-
Not to keep posting digi vs traditional discussion, but the implications and differences between the two always interest me. I was reading an article on how the ccd translates an image, and came across something I hadn't noticed before. The article described the 'lattice' structure of the ccd, then said the gaps in between the lattice which contained no sensor activity were dead zones -and for those areas, the computer would guess the information that would most likely have been there and fill in the blanks. If that's the case, then a percentage of the ccd image would be somewhat artificial wouldn't it? It's already converting light to electricity which changes things, then it fills in blanks for the information it could not gather. So does this mean film will always be a representation of a scene, and digital will only be a numerical representation of what the scene looked like?
-
-
But Sean, what about the light from the scene that impacts on the film, between the silver particles?
This would mean that 8x10 provides a truer representation of a scene than is possible with a 35mm, given that you are enlarging the "missing light" less.
I can live with this conclusion... what disturbs me is that t-grain film then would provide a truer representation of the scene than is possible with conventional emulsions. very disturbing...
-
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tom Duffy @ May 13 2003, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But Sean, what about the light from the scene that impacts on the film, between the silver particles?
This would mean that 8x10 provides a truer representation of a scene than is possible with a 35mm, given that you are enlarging the "missing light" less.
I can live with this conclusion... what disturbs me is that t-grain film then would provide a truer representation of the scene than is possible with conventional emulsions. very disturbing... </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I thought the older random films are actually truer. Something about the randomness. It was explained to me once and all I remember was it made sense-))
Audio CD players make things up to. I've seen CDs that look horrible play just fine. The player guessing on what it should be seeing.
-
I think gaps in the silver are ok because they are left as is and are not changing anything. The gaps in the ccd probably can not be left as is because it would have a major impact on the image -so it adds information that did not exist to smooth things out. Maybe it is silly to have an issue with this if our brains can't even perceive it, but the thought of artificial information added by a computer is unappealing to me. I am ready for new fims based on nano-technology which will make tmax 100 look like tmax 3200. Currently it looks like 16megapixels is required to compete with fine grained 35mm film. If kodak could evolve their film technology to widen that gap to say 100 megapixels it would rock the industry. Imagine an 8x10 sheet of film with that kind of technology -if it's even possible- I like to dream...
-
But isn't it true that lenses can only resolve so much information? I remember hearing that there is a limit to the LPMs or a lens and that we have already hit it.
-
Well, several companies have been growing diamonds with some success, so maybe we'll have diamond lenses one day. I wouldn't want to open the wallet for it though. Then we'll have the problem of how much resolution our brains can see http://apug.org/forum/html/emoticons/smile.gif
"As methods for growing diamond, both at high pressure and by chemical vapor deposition, improve, and as science finds ways to take advantage of diamond's properties, the potential applications of diamond's superlative properties appear boundless. From super electronics, to indomitable optical windows, to unscratchable surfaces - maybe the next watch bezel - diamond is an obvious choice."
-
For 35mm and MF I think the film is still the hold up. LF you run into diffraction limits.
Doesn't Kodak claim 35mm consumer colour film would need something like 30mega camera.
-
What you've heard about Sean is the way a standard CCD will extrapolate colors using the RGB array that is laid out in a checkerboard pattern. In order for each pixel to have it's own color the processor will extrapolate from the surrounding pixels what it thinks the "right" color for that spot will be. You can get some wierd effects with fine patterns that fall in a harmonic range of this extrapolation.
There is one digi camera out now that doesn't do that, the Sigma SD-9. It uses the Foveon X3 image sensor in which the photodetectors are layered in a similar fashion to color film. The results are much sharper and truer colors. In my opinion this is the only digital imaging system that has a chance in hell of really competing with film for image quality. Keep your eye on any system using layered photodetectors, they may be the ones that come out on top of all the other digi-junk.
-
ah yeah, I've heard of the foveon, didn't realise it reacted that way.
Robert Kennedy had a good point about lens resolution. Will consumers pay for a 100megapixel slr if the lens will not resolve that much resolution? So far consumer digitals are following the path of pc processors, where increasing resolution is their main selling point. Surely they are about to hit a brick wall with lens resolution,, then how will they continue? It would be like having a pc that could run any application thrown at it, then asking if you want to upgrade it... why would you? Then again they say the lifespan of these digitals is very short so...
