<<It was interesting to hear a development in technology, whereby the grain and noise are removed from negative photographic materials to reveal even finer detail that the (camera or film) was apparently able to record. >> Howard. I can hardly see why this merits any real surprise: it is patently obvious. The real, physical, difference between film and digital is that film is not "inherently" resolution limited. That is not to say that digital images from a digital camera - supported by inbuilt post-capture sharpening etc - don't look sharper but that the regular arrangement of pixels is just that, regular. With both random arrangements and random particle sizes of grains in film sub-grain information leaves a trace, confounded in individual frames by the individual unique make up of that frame. A second frame of exacly the same scene adds to the detail whereas with most digital applications the second frame would be almost identical. There are real differences between how an ordered sensor (regular pixel grid) and a randomly arranged medium will capture and represent scenes containing very fine detail. Random arrangements never fall foul of the "false resolution" resulting from aliasing of detail below the grid spacing. Or sommat like that ;o) -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
