Re: Digicam

[Kennedy McEwen <rkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <3D03808D.6749A703@bway.net>, SKID Photography 
<skid@bway.net> writes
>Paul,
>But you are making the false assumption that film information is arranged in a
>grid fashion similar to pixels.   I maintain, (and have had it confirmed by
>others, more technically accomplished than I) that to reproduce the the random
>information on film (made up of irregularly shaped grains) it takes a lot more
>pixels to express that information.   Think about it.
>
That is true Harvey, it does take a lot more square pixels to reproduce 
accurately the randomly placed grains, but those randomly placed grains 
are NOT the image - they are components of the medium!

Your argument also suggests that there is detail in the film up to 
50,000,000,000 ppi because the atoms making up the individual grains are 
randomly distributed in the emulsion - but I am sure that you understand 
that the image information content has run out long before individual 
atoms need to be resolved, EVEN THOUGH each single point in the image 
may be produced by a single photon interacting with only a single silver 
atom.

I hope this explains the difference between the need to resolve 
individual grains and resolving all of the image information.  Digital 
capture, whether images, sound, sonar, radar or whatever does not need 
to resolve the individual components of the analogue medium to capture 
all of the information being carried by that medium.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.