 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Now ya gone and ruined it for me. posted by clarkjohnsen on May 18, 2002 at 10:12:12:
I don't think we'll EVER see a better image than film. Why? Film is simply film, it's not real life. Would Scorcese shoot Raging Bull on color videotape to get something as pristine as possible? No. He shot it on B&W to create an effect.We make films on film, and the film itself is integral to the delivery.
Doug Schneider
Follow Ups:
> > > > > I don't think we'll EVER see a better image than film. Why? Film is simply film,The quality of digital still images now has come close to that of film and has the potential to be much better. I don't see how its not going to be the same for motion pictures. What is true is that the digital convenience is somewhat a necessity, its allowed photographers to really enjoy their artistic freedom, which will increase manifold for motion pictures. But it will take time because the great artists have already been hardwired to the old technologies, so it won't be a while to see a great artist in the new mediums.
I don't agree with you at all. I do photography as a hobby and compare digital to film all the time. Digital photography can be good, but is not close to what even 35mm is.Doug Schneider
The gap is still incredibly wide.
I think that what's happening is sort of like the old digital/analog debate in audio. With digital photography people are seeing something else (perhaps increased sharpness) and confusing it with something else. Is it truly sharper because of higher resolution? Or are all the gradient areas limited and everything jumps from one color to the next. Videotape on TV, for example, looks very sharp, but it's resolution is far less than film.Doug Schneider
Digital photography have improved at a very fast rate. There are people, e.g
this guy , who compared the latest digital quality to films. Even medium format is mentioned in the same breath. The weakest link with digital photography I think is the printing technology which hasn't caught up yet within reasonable price. However, digital film doesn't get to be printed at all; nothing is lost.When the two mediums are comparable (or even better with promising newer technologies such as Foveon on the horizon), then digital film will be absolutely the prefered choice. Why? If you look at the artistic quality and volume between users of leica or contax and those of say a good digital point and shoot such as canon g2, e.g here , it's not even close.
Certainly there probably are people who believe that, but there are also people who believe MP3 is equivalent to CD and LP. The resolution just isn't there, it's still at a fraction of it.Doug Schneider
its naive to simply make analogies. The person who makes the comparision is quite an accomplished photographer, judging his photographs. A 6 Megapixel file has more than half of the full resolution of a 35mm file, but this gap should be closed soon; not to mention resolution is the easiest parameter to improve.After all, its the question of "show me your equipments", vs "great rack now me show your pictures/music".
It's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about and neither does the "expert" that you reference.
Right...and I read it, but it's still far off. Someone today can look at a digital photograph and see something quite good. Untrained eyes might say it's the same. 1/2 the resolution is not really close at all to me so we're probably just disagreeing on the choice of words.Doug Schneider
There is alot more to this issues than just pixels. The comparison between film pixels and digital pixels is a coparison between apples and oranges and rotten apples at that. Film pixes are far more random in nature. They vary in size shape and placement. This is not the case for digital pixels. This is an issue in still photography. In motion picture quality it is a huge issue. The randomnes of the pixels in film create an effect of oversampling at 24 frames per second. The digital pixels never vary so you get no oversampling effect. The gap between digital and film in motion pictures is not close to being closed.
You've hit upon something very important here and something I've been thinking about for some time -- the randomness of real film vs. the linearity of digital.Doug Schneider
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
