How is this different from the old "analog is better than digital because it has infinite resolution" argument?
Any recording medium has limitations, and whether it's digital or analog is neither here nor there.
If you rescan your 35mm slides at high resolution in 10 years, you'll get a really nice picture of the individual grains in the emulsion, not a better picture.
Might be different for stills, but nearly all 35mm motion picture film, which goes through DI, is scanned at either 2K, or 4K... 4K is about 8.5 megapixels, not quite the 175megapixels the article claims
> Film resolution is specified in resolving power in c/mm (cycles per millimeter) or lp/mm (line pairs per millimeter). Diferent stocks have different resolving power. Normally finer grained (slow) film has more resolving power, higher sensitivity (faster) film has less resolving power, etc, all else being equal.
> A simplified triangle of image quality capability is made by grain-speed-resolution. If you try to get more speed, graininess usually increases and/or resolution decreases, etc. With advances in film emulsion technology the triangle gets bigger. You get higher speed with the same fine grain, equivalent sharpness, etc.
> If you have coarse big grain you get more speed (sensitivity) but the resolving power is decreased, while if you have finer smaller grain, packaged in a more uniform way into a thinner emulsion layer, you get better sharpness and the ability record finer detail per millimeter, but less sensitivity (you need more light) somewhat similar to having more pixels packed into a sensor.
> The lens on the camera also has a resolution limit and the combined resolution of the film emulsion and the lens resolution that ends up on the final image on the negative is less than each's.
> So having the resolving power of the final image (c/mm) and the size of the image (mm) you can multiply both and get what the resolution of the film/camera/lens system is capable of.
> Also what we perceive as grain on photographic images is actually grain clumps as the grains are randomly distributed in irregular patterns within the film emulsion. (The smoothing and more uniform distribution of grain in film emulsions is one of the ways film quality has improved over the years) We're not looking at the individual grains themselves when we look at images in normal picture and movie viewing magnifications. To see the real individual grains you have to use those microscopic enlargements where the image is blown up so much you can barely make any of it.
Any recording medium has limitations, and whether it's digital or analog is neither here nor there.
If you rescan your 35mm slides at high resolution in 10 years, you'll get a really nice picture of the individual grains in the emulsion, not a better picture.