The last Kodak movie-film factory is at death's door

In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
Since you joined the subthread, you have said
nothing about the topic of whether digital can and/or
should replace analog film, you've only ever argued about
word definitions you don't understand.

Andreas Skitsnack:
I've expressed opinions on that subject
in other posts at other times. As far as I'm concerned, it's
up to the individual's interests as to whether digital
capture can or should replace capture on film. Why anyone
should care if others use a medium that they don't choose to
use is beyond me.

nospam:
this isn't about whether someone is interested in one
or the other.

it's about whether one is better than the other (which one is)
and if the better one can be reduced in quality to match the
lower quality option (which of course it can).

PeterN:
You are taking a "one size fits all," dictatorial approach. The
purpose for one person is not necessarily the purpose for
another person. You have learned nothing from the failures of
that approach in other fields. Take farming, an approach of
producton effeciency has resulted in catastrophic crop failures,
and tasteless produce. Open your eye. Open your brain to
concepts. Technological effeciency is not a goal. It is simply
one of several means to many goals.

Sandman:
As I told Eric - the topic wasn't about "should" or about "can".

Whether or not film *should* be replaced by digital is subjective
and it is clear that nospam's personal experience is that it
should. But his personal opionions weren't the discussion.

Subjects change naturally. Nospam's failure to acknowledge that his
opinion is indeed subjective is my point. His consistent failure to
acknowledge that, is indeed a weakness in his online persona.

That is a recurrent theme with you trolls as well. You make explicit claims
about other people without labeling them as personal opinions. I call you
on it all the time. Do you want some examples? I am happy to substantiate
that claim of mine.




--
Sandman[.net]

On 8/8/2014 12:07 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
Since you joined the subthread, you have said
nothing about the topic of whether digital can and/or
should replace analog film, you've only ever argued about
word definitions you don't understand.

Andreas Skitsnack:
I've expressed opinions on that subject
in other posts at other times. As far as I'm concerned, it's
up to the individual's interests as to whether digital
capture can or should replace capture on film. Why anyone
should care if others use a medium that they don't choose to
use is beyond me.

nospam:
this isn't about whether someone is interested in one
or the other.

it's about whether one is better than the other (which one is)
and if the better one can be reduced in quality to match the
lower quality option (which of course it can).

PeterN:
You are taking a "one size fits all," dictatorial approach. The
purpose for one person is not necessarily the purpose for
another person. You have learned nothing from the failures of
that approach in other fields. Take farming, an approach of
producton effeciency has resulted in catastrophic crop failures,
and tasteless produce. Open your eye. Open your brain to
concepts. Technological effeciency is not a goal. It is simply
one of several means to many goals.

Sandman:
As I told Eric - the topic wasn't about "should" or about "can".

Whether or not film *should* be replaced by digital is subjective
and it is clear that nospam's personal experience is that it
should. But his personal opionions weren't the discussion.

Subjects change naturally. Nospam's failure to acknowledge that his
opinion is indeed subjective is my point. His consistent failure to
acknowledge that, is indeed a weakness in his online persona.

That is a recurrent theme with you trolls as well. You make explicit claims
about other people without labeling them as personal opinions. I call you
on it all the time. Do you want some examples? I am happy to substantiate
that claim of mine.

Don't bother. I won't take your bait.


--
PeterN

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You will have to be damned good to hear speed variations on a decent
turntable. http://www.aca.gr/index/resources/gallery?sel=42

the turntable is just part of it.

if the record is slightly off center or stamped off center, or if it's
not flat, there can be a speed variation.

True. I send/take those records back.

that might not always be possible.

Moved goal posts.

no. it's a statement of fact.

it might not be possible.

what if they warp years after you originally get them? what if they're
out of print?

Warping after years is the result of poor storage and has nothing to
do with the original quality.

true, but what you have now may be all that's available.

it's yet another shortcoming of vinyl.

digital does not degrade. the data can be backed up an infinite number
of times with no loss whatsoever, so it doesn't matter if the cd or
tape or whatever fails. there are other copies.

not possible with vinyl. one fire and you have a blob of goop and all
is lost. improper storage and they can warp.

what if they're all like that? i once had a cd with a defect in a song,
and every cd in the shop (of the same album, for the flamers) had the
same defect.

Choose another song.

that song was part of the album.

if the turntable has a rim drive and the drive wheel has a flat spot,
the speed can vary. if the belt slips it can vary.

I don't like rim drives at all or belt drives very much.

rim drives are on the cheapo turntables.

belt drives are ideal, since the motor is decoupled.

But belts suffer from aging problems.

belts can easily be replaced in just seconds.

however, belt drives don't have a lot of torque, which a dj would want.

I don't give a stuff what DJs want. Their use of turntables is
anathema to me.

torque is the only advantage of direct drive.

otherwise belt drive is the way to go because of the decoupling.

also, footsteps nearby, especially if someone is dancing, can cause it
to skip.

Not to mention feed back from speakers.

that too.

no fancy speakers are needed.

Maybe not to hear the worst but certainly to distinguish the best.

the point is that in some cases, the differences are clearly audible,
and that digital is immune to all of that.

Your assumption that digital is always better is not correct.

not only is it correct, but it's a mathematically provable fact.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Try
http://www.tophifi24.de/technics%20sl110%20b.JPG
Ignore the dust bug.

that's a photo of a turntable. so what?

it doesn't show how accurate the speed is or whether the record is off
center.

most turntables are stable, but not all of them are.

That's a decent direct-drive turntable and it's speed is rock solid.

maybe so, but it's impossible to tell how accurate its speed is from a
photo.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Since you joined the subthread, you have said nothing about the topic of
whether digital can and/or should replace analog film, you've only ever
argued about word definitions you don't understand.

I've expressed opinions on that subject in other posts at other times.
As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the individual's interests as to
whether digital capture can or should replace capture on film. Why
anyone should care if others use a medium that they don't choose to
use is beyond me.

this isn't about whether someone is interested in one or the other.

it's about whether one is better than the other (which one is) and if
the better one can be reduced in quality to match the lower quality
option (which of course it can).


You are taking a "one size fits all," dictatorial approach.

nope.

The purpose
for one person is not necessarily the purpose for another person. You
have learned nothing from the failures of that approach in other fields.

nobody said anything about the purpose.

this is about whether one is better than another, something which can
be proven (and has).

Take farming, an approach of producton effeciency has resulted in
catastrophic crop failures, and tasteless produce. Open your eye. Open
your brain to concepts. Technological effeciency is not a goal. It is
simply one of several means to many goals.

farming??? seriously??

not only did you move the goalposts but you moved them clear out of the
field and into the next county. this isn't about farming, tasteless
crops or technological efficiency.

you are *so* lost and you're all over the map.

admit you don't understand anything, shut up and try to learn something
for a change (which likely won't happen but you can at least try).

In article , PeterN
wrote:

You are taking a "one size fits all," dictatorial approach. The
purpose for one person is not necessarily the purpose for another
person. You have learned nothing from the failures of that approach
in other fields. Take farming, an approach of producton effeciency
has resulted in catastrophic crop failures, and tasteless produce.
Open your eye. Open your brain to concepts. Technological effeciency
is not a goal. It is simply one of several means to many goals.

As I told Eric - the topic wasn't about "should" or about "can".

Whether or not film *should* be replaced by digital is subjective and it is
clear that nospam's personal experience is that it should. But his personal
opionions weren't the discussion.

Subjects change naturally.
Nospam's failure to acknowledge that his opinion is indeed subjective is
my point. His consistent failure to acknowledge that, is indeed a
weakness in his online persona.

it's not an opinion.

digital is better than film, therefore it can be downgraded to emulate
film or it can be used at its higher quality.

this is a mathematically provable fact.

The discussion was about whether digital *can* replace analog film, which
it undoubtly can. This is objectively true.

If, as you claim, that is the topic it certainly is moot, as to the
films I cited. The operative word is "was" because the topic has morphed.

only because certain argumentative individuals keep moving the
goalposts because they can't refute what was said, so it's all they can
do. they live to argue. one made a career of arguing.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

That is a recurrent theme with you trolls as well. You make explicit claims
about other people without labeling them as personal opinions. I call you
on it all the time. Do you want some examples? I am happy to substantiate
that claim of mine.

Don't bother. I won't take your bait.

in other words, you admit you're a troll. progress.

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
..
snip

Not that I've tried it but I have with car racing games and I might
think I'm driving a Bugatti Veyron and I've gone over 230MPH in it,
but is emulating/similating realyl as good as the real thing.

It's usually a whole lot better if you're in the habit of driving into
trees or lamposts

snip

except for those that still want to use it, a bit like black and
white photography, why I wonder, that's not how the real world
is (or is it ?)

Who of us can only see in B&W, So why have that option.

That's the point really. Photographing something in colour simply
captures what we can already see. Which for maybe 90% of photographs
is all thats needed. A permanent record of a fleeting moment.

However by removing the "distraction" of colour its possible to
reveal and accentuate other elements of the subject which without
a B&W rendering, the viewer would be totally unaware of.
One obvious example being the effects of light and shade


michael adams

....
....

On 8 Aug 2014 11:00:33 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
No, it can *NOT*. For a flight simulator to emulate flight
conditions, it would have to produce flight, actual flight.
Emulation can *replace* the target.

All a flight simulator has to do is emulate the conditions found in
a cockpit during flight.

Then it isn't a flight emulator, it is a cockpit emulator.

Built for the purpose of simulating flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_Trainer

"The term Link Trainer, also known as the "Blue box" and "Pilot
Trainer"[1] is commonly used to refer to a series of flight
simulators produced between the early 1930s and early 1950s by the
Link Aviation Devices, Inc, founded and headed by Ed Link, based on
technology he pioneered in 1929 at his family's business in
Binghamton, New York."

Again, an emulation can *replace* the original. If you have a flight
emulator, you can use it to fly somewhere, replacing the airplane you would
have otherwise used.

That's why they don't call it a flight emulator.

Sandman:
If a Flight Simulator can't replace an airplane, it is not
emulating anything.

That's not quite correct.

It is 100% correct.

It's not emulating an aeroplane. It's emulating the conditions in the
cockpit.

A *Flight* simulator replicates the inner workings of flight without
actually flying.
A *Flight* emulator would have to be able to fly and need not replicate the
actual process of how that is done in an actual airplane.

That's why they don't call it a flight emulator. Because it is used
for the training of pilots it emulates the workings of the cockpit.


A *cockpit* emulator would have to be able to replace an actual cockpit.
A *cockpit* simulator replicates how a cockpit works.

Emulation does not have to require things be functionally
interchangeable. Using a duck caller to emulate the cry of a duck does
not mean that the duck caller has to be able to lay eggs. Emulating
the cockpit of a Boeing 787 does not mean that the similator can be
interchanged with the 787 cockpit and then used to fly the plane.

A cockpit simulator mounted on pneumatics can emulate cockpit *movement*.

Yes.

Note that it is not simulating most of them: it's got real controls doing
real things.

"things"? What those controls doesn't do is control actual flight, so no
emulation is done. The controls are input to the simulator.

And the simulator may send a signal to hydraulic jacks to simulate an
increase in nose-up angle by changing the attitude of the cockpit.
Alternatively, it may emulate the behaviour of the undercarriage
lights in the real aircraft by turning them on a short time after the
switch has been operated.

However it uses graphics monitors to simulate the view out of the
windscreen. It also has hydraulic jacks etc to bounce the cockpit around
and hence simulate the sensations of flight.

No, it emulates the sensation of flight.

Quite right. It emulates the sensation by simulating the motion.

Since no hydraulic jacks exist on
a real plane, it doesn't simulate this part. This is a good example of
where emulation is used in a simulator. The hydraulic jacks emulate
movement. It doesn't simulate movement.

Emulation is the same end result.
Simulation is the same process.

Not quite.

However the instruments and controls emulate the demands upon the crew in
the cockpit.

Not sure what you mean by "demands". The instruments gives feedback from
the simulator, and a light on the instrument board doesn't emulate
anything, it's a light, and is probably the same light you'd find in an
actual airplane, only it gets its control from the simulator rather than
from an actual airplane computer.

By demands, I mean, for example, the instructor causing the
fire-warning light for the left engine to come on just as the flight
simulator has got the aircraft to the point of take off. If that
happens there will be (or should be) a great flurry of activity in the
cockpit as the crew rush around doing all sorts of things in response.
Such an incident simulates the problems for the crew by emulating the
behaviour of the genuine aircraft.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

rOn 8 Aug 2014 13:25:04 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
Since you joined the subthread, you have said nothing about
the topic of whether digital can and/or should replace analog
film, you've only ever argued about word definitions you don't
understand.

Andreas Skitsnack:
I've expressed opinions on that subject in other posts at other
times. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the individual's
interests as to whether digital capture can or should replace
capture on film. Why anyone should care if others use a medium
that they don't choose to use is beyond me.

nospam:
this isn't about whether someone is interested in one or the
other.

it's about whether one is better than the other (which one is) and
if the better one can be reduced in quality to match the lower
quality option (which of course it can).

You are taking a "one size fits all," dictatorial approach. The
purpose for one person is not necessarily the purpose for another
person. You have learned nothing from the failures of that approach
in other fields. Take farming, an approach of producton effeciency
has resulted in catastrophic crop failures, and tasteless produce.
Open your eye. Open your brain to concepts. Technological effeciency
is not a goal. It is simply one of several means to many goals.

As I told Eric - the topic wasn't about "should" or about "can".

I've largely kept out of this thread and I don't recall you anywhere
talking about 'should' or 'can'. Nor can I find any relevant article
where you have used those two terms ...

Whether or not film *should* be replaced by digital is subjective and it is
clear that nospam's personal experience is that it should. But his personal
opionions weren't the discussion.

The discussion was about whether digital *can* replace analog film, which
it undoubtly can. This is objectively true.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens