From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jul 22 2010 - 17:23:21 PDT
> Your points are very intriguing to me and I will study more about them. I am very excited by optics, light, and human vision and I will always love to learn more about it. It is obvious to me that it is undeniable, if only physically at least, that there is a difference between a grain and a color dye coupler being exposed to light in a chemical reaction to leave an image, as opposed to the different process of a electronic recording of a sensor which relays information by way of digits which create a simulated image made up of pixels- that is a undeniable scientific-physical fact of nature.
No they are both simulations of the wave function collapse IMO (~ =
Schroedinger's wave optics)
Photo image is "left" by electron actions.
>Bits of real physical silver grains and red, green and blue color
dyes in layers being chemically changed by exposure to light is
different and aesthetically speaking I know it looks and feels
differently to me as a artistic experience. It is a different visual
look of textures and depth and sensation and movement that in my
favorite photo-chemical movies,
Texture in film is unique and beautiful I agree. I am unsure if I want
to emulate it or map texture into my digital work (I'm 'just getting
going' on this but at a level beyond the kind of "stock givens" of
digital motion imaging. The 'doing something different' approach would
favor the latter.... I can't reveal my cards here but I have
imagined possible mechanisms to address the texture issues; both
optically (and discussed preliminaries with an optical engineer a few
people here would recognize; I've also sent emails to a software
developer who I think might be a good collaborator, but am afraid
Adobe "owns" him ;-) (he is responsible for some of the very
intriguing new tricks in Photoshop CS5) no action there yet,
anyway.... I'd prefer to speak simply of texture as sensation is to
me phenomenal and depth is not easy to generalize in either sides
favor (nb I am talking about essentially 2K - 4K RAW image capture and
intensive image processing, I am NOT talking about, you know, DV, HDV,
AVC Intra video formats...
I'd also say that you are aiming at a very rapidly moving target.
> > the phenomenon of ?persistence of vision? the human eye cannot see this and interprets the projected images as continuous motion.
> >This is flat out incorrect. Moreover I suggest the neurophysiology we
> >know is only begining to describe movies' mechanism of motion
> >illusion; and certainly you _cannot_ claim any unique psycho-physical
> >process for film projection itself !
> To my knowledge, the physical scientific reality of the “separate different individual” film frames, one at a time, being captured and then projected at a certain rate per second is undeniable. The intermittency-the quick moment of black between each frame- is also undeniable. And the “persistence of vision” of the human eye when it see these frames projected in rapid succession which blurs them in continuous motion in the mind’s eye is also a physical fact.
Well I'm sorry, they are not facts and sources that state them as
facts are wrong.
(Yes for instance Kandel's Principles of Neuroscience is misleading on this.)
>The digital camera and projector are different from film in that the digital image is actually continuous, the image is constantly being scanned over gradually by another one a certain amount of times a second. Digitally there are no cold hard “separate different individual” pictures.
Your'e talking about television (and for that matter, CCD and CMOS
imagers are read and buffered) in any case they can produce discreet
enough for now...
FrameWorks mailing list