Thanks Harvey...but I really don't know what more I can explain...and I don't know how much more basic I can get...
Sigh. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 11:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels > per inch vs DPI > > > 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". > > > >
