Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,299   Posts: 1,535,760   Online: 857
      
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 117
  1. #71
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,245
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkasha View Post
    We will have to agree to disagree. I, too, have listened to audiophile gear, and find that vinyl is better than CD.
    It's a matter of taste. Personally I don't like more than two speakers. I have heard digital front ends that I think sound fantastic, completely void of the usual digital noise (listen to crash cymbals on a high resolution system via a cheezy CD player and you'll know what I mean), and I've heard digital front ends that sound like $hit. The same is true for analog, except for the crash cymbals; some tables sound fantastic, and others sound terrible.

    Either way, analog has the potential for infinite resolution, which is something digital can never have. Digital will always be an approximation. This approximation can be done well or it can be done poorly. Analog has similar challenges in that resolution is hampered by things like noise, mechanical imperfections, vibrations, etc. I claim that both technologies can offer staggeringly good results, and in my mind it the choice between the two really just comes down to what preferences we have as users.

    I prefer tangible things.
    For example: I don't like sticking a Super Audio CD into my SACD player, push the button, and out comes music; I like to carefully clean a vinyl record, clean the turntable stylus with LAST cleaner, and sink the stylus into the grooves. I feel a lot more connected.
    I don't like clicking the shutter release button on a digital camera, and magically a picture comes out the other end; instead I like to wind the crank of the camera to advance to the next frame, manually take a light reading, change the aperture and exposure time by turning dials to get the exposure I want, develop the negative for different types of tonality in the print, and go into the darkroom and make the print to my liking. I just feel more connected and plugged into the work flow.

    So, to me, it's all about philosophy and how we choose to lead our lives. I don't like to embrace something new just because it's available; first I like to know that it will actually benefit me. That is why I am head over heels impressed with my iPhone, even though it's just full of magic buttons. It actually benefits me, while a CD player or digital camera doesn't improve my life in the slightest of ways.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  2. #72
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,591
    Images
    122
    What Thomas has written is more or less my view on the subject too.

    At the recording stage, digital is capable of superb quality. It's just a shame that most people now choose to download it as an inferior MP3 file.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    156
    In all cases there is also a space limit. I cannot aford to have all my files as lossless codecs and so each song will take up 60MB because my storage is limited.

    But this is going off topic.

  4. #74
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by stavrosk View Post
    In all cases there is also a space limit. I cannot aford to have all my files as lossless codecs and so each song will take up 60MB because my storage is limited.

    But this is going off topic.
    Not really.

    The key difference between analog and digital is storage once the physically finite limits of the capture medium are achieved.

    Both emulsion and silicon photosites are analog, possessing nearly identical capture capacities where both can outresolve their optical intermediary.

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by stavrosk View Post
    In all cases there is also a space limit. I cannot aford to have all my files as lossless codecs and so each song will take up 60MB because my storage is limited.

    But this is going off topic.
    So you would rather print 16x20 off 35mm because a 4x5 sheet of film takes up too much space once scanned in at over 200MB a shot?

    Space is soooooo cheap now. We'll spend inordinate amounts of money on photo gear and the whine about a $150 hard drive that holds over 1 trillion bytes...really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    Not really.

    The key difference between analog and digital is storage once the physically finite limits of the capture medium are achieved.

    Both emulsion and silicon photosites are analog, possessing nearly identical capture capacities where both can outresolve their optical intermediary.
    They way digital cameras sample from their silicon sensors is digital. Pretty much no analog at all. The shear design of digital sensors induces loss into the sample itself. Yes, all 'captures' are analog, but the processing and sampling methods are wholey digital. Not to say you can get very high fidelity from digital sensors. Granted we keep running into issues with digital sensors.
    The latest Nikon D800 with its 36MP sensors is amazing. Yet, you have an AA filter that induces fidelity loss. Get the D800E you say? Moire much?

  6. #76
    Lionel1972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    Actually, stereo (or stereophonic) doesn't mean two, it means more than one.


    Steve.
    But I don't have more than 2 ears. ;-)

  7. #77
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel1972 View Post
    But I don't have more than 2 ears. ;-)
    Actually, you do.

    Low level bass sounds are not entirely interpreted through the ear canal. The mind still "hears" them as aural.

  8. #78
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,094
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBaz View Post
    ...Space is soooooo cheap now. We'll spend inordinate amounts of money on photo gear and the whine about a $150 hard drive that holds over 1 trillion bytes...really?.........
    More than that. You need to back up the back up and then back up. So more like $500 plus the time*, which is priceless.

    *Note! While the backup can run by itself, you still have to manage the whole affair.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  9. #79
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    Not really.

    The key difference between analog and digital is storage once the physically finite limits of the capture medium are achieved.

    Both emulsion and silicon photosites are analog, possessing nearly identical capture capacities where both can outresolve their optical intermediary.
    Wrong. Non linearity is one of the huge differences. Why do you keep conveniently leaving out beneficial signal compression?
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  10. #80
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Wrong. Non linearity is one of the huge differences. Why do you keep conveniently leaving out beneficial signal compression?
    Because at a certain point it will become unnoticeable. Even analog has limits in the ability to read its signal completely (see reciprocity failure, colour balance, film grain, dust, fingerprints, etc.). Digital's discrete points are being whittled smaller and smaller through sampling, just as the case with film when all you could get at one point was ASA 25. Signal compression can be used to cut fidelity (cost to implement), so it was a tool limited by money, not a real desire to downgrade fidelity. The barrier for silicon sensors has been the bandwidth necessary to translate the density of data. No one at Sony or Nikon wants to keep throwing away photon data. From what I understand, the real limit is going to be optical resolution vs. the Nyquist limit. OTOH in 20 years a silicon sensor may have the capacity for separate ISO for every 20 pixel bins. These are simply things no emulsion could ever do.

    Even with enormous prints trained eyes cannot tell the difference between analog and digital captures. At a certain point sampling and data compression cannot be differentiated from analog by the human senses. Many would argue we are already there.

    I still hate Photoshop with a passion. I still like having a mini-lab process my stuff far more than I like spending time in front of a PC. I just posted 2 to the Gallery from some rolls I had done at Precision Camera (hood stuff from them BTW...big endorsement). I am here because I like the way analog film "bakes in" the formula for an exposure with unique characteristics. It's a discipline I enjoy.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin