Canon's CMOS site, uh....

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On this page, I think they should have compared those images better.
The sky colour looks alot better in the film image, as does the cloud
detail. Also, the close-up they show (to indicate film "grain" ) is
B.S. No WAY film grain from 100 ISO colour neg (or whatever they
used) looks like that. Film grain is sharp. If grain from the size
area they selected actually looked like that, I'd say it was a shot
of 3200 ISO colour neg. film (if it still exists) and the enlarger
lens was WAY out of focus.
-Rich

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/f [...] ality.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:
>
> On this page, I think they should have compared those images better.
> The sky colour looks alot better in the film image, as does the cloud
> detail. Also, the close-up they show (to indicate film "grain" ) is
> B.S. No WAY film grain from 100 ISO colour neg (or whatever they
> used) looks like that. Film grain is sharp. If grain from the size
> area they selected actually looked like that, I'd say it was a shot
> of 3200 ISO colour neg. film (if it still exists) and the enlarger
> lens was WAY out of focus.
> -Rich
>
> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/f [...] ality.html


Rich, I have to say you are a brainless bullshitter with an anti-Canon
fixation any good psychiatrist would be proud to treat.

Read Carefully: *black-white* film grain is sharp, because you are
seeing the actual silver clumps in the emulsion. *Color* film grain is
*not* sharp, because a) the 'grain' is actually composed of dye clouds
formed during development in the vicinity of the silver; and b) there
are at least three layes of dye clouds stacked vertically in the
emulsion.

In your mind, see a large shotgun. See a large hobby horse named
AntiCanon. Shoot the horse in the head. Exit from daydream. With
luck, you'll be cured.

Colin D.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:57:43 +1200, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rich wrote:
> >>
> >> On this page, I think they should have compared those images better.
> >> The sky colour looks alot better in the film image, as does the cloud
> >> detail. Also, the close-up they show (to indicate film "grain" ) is
> >> B.S. No WAY film grain from 100 ISO colour neg (or whatever they
> >> used) looks like that. Film grain is sharp. If grain from the size
> >> area they selected actually looked like that, I'd say it was a shot
> >> of 3200 ISO colour neg. film (if it still exists) and the enlarger
> >> lens was WAY out of focus.
> >> -Rich
> >>
> >> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/f [...] ality.html
> >
> >
> >Rich, I have to say you are a brainless bullshitter with an anti-Canon
> >fixation any good psychiatrist would be proud to treat.
> >
> >Read Carefully: *black-white* film grain is sharp, because you are
> >seeing the actual silver clumps in the emulsion. *Color* film grain is
> >*not* sharp, because a) the 'grain' is actually composed of dye clouds
> >formed during development in the vicinity of the silver; and b) there
> >are at least three layes of dye clouds stacked vertically in the
> >emulsion.
> >
> >In your mind, see a large shotgun. See a large hobby horse named
> >AntiCanon. Shoot the horse in the head. Exit from daydream. With
> >luck, you'll be cured.
> >
> >Colin D.
>
> I've seen both black and white and colour film grain, NEITHER is
> as diffuse as they portrayed. In addition, the area they enlarged
> wasn't enlarged nearly enough to even show film grain to any extent,
> certain not 100 ISO film whose grains (clouds if you must) are
> microscopic.
> -Rich

You are in dire need of a hobby. It might really help with your
fixation.