|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
I agree that the structure of film allows for a lot of random placement and size of the dye clouds on all three image layers, and this leads to a need for greater resolution to reproduce the result. However, grain or dye clouds are not necessarily more accurate a translator of the actual image than any other method of representation. A small enough sensor/pixel grid could reproduce an even more accurate result. The random nature of grain size and placement is actually an analogue trick of the eye, which we find more pleasing to look at than the rigid grid pattern of digital sensors, if it is large enough to be visible. I honestly don't think a 40,000 dpi CCD is required to capture a more accurate result than film. Although a very high dpi might be needed to capture all the errors in the grain positioning. To me the question is, do we want to accurately reproduce the image on the film, or the image? Which is better: a film scanner that picks up all the grain and scratches and dust as distinct entities, or one which captures the actual image elements which represents how the original scene might have looked? If we look closely at a film image version of a gradient sky, we will see blobs of magenta, cyan and yellow dye clouds randomly placed in position and size. But, when I look at a sky with my eyes, I see a smooth gradient of blues. No grain. So which is a more accurate scan, one that reproduces a gradient of blues, as I see with my eyes, or one which can captures all the unfortunate film artifacts (the mechanics of the film)? Do we have to translate the "defects' of film capture before we have a good scan? Art SKID Photography wrote: > 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 > > > > > "Paul D. DeRocco" wrote: > > >>Well, in another of today's messages to this list, Kennedy reports that >>Kodak claims 3000lpi for Ektrachrome 100. Certainly there are finer grained >>films, but 13 times as fine? Or is Kennedy mistaken? >> >>-- >> >>Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco >>Paul mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org >> >> >>>From: SKID Photography >>> >>>"Paul D. DeRocco" wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Even with Kodachrome 25, a tripod, and a fixed focal length >>>> >>>lens, I don't >>> >>>>believe there's ever 8000dpi worth of actual picture >>>> >>>information on a piece >>> >>>>of film. >>>> >>>> >>>Paul, >>>Then you would be wrong. There is well over 40,000 dpi in a >>>piece of 35 mm >>>film. This has been discussed ad nauseum on several other lists >>>and that has >>>been the conclusion, every time. I don't wish to repeat it here. >>> >>- >>Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate >>subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. >> > > > > > - > Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate > subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. > > - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.