Digital Friendly New Films, With Planarized Color Elements Like CCD rray

Why a Canon DSLR of only 3k x 2k @ 32-bit RGB out performs a film
scanned to the same resolution and same color depth? The grain factor?

The tradistional film has the layered color sensor, unlike the digital
camera that has planarized color array. Intuitively the digital camera
should be inferior, quite opposite to the current observation. There
are arbuments pointed to the grain noise factor in the film.

If so, let's imitate what the digital camera does. If a film is made
like a chemical color sensors, would it make it more digital friendly?
and perhapes claim back the ground?

What are you using as a scanner ? A home flatbed or professional drum
scanner ?
"Einton Newstein" wrote in message
m...
Why a Canon DSLR of only 3k x 2k @ 32-bit RGB out performs a film
scanned to the same resolution and same color depth? The grain factor?

The tradistional film has the layered color sensor, unlike the digital
camera that has planarized color array. Intuitively the digital camera
should be inferior, quite opposite to the current observation. There
are arbuments pointed to the grain noise factor in the film.

If so, let's imitate what the digital camera does. If a film is made
like a chemical color sensors, would it make it more digital friendly?
and perhapes claim back the ground?

Joe Pucillo wrote:


Another question: why do they have all those commercials for
high-def TVs? The picture on those sets are no better than the
low-def set I'm watching the commercial on!



Exactly, take film and "dumb it down" using the same "home quality" output
used for most digicam shots and of course they are going to look the same,
just like a high def TV commercial isn't going to look "high def" of a low
def TV. Since the printers can only deal with so many DPI at this time,
they are the bottle neck. Whatever you feed into most printers is going to
be limited by the printer, especially inkjets. I've used scanned 4X5
negatives vs scanned 6X4.5 images printed 8x10 on an inkjet and the 4X5
looks no better. Printed in the darkroom the difference is obvious.

I do agree with the OP that film is going/needs to become more "digital
friendly" and I wouldn't be surprized to see color negative film that is
-only- scanable without the orange mask used for analog printing etc.

--

Stacey

jjs wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:

[...]
I do agree with the OP that film is going/needs to become more "digital
friendly" and I wouldn't be surprized to see color negative film that is
-only- scanable without the orange mask used for analog printing etc.

Now that is a very interesting prophesy. I will remember the source when
it happens.

Well they already make "Digital disposables" (which have film in them), it
can't be long before they -market- "Digital film" can it?

--

Stacey

wrote:

Do you mean to say color negative film without the orange mask?



Yea, wouldn't that make scanning color neg film much easier? Seems like it
could be finer grained/faster if it didn't have this mask either as it
wouldn't need as much density to overcome the mask. Plus the scanners could
deal with "thicker" negs easier I would think.

--

Stacey

Wasn't it Einton Newstein who said...
Why a Canon DSLR of only 3k x 2k @ 32-bit RGB out performs a film
scanned to the same resolution and same color depth?

What does it matter - since the film already far exceeds the
performance of the digital image?

Consider this: Why a ink-jet printer of only 600dpi out performs
a laser printer where the output is scanned and printed on the
ink-jet?

Why not just print on the laser to begin with?

Another question: why do they have all those commercials for
high-def TVs? The picture on those sets are no better than the
low-def set I'm watching the commercial on!


--
Joe Pucillo
Baltimore, Maryland USA

To reply by email, please remove the .xx

In article , Stacey
wrote:

[...]
I do agree with the OP that film is going/needs to become more "digital
friendly" and I wouldn't be surprized to see color negative film that is
-only- scanable without the orange mask used for analog printing etc.

Now that is a very interesting prophesy. I will remember the source when
it happens. Can you help with the stock market, too? I mean, besides the
purchase of Kodak by Fujifilm.

Do you mean to say color negative film without the orange mask?

Stacey wrote:

I do agree with the OP that film is going/needs to become more "digital
friendly" and I wouldn't be surprized to see color negative film that is
-only- scanable without the orange mask used for analog printing etc.

--

Stacey

Einton Newstein wrote:

Why a Canon DSLR of only 3k x 2k @ 32-bit RGB out performs a film
scanned to the same resolution and same color depth? The grain factor?

Not with some fine grained films, and the latest in drum scanning. Also,
consider that some colours are outside the RGB gamut range of a CCD or
CMOS sensor, yet some films have little trouble capturing a wider range
(like anything approaching Yellow or Cyan).



The tradistional film has the layered color sensor, unlike the digital
camera that has planarized color array.

Layers of colour sensitive emulsion overlap in film structure. A CCD or
CMOS imaging chip is really monochromatic by comparison, with a Bayer
pattern and software to interpolate colours. I suggest reading this
article to understand a bit mo

http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/Bayer/bayer2.html

Intuitively the digital camera
should be inferior, quite opposite to the current observation. There
are arbuments pointed to the grain noise factor in the film.

Only a few articles have actually tested the resolution of imaging chips,
and they work out near 50 lp/mm at best. Getting that resolution, or
better, on film should not be too difficult. Colour is another issue, as
is grain or noise. Also, many who complain about grain judge it on a
computer monitor; and often the the grain that can show on a monitor will
be absent in the final print.

Another issue is aesthetic considerations. While a direct digital image
may lack fine tonal details, it can often provide a pleasing or
compelling image. Many of us like paintings, yet they are decidedly low
resolution. Interesting and compelling images have been made in the past
on film, and there should be little reason to think that should not
continue; and the same should be true for direct digital imagery.



If so, let's imitate what the digital camera does. If a film is made
like a chemical color sensors, would it make it more digital friendly?
and perhapes claim back the ground?

If I understand what you are suggesting, then placing a Bayer pattern in
front of film should allow an emulation of direct digital imaging.
Another test might be to place a micro lens array in front of the film.
My guess is that either method, or both, would degrade the film image.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Einton Newstein wrote:

Why a Canon DSLR of only 3k x 2k @ 32-bit RGB out performs a film
scanned to the same resolution and same color depth? The grain factor?

Huh? In noise I agree, but in detail I do not.



--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.