[rollei_list] Re: Digital Wins
- From: "Ellestad" <ellestad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:29:07 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:38 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Digital Wins
> I am not quite sure how pixels are accounted in still
> cameras, or what method of translating from film resolution
> to digital resolution is valid.
>
I'm not sure that this is even the point of comparison.
Digital camera enlargements look sharp and "pristine" (my word) because they
are grainless. They give the impression that they carry a lot of detail
information but they don't. They have smooth, fluid tonalities that give the
sense that they are very sharp and thus must have a lot of detail, at least
when a decent enlargment is viewed from its ideal viewing distance. Until
the files are enlarged enough to reveal the pixelation this effect holds
true . . . and this illusion can persist into quite significant enlargments
when good software routines are employed to appropriately add pixels to keep
the print smooth "artificially" (Genuine Fractals, etc.). Think of it this
way - 100 pixels of clear blue sky will make a perfectly smooth, grainless
8x10 of blue sky, indiscernable from an 8x10 film contact print of clear
blue sky.
Never-the-less when you stick your nose right into one of these smooth,
slick digital camera enlargments that seems so sharp at first glance, you
still won't find the micro-detail.
Tim Ellestad
Other related posts:
