As an expert in this area, my opinion is that silicon sensors have a long ways to catch up
to film. Both CCD and CMOS sensors lack in resolution and the spatial sampling artifacts
Der Mouse mentioned are only part of the problem. (CFA array, metal shading of the cell)
The world however, is focused (hahah pun intended) on the megapixel wars. Far more
important is the geometry of the color filter array and conductors at the periphery,
causing viginetting. Also, the conversion of the A/D in both systems is only 12 bits, far
below the dynamic range of film and the eye.
While at Micron, we developed a high dynamic range sensor for the security camera market,
by varying the cell precharge and a sub ranging A/D for the sample. Imagine a security
camera viewing a dark face in the lobby, and the security cam looking outside the front
door glass at the daylight street too, we could image both of these simultaneously, no f
stop changes...
Lucas Film Pioneered the OpenEXR high dynamic range format:
http://www.openexr.com/
Also take a look at where film is with the Gigapixel project:
http://www.gigapxl.org/
Film has a few miles left for sure.
Randy
From: mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:03:30 -0500
To: cctalk at
classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: digital camera capabilities / was Re: 1000+ old computer in
The effective resolution of 35mm film is IIRC
considered by
professionals to be in the 27MP range; DSLRs are rapidly approaching
this.
Perhaps - but film still has attributes which digital cameras don't,
such as lack of aliasing artifacts (because the grains are randomly
dispersed in the film instead of being in a neat rectlinear grid).
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec