 
|
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: Re: Better? What's better? posted by Doug Schneider on May 18, 2002 at 13:15:34:
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.
Follow Ups:
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 ]
