Started by TheBadger, October 26, 2014, 02:14:06 am
Quotethere are around 20 million "quality" pixels in a top-quality 35mm shot...many can also argue that a shot of around 9 million pixels would look as good to the eye as a 35mm shot, except when blown up very large and looked at quite closely...
QuoteFilm, as an analog medium, does not record just 256 grayscales or the corresponding 16 million colours. And film scanners, even doing just 8 bits per colour, get 24 bits of data for every single pixel. Today's digital cameras only get 8-12 bits of data for each pixel and they guess (interpolate) the other 16. So the colour accuracy for even a scanned film image is better than the modern digital camera. Good film scanners can also extract more than just levels from 0 to 255. They can often go to 12 bits (0 to 4097) to detect much more detail in shadows, and provide more contrast. As such a film scanner gets as much as 36 bits of information for each pixel, instead of 8.
QuoteNegative film itself tends to be able to hold around 1000 to 1 contrast range. Quality slide film projects more levels, though over a slightly narrower exposure range. (To make this clearer, negative films capture a wider range but can't display it when printed. Slide films capture a more narrow range, just a bit better than digital, but can display it all when projected.) Generally one desires at least 12 bits per colour to represent it. Your eye, by widening and closing the iris, can sample an astounding (eye-popping!) 7 decimal orders of magnitude of range of contrast, which would need at least 24 bits.
Quoteo there is a lot of information in film. However, not all of it is usable information, which causes the debate about the equivalence in pixels. Film is made up of chemical grains or dye clouds. The more you blow up film, the more you start seeing noise caused by those grains, and eventually the very clumping of the grains themselves. Of course some are bothered by the grain more than others.
QuoteThere is more information to be extracted even at this fine resolution, but the deeper you go, the more noise you also extract.To make the image not look "grainy" and otherwise poor, you need to pull back. Subjective tests suggest this is to about 4000 DPI, or around 5600 pixels. For a 3:2 frame, that means around 20 million pixels.
Quotebut if all you want to do is count pixels, count on film.
Quote from: Dune on October 28, 2014, 05:25:00 amOne more observation from me about 'photographic reality', and then I'll shut up: I think the photographic imperfections strived for in CGI helps to make CGI more believable, because you would actually get the idea that it was photographed, and thus reality.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on October 28, 2014, 09:18:33 amI think it's like 'mhall' tried to explain: the only way we get out information is through low dynamic range media, like paper, tv and movie-screens. Those are being recorded and processed in ways which has a distinct signature look. You can render an HDR sequence and tone-map it to have it look very similar as our eyes would perceive, yet the viewer wouldn't 'buy it' because it doesn't look as expected.
Quote from: Dune on October 28, 2014, 11:55:38 amThat's kind (or partly) of what I meant indeed, we expect something like a photograph, and not what we really see.
QuoteThe camera is limited to what's in front of it, no matter how skillfully the photographer's eye perceives.