On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:52:13PM -0700, John Mustarde wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:16:56 +0200, you wrote:
> snip
> >... then concludes that any higher resolution scan of the film is
> >therefore fruitless. They don't seem to realize there's smaller grains yet
> >to be resolved, after the first big one's they thought you saw.
>
> Wow. More grain. Just what I wanted. Can't wait to resolve right down
> to the atoms. Bet film has more atoms than digital, too.
This is what I find fascinating - the idea that the grain is an absolutely
irrelevant detail divorced from the image, when in fact the grains are the
one and only embodiment of the image.
It is the fact that that large film grain is actually a cluster of smaller
grains, or not, which adds finer tonal information. It's not the grains
themselves I want to see; just the finer shades of gray they embody. The
atoms are the image; up to a reasonable point.
--
,_
/_) /| /
/ i e t e r / |/ a g e l
