3 ms·
I could scan a blank piece of card at 156 megapixels, but that card wouldn't contain 156 megapixels worth of information. You're scanning discrete particles of
by jdietrich 8y ago
I could scan a blank piece of card at 156 megapixels, but that card wouldn't contain 156 megapixels worth of information. You're scanning discrete particles of silver metal, which are effectively opaque and have a finite size. Shoot a test chart and you'll see what film is actually capable of resolving.
- bluedino 8y agoIs there a 'Nyquist theorem' that applies to photography?
- e12e 8y agoYes, the Nyquist theorem? https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10755/what-is-the-nyquist-limit-and-what-is-its-significance-to-photographers https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10755/what-is-the-...
- phicoh 8y agoBasically, to make a film 'faster' you capture phonons from a larger area. Or the other way around, film that can resolve very fine details needs a lot of light. Film has a built-in low pass filter. Typically 'sampling' in film is random enough that you can capture very fine detail if the contrast is high enough. It behaves quite differently from digital sampling techiques. For this reason, you want to scan film at a very high resolution. But that doesn't mean that the image actually contains a huge of informaion.