I am not saying its simple! All I am saying is that when you look at
film emulsion a little differently especially as a three dimensional
grain structure with density and depth a number of possibilities emerge
that cast doubt on if you can equate grain size directly to resolution
and especially grain size to ccd sensor size. Thats all, nothing more.
yes I see things in terms of bits, bytes and on off - thats my job and
my training and yes I can't allways see past that and yes I am a better
cmoputer scincetist than photographer and yes I am no chemist etc etc.
BUT I maintain film is a three dmiensional structure and grains are not
all the same size and these two points alone are enough to weaken the
need a substantial surface area of film grain to equal one ccd sensor
and therefore weaken the argument that film is lower definition than
digital or that it responds somehow better to mtf tests than it does in
I am not saying film is higher definition than digital there is film
curve etc. In the end analysis I like film for many of the same reasons
I play lps and run valve amplifiers and electrostatic speakers.
therefore have been arguments about which is higher resolution lps or
cds and which is lower distortion etc. When the questions get asked
interesting points emerge like digitals high distorion for low level
I am not trying to be right I am trying to make people think - thats my
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx