Quoting from the article:
"An individual film grain can only be either black or not-black, on or
off, exposed or not exposed."
This is not true, right? It's possible to make an image brighter or
darker on film by changing the exposure time. So, where do these
varying levels of brightness come from if each "grain" can only be on
or off?
The point about pixels being analog also isn't true, of course,
because pixels do not have a continuous range of values. (The number
of values they can assume is less than infinity.)
That being said, it still might be true that it takes a clump of
"grain" to produce a broad range of tonal values, where as a single
pixel might be able to do the same thing.
[Related note: I shot a roll of film yesterday for the first time in
months. OM4t with the 50/3.5 macro. The E-1 stayed home. It was
actually the first time I'd ever used the lens. What a joy! I work so
much slower and more deliberately with film. And I don't even miss
the histogram!]
On 3/8/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I never have understood why low resolution digital looks so good
> compared to film until I found this. Now it all makes sense.
> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml>
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|