RE: Digicam

["Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not assuming that at all. You only need many more pixels of information
if you want to record the exact size and shape of each grain, which is of
course unimportant to image reproduction. As Kennedy pointed out, the random
nature of film grain is reflected in a high spatial frequency attenuation
curve, one example of which was shown in the Kodak gif image he provided a
link to. There may be some "energy" at those high spatial frequencies
because a small fraction of the grains are tiny, but since most of the
grains are larger, those high frequencies are heavily rolled off, and don't
really contribute to a real image. If I'm wrong about this, I'm sure Kennedy
will correct me.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

> From: SKID Photography
>
> 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.

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.