Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
While I agree with you technically ... digital and film are capture
mediums, not definitions of format ...
That was my statement too.
the contrapoint "YES .... NO" was unnecessary and simply argumentative.
ERN's meaning was clear.
You agree with E.R.N. and wrote Yes.
I don't agree and wrote No. Plain and simple. No hidden meaning. I'm not
enough capable to write English to do that. Please remember that.
6Mpixel does not equate to "APS". It is a resolution.
For that reason I wrote 6MP APS (combining resolution and size). It was my
way to identify the digital format we all know.
6Mpixel is 6Mpixel, regardless of the format of the sensor. Different
sensors have different qualities. Larger sensors have greater sensitivity
than smaller sensors at the same SNR. When holding SNR constant, they are
otherwise indistinguishable. Sensors with greater quantization space (16
bit vs 12 bit vs 8bit) produce more tonal gradation. Larger format sensor
produce a different coupling of Field of View and Depth of Field in
relation to focal length, similar to film camera format changes. Etc etc.
Probably true. I don't care to check and argument any given word in above
text, as some would do just to raise dust. I think all above to be
completely irrelevant to this discussion.
But, again, ERN's meaning was clear even if imprecisely stated, and I
agree with it.
How I understand it, I don't agree. It looks pure nonsense to me. However,
it is quite possible I don't get it properly. I'm just tired to see such
statement appear again and again in order to make it become true.
I f I have to translate "digital is a new format" into "APS is a format
different from 35mm" (being them digital or film), then OK, I can agree. If
this is the common meaning, clear to anybody except me, then I apologize to
you all.
Dario
