Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!agate!eris!doug
From: doug@eris (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: film grain vs. pixels
Message-ID: <9159@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 24 Apr 88 18:15:50 GMT
References: <3346@gryphon.CTS.COM> <9102@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <3543@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: doug@eris.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 27

In article <3543@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>The implied comment, Doug, is those socks dont go with that shirt 
>you're wearing.

Thanks! It's the latest look...

>The explicit comment was somebody said film didn't have pixels, it
>was continuous. It's not. I merely quantified it.

Yeah, I had *thought* that Bryan was talking about a continuous media,
so I was pointing out that even film has grains. We eventually
established that reductio ad absurdum was inappropriate for the topic
at hand, and quit arguing about things like whether pixels are exactly
the same as film grains or not. (You can make points on either side
of this terminology question, but it's a moot point.)

In case anyone cares, holographic film can record up to 5000 line pairs
per millimeter. If a display were implemented using regularly spaced
pixels with the same resolution, that'd be 10,000 pixels per millimeter,
or 254,000 pixels per inch. So a 10 inch by 10 inch holographic display
would require 2.5M by 2.5M pixels. About 6.5 trillion pixels altogether.
Let's see, a 1000 Mip processor could update a screen in about...

Oh, you don't care about this after all? Never mind.

	Doug Merritt		doug@mica.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!mica!doug)
			or	ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug
			or	sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt