Re: [OM] Digital Threshold Question

[Winsor Crosby]

> I keep reading hype that digital has arrived. For instance some clever person
> has figured out how to do a better color sensor. (This was in a recent edition
> of Discover.) The article went on and on about how it made digital as good as
> film, without any mention of the other drawback, resolution.
>
> I have always thought that digital would never equal film simply because a
> molecule of photo sensitive material would always be smaller then even the
> smallest CCD element.
>
> I loosley followed a thread on this list about how at ~15 MB digital 
> would equal
> film. The gist being (if I understood correctly, which is by no means certain)
> that further resolving power on the part of the digital sensor was 
> wasted due to
> the lack of resolving power of the optics. In other words the sensor would not
> get more information, because more information would not make it thorugh the
> lenses. Since the optics are the information bottleneck at this 
> point, then the
> difference between film and digital becomes moot (as far as resolution is
> concerned).
>
> Is this right?
>
> Can some one point me to apropriate literature so I can read up on it myself?
>
> I am not going to give up my film gear, and very likely will get more. I just
> want to know if I have good reason not too, or if I am just going to 
> have to be
> stubborn.
>
> Feel free to respond off list. I don't want to start a war, I just want to be
> informed.
The last thing I read was that 35mm film performance would be 
equalled at 8-10 megapixels. It was written before such sensors were 
available. That time has arrived, but they are still very expensive 
compared to film cameras.
That mathematical estimate did not take the subjective reaction to 
viewing images recorded digitally however. The eye seems to like 
digital images better than higher resolution film images. There are 
several on the list who are very happy with the 5 megapixels of their 
E-20s.  In addition the Super CCD from Fuji and the Foveon seem to 
provide better images with fewer pixels that "regular" ccds.
I don't understand how a pixel can be as small as a grain crystal(not 
an individual molecule) on a piece of film either.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >