|
InfoMan -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/13/2017 12:44:08 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Well you are the person that thinks I am God and can raise the dead to perform those test for you.
Yes and I can use my massive photographic knowledge to point out that 1940's field cameras did not have the resolution to show the equivalent of mosquito bits from across the room with their typical 35mm lens.
Pre-digital camera's did not take pictures in any 'Resolution'. It is a chemical reaction which is created on the exposure of a strip of film. While from a practical sense, these cameras don't have an 'infinite resolution' persae - they often produce film with more detail and with much finer, refined edges then that of most any DSLR on the market. Even today, the film negative of exposure camera's can be scanned at a much higher dpi to produce extremely massive resolutions, far exceeding anything that any DSLR can produce even today.
Literally a disposable camera from the 90's film negative can be scanned in at 2000 dpi allowing for a 16.6 Megapixel image to be processed, which is 3 times better then every single digital camera to the mid 2000's
1945 black and white photographs which have a resolution higher then 4 Megapixels.
I'm surprised that your 'massive photographic knowledge' didn't tell you that...
[img]http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF_E100VS.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF_Velvia.gif[/img]
same thing for a lens
[img]http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTFCanon28-70f28.gif[/img]
Film and lens resolution (MTF) are measured by using the Lorentzian function.
MTFfilm( f ) = 1/(1+( f/f50)2)
There is nothing I can do to fix stoopid or someone who pretends to have knowledge based on 5 second wiki reads.
There is no way you would see the equivalent of mosquito bites on those old black and white pics unless you had an 'extreme' close up, and even then you would not really be able to identify it as a bite.
Your imagined genius is only surpassed by your profound ignorance.
And with this - you prove that you have absolutely no idea how camera's work.
First off - you've compared color film to Black and White film which both function entirely differently and produce different qualities of film. Because black and white negatives are just one reaction, while color are several reactions to different light wavelengths, black and white are almost always sharper.
What's more - you produced a bunch of charts and a formula, yet you don't provide any context as to what any of it means... as if everyone should innately know exactly that it means what you think it means and thus it requires no information.
case in point MTF stands for modulation transfer function, It is a mathematical expression to show how much light is lost when it goes through a prism. It in no way denotes a lenses 'resolution' nor can it be used to express anything as such. identifying it as the unequivocal proof that it disproves anything I've said is ludicrous at best and insane at worst.
Further more to imply that the photographs are of not a high enough 'resolution' or that the camera where not good enough that we cannot identify Typhus Rash Marks:
[image]http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/infectiousdisvolii/chapter7figure34.jpg[/image]
1943 US Army infectious Diseases Handbook. The subject is an Egyptian man suffering from day 10 of Typhus Fever, producing the rashes on the upper arms. This simple photograph done by a 1943 camera produces a high enough quality picture that you can clearly see the red marks on the subjects arms despite the person being an olive brown color.
If it is 'impossible to show' then why was the US Army publishing such pictures in Handbooks to help medics Identify the disease as early as 1943?
|
|
|
|
