Новый аргумент

[birdwatcher]

Некоторое время казалось, что 35 мм пленка вымрет, причем люди, интересующиеся техническим качеством, будут снимать по крайней мере 6x4.5, а все остальное - цифру; Роквелл впервые указывает на механизм, почему этого не произойдет: I never would have considered shooting serious work on a format as piddly as 35mm film, but after most people, including myself, had lowered their standards to accept what we've been getting from digital SLRs as good enough, 35mm looks really good by comparison.

Comments

[averros.livejournal.com]

I tend to shoot in poor lighting conditions, hand-held. Sensitivity, shake reduction, and fast lens basically make difference between a passable image and no image at all.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Последние-то два живут в объективе. Чувствительность - да. Но мне легче поверить в появление незернистой чувствительной пленки, чем в дешевый и неустаревающий большой сенсор.

[averros.livejournal.com]

Well, this a good argument (film gets better but you keep the body) - but both films and sensors are close to fundamental limits (diffraction and quantum noise) - and digital cameras are getting better mostly because of better processors and algorithms.

In fact, eyes (which still have much better IQ than any cameras) are quite poor optically and electrically (the bandwidth of optic nerve is about 100Kbps:) The quality is achieved by better interpolation and filling in missing information, and by combining results from many shifted "frames" (facilitated by nystagmus).

The new digital processors already can handle photo-quality images at full-motion video rate (5D Mk II), so it's only a short step from the point when shake will actually improve images, and when digicams will start routinely producing images which are "physically impossible" - i.e. impossible with film.

Also, take a look at that: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/november9/camera-110205.html This is an example of a technique simply impossible with film (although film from a plenoptic camera can be digitized, software can't do a good job recovering light field because of imprecise registration between microlenses and scanned pixels).

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

ужос кокой