Olympus-OM

## [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution

 Subject: [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution "C.H.Ling" Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:48:19 -0800
 You assumption is very interesting, how if each grain is stack on the top of the other? Will it be no matter how many dots are on the same position on different layers it just produce a black dot? You are assuming each grain has 20, 30, 40%.... transparency? In random world the grain will not exactly alligned one on top of each other, it is impossible to count on the gray level it can reproduce. Actually, if you assume each grain has the same transparency then you can still only make 8 difference grey levels with 8 grains. How can you expect each grain is double the size of the others and align on the same exact position? You can program it? You are putting the analogue world into digital calculation that has nothing to support. I just assume it is like offset printing, you need the exact number of dot (grain) to produce the number of grey level. C.H.Ling ----- Original Message ----- From: "james king" > > james king wrote: >> C.H.Ling wrote: >> >>>Your calculation on the film grains seems not right, if all grain has the >>>same size you need 256 (16x16) grains to represent 256 levels. But film >>>grains has variable size so you never know. >>> >> > The second way to get 256 combinations from 8 grains is if you *assume* > each grain is twice the size of the next one. i.e. grains are not all > the same size > > so largest grain on all other off represents 128 half way between d min > and d max > all grains off is dmin > all grains of is 128 + 64 + 32 + 16 +8 +4 +2 +1 = 256 > > however I still prefer the idea that the emulsion is multiple grains in > thickness and therefore this reduced the need to have a super grain of > multiple grains width. > > Regards > James > > Sorry I should have explain my reasoning about depth in the first email ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ==============================================
 Current Thread [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, (continued) [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, AG Schnozz [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, Wayne S [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, Winsor Crosby [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution a way or thinking its not about the numbers!, james king [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution a way or thinking its not about the numbers!, Winsor Crosby [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution a way or thinking its not about the numbers!, Piers Hemy [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution a way or thinking its not about the numbers!, Winsor Crosby [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution a way or thinking its not about the numbers!, Winsor Crosby [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution a way or thinking its not about the numbers!, Bill Pearce [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution a way or thinking its not about the numbers!, Bill Pearce [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, C.H.Ling <= [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, AG Schnozz [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, Andrew Fildes [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, swisspace [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, Winsor Crosby [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, Chuck Norcutt [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, Piers Hemy [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, ScottGee1 [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, Robert Swier [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution, ScottGee1