Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-30-2011, 07:12 PM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by Vertex Ninja Quote
...
About the only thing it told me was the lens on this 56 year old camera is good enough and that I had just wasted a roll of film.
I doesn't sound like a wasted roll to me. You learned something and got to post some informative results here.

QuoteQuote:
...
My conclusion from looking at the negative under a microscope was that the film was limiting the resolution, but that it would have to be in the neighborhood of 90-100LP/mm.
...
I think film flatness in the camera is a large contributing factor of getting high lp/mm results or not too.

09-30-2011, 10:53 PM   #47
Giveaway winner!
MysteryOnion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: beantown
Photos: Albums
Posts: 885
Original Poster
Fabulous info from this fork in the thread... In a sense it seems that resolution is something that can be controlled by the photographers and that you can get pretty far out results. Isn't it true that you can not have that level of control for digital? The claimed density of a image sensor is not quite a contiguous surface for capturing everything... a limit by the software and if the Bayer pattern is employed for example, gaps that must be filled in to render a detail? I may be fooling myself, but I think I feel more comfortable knowing that I have a chance of coaxing out detail that actually hit the film and it is based on my choices of lens and machine than to always have the interpretation of light that software thinks it can see.
10-01-2011, 01:41 PM   #48
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
QuoteOriginally posted by MysteryOnion Quote
... I may be fooling myself, but I think I feel more comfortable knowing that I have a chance of coaxing out detail that actually hit the film and it is based on my choices of lens and machine than to always have the interpretation of light that software thinks it can see.
Well if you think about it, all the same rules apply to digital that apply to film with regards to resolution and optics. Digital has bayer and low pass filters, but film has grain and dye clouds. Just as different films have different resolutions and granularity, different digital cameras have different levels of resolution and noise performance. The choice of optics play the same role on whatever you shoot, good lenses will be separated from bad ones as resolutions increase. Currently without any question, certain films(not all film) still hold the resolution crown, but digital marches on and will match them in short order. There is a physical and practical limit and digital will eventually hit this wall too.
10-01-2011, 02:03 PM   #49
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ferguson, Mo.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,348
QuoteOriginally posted by Vertex Ninja Quote
Currently without any question, certain films(not all film) still hold the resolution crown, but digital marches on and will match them in short order. There is a physical and practical limit and digital will eventually hit this wall too.
One thing Ive wondered is to what extent nanotechnology has been used in film emulsion R&D.
With advances of digital and attendant financial impetus,money for researching emulsions just isnt there.
No lab would have anything appropriated for consumer apps,
but what about scientific,medical,and manufacturing for example.
Is there a microbiologist in the house?

10-01-2011, 06:02 PM   #50
Giveaway winner!
MysteryOnion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: beantown
Photos: Albums
Posts: 885
Original Poster
Vertex Ninja, excellent facts and well said.

BillM, Kodak had done right with the Vision and T-grain, but now they are in trouble and they seemed to be the last of the R&D big spenders.

If Kodak goes the way of the dodo, maybe Maco/Rollei might come up with stuff and Ilford might stay out of the red to do something? Or nanotech might be a some day home brew thing and we can pump out made to order film for our ancient cameras ... and fly around with our jet packs or anti-gravity boots to take pictures.
10-01-2011, 06:58 PM   #51
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by MysteryOnion Quote
Or nanotech might be a some day home brew thing and we can pump out made to order film for our ancient cameras ... and fly around with our jet packs or anti-gravity boots to take pictures.
I'm still waiting for my atomic helicopter.
10-01-2011, 07:35 PM   #52
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
Then we could hop in our time machines to go back and stalk digital shooters and mock their "prehistoric" digital cameras with our film of the future!
10-01-2011, 11:11 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ferguson, Mo.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,348
QuoteOriginally posted by Vertex Ninja Quote
hop in our time machines
Lot of fun to play around with. One of things I heard about few years back
was some nano-sized film plate(lets) introduced into a body.Would attach
to cells and absorb proteins.Then released and discharged by body,examined
with a spectrograph.Something in the same as nasa looks at deep space with hubble.
All theory and imagination, yeah.The thought that breast cancer,other types
might be detected at first sign of a cells mutation something to hope for.

10-02-2011, 08:52 AM   #54
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
QuoteOriginally posted by BillM Quote
...nano-sized film plate(lets) ...


QuoteOriginally posted by BillM Quote
...The thought that breast cancer,other types
might be detected at first sign of a cells mutation something to hope for.
Definitely some exciting things to come!
10-02-2011, 09:27 AM   #55
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I doesn't sound like a wasted roll to me. You learned something and got to post some informative results here.
Yes, I suppose so! Most importantly it told me that F2.8-F4.0 is sharp but very noticeably lower contrast than smaller apertures and that the lens peaks at 5.6-8.0. Basically backing up the test here: Medium Format Cameras - Testing Lenses

Also I found it interesting that the letters in the crop with text("D" in Direct TV) are roughly the same size on film as the heads of the people on the scan Steve posted. At 100LP/mm we're talking about being able to see differences in tone between those peoples ears and their hair or the gaps between their fingers!
10-02-2011, 02:47 PM   #56
Giveaway winner!
MysteryOnion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: beantown
Photos: Albums
Posts: 885
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Vertex Ninja Quote
stalk digital shooters and mock their "prehistoric" digital cameras with our film of the future!
You mean to target the Mavica owners and cause their heads to explode by showing them the output from the amorphous layered 2000iso 320lpmm film from 2016?
10-02-2011, 04:11 PM   #57
Site Supporter
patrick9's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Murfreesboro Tennessee
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,279
[
QuoteOriginally posted by MysteryOnion Quote
On the original "Utterings..." This past Sunday I happen to ask at a Walgreens if they still had some sale going on with the film... I was asking nicely. The manager got very angry and turn and away and said from the back of his head, "you people are in the past" and as he disappeared to the back he pointed at a lone line of film on the shelf that were not on sale.
I talked to the manager of my local walgreens. I got a totally different response.He hopes that more people will use film and his store for processing. he usually has a decent selection of film and a knowledgeable staff. he was low on the film that was on sale. I stocked up last weekend.
10-02-2011, 04:44 PM   #58
Giveaway winner!
MysteryOnion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: beantown
Photos: Albums
Posts: 885
Original Poster
I visited another Walgreens and they were out and acted totally nice and normal and said they should get some in by next week.

Uttering the word at a camera store and they said that they don't get many calls for film from the older crowds, it is mostly youngsters and it is a photo-student usually.

Uttering the word at supermarket and the clerk was surprised that I was the fifth guy asking for the stuff. I explain that you can't beat the look of film. He wondered why one can't photoshop the look in. I explained and he said, " wow... thats a lot of work..."

I uttered the word at thrift store that always gets old cameras in. I was there for almost an hour talking to a very excited young lady of the joys and she was telling me that she combs the stuff for her own growing interest in photography, but told me about her struggles with family members that are sold on digitals and think she is weird... sorry, no ending to story... the Ms. hauled me away.

Walking with my son next to a monument in a park in the town of Newton, I uttered the word and was trying to explain a problem with strong back lighting. A very rude individual butted in and was telling my son that his digital camera doesn't have the issues of old technology. He hoisted his D90 to his face, the flash popped up and shot and I quickly told the guy that he should now not delete the image of the dark monument from his card, but keep it as a reference on learning compensation. He walked off muttering.
10-18-2011, 09:24 PM - 2 Likes   #59
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,119
QuoteOriginally posted by MysteryOnion Quote
Vertex Ninja,
I think in very modern and high-tech city that you will find those random individuals that blindly, aggressively think that they are cutting edge and have the "best thing out there".


séamuis,
A true point about vinyl... and how people just go for the new thing and think they know it all just by listening to the advertising.



I should point out that I've clarified that it's an unusual 'percentage' that is encountered... as I've said before that a good number of student are very nice about film and a random small percentage of them are negative. The people from mid-twenties and up are where I encounter some greater numbers of weirdness. If it were the entire of Boston, I would move to the West coast.

Just to stop my "cup half empty" crap for a moment... A fella came to my defense back last year... two tourist types stood in front of me and my shot with huge lensed Canons and were looking at my Pentax 6x7 and saying "that must be a waste of energy" A interesting professor type stepped up and simply said to the two "then you know nothing gentlemen and you should mind you own business... go study photography..." Wow, they backed down and left.
Yeah you should move out west, “Cascadia” is a safe haven for film shooters. No one will look twice at you shooting film and never say anthing stupid like what you are getting. Time to pack your bags and become a Canucks fan! (Just leave the Bruins jersy at home)

I did get one funny coment last month when I was in Barcelona. I was changing the film in my K2 at a rest area in a museum. I had film canisters, the K2 Everyready case, lens hood and an eyecup spreadout on a table and was in my own world while I was loading the film. I looked up when I was finished and a older man was staring at me, he said in english “You are a brave man” and walked away??

Phil.
10-19-2011, 06:59 AM   #60
Giveaway winner!
MysteryOnion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: beantown
Photos: Albums
Posts: 885
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
Yeah you should move out west, “Cascadia” is a safe haven for film shooters. No one will look twice at you shooting film and never say anthing stupid like what you are getting. Time to pack your bags and become a Canucks fan! (Just leave the Bruins jersy at home)
Yeah, I should vacation in some friendly lands... and I am not a Bruins fan either.

For yucks... I had my LX and winder with 85mm and hood in hand and the 6x7 dangling off to the side this past Monday. I tried to think and size up the shot with the LX, but it was not happening... I guy walked up holding a Canon Powershot and said, "maybe you need to get a better camera!" I thanked him and drew up the 6x7 and made the shot and simply said "yes, that did the trick! Thanks for the suggestion." He didn't look happy and walked off.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, film, photography, shot, words
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Searching by the word - IMPOSSIBLE! vanakaru Site Suggestions and Help 2 05-07-2011 02:50 PM
Any word on the 18-135mm? JamieP Pentax News and Rumors 84 11-19-2010 03:14 PM
Landscape mums the word... dcmsox2004 Post Your Photos! 2 10-25-2009 01:34 PM
Nature Bird's the Word PeteyJ Post Your Photos! 3 10-04-2009 06:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top