Re: [photo-3d] Pixels Pixels

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark  ~

A very good explanation.   One clarification: re: light sensitivity.
Although your statement about pixel size and film sensitivity is essentially
correct, since pixels are not normally used in film nomenclature, grain size
is the usual consideration.  And, the light sensitivity of film does change
with grain size.   Years ago, a so-called "high speed" (high sensitivity)
film had visibly coarser grain than slow speed, fine grained films.   Today,
the T-grain technology has advanced to the point where even relatively fast
films appear to be quite fine grained.  Yet, slow (lower sensitivity) films
are still even finer.

Recently, Kodak has been equating film resolution specifications with
pixels, although I have only seen this in their advertisements for
professional 35mm motion picture film.

John A. Rupkalvis


----- Original Message -----
From: <markaren@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:28 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Pixels Pixels


> So how many pixels will equal the look of film? Nobody knows and who
> cares? That's like asking which felt tip marker closely resembles
> qualities of paint. Let's say it is determined by a greater power that
> 9-10 megapixels equals film ( I suspect it will be much higher, but
> let's say 10 for this example).........it won't happen in a consumer
> camera and here's why.
> Film has suspended silver halide crystals in random orientation, some
> sandwiched together, many overlaps, crystals rotated in different
> directions etc. This is why film mfgrs have been able to reduce the
> grain ( size of the halides) while maintaining sharpness etc. A digital
> camera requires less pixels ( equate pixels to the halide crystals for
> this example) because the pixels are not random but are specifically
> aligned together for efficiency. As the size of the pixels are reduced
> attempting to fit more pixels into the same space, it was discovered
> that reducing pixel size reduces light sensitivity. This is not the case
> with film. So to produce a digital camera to house a quality 10Mp
> chip....the camera will have to be larger than the average SLR, or the
> chip quality will suffer.
> Mfgrs are so fearful of the size restriction, they must admit they are
> not willing to go in this direction. The future of film, at least for
> now, looks awefully bright! :-)
>                                                 Mark Dottle
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/markaren/USVIEWSExchangeFolio
>
>
>
>
>