>>2878598>>2878605>MUH BAYER FILTER!I should have guessed that's what you were getting at. Film fags always whine about this thinking they have a point.
You said: "...sensor that REJECTS like 40% of the light coming to it. Almost half the surface area of a digital sensor can't even see the light."
This is how an idiot might describe a Bayer filter array. The filter does not REJECT LIGHT, nor does it mean that 40% of the sensor is in pitch black and "can't even see the light." It does reduce sensitivity, but by considerably less than 1 stop in modern sensors.
Also, color information is not "made up." It's determined by looking at all neighboring pixels. This is how your eye works btw. Which means if RGB filtering and post capture interpolation resulted in any kind of deficit, then you wouldn't be able to tell that film was superior because you wouldn't be able to see the differences. It would be like a human trying to perceive the differences in UV reflection between two flowers.
Now to school you on two related points of "superior film"...
1) Silver halide crystals can be made very sensitive to light, and are very effective chemical amplifiers. The problem is that once an individual crystal has been struck by enough photons to cause it to develop it becomes a blind spot in the emulsion. Any additional photons which strike it are lost. As more light strikes the film, and more individual crystals are exposed sufficiently for development, the odds that a single photon will strike a crystal that still requires a photon drops.
To use your terminology, the film begins REJECTING LIGHT.
This gives film two of its characteristics. One is the gentle roll off into highlights. The other is its relative insensitivity to light vs. digital sensors.
continued...
