Difficult technical question on ISO & light

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <lhsgd.13512$ta5.12299@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>
>Kodak quotes 24 MP as the equivalent of 35mm film, on their website.

Large film manufacturer gives optimistic interpretation of raw data
regarding own product shock! Film at eleven (no pun intended).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
>
> In article <26k952-5k8.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
> Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> >In article <4182032A.D3B720F7@aol.com>,
> >Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>uh huh... multi-hour digital. And no noise due to heat. right.
> >>(and heat is *inherent* in digital sensor exposure...)
> >>
> >>Show me a "multi hour" digital exposure.
> >
> >OK, I'll take one tonight and upload it. Have to be of something indoors and
> >boring, I'm afraid, as there's too much light pollution where I live to do
> >such a long exposure outside, and the weather's pretty nasty atm as well.
>
> In the meantime, here's a 30 minute one to be going on with. I downsized it
> for the web, but included a 1:1 crop in part of the pic, so that you can see
> just how "terrible" the noise is.
>
> Ambient temperature was about 15C.
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/narcissus/30mins.jpg

30 minutes is not "multi hour."

CMOS sensors are an improvement over CCD sensors.
But,caveats still exist. For exmaple, it is still
a fact of electronics that the bigger the pixel the
better the signal and the less noise. Canon, in fact
states on their web site that "When photographing dark o
bjects like stars, conditions at the place of use, such
as the temperature and the length of exposure, may have
a noticeable effect on the noise level of the camera...."

Canon also recommends the EOS 10D for such imaging, on
the basis that the pixels are larger and thus produce
a better signal and less ingherent noise.

Hours and hours is what you claimed. Noise is still going
to be an issue. The issue with film is reciprocity failure,
but this is easily compensated for and there is no noise.
The fact is, due to Nyquist digital sensors suitable for
longer exposures simply are not going to match the detail
and resolution possible with film.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
>
> In article <lhsgd.13512$ta5.12299@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
> >
> >Kodak quotes 24 MP as the equivalent of 35mm film, on their website.
>
> Large film manufacturer gives optimistic interpretation of raw data
> regarding own product shock! Film at eleven (no pun intended).



Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
contains 24 million pixels."

From "Progress and future prospects of silver halide photography
compared with digital imaging." Journal of Imaging Science and
Technology, vol 42, no. 1, 1998.

Not a Kodak publication. Also, a film with lesser sensitivity
(i.e., a slower film) would in fact represent a higher number
of equivalent pixels due to the finer grain and resolving
ability. As noted, in comparisons of typical machine 4x6 prints
from ISO 400 film and digital imagers, all that is needed to
satisfy the human perception of image quality is 6mp. But the
fact remains 35mm film exceeds this limited requirement.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Tom Phillips wrote:

> better the signal and the less noise. Canon, in fact
> states on their web site that "When photographing dark o
> bjects like stars, conditions at the place of use, such

"Dark object like stars" ??? Hmm, brown dwarfs and black holes I guess.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

 

[Paul]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

> Not a Kodak publication. Also, a film with lesser sensitivity
> (i.e., a slower film) would in fact represent a higher number
> of equivalent pixels due to the finer grain and resolving
> ability. As noted, in comparisons of typical machine 4x6 prints
> from ISO 400 film and digital imagers, all that is needed to
> satisfy the human perception of image quality is 6mp. But the
> fact remains 35mm film exceeds this limited requirement.

Lower resolution didn't stop the CDs from becoming a standard.
Same thing will happen to photography.
Digital is not at its best yet. Half my family is into professional
photography. My grandfather opened his first photo studio in 1928 and my
great-grand-father had a photo studio too.
http://www.mhf.krakow.pl/wystawy/bielec/
http://www.foto-bielec.art.pl/
(sorry the links are not in english)
So, when my aunt or my cousin tells me that she sees a difference between
the film and the digital, I believe them. This is what they do for living.
Still, it doesn't stop them from integrating the digital into their work. As
they both know that it is the future and you need to be able to take
advantage of it if you want to stay in the business.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Paul wrote:
>
> > Not a Kodak publication. Also, a film with lesser sensitivity
> > (i.e., a slower film) would in fact represent a higher number
> > of equivalent pixels due to the finer grain and resolving
> > ability. As noted, in comparisons of typical machine 4x6 prints
> > from ISO 400 film and digital imagers, all that is needed to
> > satisfy the human perception of image quality is 6mp. But the
> > fact remains 35mm film exceeds this limited requirement.
>
> Lower resolution didn't stop the CDs from becoming a standard.
> Same thing will happen to photography.

You're right. mediocrity rules.

> Digital is not at its best yet.

Sure. But it is _different_ from film and cannot do the
same things.

> Half my family is into professional
> photography. My grandfather opened his first photo studio in 1928 and my
> great-grand-father had a photo studio too.
> http://www.mhf.krakow.pl/wystawy/bielec/
> http://www.foto-bielec.art.pl/
> (sorry the links are not in english)
> So, when my aunt or my cousin tells me that she sees a difference between
> the film and the digital, I believe them. This is what they do for living.
> Still, it doesn't stop them from integrating the digital into their work. As
> they both know that it is the future and you need to be able to take
> advantage of it if you want to stay in the business.

Digital is a tool. But it cannot replace film because
it's not film.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4182AD9B.B7007F9A@aol.com...
>
> Ken Alverson wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:41823255.BC08FE81@aol.com...
>> >
>> > Photography produces a photograph. And a photograph is an
>> > image written on photosensitive materials by the direct
>> > action of light. Digital imaging is electronic and about
>> > as "photographic" as your television cameraman broadcasting
>> > to your T.V. set. Again, no photograph.
>>
>> Photograph, from the greek "photo-" meaning light and "-graph" meaning
>> recording. Whether the recording was made photochemically and stored on
>> physical media or photoelectrically and stored on digital media is really
>> inconsequential to its status as a photograph.
>
> No. it means (literally) light writing, i.e., as in physically
> drawing with light.
>
> Digital sensors produce data.

Write, draw, or record. All meaning to take something transient and make a
more permenant record of it.

But let's say "-graph" was a strict literal translation to "writing". Are you
implying writers who use word processors aren't really writing?

Ken

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Ken Alverson wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4182AD9B.B7007F9A@aol.com...
> >
> > Ken Alverson wrote:
> >>
> >> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:41823255.BC08FE81@aol.com...
> >> >
> >> > Photography produces a photograph. And a photograph is an
> >> > image written on photosensitive materials by the direct
> >> > action of light. Digital imaging is electronic and about
> >> > as "photographic" as your television cameraman broadcasting
> >> > to your T.V. set. Again, no photograph.
> >>
> >> Photograph, from the greek "photo-" meaning light and "-graph" meaning
> >> recording. Whether the recording was made photochemically and stored on
> >> physical media or photoelectrically and stored on digital media is really
> >> inconsequential to its status as a photograph.
> >
> > No. it means (literally) light writing, i.e., as in physically
> > drawing with light.
> >
> > Digital sensors produce data.
>
> Write, draw, or record. All meaning to take something transient and make a
> more permenant record of it.
>
> But let's say "-graph" was a strict literal translation to "writing". Are you
> implying writers who use word processors aren't really writing?

I'm stating a fact. Digital sensors do not create a
photograph. They transmit a voltage, regenerated into
digital signals, then stored as binary data.

The ISO defines a digital still camera as producing a signal
that represents a still picture. In digital form, there is
only data. No picture. And they set the standards all digital
cameras follow.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> Chris Brown wrote:
>
>>In article <26k952-5k8.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
>>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4182032A.D3B720F7@aol.com>,
>>>Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>uh huh... multi-hour digital. And no noise due to heat. right.
>>>>(and heat is *inherent* in digital sensor exposure...)
>>>>
>>>>Show me a "multi hour" digital exposure.
>>>
>>>OK, I'll take one tonight and upload it.
>>
>>In the meantime, here's a 30 minute one to be going on with.
>
> 30 minutes is not "multi hour."

Hence the words "in the meantime". I think he put that one up
to act as a not-quite-what-you-wanted preview of what's to come.

> CMOS sensors are an improvement over CCD sensors.
> But,caveats still exist. For exmaple, it is still
> a fact of electronics that the bigger the pixel the
> better the signal and the less noise.

I think what you're wanting to say is the signal to noise ratio
for larger pixels is often greater than that of smaller pixels,
resulting from the deeper electron well afforded by a larger
sensing area.

> Hours and hours is what you claimed. Noise is still going
> to be an issue. The issue with film is reciprocity failure,
> but this is easily compensated for and there is no noise.
> The fact is, due to Nyquist digital sensors suitable for
> longer exposures simply are not going to match the detail
> and resolution possible with film.

Out of curiosity, do you have a website anywhere that I might
view some high detail low-light pictures you have taken? I'm
considering exploring this area of photography (even though
I'm on the digital side of things) and would like to see what
other folks have accomplished.

BJJB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
> assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
> that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
> contains 24 million pixels."

Typical 135 format film measures 36x24 mm, for a total imaging area
of 864 square mm, or 864,000,000 square microns. Dividing this by
the quoted pixel size above yields 8,640,000 "pixels" on the 135
format film. I have no idea how the authors of that quote came up
with 24 million, which at first glance appears to be too large by
nearly a factor of three. Perhaps the authors assume some degree of
overlap between "pixels" on the emulsion layer?

BJJB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

BillyJoeJimBob wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
> > assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
> > that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
> > contains 24 million pixels."
>
> Typical 135 format film measures 36x24 mm, for a total imaging area
> of 864 square mm, or 864,000,000 square microns. Dividing this by
> the quoted pixel size above yields 8,640,000 "pixels" on the 135
> format film. I have no idea how the authors of that quote came up
> with 24 million, which at first glance appears to be too large by
> nearly a factor of three. Perhaps the authors assume some degree of
> overlap between "pixels" on the emulsion layer?


it's based on the number of absorbed photons per area of
developable grains, not the film dimensions. That's what
it says, anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"per area" should tell you that the film dimensions do matter.

"Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4182DD3F.2DAFE9EC@aol.com...
>
>
> BillyJoeJimBob wrote:
> >
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
> > > assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
> > > that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
> > > contains 24 million pixels."
> >
> > Typical 135 format film measures 36x24 mm, for a total imaging area
> > of 864 square mm, or 864,000,000 square microns. Dividing this by
> > the quoted pixel size above yields 8,640,000 "pixels" on the 135
> > format film. I have no idea how the authors of that quote came up
> > with 24 million, which at first glance appears to be too large by
> > nearly a factor of three. Perhaps the authors assume some degree of
> > overlap between "pixels" on the emulsion layer?
>
>
> it's based on the number of absorbed photons per area of
> developable grains, not the film dimensions. That's what
> it says, anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <4182A636.6840EF5E@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Chris Brown wrote:
>>
>> In article <26k952-5k8.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
>> Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>> >In article <4182032A.D3B720F7@aol.com>,
>> >Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Show me a "multi hour" digital exposure.
>> >
>> >OK, I'll take one tonight and upload it.
>>
>> In the meantime, here's a 30 minute one to be going on with.
>
>30 minutes is not "multi hour."

Reading comprehension not your forte then?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

You didn't

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:14q4o012b7gmnsp4n6jekdodmdqq33nudk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:08:21 +0200, huerew <huerew@hhh.com> wrote:
>
> >Xref: sn-us alt.comp.periphs.dcameras:58712 rec.photo.digital:1048214
rec.photo.equipment.35mm:865238 rec.photo.film+labs:76078
rec.photo.darkroom:208187
> >
> >Let's see if I catch some guru's attention with this su
>
> Please post to the appropriate group and only to the
> appropriate group.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
> Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

BillyJoeJimBob wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Chris Brown wrote:
> >
> >>In article <26k952-5k8.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
> >>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <4182032A.D3B720F7@aol.com>,
> >>>Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>uh huh... multi-hour digital. And no noise due to heat. right.
> >>>>(and heat is *inherent* in digital sensor exposure...)
> >>>>
> >>>>Show me a "multi hour" digital exposure.
> >>>
> >>>OK, I'll take one tonight and upload it.
> >>
> >>In the meantime, here's a 30 minute one to be going on with.
> >
> > 30 minutes is not "multi hour."
>
> Hence the words "in the meantime". I think he put that one up
> to act as a not-quite-what-you-wanted preview of what's to come.
>
>
> > CMOS sensors are an improvement over CCD sensors.
> > But,caveats still exist. For exmaple, it is still
> > a fact of electronics that the bigger the pixel the
> > better the signal and the less noise.
>
> I think what you're wanting to say is the signal to noise ratio
> for larger pixels is often greater than that of smaller pixels,
> resulting from the deeper electron well afforded by a larger
> sensing area.

O.K. 🙂

> > Hours and hours is what you claimed. Noise is still going
> > to be an issue. The issue with film is reciprocity failure,
> > but this is easily compensated for and there is no noise.
> > The fact is, due to Nyquist digital sensors suitable for
> > longer exposures simply are not going to match the detail
> > and resolution possible with film.
>
> Out of curiosity, do you have a website anywhere that I might
> view some high detail low-light pictures you have taken? I'm
> considering exploring this area of photography (even though
> I'm on the digital side of things) and would like to see what
> other folks have accomplished.

I don't maintain a web site for general public consumption.

Got as real email?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <4182ACF8.F5A99776@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Chris Brown wrote:
>>
>> In article <lhsgd.13512$ta5.12299@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Kodak quotes 24 MP as the equivalent of 35mm film, on their website.
>>
>> Large film manufacturer gives optimistic interpretation of raw data
>> regarding own product shock! Film at eleven (no pun intended).
>
>Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
>assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
>that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
>contains 24 million pixels."

What a nonsensical quote - film contains no pixels at all.

>Not a Kodak publication.

I wrote their own "product", not their own "publication". It's right there
in the material you quoted. Really, this doesn't have to be hard.

>Also, a film with lesser sensitivity
>(i.e., a slower film) would in fact represent a higher number
>of equivalent pixels due to the finer grain and resolving
>ability.

I'd dearly love for this all to be true, as it would vastly improve the
results I was able to get from 35mm film. In reality, as anyone knows who
actually uses both and doesn't have an axe to grind, the suggestion that you
can get "24 megapixel" images from 35mm film, where we're talking about
similar "quality" pixels to those provided by a DSLR, is ludicrous and
doesn't come close to reflecting reality.

The position you are trying to advance in this thread does not reflect
observed reality, and that is the ultimate arbiter. When reality proves your
theory wrong, continuing to try and find new papers and calculations to
support it is a pointless waste oof your time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <4182A902.A58F1699@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Chris Brown wrote:
>>
>> In article <41823255.BC08FE81@aol.com>,
>> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The questionn is, why is this even a debate?
>>
>> It's not - in the eyes of nearly everyone who regarded this as some kind of
>> "contest", 35mm "lost" years ago, with the previous genertion of DSLRs.
>> You're trotting out the sort of stuff that used to infest r.p.e.35mm and
>> r.p.d about 2-4 years ago. Pretty much everyone else has accepted reality
>> and moved on.

[snip more assertions in conflict with observed reality]

>> >For _pictorial_ imaging, film is the better medium. The
>> >facts bear this out.
>>
>> I quite agree, you just need the film to be 6cm wide or more to compete
>> in the quality stakes these days.
>
>Well, I shoot 4x5.

Perhaps you'd be happier getting with shooting your 4*5 then - you currently
seem quite obsessed with exaggerating the abilities of small format film.

>It's not what anyone says, it's what the technology actually
>does and doesn't do.

Now you're getting the idea.

Consumer DSLRs and 35mm are both good for A4 prints, and passable for A3
prints of some subjects. That is "what the technology does and doesn't do".
Your mathematics is uninteresting and irrelevant.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
>
> In article <4182ACF8.F5A99776@aol.com>,
> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Chris Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <lhsgd.13512$ta5.12299@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >> Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Kodak quotes 24 MP as the equivalent of 35mm film, on their website.
> >>
> >> Large film manufacturer gives optimistic interpretation of raw data
> >> regarding own product shock! Film at eleven (no pun intended).
> >
> >Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
> >assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
> >that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
> >contains 24 million pixels."
>
> What a nonsensical quote - film contains no pixels at all.

The article was writen by a photo scientist, and they
do indeed use comparitive pixels as a measure based
on the number of absorbed photons per area of either
developable grains or pixel-photodetector area.

I view it as merely a comparison of the pictorial information
available. And you're right, film has no pixels. If we
instead measure that information using grains contained, even
a 35mm film has _billions_ more picture "elements" than
any digital sensor.

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:26:18 -0700, Justín Käse
<chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote:

>
>>Digital is a tool. But it cannot replace film because
>>it's not film.
>
>I would predict that with the technological advances taking place in
>sensor design, that someday the two mediums would serve as a viable
>adjunct to each other, dependent solely on situational circumstances,
>rather than the petty political squabbles and misplaced allegiances to
>one or the other.
>
>It's not "long live film", or "digital",
>but "long live photography"!

Unfortunately only one can effectively thrive in the current
economic climate and it won't be film. Film will linger for quite some
time but by "thrive" I mean where companies and average buyer is going
with their moneys. It's all marketing of course. At one time Kodak
certainly had some of the deepest pockets in the world but the
combined economic interests of companies like HP, Canon, Epson,
Lexmark, Apple, Dell and all the rest that have invested heavily in DI
is simply too much for even Kodak. Profiteering steers marketing and
marketing steers public opinion. Economics 101.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:26:18 -0700, Justín Käse
> <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>Digital is a tool. But it cannot replace film because
> >>it's not film.
> >
> >I would predict that with the technological advances taking place in
> >sensor design, that someday the two mediums would serve as a viable
> >adjunct to each other, dependent solely on situational circumstances,
> >rather than the petty political squabbles and misplaced allegiances to
> >one or the other.
> >
> >It's not "long live film", or "digital",
> >but "long live photography"!
>
> Unfortunately only one can effectively thrive in the current
> economic climate and it won't be film. Film will linger for quite some
> time but by "thrive" I mean where companies and average buyer is going
> with their moneys. It's all marketing of course. At one time Kodak
> certainly had some of the deepest pockets in the world but the
> combined economic interests of companies like HP, Canon, Epson,
> Lexmark, Apple, Dell and all the rest that have invested heavily in DI
> is simply too much for even Kodak. Profiteering steers marketing and
> marketing steers public opinion. Economics 101.


Pessimist!

> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
> Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4182AA2C.4460FA66@aol.com...
>
>
> imbsysop wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:06:53 -0600, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Chris Brown wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <418210F6.561BFC92@aol.com>,
>> >> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Chris Brown wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <4181DC73.F1671D33@aol.com>,
>> >> >> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Talking lighting and exposure here. And again you ignore
>> >> >> >nyquist. Also, on average a 400 speed 35mm film has the
>> >> >> >equivalent of 24 million pixels.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh wow, a real 35mm pixel-counter. I thought the last one of those
>> >> >> in the
>> >> >> wild had died out years ago...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >No, stupid.
>> >>
>> >> I bet that's what you say to all the girls.
>> >>
>> >> >It's something that's been scientifically determined
>> >> >by eminent photo scientists based on the number of absorbed photons.
>> >>
>> >> Your alluded to "scientific determination" doesn't match the reality
>> >> observed by those of us who shoot multiple systems. In said observed
>> >> reality, 35mm film can just about edge out 6 megapixel DSLRs at low
>> >> ISO,
>> >
>> >***ONLY*** at typical machine print sizes. In fact, any 35mm
>> >image can be *enlarged* to as much as 10 times it's resolution,
>> >revealing additional image detail. No digital image of a similar
>> >pixel resolution can achieve this capability. A higher resolution
>> >capture is required.
>> >
>> >This is simply due to the fact that silver halides record
>> >tonal/image information on a molecular level as opposed to
>> >a much larger pixel. This is an inherent distinction between
>> >these two imaging mediums.
>>
>> off track .. this only happens if the emulsion would consist of free
>> molecules in a monomolecular layer at 100% molecular density .. it is
>> not, even if microcrystaline it still is crystaline .. and hence you
>> do not get a 100 chemical reaction to light ..
>
> Silver hailde exposure occurs at the molecular level.

sure .. but not sure for how many molecules in the crystal ..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

imbsysop wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4182AA2C.4460FA66@aol.com...
> >
> >
> > imbsysop wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:06:53 -0600, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Chris Brown wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <418210F6.561BFC92@aol.com>,
> >> >> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Chris Brown wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In article <4181DC73.F1671D33@aol.com>,
> >> >> >> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Talking lighting and exposure here. And again you ignore
> >> >> >> >nyquist. Also, on average a 400 speed 35mm film has the
> >> >> >> >equivalent of 24 million pixels.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh wow, a real 35mm pixel-counter. I thought the last one of those
> >> >> >> in the
> >> >> >> wild had died out years ago...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No, stupid.
> >> >>
> >> >> I bet that's what you say to all the girls.
> >> >>
> >> >> >It's something that's been scientifically determined
> >> >> >by eminent photo scientists based on the number of absorbed photons.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your alluded to "scientific determination" doesn't match the reality
> >> >> observed by those of us who shoot multiple systems. In said observed
> >> >> reality, 35mm film can just about edge out 6 megapixel DSLRs at low
> >> >> ISO,
> >> >
> >> >***ONLY*** at typical machine print sizes. In fact, any 35mm
> >> >image can be *enlarged* to as much as 10 times it's resolution,
> >> >revealing additional image detail. No digital image of a similar
> >> >pixel resolution can achieve this capability. A higher resolution
> >> >capture is required.
> >> >
> >> >This is simply due to the fact that silver halides record
> >> >tonal/image information on a molecular level as opposed to
> >> >a much larger pixel. This is an inherent distinction between
> >> >these two imaging mediums.
> >>
> >> off track .. this only happens if the emulsion would consist of free
> >> molecules in a monomolecular layer at 100% molecular density .. it is
> >> not, even if microcrystaline it still is crystaline .. and hence you
> >> do not get a 100 chemical reaction to light ..
> >
> > Silver hailde exposure occurs at the molecular level.
>
> sure .. but not sure for how many molecules in the crystal ..

All it requires is one to initiate photolysis.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:


: John wrote:
: >
: > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:26:18 -0700, Just??n K??se
: > <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >>Digital is a tool. But it cannot replace film because
: > >>it's not film.
: > >
: > >I would predict that with the technological advances taking place in
: > >sensor design, that someday the two mediums would serve as a viable
: > >adjunct to each other, dependent solely on situational circumstances,
: > >rather than the petty political squabbles and misplaced allegiances to
: > >one or the other.
: > >
: > >It's not "long live film", or "digital",
: > >but "long live photography"!
: >
: > Unfortunately only one can effectively thrive in the current
: > economic climate and it won't be film. Film will linger for quite some
: > time but by "thrive" I mean where companies and average buyer is going
: > with their moneys. It's all marketing of course. At one time Kodak
: > certainly had some of the deepest pockets in the world but the
: > combined economic interests of companies like HP, Canon, Epson,
: > Lexmark, Apple, Dell and all the rest that have invested heavily in DI
: > is simply too much for even Kodak. Profiteering steers marketing and
: > marketing steers public opinion. Economics 101.


: Pessimist!

He's being a realist.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <4182C8B8.CDAEB46E@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
>> >assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
>> >that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
>> >contains 24 million pixels."
>>
>> What a nonsensical quote - film contains no pixels at all.
>
>The article was writen by a photo scientist,

I don't care if it was written by the Tooth Fairy, it's still nonsense.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
>
> In article <4182C8B8.CDAEB46E@aol.com>,
> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
> >> >assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
> >> >that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
> >> >contains 24 million pixels."
> >>
> >> What a nonsensical quote - film contains no pixels at all.
> >
> >The article was writen by a photo scientist,
>
> I don't care if it was written by the Tooth Fairy, it's still nonsense.


This conversation is over.

Suffice it to say that every photographic expert
acknowledges what you reject...