I simply disagree, as do text books on the subject of analog versus digital media. But hey, perhaps some of these guys will rewrite the text based on quantum physics.
I\'m pretty much quoting my Signals textbook here, which is:
Linear Systems and Signals, by B.P. Lathi, second edition 2005.
You won\'t find a Signals text which doesn\'t agree with that one on the requirements to be an analog signal. The signal MUST be continuous, or high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from continuous to be analog
Exactly. Everything I have stated about the random distribution of the non-uniform film grain within the emulsion that forms an image agrees with this.
The randomized distribution of the grain does not make it continuous. It makes it randomly distributed. The fact that grain is visible in the print or scan means that it is not high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from a continuous signal (unless printed at low magnifications).
Dec 28, 2010 at 09:31 AM
Previous versions of mawz's message #9165203 « Film vs Digital or Film = Digital »
