[OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution a way or thinking its not about the

Subject: [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution a way or thinking its not about the numbers!
From: james king <jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:42:48 +0000

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 
signals etc.

I am not trying to be right I am trying to make people think - thats my 
real job.


List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>