With interpolation no information is lost - it is made up - so as to fill gaps and make smoother transition. With your logic the coarser-grain film would give better results than fine-grain one. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- L�hett�j�: Ryan K. Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P�iv�: 27. tammikuuta 2003 23:09 Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film >The only "interpolation" going on is to pull out the color channel. >Information isn't lost. > >My point is that the inter-pixel gap is 0 in optical terms, not that >pixels are 0 size, pixels are some number of microns. > >The 14/32mb argument is a different one, IMHO. And in my experience >with the 1Ds, there's no way it's pulling in less information than >scanned 35mm film. This argument is the subjective one. > >R > > >Raimo Korhonen wrote: >> OK - but why do cameras interpolate between pixels? >> There is no 100 % in real world and pixels are bigger than sub-optical (we are not >talking about electron microscopy here but capturing visible light. >> Maybe no information is lost BETWEEN pixels but the pixel size causes information >loss - 14 Mb digital, 32 Mb film. >> All the best! >> Raimo >> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho >> >> -----Alkuper�inen viesti----- >> L�hett�j�: Ryan K. Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> P�iv�: 27. tammikuuta 2003 21:02 >> Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film >> >> >> >>>No, not really. The huge majority of area on a ccd is sensitive to >>>incoming light, even moreso with modern cmos. Just because the diode >>>junction is sometimes small doesn't mean it doesn't "see" everything >>>thru the microlens. >>> >>>e.g. The DCS-14n chip uses the entire p-junction base (or back if you >>>prefer) of the semiconductor to detect light, and therefore claims a >>>100% fill factor. I assume this is even without the microlenses, but >>>even the crappiest interline chip gets 70% these days. (which would be a >>>tiny chip anyway, with small sites, hence small distances) >>> >>>Here's someone else that agrees with me: >>> >>>http://www.binbooks.com/books/photo/i/l/541E6AF912&orig=1 >>> >>>The 1Ds also claims a 100% fill factor. And 100% of 8.8 microns doesn't >>>leave a lot of "dead space". >>> >>>dpreview has a dated discussion of this, but any google search can show >>>you the newer chips have 100% coverage: >>> >>>http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_01.htm >>> >>>So if we agree that anything much less than 400nm (.4microns) is below >>>visible, then a (big pixeled) 8 micron image sensor with 95% or more >>>fill factor has a suboptical distance between it's 'eyes'. >>> >>>I'd argue that this gap is small enough not to matter since it's built >>>to a far better tolerance than the camera lenses anyway. Someone care >>>to compare this numerically to the boundaries between film grain of an >>>E6 emulsion? >>> >>>This is getting like the misinformation about edge fall off because the >>>wells are too deep that we had last year. Where's that argument now? I >>>still stand behind my yield statement. >>> >>>"Oh no, the sky is falling, and the camera is making up information >>>between pixels". >>> >>>R >>> >>> >>>Raimo Korhonen wrote: >>> >>>>Suboptical distance? You must be kidding ;-) This kind of distances occur in >microscopy, not in digital cameras. Why do you think the cameras interpolate across >the gaps? >>>>All the best! >>>>Raimo >>>>Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho >>>> >>>>-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- >>>>L�hett�j�: Ryan K. Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>P�iv�: 27. tammikuuta 2003 19:11 >>>>Aihe: Re: Vs: Comparing digital to film >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> > > >
