Austin, Most of what you are saying in this latest missive was brought up before and rejected by Rob. It was at that point that I gave up. But, kudos to you for your tenacity and deep knowledge on this subject. I feel like I've been vindicated, and by someone with far more skill than I.
Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC Austin Franklin wrote: > > Austin wrote: > > > That's the point, it isn't an argument! It's like asking > > > why the number 9 is larger than the number 4. It's just > > > the way it is. It's just a fact of simple physics that a > > > pixel does not contain near the same amount of information > > > as a dye cloud. > > > > I suspected I should have chosen a word other than "argument". The number > > 9 is larger than the number 4 because it is a convention that 9 > > is 5 integer > > values larger than 4. Other than that, the digit 9 or the word "nine" are > > simply labels to represent an idea. Saying "it is because it is" does not > > constitute any sort of meaningful explanation. > > Some things just are, and the truth is manifested in and of it self. A > basket that has 25 eggs in it has MORE eggs than a basket with 4, right? > All semantics aside. > > Here is (one of) your original question(s)/statement(s), which I have been > answering: > > "> > > I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently > > provides more > > > > information than a pixel." > > The point of contention appears to be "more information". I believe we > agree on what "more" and "information" mean. Pixels ONLY represent the > tonal value of the area which the sensor sees, which does NOT represent the > physical characteristics of the dye cloud, unless the dye cloud is perfectly > square and happens to line up perfectly in the field of view of that one > pixel. > > In fact a pixel MAY represent many dye clouds, or only a portion of a single > dye cloud, but there is NO way you can represent the amount of information > in a single dye cloud by a single pixel, when A pixel ONLY contains tonal > information. > > Dye clouds are irregular in shape, and dye clouds do NOT line up 1:1 with > pixels. Even if you did characterize each and every dye cloud digitally, > you would need more than spot tonal information, You would also have to use > many pixels, or characterize the shape, because it's irregular. > Characterizing the shape will be very consuming (as in a lot of data) to > represent. > > Given all that, I believe it is obvious why a dye cloud "provides inherently > more information than a pixel". If you don't see that, I can't explain it > any further without sitting down at a white board and drawing it out step by > step... > > > Claiming that a pixel has anything to do with physics is an odd thing to > > do. > > Now that's an odd thing to do...claim a pixel has nothing to do with > physics... I don't know about your scanner, but mine is not Gnostic. > > > A pixel is a number or a set of numbers that represent a mixture and > > intensity of light. It's not limited by physics. > > A pixel has an analog to digital origin in our case. This analog to digital > conversion has limitations, which ARE limitations of physics. That's just a > fact. If you created a drawing with Adobe Illustrator, then your pixels > would not have an analog origin. > > > A dye cloud > > has a certain > > dimension and a certain behviour with light. A pixel is not limited in > > the same way. > > Er, a pixel is FAR more limited, since it is only representing a single > characteristic of a regular patterned point source (as in a single element > in a regular grid pattern of equal sized elements). > > > A pixel could represent an area the size of an atom, or the > > size of a galaxy; *any* dimension > > Except for the fact that we are talking about film scanners, and the are a > pixel can represent is limited by physics... > > > and it may be an 8 bit number > > or you could > > pick any number of bits. > > Yes, and it ONLY represents tonality, NO other characteristic at all is > represented by a pixel. > > > How small would you like to make the > > area represented > > by the pixel and how many bits of RGB would you like to use until > > you exceed > > the data contained in a chemical representation of an image? > > Then you said "it's just a matter of increasing the resolution of the > grid..." > > Which is where the physical characteristics come in play. There are > physical limitations as to how many pixels you can "practically" use in a > scanning system. You can't just make a sensor of infinite density (or > infinite size and use optics), since these bring up physical limitations. > These are just facts of physics, and why physics is involved. > > > I'm > > astonished > > that you could believe the "fact" you have stated above. > > Because what I have stated ARE facts. It would take MANY MANY pixels to > represent the physical characteristics of a single dye cloud, and one could > argue for quite some time what is the "correct" number of pixels to do > this...and NO, because of physical limitations on sensor element sizes (that > are NOT the same as faster processors, larger memory etc...those aren't > analog sensors, so advances in those areas are not entirely applicable to > advances in digital imaging sensors in this case) you can not just "increase > the resolution of the grid".
