RE: [Leica] Re: Digital Leica and reality

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> Cool down Austin... they were only examples to get people
> thinking...... the
> actual numbers may be something else than what I used, but it does not
> matter...

Of course the numbers matter.  If your number are just plain absurd, you
create a premise that does not make sense, which you did.

> FYI:::: To figure what kind of camera sensor would be needed to print a
> digital print in the same "mood" as a analog print, you can not
> go backwards
> from what a digital printer can do...

If I have two images, one digital and one chemical, and they both look very
close to each other, such that you have a hard time distinguishing which one
is chemical and which one is digital, and you are at the limits of your
chemical print...how is that an invalid starting point?

> you can only go backwards from what
> analog negatives and paper can resolve!

Not so.  The paper is irrelevant.  The negative is what is critical.  Why do
you believe digital has to resolve film down to the grain?  By your
criteria, digital audio wouldn't work!

You will never ever be able to %100 digitize every bit of information on the
film.  Film grains are random in shape.  But, what is important, is you do
not need to.  It's an absurd, and irrelevant goal to try to.  Show me images
where the precise grain shape is important to the image.  Not, just that the
image has grain (that's no problem), but that the very structure of every
film grain is important.

> BTW, that Piezo driver is one of those tools that INVENTS pixels.

It does NOT invent pixels, that is called interpolation, and the Piezo
driver does NOT interpolate.  What it does is halftone/dither.  They are NOT
the same.