Sorry, Ken, In all respect I must still disagree with several of your
assertions
regarding bokeh on digital and film. I simply do not believe that the
capture
medium can have any effect on the larger structures of the image
recorded on
film, and I will only believe this when somebody does a careful test
of the
same subject, same lens, same distance, different capture medium. I
believe the
only structural differences are seen in structure which approach the
size of the
information units of the medium (grains of silver, or groups of R-G-B
pixels in the
bayer sensor array).
I believe your (beautiful!) "Hanging On" images shows a weird pattern
on the base of the
merry-go-round because of its texture, together with the rotational
motion
blur. Apart from the grain, those patterns would have appeared almost
exactly
the same on a digital capture medium, or a 6x7cm film camera. Any
further
"moire-like" artifacts must be because we are viewing a low-resolution
image which cannot
correctly reproduce every present grain of film (it's been down-
sampled).
The light rays coming from the lens is the same, after all, and these
rays "draw"
the image. Since both film, as well as a digital sensor, can capture
even the finest
details accurately, I just cannot believe that they can somehow subtly
alter
the larger features of the image being drawn (such as dramatically
altering the
character of the large areas of colour we call bokeh) whilst magically
maintaining all
the fine details perfectly (apart from optical "flaws" in the capture
system, such as
reflections off the shiny sensor reducing contrast, or the ugly purple
edges (blooming)
we often see next to blown-out areas because of the way the bright
light interacts with the
bayer pattern on the sensor together with the microlenses.)
I am in the position of not being able to provide a scientific counter-
argument by means
of careful testing, since I do not own a digital capture system
anymore, but I would
like to see proof of these assertions via a careful test (same lens,
lighting, subject distance,
camera position).
What I would find even more interesting, then, is a discussion of the
physics of this
"phenomenon"...
On 09 May 2009, at 12:19 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
<snip>
>
> If you want to see just how variable film, subject and optics can be,
> consider this photograph from a past TOPE:
>
> http://www.millennics.com/olympus/tope/tope_show_entry.php?event=14&pic=24
>
> What we have is a high-speed, grainy, B&W film with a textured
> subject and
> even some unusual things caused by the mixture of motion and the
> grain.
>
> Would this photograph looked differently with a different film or
> digital
> sensor? Of course! Then why does it surprise any of us when we see
> variations in bokeh between digital cameras and film cameras?
<snip>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|