|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
In article <3D03808D.6749A703@bway.net>, SKID Photography <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.