One difference between film and digital is that digital pixels come
in a regular array, even if they have noise and variation. Film has
a random sampling structure, which has to add its own character.
We have to really over sample the film, 4000dpi+, in order to capture
those characteristics. But if we could then figure out a way to reduce
the data back down, preserving the random sampling of the grain,
it may actually require fewer grain-pixels to render a decent image.
You certainly don't have to worry about weird moire effects with film.
I believe this characteristic makes comparing film to digital images
difficult.
And if you really look at the cropped portion of Walts photo:
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-715998.html
just looking at the side of the building is interesting, the way the
grain varies is interesting. If instead they were all regularly spaced,
the interest would disappear. The grain lets the imagination engage
with the photo in a way that digital cannot. And with the thicker and
thinner regions of the grain, the variations almost seems like the
film is interacting with the scene, creating something new in the
process. Are the cones and rods of our eyes arranged in a regular
array?
Wayne
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|