When I say signal compression I am not talking about file conpression whatsoever. Im talking about non-linear saturation as a form of analog response. Can talk about the virtues of digital all day but this is a big one it does not have.
Results speak and there are many years of analog results which back up the medium.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
The recording is dated 1983, and it is a digital recording (EMI Digital CDC 7 47110 2).
Originally Posted by Lionel1972
My impression is that quality of recording and quality of reproduction are somehow not reciprocally limiting, like lens quality - negative quality - print quality. I mean: a better hi-fi set will sound better whatever the recording. There is no "wall", no recording quality that nullifies the different qualities of two sets.
Personally I find that digital - analogue in recording is only part of the story. A good sound engineer is clearly felt, when listening to complex signals at least (such as symphonic or opera). The analogue tapes used for recording (big tapes at great speed) since the seventies were very, very good in any case and overall differences in hi-fi setup in my opinion are more important than differences in recording quality by several orders of magnitudes, so to speak.
Digital made sound "engineering" probably easier, but recording fidelity in itself I don't think was improved that much by the digital revolution. Yes one can detect a slightly better quality between an analogue CD and a digital CD, but this is much less important than differences between hi-fi sets.
Two means to the same end. The same logarithmic virtues of film (closer to how our eye naturally works) constrain it elsewhere, notably reciprocity failure and an awful shyness of the dark end of any tonal range. Digital can make up the difference with superior ISO control and higher bit depth. Not there yet on the left side of curve, but getting there.
Originally Posted by clayne
Film is a fantastic medium with a terrific history and elements retaining more elements of craftsmanship than push-button digital. That does not make it discernibly superior to what is on the market now. Non-linear is not necessarily superior. Astrophotography, low-light photography and macro work have come alive because of linearity.
Here we go again Aristophanes. Exactly what form of digital capture are you referring to as indistinguishable from what film can do. I don't know anyone making a digital back which can compete with 4x5 film let alone 8x10. That line of BS has been gone over way too many times to
bother with here, Betterlight included. Convenience is one thing, optimum image quality on a large
scale something else. But geeks are in their own little world and can prove anything with a calculator
and saltshaker full of pixels, even if the result looks like oatmeal mush up on the wall.
Show us the "oatmeal mush" from digital photos on a major gallery wall. Name the gallery. Name the artist.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
There are currently silicon lin-log capture instruments that are used in technical and astro products. Non-linear CMOS processors are also designed and used in specific applications. Things people say here are exclusive to emulsion film turn out not to be.
That means that analog film needs to compete on other metrics than losing an arms race to sensors.
Last time I was in a pro print shop the device of choice used to turn 4x5/8x10 negs into full length prints was a Hasselbald scanner. When I was in Tikal years ago there was a National Geographic team shooting the ruins using artificial lighting and view cameras. The film was processed and then all scanned for phenomenal prints and glossy magazine distribution of the highest quality. Almost all major motion picture cinema goes through a digital intermediate. Are all these "oatmeal mush"? Your reference point seems to be the 3MP P&S from an off-brand circa 2003.
In relation to the OP, film competes not on quality, but on nostalgia and some artificial "spiritual" thingy. I am a cold hard economic realist. Film needs new customers using new equipment to keep analog viable to stabilize market demand and prevent a complete loss. What does not work is people trying to live vicariously in grandpa's era using product from grandpa's closet. You're living in the past rehashing arguments long since lost while film and film product demand withers away to nothing because it is not being promoted using the right tools or ideas.
That's the problem with this article: it thinks that analog is preserved by using old tech, not realizing that new analog products are necessary to keep any analog production going at all. It's the worst of consumerism because it completely uses the resource to exhaustion and leaves no economic space for it to be renewed.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Terms of serv....
"-no digital vs. traditional threads in general forums"
Colin - thanks for posting, nice to see diversity in the world, I am happy to read about happy people! Andy
Who cares about all the rude off base comments on what was supposed to be.... Someone had a preference on how they like to work, that was all..... Its amazing that many people decided to shoot down that preference and the explaination behind it.... No one should have to justify that to anyone but themselves.. Oh well, what a shame about all the posturing
Thank you, Andrew. You are a class act.
Originally Posted by Andrew Moxom
Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada
Ansel Adams had the Zone System... I'm working on the points
system. First I points it here, and then I points it there...
I think that alternate future would have been merely perfecting an existing line -- digital/computing technology/etc is a whole other 'line'...think of it like an evolutionary line or a species distinction.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
I think there's only so far you can go along any line -- you can transfer ink to paper ever more efficiently and quickly, but in the end you're still transferring ink to paper.
Compare TMY-2 to a 400 speed film 3 or 3 generations ago...it's astounding, really. Seems to me the changes in that (fascinating) alternate universe would have been like that.