If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels
but the "look" in a vauge sense? I think the look has a lot to do with it. I did a project where I combined my 35mm photos with photos taken by someone else with a digital camera. Both were done with what would be considered decent quality equipment. I asked my stepfather, who has little photographic background to pick out the film vs digital photos and he did so with close to 100% accuracy. If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They may not be as good as solid state based on hard measurments, but they may be better sounding or more pleasing to the ear, with that advantage very likely resulting from a technical inferiority, i.e., "good" distrortion. Specs for tubes are terrible compared to solid state equipment, but there are reasons people like them. Tubes have soft clipping, which can be analogized to the response "knee" in film. Tubes have a nonlinearity and even-order distortion give them a very unique "smooth" sound that's hard to duplicate with solid state; similarly the film emulsions give a subtle unique look that is not duplicated with digital. Monte Castleman, Spamfilter in Use Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from address |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels
but the "look" in a vauge sense? I think the look has a lot to do with it. I did a project where I combined my 35mm photos with photos taken by someone else with a digital camera. Both were done with what would be considered decent quality equipment. I asked my stepfather, who has little photographic background to pick out the film vs digital photos and he did so with close to 100% accuracy. If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They may not be as good as solid state based on hard measurments, but they may be better sounding or more pleasing to the ear, with that advantage very likely resulting from a technical inferiority, i.e., "good" distrortion. Specs for tubes are terrible compared to solid state equipment, but there are reasons people like them. Tubes have soft clipping, which can be analogized to the response "knee" in film. Tubes have a nonlinearity and even-order distortion give them a very unique "smooth" sound that's hard to duplicate with solid state; similarly the film emulsions give a subtle unique look that is not duplicated with digital. Monte Castleman, Spamfilter in Use Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from address |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
I think the look has a lot to do with it. I did a project where I combined my
35mm photos with photos taken by someone else with a digital camera. Both were done with what would be considered decent quality equipment. I asked my stepfather, who has little photographic background to pick out the film vs digital photos and he did so with close to 100% accuracy. I'm glad you said that. I often look at images and can tell immediately if they were taken with a digital camera or a film camera. I also often hesitate to say it so purists or fanatics of one medium or another don't flame me. If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. Photographic film vs digital imaging is *not* the same as analog vs digital audio/video. They are entirely different. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
I think the look has a lot to do with it. I did a project where I combined my
35mm photos with photos taken by someone else with a digital camera. Both were done with what would be considered decent quality equipment. I asked my stepfather, who has little photographic background to pick out the film vs digital photos and he did so with close to 100% accuracy. I'm glad you said that. I often look at images and can tell immediately if they were taken with a digital camera or a film camera. I also often hesitate to say it so purists or fanatics of one medium or another don't flame me. If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. Photographic film vs digital imaging is *not* the same as analog vs digital audio/video. They are entirely different. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels but the "look" in a vauge sense? If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They may not be as good as solid state based on hard measurments, but they may be better sounding or more pleasing to the ear, with that advantage very likely resulting from a technical inferiority, i.e., "good" distrortion. Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more pleasing look? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all... Richard's fault! Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
richardsfault writes:
Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels but the "look" in a vauge sense? Obviously, although neither look is that distinctive. Often it's impossible to tell the two apart. If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They are, IF they are overdriven. Tubes handle distortion in a more audibly pleasing way than do transistors, and since many guitar players deliberately drive their systems into distortion, this is important to them. Under normal operating conditions, transistors are better (today). Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more pleasing look? No. Film provides better image quality in many ways, but not necessarily a more pleasing look. The fact is, the best images look just like real life, and that is independent of the capture method. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
richardsfault writes:
Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels but the "look" in a vauge sense? Obviously, although neither look is that distinctive. Often it's impossible to tell the two apart. If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They are, IF they are overdriven. Tubes handle distortion in a more audibly pleasing way than do transistors, and since many guitar players deliberately drive their systems into distortion, this is important to them. Under normal operating conditions, transistors are better (today). Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more pleasing look? No. Film provides better image quality in many ways, but not necessarily a more pleasing look. The fact is, the best images look just like real life, and that is independent of the capture method. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
Mxsmanic wrote in
: They are, IF they are overdriven. Tubes handle distortion in a more audibly pleasing way than do transistors, and since many guitar players deliberately drive their systems into distortion, this is important to them. Under normal operating conditions, transistors are better (today). Many Jazz and Blues guitarists still prefer tube amps even for a clean sound. -- "Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx) -Richard Cockburn |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles
"richardsfault" wrote in message ... Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels but the "look" in a vauge sense? If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They may not be as good as solid state based on hard measurments, but they may be better sounding or more pleasing to the ear, with that advantage very likely resulting from a technical inferiority, i.e., "good" distrortion. Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more pleasing look? I agree, and have used in the past the analogy of CD vs Vinyl - CD is technically better, but vinyl has that distinct sound that (to my ear anyway) just sounds better. Valve's introduce more noise which is noticeable at low amplification, and they have a different clip pattern when overdriven. This to some extent is similar to film's non-linear response when under or over-exposed. Of course this varies by the type of film used. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all... Richard's fault! Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles | Justin Thyme | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | July 25th 04 04:18 PM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |