re:Digital vs Analog (and where to get a cheap scanner)

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike K. replies:

>Good point.  But doesn't it take an area of silver-image film to use
>what I'm calling dithering to provide that continuous range of tone
>or does the film use only density in the thickness-direction of the
>film to create different gray tones, even for an infinitely small dot
>in the film's area?

I'm pretty certain it's more like the latter than the former, except
rather than "infinitely small", it's the size of the grain that's the
limiting factor on resolution.

>Does this mean that film has low resolution if I look at
>it through a lens that has vasoline spread on it, or if the enlarger
>that made the print was out of focus (just kiddddding) ?

Even though you're joking, the resolution of the system is only as
good as its weakest point.  It's useless to argue about the theoretical
resolving power of film if you're exposing it through junky lenses.
On the other hand, I dislike being limited to what's "good enough for
the average consumer".

>In conclusion, I suspect the 3-Million figure is probably wrong on
>the low side, but I also suspect the 30-Million figure is probably
>wrong on the high side, and I haven't the foggiest on how to decide
>exactly what it is.

It may be that the digital folks ARE considering the resolution of
the system, and are saying that the average consumer 35mm film
camera system is only capable of resolving on the 3 megapixel order.

>I wish I had a high-end dye-sub printer!.

Me too!


        -Greg W.


------------------------------