On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:01:21AM -0800, Chaso DeChaso wrote:
> I think the above analysis is overly reliant on the
> idea of the job as equivalency to 35mm (or Med Format)
> traditional film photography - equivalency in a
> variety of ways including not only resolution and such
> things.
>
> One quick example would be when something happens
> (relatively soon) such as sensors becoming not only
> way higher in resolution but also much more
> light-sensitive than film. Among other things, this
> would allow both digital-only (non optical) zoom and
> total depth of field.
Now how, in the Holy Name of Optics, would one achieve "Total Depth of
Field" just because the medium is digital?
Or do you mean something more mundane, that a more light-sensitive medium
allows for a smaller aperture than otherwise?
--
,_
/_) /| /
/ i e t e r / |/ a g e l
