14 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGE, BROCK 
large-area threshold contrast sensitivity. The differences in the latter are mainly due to 
gamma differences. It is interesting to note how such effects are sometimes reversed 
higher up the curves, crossovers to the right showing the increasing effect of superior 
micro-properties at smaller line-separations. The emulsion resolution at any image 
contrast is given by the intersection with the abcissa of that value; for example at “0.2”. 
This is some 25% higher than its resolution measured on Cobb test-objects mainly due no 
doubt to the greater length space ratio of the sinusoidal test-objects. 
In Fig. 8 the threshold curves for emulsions (2) and (6) of Fig. 7 are replotted 
together with the C.T. curve for the 6" f/5.6 lens of Fig. 6. The latter is shown for low 
contrast (log. luminance 0.2) as well as for black and white contrast. Some resolving- 
power figures read from the graph are given in Table 2. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
TABLE 2. Lines per mm. Resolution at different contrast. 
High Speed Emulsion | High Resolution Emulsion | Ratio: 
(a) (b) | b/a 
High Contrast: 9 230 
Perfect Lens 8: 2 2.6 
High Contrast: , 
6” f/5.6 lens 45 71 1-5 
| 
Low Contrast: | : | 9 | 
6” f/5.6 lens 27 4 1.8 
Low Contrast: | | | ; 
Perfect Lens 40 110 2.7 
  
  
  
Considering first the emulsion with different contrast target imaged by a perfect 
lens, we see that the high contrast resolution is approximately 2.6 times the low contrast 
in both cases, the threshold curves being nearly parallel in this region. The 6” lens is not 
good enough to yield the full emulsion resolution in either case, as its C.T. is low and 
falling rapidly above, say 50 lines per mm. The C.T. curves for the 6” lens cross the 
threshold curves more or less oblique according to the convergence of the latter and the 
target contrast, and the horizontal distance between the intersections is correspondingly 
affected. Thus it happens that the advantage of the high resolution emulsion is greater 
at low contrast. It becomes even greater at still lower contrasts such as a log luminance 
ratio of 0.08, before the two emulsions reach substantial equality at zero frequency. 
The graph also shows that the lens C.T. should be kept as high as possible out to the 
resolution limit of the emulsion; for example, doubling the C.T. in the 50 lines/mm region 
would increase the lens/film resolution by some 60%, whereas extending it at the same 
level to much higher frequencies would have no practical value. 
Emulsion threshold curves have another application, as pointed out by Selwyn. With 
such curves for one or more emulsions covering the required range of frequencies we 
could determine the C.T. curve of the lens by measuring the combined resolving-power 
for a range of testobject contrasts. 
Fig. 9 shows a comparison, at low and high contrast, between two lenses of the same 
construction and nominally equal performance *), with the threshold curve for a slow 
emulsion. Lens A is better over the whole frequency band, but at low contrast its resolu- 
tion is only 1.2 X better than that of lens B, whereas at high contrast the ratio is nearly 
2.0. (This would be interpreted, according to taste, as proving the greater sensitivity of 
*) based on curves published by Dr. Washer. 
high con 
the futi 
them for 
subjects) 
clear th: 
ence bet: 
es wouk 
on an e 
as Supe: 
detail o: 
contrast 
such as 
photogra 
Fig. 
effect of 
cus settii 
lens, at 
contrast, 
the thre 
for slo 
emulsion 
ting (A) 
modulati 
frequenc 
sharp cu 
100 line 
(B) give 
ulation 
line regi 
response 
hundred 
high con 
focus se 
qual res 
on the s 
(B), wit 
cut-off, 
resolutio 
film. At 
(B) is si 
on both € 
would . 
superior 
emulsion 
Fig.10. 7 
tings of 
at high 
trast, Wi 
curves | 
slow