Hi Chris.
> > At risk of starting World War 3, what is the resolution of Chemical
> > Film?
Was this an idle enquiry, or is it meant to imply some comparison with pixels and
digital
images?
Since it's aimed at this list, and not on Photonet or Philip Greenspun's BB, I suspect
you really want a comparison to digital.
There really is no direct comparison.
Besides, what film are you talking about?
Lippmann emulsions are capable of thousands of lines per millimetre, in fact they far
exceed the imaging capability of any practical lens working with visible light.
Kodak HR ortho plates can resolve 2000 lppm.
OTOH, a 'no brand' 1600 ISO colour negative film might only resolve 10 lppm.
If you must have some odious comparison, then film wins on pure resolution, for the
time
being, but pixels win on quality.
One pixel is capable of representing 16.7 million colours, and a brightness range of
over
1000 to 1. One film grain or dye cloud represents one tone or colour, full stop.
So to be fair, you have to take the size of a pixel and compare it with an area of film
big enough to hold 255 grains or 765 dye clouds. Only then are things on an even
footing.
Besides, pure resolution has next to nothing to do with the perceived quality of an
image, and that's surely what we're all after. Image quality.
Sheer numbers might impress the brain, but they don't impress the eye very much.
Regards, Pete.
