From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Film grain itself is not actual information. it is the random structure used to create the image on it's smallest level. Grain occurs in three random manners. Firstly, each color layer is laid down with the silver halide grains in a completely chaotic manner. Secondly, the grain size is randomized, and thirdly, the relationship between those factors between the layers is randomized, as well. This creates a "forgiving" structure. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hmm. I don't find it forgiving in the slightest. I strongly dislike have the same ugly texture superimposed on all my images, and for prints I will actually show people, never use enlargements over 8x. This means that 35mm is for 8x10, 645 for 12x18, and 6x7 for 16x20. All of these produce superb quality prints at these sizes. But they wouldn't be at sizes larger than that. Meanwhile, my 5D makes just as good 12x18s as 645 does. So there's no point in shooting 35mm or 645 at this point in history. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to the use of the Bayer matrix, the color interpolation required, and a number of other factors, digital images are intentionally blurred via electronic filtering. This is why judicious use of unsharp masking can bring so much detail back to an image. <<<<<<<<<<<<<< No, it's _physical_ filter in front of the sensor, called a low-pass, or antialias, filter. Nothing electronic about it. The mathematics of discrete sampling tells us that such a filter is required to achieve correct imaging up to the mathematical resolution limits of the sensor. But you knew that. What I've recently come to realize is that low-pass filtering _improves_ resolution by removing jaggies. Just as antialiasing in font display improves the apparent resolution of fonts on the screen, antialiasing in discrete capture allows the sensor to show the position of sharp edges and lines more accurately than happens in non-antiliased cameras. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reason the debate regarding image resolution - film versus digital - continues, is because instrumentation can't really answer it. Yes, numbers of line pairs can be read, etc. but that isn't how we perceive. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< So far, so good. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our eyes prefer random analogue and in spite of the defects in this method, we have built in filters to deal with that because nature is designed around random noise. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Your eyes, maybe. Mine don't like random noise. It's a good thing that film scales up to much larger formats than digital. I really don't understand how people can stand 5x7s from 35mm Tri-X. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, this debate cannot be answered by machines. It can only be answered by human consensus. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Yep. And 12x18 images from 24x36mm of film are unacceptable, whatever film is used. (And embarrassing if the bloke who made the print displayed next to yours used MF or 12MP digital.) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body