Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]But surely a single grain in film is either exposed or not, whereas a pixel has, depending on the sensor, thousands of brightness levels. So they are not directly comparable and it would require a big patch of film containing thousands of grains to display the range of tones a single pixel is capable of, though clearly a patch of pixels would be required to compare the effect. >________________________________ > From: Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> >To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug at leica-users.org> >Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2014, 14:07 >Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparing film and digital resolution > > >Several years ago, I did the calculations based upon the molecular >particulate size of TMax100 film.? I picked that film because the density >data was available, and it was the most consistent particulate size film >available, and it was reputed to be the most consistent homogenous density >mix of crystals within the sensitive film layer. > >My assumption was that the TMax100 crystalline molecule was the smallest >discernible and quantifiable light capturing receptor.? Therefore, the >closest analogy to a digital sensor pixel. > >As I remember it, the particulate size, and therefore the effective pixel >density, was around 15MP per square inch.? The closest ( B+W only) >comparison is the MM.? > >The MM is about 10MP per square inch. > >Based upon this, and for all practical purposes, digital sensor technology >resolution has caught up with chemical resolution. > >Too much time on your hands is a bad thing......you worry about things that >are purely theoretical.? This happened to me as well when I first retired. >Seems a pattern.... > >Frank Filippone >Red735i at verizon.net > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >