Wow - read this re: Film versus Digital debate!

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

Bernie: "I don't know how this debate can advance any further."

You are right. There's no need for me to debate you any further. There are real products that disprove you, Daniel, Adams and Reichmann merely by their existence. No need for further proofs.

bernardwest · November 19, 2008

There are real products that disprove you, Daniel, Adams and Reichmann merely by their existence.

Such as?

rishij · November 19, 2008

My head didn't explode. I just didn't want to lose my job.

Now, I've heard evidence that a 'fully developed' grain will still not be 100% opaque. No surprise there, as I've been arguing that silver deposits aren't 'black holes'.

Now, I think we're all starting to realize that a grain can leave behind many varying amounts of silver. Whether or not those filamentous growths are opaque or partially translucent to light is what we're really debating here. Admitting that these filamentous growths do vary in size, even combining with other filamentous growths also growing because multiple 'sensitivity sites' within one grain were 'exposed' and left behind 'latent sites', what does it even matter if the silver filamentous growths can be partially translucent or not? What really matters is the number of sensitivity sites that become 'latent' per grain.

So resolution IS limited by the largest grain, but the total dynamic range attainable by an area of film the size of 1 grain is limited. Hence larger areas of grain are required, to form larger 'clumps' of filamentous growths, to get a denser area of film. That's why the contrast is so low for high megapixel resolution of fine black & white lines... for 'real world' contrast of 'real world' lower-contrast objects, finer tonality is required... which typically requires the greater dynamic range possible by an area of film hundreds of grains big.

I dunno if there's much of an 'argument' left per se. I have to read 2 days of posts though to catch up.

Seriously, the answer is somewhere in between both camps. Start accepting that. And I address that to both sides.

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

Rishi: "So resolution IS limited by the largest grain, but the total dynamic range attainable by an area of

film the size of 1 grain is limited. Hence larger areas of grain are required, to form larger 'clumps' of

filamentous growths, to get a denser area of film."

Resolution is limited by the largest grains: Yes of course (unless someone wants to postulate that one crystal

can record multiple "lpmm")

Dynamic range attainable by an area of film the size of 1 grain is limited.

If you are talking about the tonal (not dynamic) range reproducible by 1 crystal then it is limited, of

course, because how the silver forms in the volume of one crystal is a random process and there is some serious

information compression going on.

But film has thickness - in that thickness reside multiple crystals; and film makers put in multiple layers with

varying crystal sizes - so that by stacking crystals, the same area can have wider tonal range. Of course,

this process implies all I've been saying, but no matter.

So it isn't as simple as saying: "take an area equal to that of the largest crystal and you'll find limited tonal

range". There are ways to address that, and film makers do. But yes, if you had a film with only one layer of a

constant size crystal then tonal range in an area the size of the crystal would be limited. Here you would

approach closer to a true halftone process.

Fair enough?

That's why the contrast is so low for high megapixel resolution of fine black & white lines... etc

There are different effects at play here - when you go large cpmm, there is diffraction, dispersion through the

gelatin etc. whose effects start becoming prominent. Besides, any process that records information has what is

called "channel bandwidth" - as you start

exceeding that, the signal starts tapering off - this is called low pass filtering. Film I think acts like a low

order Butterworth filter in this regard, tapering the signal off gently as you exceed the cutoff frequency. This is a

natural process of all information theoretic systems (those which can record, store and transmit information) -

to have bandwidth and to have signal taper off as that bandwidth is exceeded. Film makers don't publish a 3 db

bandwidth like audio people do.

But even digital sensors have "channel bandwidth" - unfortunately the bandwidth rolloff for digital is not smooth

like a

low order Butterworth filter - it is probably steeper - higher order Butterworth, or perhaps elliptical (hence

the need for a low pass filter on the signal) and so has more

problems with Moire or aliasing. Moire and aliasing are both effects of what happens when signal bandwidth

exceeds the recording media bandwidth. In this regard, film has slight edge, because silver specks are not

regularly placed like digital. Film can do something similar to delta-sigma modulation, but digital can't vary the

sampling interval, so it would need higher megapixels to compensate. Delta sigma modulation allows more

information to be compressed to a smaller bandwidth channel but is more complex to build electronically. Digital

is stuck doing pulse code modulation, at least so far.

Further, the bandwidth of digital sensors (a sensor matrix actually) is actually variable based on the signal. If

you try to do the lpmm test (a resolution test) but turn the chart diagonally, you'll find that the resolution of

digital suddenly nosedives, but film remains unaffected. This is why you'll need a higher "megapixel number" for

digital to match up with film. Another nice segue to the 35 MP number I theorized earlier.

Film is a complex subject (so is digital) - requiring knowledge of several fields - chemistry, physics, optics,

information theory

math (info theory needs mucho math) and simplistic statements like "grain is binary" can only lead to

misconceptions and errors.

I dunno if there's much of an 'argument' left per se.

I agree, there is no argument left. I won it already. Don't be in denial about that - read two days of posts -

and like before, realize that I haven't changed my viewpoint one bit. Now I'm waiting for the first person who

will be man enough to admit it.

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

Bernie: There are real products that disprove you, Daniel, Adams and Reichmann merely by their existence.

Such as?

danielleetaylor · November 19, 2008

The latter. You can't find these things at 400x, you're not going to find them at 60x.

Then by definition you're not going to find them at 10x :-)

I really, really, REALLY do not understand your insistence on the irrational, namely that something can be

observed with the naked eye yet not observed when the eye is assisted by instruments. If tiny specks create a

gray area observable at 10x, then believe me, that gray area will be MORE apparent at 400x, or the individual

particles will become observable, but either way it will not, repeat, NOT disappear at 400x. That's not a

rational, physically possible option.

I'm going to have to bow out of this soon because I'm feeling better and need to catch up on stuff. But at

this point I feel it's over any way. I really feel like this is an argument of scientific observation versus

faith. I have nothing against faith, but in this case I'm going with observation. B&W film is halftone in nature.

The light could be attenuated by those 150nm specks

Not unless they occur in a group larger than the wavelengths of visible light, at which point they become

observable. But if they did that they would be opaque.

For reproducing a light intensity wave of such tiny amplitude (1.6:1) and such high frequency (80 cpmm) you

need, per Nyquist's theorem, a sampling frequency of at least 160 cpmm if each sample could have continuous

values, or much higher, say 10x higher (if each sample can only be one bit (clear/opaque) and for a total of 1024

tones = 10 bits per tone.

First, Nyquest doesn't precisely apply here because a) grains are in random positions in a 3D space, and b)

grains are random in size. So I don't know how you would establish exact sampling numbers. Second, you can't

quite treat each grain as a "bit" and then compute number of tones for a number of grains. Part of the reason why

is, again, random position/size. And third, 80 lpmm films are high contrast films. They are, in a sense, going to

"overreact" to gray tones and "map" them to tones further apart than the real life tones, which is why that 1.6:1

chart can be seen all the way down to 80 lpmm. In fact, I would guess this is happening to some degree with any

film, i.e. if you really want to be critical about it, the grays recorded are not exactly the grays you see on

the chart. So you can't say something like "...to record a 1.6:1 pattern we need 14-bits and that precisely

equals a YxZ grid of grains that is too large for the resolution test...". It just doesn't work that way.

But again you're trying to figure out a hypothetical complete with calculations which "proves" B&W film is not

a hafltone pattern even though that's what we observe it to be. I would be curious to photograph a 1.6:1 chart

and study it under a microscope, but unless gray grains all of a sudden appear, the gray tones are formed by

halftones regardless of whether or not your estimates lead you to believe it shouldn't be. We're not any where

near the ballpark of accuracy necessary to worry about such a conflict. Maybe the average B&W film, which hits

about 60 lpmm, can only record 64 distinct tones at 60 lpmm, but the contrast of the film means those gray chart

bars "snap" to two different shades at 60 lpmm. (That's essentially what it means to have a particular contrast

built into a film emulsion, the emulsion is "mapping" tones so that they appear further apart from each other,

more contrasty.)

In a sense that's exactly what we see. Classic B&W film is only competitive with dye based B&W film because

the final silver deposits in classic B&W can be much smaller than dye clouds. Under your theory classic B&W film

should exhibit much higher resolution than dye based films, if silver deposits can act like dye clouds and be

gray.

That is saying that classic B&W would have poorer resolution than dye based B&W film were it not for the fact

that it has higher resolution. Circular.

No, it's saying that B&W film has binary imaging elements, but smaller imaging elements, and because they're

smaller B&W film can keep up with dye films and digital cameras on tests involving tone.

Evidently you haven't even understood my theory but are sure it is wrong.

I understand that your theory is not based on a single verifiable observation and in fact goes against the

verifiable observations we can make. That is faith.

We're still in the 5 micron range on DSLR pixels. On a B&W line chart they're not going to out resolve the

highest resolution films which have a much lower average grain size. But on a test chart based on tone...like,

say, a 1.6:1 chart...pixels are much more competitive. Again, something predicted by Reichmann.

Really? 80 cpmm at 1.6:1 is not competitive? Or 1.6:1 is not based on tone? Or do pixels resolve more than 80

cpmm for that 1.6:1 chart?

* Most films struggle to hit 60 lpmm at 1.6:1.

* A 5D should hit 55 lpmm.

* Most films will beat a 5D on a high contrast line test, but not on a "real world" tonal test.

All predicted by Reichmann. (Predicted is not even the right word. He wrote his piece to explain why all prior

predictions, based on theories like yours, were dead wrong.)

Explain why the halftone process, in clear violation of information theory, resolves 80 cpmm at 1.6:1.

Explain why classic B&W outresolves chromogenic film.

* There is no violation of information theory. Your calculations are based on faulty guesses and assumptions.

* Classic B&W film does not outresolve comparable chromogenic film (comparable in ISO and contrast). They both

fall in the 50-60 lpmm range.

What is the relevance of your question? I invoked ND filters to show you that tone can be changed without

the halftone process.

Did I ever deny that tones could be formed without halftones in the broader world? I said B&W film uses a

halftone process. I couldn't care less how ND filters work for the purposes of this conversation.

You are treating an optical microscope and the visual process of the eye/brain as if it were a precise

densitometer that could record absolute density values.

Remember that observations are the same in print. That leaves you with the eye/brain argument. Now you're

suggesting that the eye/brain cannot observe gray grains when trying to determine how film works, but that they

do observe gray grains when enjoying a print :-/

My argument has enough merit.

Your argument has 0 evidence.

You want me to prove a negative? No other mechanism is observed to be at play. That is sufficient.

Is proving the opposite of a statement any different than proving a statement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

No other mechanism is observed? What if the observation methodology is flawed?

If it's flawed, then it's flawed in a way that would prevent gray grains from influencing our perception at

all. Once again, you cannot have something that is observable and not observable.

"Why not? What happens to all the light that is absorbed by tiny silver specks?"

The answer to that question lies within the question ;-)

Cute.

You're the one who asked it! :-)

They are too tiny to be seen as individual specks (at any magnification), but their effect is readily

observed on a print

To be readily observed in a print they would have to occur in group sizes and at frequencies which would make

them readily observed under a microscope. Again, we never see a gray grain.

You do see gray areas through the microscope and on the Kodak images too. Try figuring out what they are

and how that works.

I already know: grains that are out of focus given the razor thin DoF of a microscope. Play with the focus

knob to make different grains come in/out of focus.

Regarding the sun and a light bulb filament: even fully developed out, film is not a continuous piece of

36x24mm solid silver. There are still spaces, and because there are still spaces, there is still a measurable

optical density.

But how can there be spaces?

Look at the EM views of crystals. They are not actually on top of one another. (And there's still quite a bit

of space between things near the wavelengths of light versus our microscope views at micron scales).

danielleetaylor · November 19, 2008

Rich - Most - if not all - of the individual grains that are in some way contributing to overall smoothness

of tone, ie. grey, are too small NOT to be an artifact of diffraction. Diffraction causes a grey 'halo' by

definition - see Abbe's diffraction theory.

A) Is that gray halo resolvable by an enlarger lens? If so (and I would guess not), what percentage of the

scene would it form? 0.001%? 0.01%? A grainy film certainly doesn't appear smooth in print because of any gray

halos around the visible grain clumps.

B) Does it matter? We're talking about recording/representing gray tones from the scene. Diffraction effects

would be roughly constant. That's not information from the scene.

danielleetaylor · November 19, 2008

Regarding X-ray film:

* Any exposure of a "detail" larger than visible light wavelengths will produce a grain clump observable using

visible light, even with X-rays. Since you're overexposing the entire frame, you will have many big clumps.

Under a microscope you won't even be able to discern those clumps, the whole thing will look black. It will be

effectively opaque. Whether or not you will be able to see a really bright object through it (sun) depends on the

clumping characteristics and therefore the density achieved because despite the smooth black apperance, there

will be clumps and some remaining spaces. Film never becomes a truly solid stretch of silver, therefore a film

frame as a whole is never truly 100% opaque as a whole.

* Using X-rays you might actually be able to resolve some incredibly high number on the film thanks to 50 nm

grains. But you would also need X-rays to "see" the lines you recorded and know that you achieved that really

high number. Doctors will not find 50 nm tumor spots starring at this film on a light box or even under a

microscope.

At this point, Bernie and Daniel should accept that their theories are false and agree that Reichmann and

Adams are both mistaken.

I accept that your assumptions are false.

Dude, did you not understand what you were trying to argue? If you took that processed X ray film to a 400x

microscope, you would not see any silver specks AT ALL.

After it sat under the sun for hours? Like hell you wouldn't! You would see all the silver specks as one big

layer of silver.

danielleetaylor · November 19, 2008

Resolution is limited by the largest grains: Yes of course (unless someone wants to postulate that one crystal can record multiple "lpmm")

Resolution is going to be more of a function of average grain size than maximum grain size.

But film has thickness - in that thickness reside multiple crystals; and film makers put in multiple layers with varying crystal sizes - so that by stacking crystals, the same area can have wider tonal range. Of course, this process implies all I've been saying, but no matter.

If what you were saying were true they wouldn't need multiple layers because each grain could be any tone.

I agree, there is no argument left. I won it already.

Says who?

<--- checks microscope

Yep, the grains are still opaque or not there at all. Still a halftone process. Whew! And here you thought you won ;-)

danielleetaylor · November 19, 2008

Vijay: we observe B&W film to be essentially a halftone process, therefore that's what it is. You have to create

incredibly complex hypotheticals to try and explain why we supposedly observe gray grains in small prints, but do

not observe them at any other time, including in really large prints. Occam's razor...the simplest and most

direct explanation is probably the right one. You're jumping through hoops to try and support the idea of a gray

grain that disappears when we want to study the nature of tone in B&W film. And at this point you're creating

strawman after strawman (the hypotheticals) to try and disprove what we do see. Between your logic and my eyes,

I'm going to believe my eyes. Your argument doesn't need logic, it needs a lot of gray grains that nobody has

ever seen.

Having said that, I'm going to have to bow out, except for the odd post if things continue on for days. But I

can't keep up this frequency. I'm well enough to be working, so I should be working. Or at least dodging work by

going out and photographing things. It has been fun and I really do wish I could meet everyone involved. Very

keen and interesting minds :-)

I'm just glad it wasn't a debate about politics ;-)

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

The light could be attenuated by those 150nm specks

Not unless they occur in a group larger than the wavelengths of visible light, at which point they become observable. But if they did that they would be opaque.

Now there you go saying that 0 multiplied by some number is not 0. If a single 150 nm silver speck can't attenuate light all by itself, even if it were standing alone in a freaking vacuum, then a gazillion of them placed together can't either, much less suddenly absorb all the light energy falling on them.

At this point, I have to ask you - do you understand what you are talking about at all? Because what you just said is absolutely ridiculous and your theory rests on it.

You are arguing that 2+2=5 - no wait, make that 0xN = infinity, and if you don't see the absurdity in this, then you won't see the error in your theory either.

How am I supposed to argue with this kind of absurdity?

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

Daniel: "Between your logic and my eyes, I'm going to believe my eyes."

Isn't that what the Church told Galileo?

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

Daniel: "Film never becomes a truly solid stretch of silver, therefore a film frame as a whole is never truly

100% opaque as a whole."

You're contradicting yourself again. You said you don't need a solid stretch of silver. Even if it had

holes in it smaller than the wavelength of visible light, it would block all light. Faraday cage, remember?

Hell, you said the filaments of a single speck of silver would act like a Faraday cage to "prove" that a

filamentary speck of silver must be "completely, 100% opaque" because that is the "nature of silver"?

You relying on EM pictures now? <a

href="http://www.konicaminolta.com/about/research/core_technology/material/silver.html">Here's</a> an EM picture

of film which shows crystals with spaces less than 400 nm. X Ray film. Should be perfectly opaque then, right?

Perfect Faraday cage? Nope. Still can see sun.

Don't shift your argument. Is silver opaque or not?

danielleetaylor · November 19, 2008

I just had to look one more time before going to bed...

If a single 150 nm silver speck can't attenuate light all by itself, even if it were standing alone in a

freaking vacuum, then a gazillion of them placed together can't either, much less suddenly absorb all the light

energy falling on them.

This is not absurd, it's the way the world works. You cannot use light to image and observe a 150 nm particle

because you cannot image something with EM radiation when that something is smaller than the wavelength of the

radiation being used. That means it has no perceptible influence on light between you and a light source. If it

had a perceptible influence then you could see it and we wouldn't need electron microscopes.

I'm sorry if you think the rules governing electromagnetic radiation are absurd. I think quantum physics is

absurd. Doesn't make it false.

Daniel: "Between your logic and my eyes, I'm going to believe my eyes."

Isn't that what the Church told Galileo?

I think you have that backwards. Galileo observed. The church "proved" his observations false using logic.

Good analogy to this conversation ;-)

You're contradicting yourself again. You said you don't need a solid stretch of silver. Even if it had

holes in it smaller than the wavelength of visible light, it would block all light. Faraday cage, remember?

Silver is not opaque to light because it forms a Faraday cage. (Please stop throwing that irrelevant aspect of

the microwave example around.) Holes smaller than the wavelength of light in an opaque substance would be

effectively opaque. Gaps

between grains (silver filaments from sensitivity centers as Rishi would say) larger than that would pass light.

Hell, you said the filaments of a single speck of silver would act like a Faraday cage to "prove" that a

filamentary speck of silver must be "completely, 100% opaque" because that is the "nature of silver"?

I never, ever said the filaments would form a Faraday cage. But EM radiation can't pass through holes in

opaque substances smaller than the wavelength. But even in completely exposed and developed films the crystals

are not so perfectly interlocked that gaps which can pass light do not exist any where.

Here's an EM picture of film which shows crystals with spaces less than 400 nm. X Ray film. Should be

perfectly opaque then, right? Perfect Faraday cage? Nope. Still can see sun.

A) Faraday cages have nothing to do with it. (How did you manage to misunderstand and latch on to that?)

B) Those particles are roughly 50 nm, right? I see spaces that would be larger than 400 nm in that EM photo,

and that's not a very big sample even.

C) How do you know you will see the sun through a fully exposed and developed out sheet of that film? Have you

tried it?* (I would predict yes based on the EM photo which does contain large enough gaps. But you should at

least verify before using it as an example. You don't know that that particular film will exhibit similar

characteristics to a visible light B&W film. For all you know a fully exposed and developed out sheet would act

exactly like a piece of solid silver in regard to light.)

* I'm not sure if anyone should be trying to view the sun with exposed/developed silver film. I know it's

doable, but it also has too much potential for error and permanent damage to your eyes. Maybe that part should

remain hypothetical.

allardk · November 19, 2008

I'm not entering this silly debate, or taking sides in it, but just in case someone reads this:

You cannot use light to image and observe a 150 nm particle because you cannot image something with EM

radiation when that something is smaller than the wavelength of the radiation being used. That means it has no

perceptible influence on light between you and a light source. If it had a perceptible influence then you could

see it and we wouldn't need electron microscopes. and thinks it's true: this is complete nonsense. It is

perfectly possible to image "objects" that are smaller than the diffraction limit (~wavelength if your NA is

large enough). They just look bigger than they are and

you won't see them as separate objects if they are close together. Google 'single molecule microscopy' if you want.

rishij · November 19, 2008

"So it isn't as simple as saying: "take an area equal to that of the largest crystal and you'll find limited tonal range". There are ways to address that, and film makers do. But yes, if you had a film with only one layer of a constant size crystal then tonal range in an area the size of the crystal would be limited. Here you would approach closer to a true halftone process."

That's something I've been arguing all along, that the multiple layers extend the tonal range of the film. With just one layer, you'd have a very limited tonal range and, hence, this would translate to either lower contrast or just a lower range of tones recorded (if the film itself, with just one layer, can never reach 'black', then the difference between 'white' and 'black' becomes compressed)

"I agree, there is no argument left. I won it already. Don't be in denial about that - read two days of posts - and like before, realize that I haven't changed my viewpoint one bit."

This is a retarded attitude, Vijay. You haven't won; you just stepped in & joined a camp started by Mark Smith & Ron and all... who themselves started it from more in-depth text books that state this kinda stuff. This attitude you take makes it very personal, which is probably why you can't admit the times you *have* been wrong. Like when you keep stating that the tonal range an area of film can achieve and visual resolution (the macroscopic perception of sharpness/resolution) have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I agree, that for black and white test charts, if you can accept 1.6:1 contrast levels, they don't have anything to do with one another. But for real world tones and real world images here in Real America (sorry I just couldn't resist :), resolution will be affected by whether it takes 5 grains to represent 16,000 tones, or an area of 500 grains to represent 16,000 tones.

"This is why you'll need a higher "megapixel number" for digital to match up with film. Another nice segue to the 35 MP number I theorized earlier."

Uh, WHAT?? Come again??

Vijay, have you ever shot 35mm and digital side by side? Substantiate your 'theory' of 35MP with some evidence, please. Otherwise, theory is just theory.

Rishi

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

"This is why you'll need a higher "megapixel number" for digital to match up with film. Another nice segue to the 35 MP number I theorized earlier."

Uh, WHAT?? Come again??

Vijay, have you ever shot 35mm and digital side by side? Substantiate your 'theory' of 35MP with some evidence, please. Otherwise, theory is just theory.

Don't act ignorant. I've pointed at Mauro Franic's threads several times already.

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

Rishi: "That's something I've been arguing all along, that the multiple layers extend the tonal range of the film."

And again, resolution has nothing to do with tonal range.

Amplitude of a signal has nothing to do with its frequency.

In the beginning I wasn't even talking about tonal range, I was talking about resolution. You guys kept confusing the two. Heck, even Reichmann is confusing the two.

So if you were arguing that multiple layers extend the tonal range of the film that was very nice, but totally irrelevant to resolution, which is what we were discussing (and seem to be even now).

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

Allard Katan: "this is complete nonsense. It is perfectly possible to image "objects" that are smaller than the diffraction limit (~wavelength if your NA is large enough)."

Thank you Allard. Any comments, Daniel?

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

Rishi: This is a retarded attitude, Vijay. You haven't won; you just stepped in & joined a camp started by

Mark Smith & Ron and all... who themselves started it from more in-depth text books that state this kinda stuff.

This attitude you take makes it very personal, which is probably why you can't admit the times you *have* been

wrong. Like when you keep stating that the tonal range an area of film can achieve and visual resolution (the

macroscopic perception of sharpness/resolution) have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I agree, that for

black and white test charts, if you can accept 1.6:1 contrast levels, they don't have anything to do with one

another. But for real world tones and real world images here in Real America (sorry I just couldn't resist :),

resolution will be affected by whether it takes 5 grains to represent 16,000 tones, or an area of 500 grains to

represent 16,000 tones.

Rishi, if you are going to argue, then know what you are arguing about; argue from a position of knowledge. Mark,

Ron and I were telling it like it really is, not like how we would like it to be. You guys seem to be redefining

physics as we go along, you seem to have no knowledge of binary/switching systems, you seem to have no knowledge

of information theory at all. You, Rishi, do seem to have a knowledge of Chemistry, but Daniel doesn't appear to

know Optics.

It may be complex stuff we are discussing, but it ain't rocket science. I hate to point out to you, but you if

you guys need to continue arguing, you'll have to start hitting some textbooks.

Mark and Ron probably realized this and left the debate. I thought I could show you guys how it really is, but

evidently they were right - you'd rather redefine Physics than lose. And I'm supposed to be taking a retarded or

personal attitude. Pretty shrewd.

Now that Allard Katan has poked another large gaping hole in your "theory", are you going to redefine physics and

say "it doesn't matter" - are you going to downplay it? Are you still going to continue with Reichmann's stupid

theory?

rishij · November 19, 2008

Vijay: "Don't act ignorant. I've pointed at Mauro Franic's threads several times already."

And I point you to this digital vs. film comparison:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

You point me to ONE thread, and say that should outspeak the hundreds of others that say you need LESS megapixels

for the equivalent to film?

That's why I asked you 'have you done your own comparison before making such an unfounded claim. Off your high

horse, Vijay. You've not reached the point where you can just make a claim & everyone'll accept it.

Rishi

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

I see this image in your article. Reichmann compares scanned MF film, so the scanner limitations are in play, but even then, I see detail in the windows, including a bluish reflection from the sky. With the digital image I see rectangles. The bar that divides the window panes isn't even present in the pictures. The digital image has practically zero information content, and the MF image has loads. Once again, you're confusing smoothness of tone and resolution.

If at all, it clearly illustrates my point - that film image has significantly more information than the digital image.

You were saying?<div></div>

vijay_nebhrajani · November 19, 2008

The equivalent MF image.<div>

00RXlR-90081584.jpg.012e751301c5cb62dc9568b28e04ea71.jpg

</div>

rishij · November 19, 2008

Vijay, you read anything I write? Or do you just like to bellow loudly to assert you're right and x, y, & z are wrong?

How the heck am I agreeing with Reichmann when I wrote:

"Now, I think we're all starting to realize that a grain can leave behind many varying amounts of silver... So resolution IS limited by the largest grain, but the total dynamic range attainable by an area of film the size of 1 grain is limited."

When I say the 'dynamic range attainable by an area of film the size of 1 grain', do you think I mean it's limited to 2? No, then I woulda said it's 'binary'. READ what people write before you speak out against them and then make yourself look ignorant.

And, yeah, I have knowledge of chemistry, but just because you may not, or aren't interested in knowing more about the chemistry (how many times did I point you to the Chem. Rev. article?), I don't dog you for not knowing the chemistry. So quit dogging others for not understanding 'binary'. If you were more interested in presenting an intelligent argument rather than taking swipes at others, you'd realize that it's not that we don't understand 'binary', but that the system itself could be either binary or not based on the kinetics of the reduction reaction that the developer initiates (for those sensitivity sites that have met the threshold of 3-4 reduced metallic silver atoms); that is, whether or not, in the development process, the kinetics are so fast and/or the development time is long enough so as to fully reduce grains that have been exposed at X (where X is a very high number) sensitivity sites, whereas not touch grains that have been exposed at "less than X" sensitivity sites.

In which case, the system WOULD BE binary. Because it'd be designed as such, based on the development time.

So you don't help your cause when you go around telling us we don't understand 'binary'. We already proved that we do, a long time ago. The debate is much deeper, and you know this, so quit acting ignorant. We've come a long way -- I don't remember you talking about sensitivity sites and filamentous growths as the fundamental imaging element, not the grains, at the beginning of the thread. We've all learned, so drop your arrogance. I've already admitted that my stance is somewhere between both camps, and that grains themselves ARE NOT binary. Did I have to spell it out for you like that for you to get it, or could you have just inferred it from the tens of times in this thread I've already explained it?

Rishi

rishij · November 19, 2008

You should read more carefully, Vijay. But I don't expect as much from you.

That's an 11 MP digital camera, and that's MEDIUM FORMAT film.

Do a calculation -- how much more information does a frame of medium format film have compared to 35mm? And then tell me again how you think a 35mm frame of film has 35MP worth of full-tonal range information.

Rishi

Sign In

Wow - read this re: Film versus Digital debate!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in