Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,564   Posts: 1,573,449   Online: 782
      
Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1115161718192021
Results 201 to 205 of 205

Thread: 35mm SLR - why?

  1. #201
    5stringdeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    603
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    13
    Philisophically, it represents every image that ever hit the sensor.

    Think about that.

    you guys need your own thread please. Way Off Topic.

  2. #202

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    The sensor array is not altered. It captures a charge that remains only for the length of time that the photons are in those little 'buckets'. Once the light leaves, the charge also dissipates. There is no latent 'image' on the sensor.

    At some point in time the sensor will lose its ability to recognize the charge or capture it but that point of alteration does not represent a single image.
    Your summation is inexact enough to be incorrect. But even taking it at face value, it contradicts your assertion that the array is not altered and there is no latent image there--you yourself note that the array is different, in your version, during the exposure than it is before or after.

    There is still exactly as much of a latent image there as there is in an exposed frame of film.

    That's really here nor there, however. In either case, Naples' argument is nonsense.
    -brian hayden
    http://fed-2.org

  3. #203
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    This is APUG, who gives a f@*k about the array or the 1s and 0s. People, shut up and get yourself a new thread!

    Sheeze! Page after page of drivel irrelevant to analogue photography.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  4. #204

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by zumbido View Post
    Friend, let me give you an honestly well-meant tip for life:

    The ignorant should not condescend to people who know something about the subject at hand.

    I'm pretty sure I've never been in a Ritz, but I do have advanced degrees in the software arena and write digital camera firmware for fun in my spare time (when I'm not printing images from my Diacord in the bathroom with homebrew developers).

    Please explain to me what the meaningful difference is between storing a latent image by accumulating electrons in silicon as opposed to silver?

    I'll refrain from adding an ad-hominem here, as appealing as it is given your obdurate obscurantism... whoops, there I went.
    Not impressed; I hold a doctorate.

    Now, on to your invalid question; invalid because it presupposes that which has not been established and which in fact is not true.

    You ask: “Please explain to me what the meaningful difference is between storing a latent image by accumulating electrons in silicon as opposed to silver?”

    Your question presupposes that the electrons form an image, and that the image is “stored”. Both claims are patently false. THERE IS NO IMAGE THERE! AND NO IMAGE IS “STORED” THERE! (adding “latent” does nothing to make the string of 1s and 0s an image).

    So to answer your question ... The meaningful difference is that the silver in the film forms a physical, actual, visible, tangible, discernible image (I'm looking at some right now). The electrons in a digital sensor do not form any image whatsoever at any time; rather, they form only a computer file comprised of a string of millions (or is it billions Mr. Advanced Degree?) of 1s and 0s. That’s not an image.

    Sorry.

    Mr. Advanced Degree.

    :rolleyes:

    PS. If the computer file comprised of 1s and 0s that is generated by a digicamera is an "image", as you say, why don't you just go scan one of those "images" right now and upload it for us to see? Oh, what's that? You have to first have computer software "read" the 1s and 0s in the computer file and have the software create an image? But I thought the computer file itself was an image?

  5. #205
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,743
    Images
    139
    I've only skimmed briefly, but I think this thread has run its course.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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