Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI


Just to clarify, my original comments about the randomization of the
pixel edges, etc. was in response to your comment below.  I was not
implying that current pixel resolution could achieve photographic grain
randomness or resolution at current.

However, I would agree with Rob that should the resolution of digital
scans become high enough, the issue would become moot.  Grain is just
another "dot" pattern of random size and placement.  Seems a bit of
"fuzzy logic" could replicate it should that be desirable, once the
resolution is high enough.

We humans seem to like analogue qualities in our visual info, sound,
etc.  Probably because our own cell structure (and that of most living
things) is pretty chaotic, and our retinas are certainly not rigid
arrays.  Film mimics this quality, so we prefer the results.

As I said earlier, the placement and relative size of the grain which
creates the dye clouds within the film emulsion is predetermined during
the manufacturing process.  It isn't like they move around after the
picture is taken to produce the image, so they could just as easily be
detrimentally located as augmenting to the image quality.  It's just
that they are so small and there are so many that they allow for more
precise positioning than do pixels currently.  If pixels were small
enough, and closely enough spaced, I don't think the issue of their
array position would be very important, if there delineation's became
fully invisible to the naked eye.



  >> I think that part of it, is that pixels are aligned in a grid and
have a rectilinear shape, whereas the film
  >> grain is (for lack of a better description) schoastic in arrangement
and irregular in shape, thereby providing
  >> more tonal information than pixels.

SKID Photography wrote:

  > While I agree that the pixels will be 'smoother' because of the
inkjet dither pattern, film grain still
  > contains/imparts more information (on a one to one basis) than a
pixel, not matter how it is dithered by the
  > printer.
  > Harvey Ferdschneider
  > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
  > .


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.