film is higher res than digital--Puts

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, Ambro51 said:

I have no doubt the performance here outshines anything digital.

It doesn't.

[Ambro51]

On a ten foot wide screen, that camera would give projected line to line distance of .44 mm.    Do that.....

[chrism]

My eyes can't see 90Lp/mm - can anyone's? If so, this is an irrelevant reason for using film. As if I had been doing so this last fifty years because I needed that kind of resolution! I use it because I like it and I know how. C'est tout.

[jaapv]

10 hours ago, Ambro51 said:

The Stereo Realist Custom came along in 1959 at the tail end of the Stereo craze.  By this time, many serious stereographers were using glass mounted slides in special stereo projectors.  The screens were special and polarized glasses needed.   The Realist Custom was assembled using hand picked parts to a high standard.  The lenses were capable of 300 lpm resolution.  They were 4 element Tessar type made with “rare earth glass” and precision matched.  Though not so indicated Steinheil  Munchen made these.  Focus in the camera build was set by a microscope.  Film...Kodachrome of course.   ••••• I have no doubt the performance here outshines anything digital.

Unfortunately the film didn't match the lens resolution. In 1996 Kodak rated the resolution of Kodachrome 25 to be 100 lp/mm at 1000:1 contrast and 63 lp/mm at 1.6. (which, actually, is pretty good)