In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:
I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color
transparency film which was "non-substantive". This means that after
processing, there was no silver halide left in the film. it has all
be replaced with color dyes (which were added to the slide during
the processing) this is in stark contrast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome
and AgfaChrome transparency films (and all color negative films)
which were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers were placed on
the film during manufacture and silver halides remained on this film
after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially
grainless
That's not quite true: you certainly can see dye globules if you
magnify enough.
Dye "globules" aren't the same thing as "grain".
I realize that we're getting rather off-topic here, but the limiting
resolution of Kodachrome isn't grain but the thickness of the film.
Light scatters within the emulsion layers, and this causes a drop-off
in sharpness. [1] Because of this, the MTF of Kodachrome (i.e. its
spatial frequency response) is already down to 50% at 50 cycles/mm and
it falls off very rapidly after that. Kodak didn't even measure it
finer than 80 cycles/mm, where the MTF was almost down to 10%.
Perceptual sharpness depends on high-frequency contrast. David
B. Goldstein puts it this way: "And while [Popular Photography] did in
fact note in its review of the Canon 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II that these
cameras produced superior pictures to those of film cameras despite
slightly lower resolution, its editors did not generalize these
findings to a conclusion that good MTF at moderate spatial frequencies
was more important than greater-than-zero MTF is at the highest
frequencies." [2]
Andrew.
All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point
ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the
resolution of the best 35mm film.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---