John Sheehy wrote:
John Navas wrote in
:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:10:27 -0400, "Charles"
wrote in
:

Let the reader decide:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml

Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of
real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of
aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully
exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with
regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.

The lenses are to blame for any optical issues with high densities. The
higher density *NEVER* exacerbates any lens problems. Lower densities
lower the resolution, so you see less of everything, including subject
detail.

You position is all "talk" and "logic". You can not demonstrate what you
believe, because it only exists in bad logic and bad paradigms.

Here's what happens when you try to demonstrate, and go about it the
right way:

You shoot the same scene with the same lens, same ISO, same Av and Tv,
and then you use a converter with no noise reduction, and upsample
critical crops from both images to the same subject size. No matter how
much lens fault is brought into the light with the higher density, the
higher density still has a more accurate rendition of the subject,
because those faults ARE ALWAYS THERE, REGARDLESS OF PIXEL DENSITY. Less
agressive sampling does not avoid lens issues; it just makes it harder to
tell why the image has so much less real subject detail.

Is that another way of saying the Kodak empirical formula for end image
resolution (on film) is...

1/sqrt(res_out) = 1/sqrt(res_lens) + 1/sqrt(res_sensor) ?

So increasing either the sensor density or the lens resolution results
in higher output resolution, though of course with diminishing returns.