>>4141607>You understand that this shit in the sky is digital artefacts, right?Its not, its grain. Film has grain. Let me ask you this. I have provided both theoretical and apples to apples to comparisons that show that digital is better than color film. What will convince you
>Not necessarily. Masks do their job really wellYou're missing the point. There are many real world colors that get clipped if you try and capture them on film. No amount of masking is going to bring back the color lost in during capture.
>Not that different, as I've said.They're hugely different! The author of text even says that they're drastically different and this has practical implications. Oh, let me guess, you know more than the color scientist writing this textbook don't you?
>digital's practical gamut will be lower because of interpolationWhile interpolation does introduce some color artifacts in some fine details, it doesn't change the color gamut. I'll show you why.
Cameras with pixel shift like a7r3/4, gfx100, etc allow for 4 shot pixel shift, which yields true color at every pixel. If color interpolation caused the color gamut to be reduced in a significant way, we would see significantly different color response between single shot and 4 shot pixel shift. However, this isn't the case as you can see.
>My book doesn't have these diagrams, so thank you for them.You don't own any color science texts.
>You can't compute the exact information that wasn't captured, just approximate.You're right, there is a noticeable IQ improvement with pixel shift, less artifacts, reduced noise, Improved sharpness of fine detail, and with 16 shot, 4x resolution. However, the differences only become apparent if you print at 150ppi or less. Printing at 300ppi, especially with proper upscaling to printer's native resolution(600ppi for me) and sharpening the differences between are very small.