Re: Digicam- resolution maximus!

[Scanlist@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 6/9/2002 5:37:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 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.
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC



If I may interject my thoughts into this discussion-

Is the previously mentioned 40,000 dpi capturing scene information from the film or just the structural arrangement of the grain? I'd like to invert the argument: if there were no grain, and we photographed the same scene @ 40,000 dpi using the same lens, same f-stop, onto a same sized  CCD (who knows, 25 years from now an entry level camera's chip!) would we not be capturing significantly more scene information, having eliminated the physical "veil" of the grain, which has its own type of "dot" gain-  serious mechanical issues:  grain clumping, light scattering, bromide dragging etc.... all of  which adds to a distortion of the micro-mosaic representation of of the scene?

We may be able to faithfully reproduce the physical structures of the molecular clumps at 40k , but in not nessecarily make a broken line more complete, something excellent interpolation can do, but film is limited to by the size of the dye cloud, its growth pattern, and the density of dye clouds as well as its thickness and refractivness altering focus. Add the fact that depth of field cannot overcome the effective "smudging" that the image must suffer, photons reflecting off grain tabs traveling through its multiple unprocessed layers ...

I think that those resolutions (40k) are significant for the faithful representation of film- when it is the film that one whishes to see, but maybe less so on a comparable enlargement from top quality CCD

Don't get me wrong, I am all for more pixel density in both scanners and cameras, and certainly have PO'd  my share of drum scan operators who want to cruise by with the smallest file they can get away with, and leave the problems for the retouchers.- (nothing like being handed 50 meg files of 4x5's - gee why didn't we just ask the photographer to shoot it on a 110 instamatic -kodachrome of course-, save a ton on equiptment rental and d&p costs, and vie for that same 50 meg file!)

Most of my years had been spent working with 8x10 film, and I've seen Kodachrome sheetfilms from the archives of some of my older clients- makes Extachrome look  as detailed as a  "fax"! 

I'll let someone else figure the file size at 40,000 dpi and how many DVD's we'd have to span to store 1 file!- maybe the 9 track tape fomat could make a comeback (with current density limits pushed to the max, of course!).

Keep up the good work... due to my html handicap, I lurk more than post- but love this thread...


Doug Nobiletti
My Lab, Inc.