I keep reading hype that digital has arrived. For instance some clever person
has figured out how to do a better color sensor. (This was in a recent edition
of Discover.) The article went on and on about how it made digital as good as
film, without any mention of the other drawback, resolution.
I have always thought that digital would never equal film simply because a
molecule of photo sensitive material would always be smaller then even the
smallest CCD element.
I loosley followed a thread on this list about how at ~15 MB digital would equal
film. The gist being (if I understood correctly, which is by no means certain)
that further resolving power on the part of the digital sensor was wasted due to
the lack of resolving power of the optics. In other words the sensor would not
get more information, because more information would not make it thorugh the
lenses. Since the optics are the information bottleneck at this point, then the
difference between film and digital becomes moot (as far as resolution is
concerned).
Is this right?
Can some one point me to apropriate literature so I can read up on it myself?
I am not going to give up my film gear, and very likely will get more. I just
want to know if I have good reason not too, or if I am just going to have to be
stubborn.
Feel free to respond off list. I don't want to start a war, I just want to be
informed.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|