lpm/pixle

[chuck colburn]

Is there a conversion factor for lpm to pixles?

[Graeme Nattress]

Pixels are 5.4 microns across. For a line pair, you need 2 pixels. So a line pair would be 2 * 0.0054 mm in size. This give 92 lp/mm I think.

Graeme

[chuck colburn]

Pixels are 5.4 microns across. For a line pair, you need 2 pixels. So a line pair would be 2 * 0.0054 mm in size. This give 92 lp/mm I think.

Graeme

Hi Graeme,

Wow! If that's right then one is going to need some kick ass lenses to keep up with this camera!
By the way is the Red 300mm lens a Nikon, Contax, etc.? You can tell me I won't tell anyone else....

Chuck

[Graeme Nattress]

The RED 300mm is a RED.

Kick Ass Lens? If it looks good on a current 10mp DSLR, it's going to be just fine here. Remember, 2/3" "HD" cameras like the HDCAM have smaller pixels still. You don't want to know the lp/mm for an HDV camera - it's scary.

Graeme

[chuck colburn]

The RED 300mm is a RED.

Kick Ass Lens? If it looks good on a current 10mp DSLR, it's going to be just fine here. Remember, 2/3" "HD" cameras like the HDCAM have smaller pixels still. You don't want to know the lp/mm for an HDV camera - it's scary.

Graeme

Well yeah...but. Take a look at these resolution figures for these Pentax lenses, always considered some of the best. So I think a fair comparison as the 50mm focal length is one of the easier lenses to correct for abberations no matter who they are made by. Notice that they start to get near 92 lpm around f5.6 (not counting the macro) and certainly are 1/3 to 1/2 that at the wider stops. Shorter focal lengths just get worse in overall numbers. So all I was saying was that the Red camera is going to deserve the best glass one can afford to own or rent for it.

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/ph...ax_normal.html

Chuck

[Graeme Nattress]

Two things - we have an optical low pass filter which does limit the maximum resolution of the light coming in to stop aliassing artifacts. The other factor is that the major contributors to image sharpness are not the sharpness of the lens, but more environmental and user factors.

Graeme

[chuck colburn]

Two things - we have an optical low pass filter which does limit the maximum resolution of the light coming in to stop aliassing artifacts. The other factor is that the major contributors to image sharpness are not the sharpness of the lens, but more environmental and user factors.

Graeme

Hi Graeme,

Unless an anti-aliassing filter is something else besides a band pass filter and assuming that it is optically flat and has a proper anti reflective coating applied it should have very little effect on the quality of the taking lens in front of it. As for enviromental issuse unless it's such as rain or a fog machine I don't see this as a factor either. By user factors I guess you mean filtration such as lo-cons or nets that are designed to reduce resolution. These will affect the quality of the image. I think all I was getting at is the camera has a higher resolution potential than most lenses do.

Cheers!

Chuck

[Graeme Nattress]

The AA filter is a low pass filter, so it limits the maximum resolution that the sensor sees.

Environmental - more like wobble, shake and vibration of using the camera in the real world, rather than on a test bed, in a studio, pointing at a resolution chart.

Graeme

[chuck colburn]

The AA filter is a low pass filter, so it limits the maximum resolution that the sensor sees.

Environmental - more like wobble, shake and vibration of using the camera in the real world, rather than on a test bed, in a studio, pointing at a resolution chart.

Graeme

Graeme,

I think you might be confusing wave length with resolution. A low pass or for that matter a high pass filter is refered to as a band pass filter. It doesn't matter if it's for the visual range or the audio range they both do the same thing. A low pass filter limits higher frequency waves be they audio or visual. In this case I assume it is blocking the wavelengths near the extreme short end of the visual range and into the ultra violet. If anything I would think this would improve the resolution. I know it does in sound and on film as it reduces artifacts that impair the percieved quality of the image be it aural or visual .Anyhow as I say there might be something here I'm not getting.

Chuck