I think that all we've shown here is that none of us really knows how to
quantify the operation of film. Neither could I find a technical paper
on the subject (even at Kodak) with a brief search.
What I do know is that my 5MP A1 images are of much higher quality than
the scanned 9MP (2700 dpi) film derived images that I can create at home.
Chuck Norcutt
james king wrote:
> So maybe
>
>>>with emulsions, where you have variable sized grains, plus taking into
>>>account the log scale for brightness, film doesn't look as bad as the
>>>ON/OFF theory proposed in Luminious Landscape article.
>>>
>
> or depth of emulsion, I don't believe the emulsion is one grain thick -
> film is three dimensional not two. With multiple grains stacked up on
> top of each other in the emulsion there is the possibility for multiple
> shades within the one long thin grain on the principal each grain that
> it on or off blocks some light so the stronger the light the more grains
> will be on or off
>
> emulsion
>
> on
> on
> on
> on
> off
>
> base
>
> ofcourse varied size grains AND multiple grains stacked up n top of
> eachother would allow even more conbinations in somthing with a small
> top surface area - which is really what the argument is all about. I.e.
> digital sensors are 2 dimensional with "dead" spaces between each sensor
> whereas film has sensors which are variable in size and stacked upon
> eachother in a three dimensional 'matrix' :-)
> Regards
> James
>
> P.S.
> I teach computer science at masters level not chemistry/photography so I
> may be talking total junk :-)
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|