ill-infornation pg[1]

Firstly I would like to thank you for your informative presentation in the welcome page of smart photography of Dec – 2005 issue, and your assertion that the 'Dynamic range' of Image capture (cameras) has to be improved is appreciate-able, that you are not yet a victim towards Digital glorification.

1. I should thank him for he has clarified a doubt that I had for a long time, on standards of CCD chip size.

The very first Question, that is asked by Mr. Hament Bhasvam / Mumabi, who wanted clarification on Camera models, itself provides fairly a good amount of idea that a 9.2 MB file from his Fuji S.9500, is capable of printing to a photo quality 5"x7" print, (perhaps words of 'at the most' be added). Another person could swear by a 12"x15” or 16"x20"print. Therefore a mean value of a 10"x12" (the aggregate) could serve as more appropriate a normal size printable from a 9 MB file. I believe I have just succeeded, to generate substantial details from my own logical thinking, in the following pages to help better clarification.

Firstly wish to thank my father, who has managed to provide me the education, which has enabled me to think logically .I was brought up with the income he has made from sheet film based photography of olden era. Though I follow his trade, I wonder, does these advancement in Digital photography, make me in the capacity, so that I could assure my son (a 4 years old), a better future as my father did? I afraid its not, what future stands for him? Youngsters who is keen for information could treat, knowledge is just an added assert, but that assert should also be complemented with the Art of money making. There fore I wish your magazine should guide, on the aspect of Business in photography as well.

2. Regarding comparison of image quality between a TP and a 6 MB digital capture

I wish a comparison ought to be between a direct print made from Neg or on a medium like ciba-chrome for a TP, along with a Laser print (a digital representation) could be more relevant.

You have refined the question so that it reads 'are prints made from 35 trans (after scanning) are better ... than made from a digital capture, in a pursuit of distillation and simplicity, for answering such a question. Perhaps I too would personally agree with your practical way of approach. But justifiability needs an entirely different approach, and each technology has to be briefed of their relevant background.. I don't have sound knowledge in Digital. But please check it out, whether my logics would pacify many of the readers towards remaining loyal to for film for some more years to come, at least the professionals.

Hence I would wish to present my comments, and that could be corrected for wrongness, and for grammar.

I prefer my studio prints be done in laser, and satisfied with those maxi size prints, I like its enhanced sharpness, vibrant colours that more towards primary ness, a punch of contrast, on the whole a print looks crisp. The good quality ness of an 8"x10" by laser by itself is remarkable achievement considering the complex process of writing mechanism of laser.

On the whole writing process of laser on a photo sensitive paper has been perfected, but on the capturing part, the perfection is yet to happen, in the times to come. Well, all these are philosophical part of Digital photography, such an answer is, not determinative, non conclusive but rather vague.

I wish I should make an attempt to describe more technically. I also have the intension to write because the same kind of question already has appeared in Better photography, and I remember it was not answered with sufficient clarity.

The part 1: This is an abstract version of the more detailed version of part 2 in the ensuing pages.

In terms of similarity the photographic film has very microscopic grains (sensitive to light), where as the image capture of Digital camera or a scanner would have minute, photosensitive photo – electric sensors. The dissimilarity is that a photographic film is structure of sensitive grains in multiple layers, and the grains are randomly oriented. In a Digital image capture the sensitive elements on a single layer are physically arranged & packed tightly with perfect regularity between elements. The film has grains with a shape of a microscopic pellet (sphere). Due to the roundness of grains, the presence of a vacant (void) space in-between, the grains while arranging them, is inevitable.

With that basic under standing, we could explore on the technical data available for various films.

It says... A photographic film in average could resolve details of 100 lines/mm. Capturing those fine details of 100 lines / mm or dots, invariably means to say that, a photographic film should comprise of 600 grains aligned in 2 rows per distance of every millimeter of, on a film surface (even as if the multiple layer structure is disregarded for a moment). It could be assumed that a 100 grain, or even 400 grain structure, would not be sufficient enough to capture a true resolution of 100dpi/lpi original to its entire ness. Because it is more likely that one half of a image detail might fall on the void space and the other half captured by the film grain. Although in reality the count of grains present could be many fold, we here think in-terms of the Basics, Which calculates, to that 36 x 24 mm size of a film, on its surface would carry

Even if we assume, that our only intension is to capture, the details that a lens only could able to resolve. A lens in average could resolve 50 lines / mm, i.e., a half as that of a film is capable of would be (311 x 10⁶¸ 2) = 155 MB

Going by the fabrication facility, that a CCD chip of 1/2.5" type (5.76mm X 4.29mm)

A 35X24 mm size chip would be capable to accommodate = Approx 36x 6 MB = 216 MB.

Image as a whole, with every tonal variation and detail, is infinitive in the world of an Analogue– That is created by God. Digital is just the greed of human to dissect it, and to quantify.

But presently we are at 16 MB level with a CANON DSLR with a price tag (guide value) of 5 x 10⁶ Indian rupees.

Please note: A Digital capture, intended in the far future, is compared here with the minimum capacity of a film that already capable of.

Remember that in film based photography there are various sizes of larger film formats available to choose from, and 35 mm is the smallest, a general purpose format.

Then How long it would take to reach beyond that 200MB level? Disregarding the actual need, purpose, or the Cost

Take this Example : The processing power of computing which is rather stagnant of these days at the Max of 4 GB. It has had seen a stride of growth of speed, at the rate of twice every 18 months (the speed mankind had ever achieved). If a similar thing is applied in photography we might see that level of capacity (216 MB) in another decade of time. Perhaps the issued of Dynamic range might have been addressed by that time,

Why it is 600 grains /mm(an arbitrary value subjected to arbitration ? explanation intentionally left-out .subject this topic for others comment ,perhaps clarification could be imported from abroad –Lets ignite it, so that the magazine becomes a place for interaction .that no one else have done so far.