The equivalent to grain in the digital world for me is pixel noise, not pixel edges. I too prefer the grain but probably for the same reasons I prefer the crack noises of old LPs to MP3 compression distortion.
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 17:39, Bob Blakely wrote: > Yes and no. Much of an image is the result of image processing in our > retinas and brains. When we get to the edge where grain is barely > perceptible or where individual pixels are barely perceptible the brain > weighs in. At the edge, at the same resolution, same color rendering and > same contrast, a random grain pattern in a photographic print is perceived a > bit differently than a regular, pixilated pattern from a sensor. To my eye > (and I can only speak for my eye) the apparent "sharpness" and "naturalness" > of the random grain is better. I attribute this to my brain being able to > interpolate "true" edges better from random input than from a regularized > pattern that causes my eye to follow a false path until the jump to the next > pixel. This despite the variable mixing of pixel colors at the "digital" > edge. > > I probably haven't explained my perception well, but I tried. > > Regards, > Bob... > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose > as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers > with the smallest possible amount of hissing." > - Jean-Baptiste Colbert, > minister of finance to French King Louis XIV > > From: "Steve Jolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > mike wilson wrote: > >>> "My personal testing (to be published soon) shows that a 5MP sensor > >>> with dedicated optics can match the performance of a 35mm negative > >>> of superb quality coupled to a lens of equally superb quality." > >> > >> To do what, though? Produce prints up to a certain size, arguably. > >> You can do that with an even smaller sensor, although the print size > >> will change. The statement is meaningless. > > > > I don't understand the importance of print size. If the two systems > > capture the same amount of information about a scene, then they will > > produce prints of the same quality at any size. I don't think the > > statement is meaningless. > >
