I agree about the eventually part....but not yet. I am talking about what is now, not what is theoretically possible, and probable. We essentially, are in agreement.
Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID photography, NYC Rob Geraghty wrote: > "SKID Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While I agree that the pixels will be 'smoother' because of the inkjet > > dither pattern, film grain still contains/imparts more information (on a > > one to one basis) than a pixel, not matter how it is dithered by the > > printer. > > Why? So far I've heard this claimed a number of times, but I've still > heard nothing which backs it up. I'm prepared to be convinced, but > you haven't explained the facts behind the statement you make above. > > Are we talking about any theoretical pixel, or the average 24 bit pixel? > If we're just talking 24bits per pixel, and 2700 or 4000dpi then > absolutely the film contains more information. QED. > > But if the area represented by the pixel is similar to the area of the > smallest dye cloud in the film, and the pixel has enough bits to > represent colour, I can't see any reason why the film would > contain any more useful information than the digital representation, > or the why the digital image would be inherently "worse". :-7 > > Everyone has been telling me that we will all inevitably end up using > filmless systems. What changed? I know a digital image is only a > representation of an analogue event of light, but an image on film > is much the same - a representation with limits. Eventually, the > digital image will become as good or better than the film image > according to market demands. > > I suspect this discussion is not really relevent to film scanning any more, > other than to say that film scanning is a stopgap between film with > chemical production of prints and digital imaging. Eventually it will > become redundant except for scanning historical material. But we > all know that, don't we? :-7 > > Rob
