-Just because a quality cannot be quantified, doesn\'t mean that it doesn\'t exist.
And just because it can be proven that a \"difference\" exists, it does not necessarily follow that a) the difference is significant or b) that one choice is the \"best\" one.
yauyi wrote:
This is going to sound dumb but I\'ll ask anyway, if we put film under microscope, do they have similar texture in blocks(or grain) like those pixels from digital sensor? If \"Organic\" characteristic is related to pixel size, well...the 5D2 is 6.4µm, which is identical to 1Ds3, how come nobody complaint about the 1Ds3 being too digital and not as organic as the 5D?
Basically, if you put film \"under a microscope\" you\'ll see various sizes and shapes of \"particles\" of varying density arranged in essentially random patterns and orientations. The result is, on the microscopic level, basically nothing like what you get from your DSLR. No current DSLR (5D, 5D2 or any other) produces a file that contains anything remotely like the film grain structure that holds the image data on film.
Now, I suppose one could take the position that a pseudo-random pattern of \"grains\" produced by a chemical interaction with light and then revealed through a post-processing workflow involving a bunch of scary chemicals is more or less organic than a process that roughly-speaking records the luminosity of various colors of light in small areas on an electronic sensor as binary data.
But, if so, it seems like that would shed no light (pun intended) on the question of which digital machine used to record light values at a sensor is more \"organic\" or \"film-like\" than the other. On this level, at least, it would be hard to argue that either is at all \"film-like.\"
-Just because a quality cannot be quantified, doesn\'t mean that it doesn\'t exist.
And just because it can be proven that a \"difference\" exists, it does not necessarily follow that a) the difference is significant or b) that one choice is the \"best\" one.
yauyi wrote:
This is going to sound dumb but I\'ll ask anyway, if we put film under microscope, do they have similar texture in blocks(or grain) like those pixels from digital sensor? If \"Organic\" characteristic is related to pixel size, well...the 5D2 is 6.4µm, which is identical to 1Ds3, how come nobody complaint about the 1Ds3 being too digital and not as organic as the 5D?
Basically, if you put film \"under a microscope\" you\'ll see various sizes and shapes of \"particles\" of varying density arranged in essentially random patterns and orientations. The result is, on the microscopic level, basically nothing like what you get from your DSLR. No current DSLR (5D, 5D2 or any other) produces a file that contains anything remotely like the film grain structure that holds the image data on film.
Now, I suppose one could take the position that a pseudo-random pattern of \"grains\" produced by a chemical interaction with light and then revealed through a post-processing workflow involving a bunch of scary chemicals is more or less organic than a process that roughly-speaking records the luminosity of various colors of light in small areas on an electronic sensor as binary data.
But, if so, it seems like that would shed any light (pun intended) on the question of which digital machine used to record light values at a sensor is more \"organic\" or \"film-like\" than the other. On this level, at least, it would be hard to argue that either is at all \"film-like.\"
-Just because a quality cannot be quantified, doesn\'t mean that it doesn\'t exist.
And just because it can be proven that a \"difference\" exists, it does not necessarily follow that a) the difference is significant or b) that one choice is the \"best\" one.
yauyi wrote:
This is going to sound dumb but I\'ll ask anyway, if we put film under microscope, do they have similar texture in blocks(or grain) like those pixels from digital sensor? If \"Organic\" characteristic is related to pixel size, well...the 5D2 is 6.4µm, which is identical to 1Ds3, how come nobody complaint about the 1Ds3 being too digital and not as organic as the 5D?
Basically, if you put film \"under a microscope\" you\'ll see various sizes and shapes of \"particles\" of varying density arranged in essentially random patterns and orientations. The result is, on the microscopic level, basically nothing like what you get from your DSLR. No current DSLR (5D, 5D2 or any other) produces a file that contains anything remotely like the film grain structure that holds the image data on film.
Now, I suppose one could take the position that a pseudo-random pattern of \"grains\" produced by a chemical interaction with light and then revealed through a post-processing workflow involving a bunch of scary chemicals is more or less organic than a process that roughly-speaking records the luminosity of various colors of light in small areas on an electronic sensor.
But, if so, it seems like that would shed any light (pun intended) on the question of which machine to record light values at a sensor is more \"organic\" or \"film-like\" than the other. On this level, at least, it would be hard to argue that either is at all \"film-like.\"
-Just because a quality cannot be quantified, doesn\'t mean that it doesn\'t exist.
And just because it can be proven that a \"difference\" exists, it does not necessarily follow that a) the difference is significant or b) that one choice is the \"best\" one.
yauyi wrote:
This is going to sound dumb but I\'ll ask anyway, if we put film under microscope, do they have similar texture in blocks(or grain) like those pixels from digital sensor? If \"Organic\" characteristic is related to pixel size, well...the 5D2 is 6.4µm, which is identical to 1Ds3, how come nobody complaint about the 1Ds3 being too digital and not as organic as the 5D?
Basically, if you put film \"under a microscope\" (you\'ll see various sizes and shapes of \"particles\" of varying density arranged in essentially random patterns and orientations. The result is, on the microscopic level, basically nothing like what you get from your DSLR. No current DSLR (5D, 5D2 or any other) produces a file that contains anything remotely like the film grain structure that holds the image data on film.
Now, I suppose one could take the position that a pseudo-random pattern of \"grains\" produced by a chemical interaction with light and then revealed through a post-processing workflow involving a bunch of scary chemicals is more or less organic than a process that roughly-speaking records the luminosity of various colors of light in small areas on an electronic sensor.
But, if so, it seems like that would shed any light (pun intended) on the question of which machine to record light values at a sensor is more \"organic\" or \"film-like\" than the other. On this level, at least, it would be hard to argue that either is at all \"film-like.\"
-Just because a quality cannot be quantified, doesn\'t mean that it doesn\'t exist.
And just because it can be proven that a \"difference\" exists, it does not necessarily follow that a) the difference is significant or b) that one choice is the \"best\" one.
Dan
Jun 15, 2010 at 06:42 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #8572766 « 5D2 looks "digital" compare to 5D? »
