"Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Rob wrote: > > I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently provides more > > information than a pixel. > Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that is > far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in current implementations) > must fall on a grid pattern, and are a fixed size.
But the information in a pixel is limited only by the number of bits used to represent the colour. I don't see why a random pattern of dyes would represent an image better than a grid pattern of pixels with a point size equivalent to the size of the smallest dye cloud. Can you explain your claim in some way that shows me how one is better than the other? If you're comparing say a 2700dpi pixel grid with a film emulsion, then I agree. But as far as I can tell, it's just a matter of increasing the resolution of the grid and/or the number of bits in each pixel and you should be able to meet or exceed the amount of information stored in the film. For practical purposes there has to be a point where the difference becomes irrelevent, or people wouldn't use scanning back cameras or really high res CCD cameras in professional situations. Rob