|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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:firstname.lastname@example.org > 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.