Raimo Korhonen wrote:
Nah - pixels have a threshold like film. And between one pixel and another pixel there is a gap, like film, only larger. Digital loses fine detail but this seems not to be important.
That gap is a suboptical distance- no information is "lost" between pixels.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti-----
L�hett�j�: Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
P�iv�: 27. tammikuuta 2003 11:51
Aihe: Re: Comparing digital to film
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This brings up a point which I've been wondering about lately.
A digital camera pixel is continuous tone. It measures the _intensity_
of the light that falls on it.
As I understand it, a single film "grain" or dye cloud or whatever it is,
is a discrete device: either its exposed or its not exposed, and the
density of the exposed "grains" control the perceived tone - ie its some
kind of a randomly arranged halftone process.
If this is true, its little wonder that people say digital files have
finer grain than film. And higher perceived detail.
Cheers,
- Dave<
more complicated that this. the film texture that we can see with the eye
or moderate magnification and commonly call grain is clumping of a lot of
grains together or dye clouds that result from clumps of grain after the
silver has been replaced with dyes. these clumps are basically a random
halftone. the clumps or clouds in turn are grown from the actual silver
halide crystals forming the real grain that are exposed and turned on or
off. the clumps or clouds are much larger than the actual film grain.
Herb....
