At 06:59 PM 5/9/2005, Wayne Harridge wrote:
> > AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Resolution and digital cameras vs film cameras is a wierd thing.
> > Digital gives you what "appears" to be better resolution, but
> > not on everything. When it fails, it fails horribly. Film hangs
> > in there better with patterns and implied details.
> >
>
>Film = graceful degradation
>Digital = catastophic degradation
>
>...Wayne
I believe it's the random structure of film . . . the grains in the
emulsion . . . versus the ordered pixels. I've seen the "failure" in some
prints and it looks quite ragged. That said, some films are friendlier
with their degradation than others . . . such as Tri-X . . . versus some of
the tabular grain films.
When one knows the limits of granularity will be reached or exceeded (in
order to attain desired film speed for desired film format and print size)
selecting one that will more gracefully present its grain is part of the
film selection decision for the task.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|