Responder Citando
Tiene que ver, pero no es exactamente de esto de lo que habla.
Lo que dice básicamente es que una lente que es mejor que otra a una frecuencia probada 200lp/mm no necesariamente tiene que serlo a una frecuencia superior, cosas que mucha gente, yo entre ellos, asumíamos.
De todas formas están probando 200lp/mm y 240lp/mm y si lees el artículo detenidamente dice esto:
Let’s be absolutely clear; this is not a practical or useful article. It won’t help your photography or cinematography become better. It won’t help you choose equipment any time in the next couple of years. It won’t provide any fodder for your next Forum War. It’s just a geek article that may interest some people. It may give a little peek into what may come in the future, and some insight into the kind of work we’re actually doing behind the scenes at Olaf. So if you’re interested in that kind of stuff, read al
A mí personalmente me ha interesado aunque no me ayude en ninguna guerra dialéctica en el foro.
Las conclusiones son estas:
Summary:
I say summary, because there are no practical or useful conclusions to be made. The only thing of interest, probably, is that only really good lenses can resolve ultra-high resolutions you’ll never need. However, even among these really good lenses, you can’t assume how a lens will perform at ultra-high resolutions based on its results at normal resolutions. You can also see that ultra-high-resolution performance is a bit easier to obtain in short telephoto focal lengths than in standard or wide-angle lengths.
Oh, yeah, and you can also wonder why someone, somewhere, is wondering what lenses will perform well at resolutions more than twice as high as what you might need today.
Otra cosa interesante que dice es esto:
Let me repeat, for those of you who want to mistake this test as having something to do with, say, the 60-megapixel full-frame camera you’re shooting; it doesn’t. Somewhere around 80 lp/mm would be more than sufficient for that. If you compare the orange lines of the Sony and Sigma 135mm graphs, you’ll see that at 96 lp/mm the Sony is actually a bit better than the Sigma. At ridiculously high frequencies, the Sigma is better. The takeaway message is important: better MTF at one frequency doesn’t mean better MTF at all frequencies.
So let’s look at a couple of other candidates I thought might do really well.
Básicamente si estás usando una cámara de 60Mp la MTF que te aplica estaría en los 80lp/mm, puedes hacer una regla de tres para llegar a la conclusión de que para una 90D estás en los 100lp/mm y para la futura cámara de 100Mp estarás en 120-130lp/mm.
¿Alguien ha visto una gráfica MTF120 o siquiera MTF100 de alguna lente? Quitando en este interesante artículo, claro.
Bueno, con la 90D sabemos que al menos los bordes van al caldero ...
Iniciado por Panxampla
Marcadores