> Cartier Bresson would have given up his nasty little film camera
> and stuck to drawing
Following my comment with this remark gives the impression I think film cameras are nasty. On the contrary, my post (suggesting reasons digital sensors may not yet capture reality effectively) doesn't suggest Bresson should not use film. Nor am I suggesting digital sensors are not effective.
My theme here is that the interaction of reality, photons, and the biology of our brains, cannot be represented by megapixels alone. Something else is needed, something elusive, and hopefully this is what top end manufacturers are working on now.
My earlier lengthier posts comment on why analog representations (such as film) may seem to do a better job capturing reality than comparably sized digital sensors. Eg., skim my earlier post on stochastic placement of film grain versus grids of pixels. And don't forget, film makers are enjoying advancements in technology too, for example, Fuji's "nano placement" of flim grain:
http://www.fujifilm.ca/... ...icle.asp?ParentID=7&SectionID=85&NewsroomID=137
Something to note when thinking about film vs digital in the movie world: digital film will sense the same pixel value over and over for each frame, while movie film with chaotic grain will capture an always slightly different rendering of the scene. Run those chaotically different renderings through playback, and our brains compile them into a complexity far beyond what may be represented by any individual frame. Unfortunately, this idea doesn't help the print photographer, but it is why hollywood can get away with cheap 35mm color film projected onto a 100 foot screen.
** Originally posted at DPReview.com at 2:59 PM, Tuesday, October 18, 2005 (GMT-5)