Re: Digicam

[Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@xxxxxxx>]

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:pderocco@ix.netcom.com
>>
>>
>>>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.