Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I had the same thoughts, Frank. But, my old darkroom gear has been in the attic since 1967, so I felt like I was a little out of date. ;-) Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA On 4/12/2014 11:21 PM, Frank Filippone wrote: > Is this really correct? A grain of film is a digital ( exposed or not > exposed)? How would you then get differing grey levels in the same small > area? All the grains in that area would all be exposed or not exposed.... > Closer to the concept of printing..... > > I believe that a grain sensor within film is in itself an analog item with > varying degrees of "greyness". > > To your point, you are speaking of quantization levels not individual pixel > locations....... example.... Original D1 camera had 5MP of resolution. > That > meant there were 5milliion sensor locations. Each sensor location is > recorded at (let's say) 14 bits of depth. A D4 has 16MP of sensor > locations and it too is recorded ( let's say) at 14 bits of depth...... > The D4 has more resolution. They have equal quantization levels. > > Image receptors per square inch is independent of the depth to which those > sensor locations are measured..... I only spoke of receptors per square > inch..... > > Here we go again... too much retirement time..... > > Frank Filippone > Red735i at verizon.net > > > But surely a single grain in film is either exposed or not, whereas a pixel > has, depending on the sensor, thousands of brightness levels. So they are > not directly comparable and it would require a big patch of film containing > thousands of grains to display the range of tones a single pixel is capable > of, though clearly a patch of pixels would be required to compare the > effect. > > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> >> To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug at leica-users.org> >> Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2014, 14:07 >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparing film and digital resolution >> >> >> Several years ago, I did the calculations based upon the molecular >> particulate size of TMax100 film. I picked that film because the >> density data was available, and it was the most consistent particulate >> size film available, and it was reputed to be the most consistent >> homogenous density mix of crystals within the sensitive film layer. >> >> My assumption was that the TMax100 crystalline molecule was the >> smallest discernible and quantifiable light capturing receptor. >> Therefore, the closest analogy to a digital sensor pixel. >> >> As I remember it, the particulate size, and therefore the effective >> pixel density, was around 15MP per square inch. The closest ( B+W >> only) comparison is the MM. >> >> The MM is about 10MP per square inch. >> >> Based upon this, and for all practical purposes, digital sensor >> technology resolution has caught up with chemical resolution. >> >> Too much time on your hands is a bad thing......you worry about things >> that are purely theoretical. This happened to me as well when I first > retired. >> Seems a pattern.... >> >> Frank Filippone >> Red735i at verizon.net >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >