> While I don't think this is the last word on the subject,
> Reichmann has a few interesting things to say:
I think his premise is wrong. He states something true, but
misapplies it to the topic.
Resolution is an absolute, not a perception. Digital gives the
perception of greater resolution due to the fact that a pixel
can be any hue or brightness, whereas a film grain is binary.
His premise that it takes multiple grains to give the equivelent
to a single pixel is true when it applies to tonality and
overall image quality.
Film grains are not the same size and shape. When processed, the
grain disolves to tiny specs or large solids binding with the
neighboring grains. Unlike a pixel, a grain has the ability to
change shape in development too as well as migrate.
Do I believe that film outresolves digital? I've got the PanF+
and Delta 100 to prove it. Does color film outresolve digital?
Less likely due to the dye cloud technology. Does digital give
the perception of sharper, cleaner images? Absolutely.
However, if you digitize (using a high-quality scanner) film and
start applying processing techniques that the cameras do
internally, you can end up with an image that far exceeds what
the equivelent digital camera image would have yielded.
Want proof? Take a high-res scan of a slide, do some noise
removal on it and then downsize to the same pixel count as the
digital camera image. Sharpen a little and compare. Wow! What
happened to the grainy skies? Sometimes it helps a film image
to dumb it down. And you have the benefit of not going through
a Bayer array correction algorithm.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|