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 <4183466e$0$10830$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

> There was clearly (as we now know) a huge latent demand for the ability to,
> say, snap a picture of baby's first steps in the living room, or mom blowing
> out the candles on her birthday cake, then go into the bedroom or den and pump
> out a fine quality print immediately. This demand was by far the driving force
> in the market. Manufactures did extensive studies on that suspected demand,
> and responded accordingly. What exists right now is equal and more to the
> tasks that most consumers want to accomplish, and it's only getting better.
>
> Of course the lower denominator is going to win. Most people can't
> differentiate between superb and very good images even if you give them a
> loupe. Superb is overkill for the bulk of the population. It will remain
> extremely expensive, and on the fringe. Always has lived right there.

> SP

Lets hope the "industry" serves the desire to have those images last longer than
to the kids graduation.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[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 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:54:14 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:03:26 -0500, in article
><vu36o0ht9brf19so889pinjb1o895c6hvv@4ax.com>, John <use_net@puresilver.org>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>No, it's not "all in marketing",

Yep, it is. I work for one of the above companies and I see it
every day.

> although one cannot ignore marketing, either.
>But marketing has a hard time with products like Edsels, and is not the be all
>to end all.

If you mean DI then I agree. It's certainly not the last
chapter in photography as it's a different book altogether anyway.

> And this "Economics 101" assumption rather foolishly ignores
>consumers,

Not at all. I'm just quite practical (jaded ?) when it comes
to corporate marketing.

> who have responded by voting en masse with their cash for the
>ability to produce perfectly good images on their own (I'm talking about the
>mainstream market and keepsake imaging, not about some esoteric theorizing
>about which medium produces ultra superior imaging)

What they bought is the proverbial "bill-of-goods". Most have
no idea how to create an image that even rivals the cheapest of
minilabs.

> without ever buying a roll
>of film again, or paying anyone to develop it.

Isn't it funny ? They were sold convenience but when they got
home they found that the have to learn how to use a computer, how to
manipulate images and how to make a "print" !! And backup their files
? LOL ! They don't know the meaning of the term !

> In short, marketing can help to
>steer demand, but it is powerless where there is little or no demand in the
>first place. Marketing has been shown again and again to act on demand only at
>the margins.

Marketing has shown that "New & Improved" is a consistent
seller. Also marketing knows that the average consumer doesn't review
all details in depth. For instance the instability of the average
inkjet print and the likelihood of digital file deletion/corruption.

>There was clearly (as we now know) a huge latent demand for the ability to,
>say, snap a picture of baby's first steps in the living room, or mom blowing
>out the candles on her birthday cake, then go into the bedroom or den and pump
>out a fine quality print immediately. This demand was by far the driving force
>in the market.

In the public sector yes, but companies like Ilford, Agfa and
Kodak made their money from corporate, and government contracts.

> Manufactures did extensive studies on that suspected demand,
>and responded accordingly.

Yep, they invested funds from a good , working line of
products into "New & Improved" once again and are reaping the rewards.
Digital has cost companies billions and is just lately starting to
return.

>What exists right now is equal and more to the
>tasks that most consumers want to accomplish, and it's only getting better.

And again, what they've bought is another bill-of-goods just
as they did in the days of Polaroid.

>Of course the lower denominator is going to win. Most people can't
>differentiate between superb and very good images even if you give them a
>loupe. Superb is overkill for the bulk of the population. It will remain
>extremely expensive, and on the fringe. Always has lived right there.

You're quite right. The masses have little if any concept of
excellence.

>Film will always be around. But it will be around less and less, and will
>become increasingly more expensive. Within, say, 10 years, it will be very
>difficult to find anyone who can develop it, and even rarer to find someone who
>will develop it at a decent price. It's quickly becoming a fringe product, and
>likely to stay there, even assuming the impossible: that the quality of digital
>sensors and associated technology won't make huge leaps in the same 10 years.
>Marketing has little say so about this, other than to convince you that you
>need (for example) 8 MP instead of just 5 MP. <g>

Marketing combines with attrition in that when ones 35mm
camera breaks, "We've got a 3MP $129.95 camera that will replace that
moldy goldy which is less than the cost of the repair !".

>It's long been understood in economics that one of the quickest and surest ways
>to make a fortune is to find a way to wipe out the middleman in any economic
>structure. Film sellers and film developers are essentially middlemen. It's
>always been dangerous economic ground to stand on.

Again I concur and this is why I've suggested to Ilford on
numerous occasions that they should go to direct marketing to maximize
their profit margins.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via 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?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:03:49 GMT, in article
<so5a52-m89.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>In article <41823255.BC08FE81@aol.com>,
>Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The medium format does give me superior image quality to both of them, and
>>> it's dramatically superior. The relative difference between the digital and
>>> 35mm, in comparison, is not worth bothering with. They're both adequate for
>>> an A4 print, and ropey for an A3 print.
>>
>>Never shot Kodachrome 25 or 64, I gather...
>
>Usually Velvia 50, although I'm doing a lot more Provia 100F these days.
>
>>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.
>
>>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.
>
>>Digital,imaging is not photographic. It does not produce
>>a photograph.
>
>If you say so.

Photo = light

Graph = write

If digital photography isn't "light writing", every bit as much as film
photography, we have a real mystery on our hands as to what exactly these
digital appliances are really doing. <g>

SP

 

[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 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:59:19 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

>If digital photography isn't "light writing", every bit as much as film
>photography, we have a real mystery on our hands as to what exactly these
>digital appliances are really doing. <g>

Creating digital files. Film is an analog medium which much
higher resolving potential and much higher image stability.


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?)

If is is analogue. Why is there grainy salt and pepper marks all over
pictures?

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:n0b7o050grolkec8f3fbl7jed9clf34v7l@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:59:19 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
>
> >If digital photography isn't "light writing", every bit as much as film
> >photography, we have a real mystery on our hands as to what exactly these
> >digital appliances are really doing. <g>
>
> Creating digital files. Film is an analog medium which much
> higher resolving potential and much higher image stability.
>
>
> 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?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:33:08 -0600, in article <4182A902.A58F1699@aol.com>, Tom
Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

>Well, I shoot 4x5. Pixels will never be able to get that
>small or numerous to effectively compete there.

Never. The man actually said "never" in a rather new technological
environment. I'm glad I don't own stock in a company that he manages. <g>

SP

 

[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 <4183484b$0$10830$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:33:08 -0600, in article <4182A902.A58F1699@aol.com>, Tom
> Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, I shoot 4x5. Pixels will never be able to get that
> >small or numerous to effectively compete there.
>
> Never. The man actually said "never" in a rather new technological
> environment. I'm glad I don't own stock in a company that he manages. <g>
>
> SP

Highly doubtful, the demand does not warrant the expense of making
the technology to do so.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[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 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:02:11 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

>>Well, I shoot 4x5. Pixels will never be able to get that
>>small or numerous to effectively compete there.
>
>Never. The man actually said "never" in a rather new technological
>environment. I

In comparison to film digital is certainly new however there
are many challenges to making a sensor the size of a 4X5 sheet of
film. Note that some of us still consider 4X5 small.


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?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:52:46 -0600, in article <4182AD9B.B7007F9A@aol.com>, Tom
Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>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.
>>
>> Ken
>
>
>No. it means (literally) light writing, i.e., as in physically
>drawing with light.
>
>Digital sensors produce data.

Yes, they produce data based on a light signature. That is to say, their data
is completely, 100 percent, dependent on light for generation. Without light,
no data. The result is clearly "light writing" (or photography) to anyone
except those who would argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin.

SP

 

[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 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:05:36 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

>>Digital sensors produce data.
>
>Yes, they produce data based on a light signature. That is to say, their data
>is completely, 100 percent, dependent on light for generation. Without light,
>no data. The result is clearly "light writing" (or photography) to anyone
>except those who would argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a
>pin.

Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
photography.


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:

> Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
> effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
> medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
> analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
> photography.


One of the stupidest statements lately seen.


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

 

[Guest]

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

The human eye is not an analogue device. The resolution is estimated at
around 1000 x 1000 pixels of resolution but the rapid eye movements allow
the brain to construct images of much higher resolution by interpolating
over time with repeated scans.

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:j7b7o0hk49k11c04lhcf69p154i2n7nkd9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:05:36 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
>
> >>Digital sensors produce data.
> >
> >Yes, they produce data based on a light signature. That is to say, their
data
> >is completely, 100 percent, dependent on light for generation. Without
light,
> >no data. The result is clearly "light writing" (or photography) to
anyone
> >except those who would argue about how many angels can dance on the head
of a
> >pin.
>
> Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
> effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
> medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
> analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
> photography.
>
>
> 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?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:bmOgd.52905$5t4.1147425@wagner.videotron.net...
> John wrote:
>
>> Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
>> effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
>> medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
>> analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
>> photography.
>
> One of the stupidest statements lately seen.

That is not an adequate rebuttal, but it does ring true.

Now consider the people who ranted against photography upon its invention;
they may have said "The human eye is a natural thing. (re: John's assertion
of the analog eye). Photography is an effort to defraud the natural
perception of things. We all know that to perceive directly is to understand
in an immediate sense that which cannot be conveyed by a two-dimensional
facsimile." (Oh, some said the same about painting and drawing but more may
have been sympathetic to the hand crafted.)

You can be certain there were such arguments. Indeed, if you go back to the
ancient Greeks, you will find it one of the fundamental philosophies that
philosophical understanding cannot be recorded; it can only be conveyed
briefly between two sympathetic, skeptical philosophers... but I digress.

For a more subtle, pertinent and agreeable view of the Digital vs.
Conventional argument consider the existence of the original negative in the
chain of things that make up a photograph. Until someone can demonstrate
that a negative can be perfectly replicated by digital means (so that it
cannot be told from a 'real' negative) then I assert the difference between
digital and conventional _is that negative_. When I sell an important
print, I offer the original negative to make the full circle complete,
inarguably genuine so the differences are clear. And that is the reason I
don't do digital outside the Day Job.

 

[Guest]

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

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:ZsKdnfIad9tWJB7cRVn-jA@golden.net...
> The human eye is not an analogue device. The resolution is estimated at
> around 1000 x 1000 pixels of resolution but the rapid eye movements allow
> the brain to construct images of much higher resolution by interpolating
> over time with repeated scans.

You are mixing terminology, but I understand what you are getting at. The
human eye does 6lp/mm at best. It cannot possibly see 1000^2 pixels at once,
but it manages due to the 'scanning' you mention (which at close range is
largely due to the vibrating nature of the retina, not the big eye muscles.)

 

[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 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:23:55 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>John wrote:
>
>> Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
>> effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
>> medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
>> analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
>> photography.
>
>
>One of the stupidest statements lately seen.

I'm sooooooo heartbroken !

not


Regards,

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

 

[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 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:23:55 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>John wrote:
>
>> Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
>> effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
>> medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
>> analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
>> photography.
>
>One of the stupidest statements lately seen.

Nothing like a well reasoned reply is there ?


Regards,

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

 

[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 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:56:47 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
wrote:

>The human eye is not an analogue device. The resolution is estimated at
>around 1000 x 1000 pixels of resolution but the rapid eye movements allow
>the brain to construct images of much higher resolution by interpolating
>over time with repeated scans.

So you're saying that the human eye is a binary imaging device
? Just want to get that straight.


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> writes:

>Let's keep things in pragmatic context here. MTF is the
>ability of the _entire_ imaging system to resolve detail:
>imager, optics, etc. Nyquist limits the entire digital
>system. Nyquist does not affect film or film optics.

>That's a scientific fact.

It's an irrelevant fact.

If you want to be pragmatic, just look at the MTF curve *regardless of
what it is caused by*. If you do that, it doesn't matter that the
resolution limit may be due to Nyquist in a digital system and due to
film and lens resolution in a film system. All that matters is the
result.

Now, there are some digital systems whose MTF *at every frequency* is
better than some film systems. Are you arguing that digital will still
be worse because it's "limited by Nyquist" in this case? If so, that's
nonsense. What matters is the system MTF *however it was produced*.

Dave

 

[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 <use_net@puresilver.org> writes:

>>>Well, I shoot 4x5. Pixels will never be able to get that
>>>small or numerous to effectively compete there.

> In comparison to film digital is certainly new however there
>are many challenges to making a sensor the size of a 4X5 sheet of
>film. Note that some of us still consider 4X5 small.

For some purposes (e.g. still life, landscape) it's not necessary to
expose all the pixels at the same time. Large-format scanning cameras
that behave much like flatbed scanners have been built for these
situations, and they can certainly provide lots of pixels. There are
also special cameras that capture panoramas with a vertical line sensor,
rotating the camera 360 degrees around the lens entrance pupil - rather
like one type of film panoramic camera.

But for general-purpose use, you need an area sensor not a line sensor.
And film scales up cheaply - you just cut a larger piece of it off the
factory roll. Digital sensors may never have that easy scalability.

Dave

 

[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 message <9ql7o0hla2gk9irghhbogk2slh64f8jno9@4ax.com>,
John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote:

>Nothing like a well reasoned reply is there ?

Well, I believe the "well-reasoned" reply is slightly better!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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

"Justín Käse" <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:418b224a.5950560@chupacabra...

> Then there's the internal beta refresh rate, that processes neurooptical
> data as packets into the three dimensional matrix of our wetware.

There are few brain-centric couplings with the eye's recognition of color
and brightness. In fact, I assert that there is only one and its function is
questionalble: there is the rare case where a stroke might, just might
destroy color recognition even while the eye is perfectly functional. In
that respect, the vulnerable brain area works, or it does not (a relay, as
it were). The eye does all the work to find color, brightness.

 

[Guest]

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

The colour depth storage method is not really understood. Somewhere deep in
your brain the data is stored in a binary state. No good method to store
data with multiple levels has been discovered or theorized yet so it may or
may not be binary (two sate). One thing for sure is that the data must be in
digital format of some kind and not analogue, whether binary, trinary,
octal or hexadecimal in each cell, if these multi level cells are possible.
Either way the levels will be finite and does not qualify as analogue medium
or storage.

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:ttl7o0h92s667srrme1c4e3ajtfggdjopo@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:56:47 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> wrote:
>
> >The human eye is not an analogue device. The resolution is estimated at
> >around 1000 x 1000 pixels of resolution but the rapid eye movements allow
> >the brain to construct images of much higher resolution by interpolating
> >over time with repeated scans.
>
> So you're saying that the human eye is a binary imaging device
> ? Just want to get that straight.
>
>
> 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?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:OuSdnUQHvZyM0RncRVn-tA@golden.net...
> The colour depth storage method is not really understood. Somewhere deep
> in
> your brain the data is stored in a binary state. No good method to store
> data with multiple levels has been discovered or theorized yet so it may
> or
> may not be binary (two sate). One thing for sure is that the data must be
> in
> digital format of some kind and not analogue, whether binary, trinary,
> octal or hexadecimal in each cell, if these multi level cells are
> possible.
> Either way the levels will be finite and does not qualify as analogue
> medium
> or storage.

Your statement is full of ambiguity and self-conflicting posits. Make up
your mind. What makes you think that information cannot be stored in an
analog manner? "Levels"? What do you mean by levels? Like data structures?
Good grief, it's a 'natrual' organic form of storage, hugely susceptible to
storage through diversification of materials.

 

[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?
>
> BJJB

Because with 8-bit depth, it takes 24 bits, or three bytes per pixel,
not one as you assume in your calculations.

Colin D.

 

[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 message <41836510.C6138E4B@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>Because with 8-bit depth, it takes 24 bits, or three bytes per pixel,
>not one as you assume in your calculations.

A "pixel" is a 2-D spatial unit. As far as depth is concerned, all you
need for a pixel is two states (one bit, if digital).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><