the result?

[falconeye]

what is left for the patent officer but to assemble document the result?

My point was that the document is assembled before the lawyers and experts come into play, i.e., after the patent is granted and when it is challenged.

[falconeye]

Regardless of the common-disseminated internet fiction that you must halve these amounts based on line pairs resolved.

Provia= 160 lpmm
Velvia= 160 lpmm
Astia = 140 lpmm
Ektar= 200 lpmm

These numbers are for high contrast 1:1000 lighting.

The lower numbers seen in the data sheets, typically 60-100 lpmm are for low contrast 1:5 lighting.

I have some feeling that you may have been misled by the imprecise nature of available literature.

The best source at my disposal is original German literature from Agfa (Agfa Technisches Datenblatt F-PF-D4 07/2003). Their best color or slide film is Agfacolor Portrait 160. The attachment shows the full technical specification of this film, at a level of detail not normally found elsewhere.

The relevant chart is entitled "Schärfe" (resolution), the scale is MTF [%] vs. spatial frequency [lp/mm]. They write lines per mm but in the film era, lines meant discernible lines separated by a background, nowadays called line pairs where one line pair is two line widths (LW).

They quote 150 lp/mm for 1000:1 contrast patterns and 60 lp/mm for 1.6:1 contrast patterns. But this is for the limit of discernible lines in the end result with vanishing contrast (< ~5% MTF -- original phrase: "Auflösungsgrenze bei der Wiedergabe eines Linienrasters").

More telling is the MTF curve itself. At 60 lp/mm, it quotes an MTF figure of ~30%. Kodak publishes 30% MTF values which are similiar.

MTF curve rollof for film has been approximated by MTF(f)=1/(1+( f/f50)^2) where f is the spatial frequency and MTF(f50)=50%. This means that MTF(2*f50)=20%; MTF(3*f50)=10%; MTF(4*f50)=6% and MTF(5*f50)=4%. The Agfa film has about f50=35 lp/mm and the 150 lp/mm is excatly in line with a 5% MTF assumption.

There seems to be a consensus that film resolution should be quoted for ~30% MTF which is reasonable because the normal viewer won't see details below this figure (except maybe for very low grain emulsions). My posting followed this tradition. Numbers in excess of 100 lp/mm for film are theoretical dream figures without much relevance except for criminal forensic when reading car plates with a computerized microscope.

[jptreen]

Falc, sometimes I wonder...is there any part of photo technology of which you do not have magical secret knowledge?

I mean, when something hasn't been released you're as clueless as the rest of us, but as soon as it's in the wild (I'm thinking of the K-7 as the first example that comes to mind, that AF testing you did must have been read by a huge proportion of this board!) you swiftly become the resident 'geekipedian in chief'.

Incidentally, the above is me in awe of you, not mocking you. Your posts are always useful, if regularly beyond my pay grade, technically-speaking. And they're in your second language.

*bows down*

[creampuff]

Complete thread digression... what's the relevance of how many lines per millimeter on film has with the soon to be released 645D?
As usual we get a whole bunch of measurebators who in all probability can't even afford the 645D poring over obsolete film data that has absolutely no connection to the new camera.
Mods, please lock this useless thread.