One thing I was thinking. If the digital sensor is producing lower
noise pixels, there *is* more information there which improves the
ability to interpolate. Megapixels are not everything. The Z-axis
information is also important. In communication theory, the information
rate available for a communication channel depends not only on the
sampling rate (or channel Bandwidth), but also on the S/N (signal to
noise). Perhaps someone with extra time on their hands can figure out
the actual information in digital versus film rather than anecdotal
observations. OK,.... so I have some time on my hands... what is
the minimum difference in two tones, side-by-side, we can see?
(basis of information?) .........
As for prints speaking for themselves, I bet content also matters. The
mind will fill in some information if there is a *perception* of
sharpness. Hence, a landscape will require more detailed pixels than a
flower or a face. And in some cases, fewer pixels may actually help
the face, not to mention any curmudg... I mean names. Ah, maybe some
faces require *more* pixels to render all that lifetime of detail. Yes,
that's it... more pixels to show off all that ... ahh ... that ah ... tenacity,
ah ... that life-worn-ness and character....
OK, So what I said: Some types of photos need more resolution to
print big, even some faces.
And how much resolution does this one need?
http://www.zuik.net/E1/GrandDaughter_8043907_1.jpg (350kb)
and a full res cropped and sharpened portion
http://www.zuik.net/E1/GrandDaughter_crop.jpg (warning: 1.7mb)
(limited time posting) E-1, 200mm, F6.3, iso 100.
\A/yne - with grand-daddy-hood-ness camera disease
At 08:54 PM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
>All absolutely true.
>
>The prints, however, speak for themselves.
>
>Tom
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
