Nor do I. Godfrey obviously disagrees with some list members, but he has stated his positions politely and lucidly. There is no reason this should become a flame war. I've enjoyed the discourse. Some of the disagreement is based on different interpretations of highly technical evidence. But gentlemen and ladies should be capable of debate without resorting to name calling. Paul
> I don't see it that way > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Monday, January 24, 2005, 11:14:51 AM, you wrote: > > mw> You are wasting your time. It's a troll. > > mw> m > > mw> Gonz wrote: > > >> > >> > >> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> > >>> ...... > >>> To get back to my original statement, there is no "digital > >>> look". A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it > >>> ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the > >>> capture medium. > >>> Godfrey > >>> > >> > >> There are however, some defects introduced by the digital capture > >> system. First there is the pixelization of the light by the discrete > >> photosites of the CCD or Cmos chip. Second, there is noise by the > >> quantization of the recorded signal by a noisy analog/digital system > >> interface. Third, there is the information lost by the Bayer > >> interpolation algorithm applied to convert the discrete RGB photosites > >> into color values per pixel. And lastly, there is information lost due > >> to the fact that the photosites do not cover the entire chip, there is > >> routing/wiring that takes up 30% or so of the chip where light is not > >> captured but lost. > >> > >> In conclusion, the final digital image contains defects also, they are > >> just different types of defects from film. > >> > >> rg > >> > >> > >> > > > >
