Re: Digicam

["dickbo" <dickbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You cannot possibly mean grain St Entlich, I believe you mean granularity
which is something else entirely.

By the way, can you prove your assumption?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>
To: <scan@leben.com>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Digicam


> Even assuming you are correct, and I don't necessarily think you are,
> BTW, there is a difference between the rendition a 8000 dpi a CCD might
> offer (with its inherent averaging of film grain data due to the
> limitations of using a defined sensor size and placement) and the
> information provided by film grain (or dye clouds) which have random
> sizes, and position, and which may overlap in all sorts of random manners.
>
> Art
>
>
>
> 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.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> > Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com
> >
> >
> >>From: Phil.Lippincott
> >>
> >>    If when using the 8000 dpi drum scan of a 35mm I can get a
> >>flawless perfect
> >>90 Mp scan how can you say that a 16Mp camera compares.  Film is
> >>is still King
> >>and the drum scanner simply lets the best of the film meet the best of
the
> >>digital.
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> -
> 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.