wait, if you could decrease the distance between the sensor and the film, would the average be more accurate? What if pixels were a different shape, like hexagons? Would it look better?
rg2 On 9/21/07, Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so digital pixels suck in comparison to film grain ;) gotcha. > > > rg2 > > PS thanks for taking the time to explain all that to me :) > > > > On 9/21/07, Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rebekah wrote: > > > so if a sensor is right where two film grains meet with very different > > > colors or values, what does the pixel do? Does it choose one color or > > > the other, or does it appear as an everage between the two? > > > > Well, "it" averages. But the thing doing the averaging isn't the pixel > > or the sensor, it's the optical path between the film and the sensor. > > The light arriving at that sensor pixel is some sort of average > > (geometric? quantum? something) of all of the grains that were in > > between the light source and the sensor pixel in question. That's why > > the colors change and the pixels look like speckles. > > > > There can also (in some emulsions) be spaces in between the grains that > > can affect the averaging and the resulting color. > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
