"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?

John wrote:
: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:26:56 -0600, Frank Pittel wrote:

: The people and companies that need to maintain archival storage
: of their digital data will make copies of the data as needed.

: In perpetuity ? That should be challenging. Film, the simpler and archival storage
: medium for high resolution images

If the data is needed "in perpetuity" then the answer is yes. A few years ago the company I worked
for got rid of their 9 track tape drives. Prior to doing that they went out and brought in contractors
to transfer the data from the tapes to CDs. I'm sure that in the future they will be transfering the
data to some other medium.

As to the permanance of film an negatives. I've got boxes of ektachrome slides and color negatives
from the seventies that didn't do so good in the perminent archive department.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

John wrote:
: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:26:56 -0600, Frank Pittel wrote:

: The people and companies that need to maintain archival storage
: of their digital data will make copies of the data as needed.

: In perpetuity ? That should be challenging. Film, the simpler and archival storage
: medium for high resolution images

: John - http://www.puresilver.org

: "Are you planning on accepting the new definition of photography?" - Frank
: "Just as soon as humanity accepts a new definition of the term humanity." - John

I like your sig. Do you have any proposals for a new definition for humanity?
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

"John" wrote
"Wayne" wrote:
If it werent for their lack of similarity they would be almost
identical!
I think some people need to go load some electrons !

Both forms of imaging work by the action of a photon knocking
off an electron: a discrete 1-0 quantum event.

Electronic imaging reads the event as an analog signal that
is then digitized by an A/D converter.

Silver salt imaging detects the activated/inactivated state of
a silver grain - a 1-0, or digital, effect.

The resulting digital image is resampled and read out by the
pixels of the retina as 1-0 nerve impulses.

The more it changes the more it stays the same.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Silver salt imaging detects the activated/inactivated state of
a silver grain - a 1-0, or digital, effect.

An on or off state does not make something digital.

Digital in this context always means that the information
is represented by numeric symbols. It is very convenient
to use on/off states as numeric symbols, but just because
something exists as an on/off state does not make it a
numeric symbol.

Film grain is present in a random size distribution and a
random spacial distribution. You could argue that these
are also ultimately numbers, but if you called them "digital"
on that basis, you would be stuck with everything in the
physical universe also deserving that label.

The resulting digital image is resampled and read out by the
pixels of the retina as 1-0 nerve impulses.

Again, neurons either firing or not firing does not make the
signals numeric representations of information.

Peter.
--

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Silver salt imaging detects the activated/inactivated state of
a silver grain - a 1-0, or digital, effect.

An on or off state does not make something digital.

Digital in this context always means that the information
is represented by numeric symbols. It is very convenient
to use on/off states as numeric symbols, but just because
something exists as an on/off state does not make it a
numeric symbol.

Film grain is present in a random size distribution and a
random spacial distribution. You could argue that these
are also ultimately numbers, but if you called them "digital"
on that basis, you would be stuck with everything in the
physical universe also deserving that label.

The resulting digital image is resampled and read out by the
pixels of the retina as 1-0 nerve impulses.

Again, neurons either firing or not firing does not make the
signals numeric representations of information.

Peter.
--

John wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:48:07 -0800, "Dana H. Myers"
wrote:

If it werent for their lack of similarity they would be almost
identical!

Heh. Negatives and digital images both do the same thing -
store an image. This part is identical.

Actually they don't even do this very similarly so I fail to see
your point.

I think his point is to prove my point, that if you ignore all the
differences they are quite similar.

"Wayne" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think his point is to prove my point, that if you ignore all the
differences they are quite similar.

Okay folks, is Rhetoric 101 over now? Can we move on?

"Wayne" wrote


If you ignore all the differences they are quite similar.

Look at things in the right light and how can there be any
darkness.

Next...?

jjs wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think his point is to prove my point, that if you ignore all the
differences they are quite similar.

Okay folks, is Rhetoric 101 over now? Can we move on?

jjs wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think his point is to prove my point, that if you ignore all the
differences they are quite similar.

Okay folks, is Rhetoric 101 over now? Can we move on?

Not one ignoramous left behind, John, thats my motto. As long as there
are people dumb enough to keep saying digital is just like film, I will
be stupid enough to keep repeating how ridiculous that is. But have no
fear, I'm going away shortly, at least for a while.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"John" wrote
"Wayne" wrote:
If it werent for their lack of similarity they would be almost
identical!
I think some people need to go load some electrons !

Both forms of imaging work by the action of a photon knocking
off an electron: a discrete 1-0 quantum event.

Electronic imaging reads the event as an analog signal that
is then digitized by an A/D converter.

Silver salt imaging detects the activated/inactivated state of
a silver grain - a 1-0, or digital, effect.

Your analogy is fundamentally over simplistic. Does
photon energy = particles or a wave? One could argue
this ad nauseam (it is both) yet in the end the
difference between digital and silver halide imaging
remains the same: in doped silicon, photoenergy is
_converted_ to an electrical charge (analog voltage),
whereas in silver halide exposure that same energy
is absorbed, resulting in _chemical decomposition_
(i.e., photolysis.) Meaning the exposure-induced
absorbtion of photon energy in silver halide crystals
results a latent image, or photolytic silver formation,
and is not a "digital effect."

The term "digital" does not refer to chemical reactions
as they take place in silver halide optical absorbtion
(see James 4th ed., chapter 1 sec. IV.) It refers to the
language of numerical information, e.g.,that produced by
an A/D converter during the regeneration, not absorbtion,
of a photoelectron generated voltage to digital signals
(i.e., coded electrical signals.)

Thus your statement that "both forms of imaging work
by the action of a photon knocking off an electron"
deliberately obscures the actual fundamental differences.
The only thing both have in common is an optical image
formed by a lens. From that point on the physics are
completely different.

The resulting digital image is resampled and read out by the
pixels of the retina as 1-0 nerve impulses.

The more it changes the more it stays the same.

No. The retina does not generate "pixels" or read
or transmit light waves in pixel form. The retina
perceives light photochemically (Land Theory) and
it is this chemical reaction that initiates the nerve
impulses sent to the brain to then somehow be percieved
as visual sight.

As I noted when Nebenzahl proffered this same baseless
digital geek fallacy, human biochemical vision cannot
be dumbed down to a cheapo digital camera.