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

In article , richard1-
says...
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.

Well, in the case of tubes versus solid state - solid state COULD
replicate the sound of tubes, just no one has managed to do this
properly yet. I think too many electrical engineers try to compensate
for "flaws" musicians don't want corrected.

Don't forget one other crucial aspect of sound: it's horrible to
quantify. Images are static and can be compared readily. Sounds are
difficult to compare - even with trained ears and spiffy equipment.

Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more
pleasing look?

Well, people do like film grain, distorted colors and other "flaws" of
film - can't really negate that in "art" photography. However, there is
no reasonable assertion that digital could not replace these techniques
with new ones or reasonable facsimiles in time.

From a purely "quality" point of view, digital certainly can be compared
to film using the factors on which most people judge them: resolution,
color accuracy and dynamic range. Those are measurable qualities.
However, when you "measure" a guitar amp you talk in unqualified,
"emotional" terms: Gritty, smooth, dirty, bright, harsh, sweet, brown,
etc. etc.

In article ,
says...
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.

But how much of that is due to factors easily remedied, such as:

1. Differences in output equipment. It's pretty easy to tell a inkjet
print from a chemical emulsion. If you were to output both using the
same machine (lightjet, etc.) would you be able to tell the difference?

2. JPEG compression and over-sharpening on cheaper digital cameras. One
of the biggest gripes *I* had before switching was the overall "harsh"
feel of digital photos. This wasn't due to the digital medium - only
the tricks used to make photos smaller and sharper in the early days on
point and shoots.

3. Viewing distance. I'm sure if you took a loupe to anything you'd be
able to spot irrelevant flaws. Can you tell the difference at normal
viewing distance?

In article ,
says...
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.

This is most likely due to the mastering process. A lot of early CD
releases of my vinyl favorites were horrible.

Audio engineer: "We have all this dynamic range! Let's not compress
this recording, boost the bass or do any of the other stuff people
loved."

Listener: "This sounds tinny! Where's my vinyl?"

I think the Rolling Stones remastered CDs of the past few years really
put the vinyl versus CD issue to rest. Minus the pops, noise and
occasional skip, I can honestly not tell the difference between my
original records and the remastered CD versions.

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.

Not really. The same processes are taking place (D/A - A/D conversion).
They rely on the same priciples. Actually, still film vs. digital has far
more in common with analog vs. digital video than with audio at all.

In any case, he wasn't comparing analog/digital images vs. audio/video, he
was drawing an analogy between the film vs. digital debate and the tubes vs.
transistors debate in audio, which is a very fair comparison (being
primarily from the audio realm myself and being far too familiar with this
debate).


--
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ
from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even
incapable of forming such opinions."
-- Albert Einstein

In article mIzMc.104462$Mr4.33627@pd7tw1no,
says...
In any case, he wasn't comparing analog/digital images vs. audio/video, he
was drawing an analogy between the film vs. digital debate and the tubes vs.
transistors debate in audio, which is a very fair comparison (being
primarily from the audio realm myself and being far too familiar with this
debate).

Then you should be familiar enough with the debate to understand that
measuring visual quality is easy, but measuring audio quality is
difficult. Additionally, the debate on whether or not solid state
equipment reproduces sound better than tubes has been over for years -
solid state provides a more accurate reproduction of the source
material.

The problem comes when the source material (an electrified instrument)
has no accepted sound or tone - it is at the mercy of the amplifier to
create it. That's when tubes do excel - they provide a better (the word
being subjective in this case, as almost everything is in audio) sound
for the instrument. This has nothing to do with photography. Nozzing!

Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more
pleasing look?

Analogue systems suffer analogue distortion, digital systems suffer digital
distortion. Since analogue distortion is exactly the stuff that your brain
recognises and deals with every day it seems 'natural' and can be easily
ignored. Digital distortion is foreign to your brain and sticks out like a sore
thumb. It's much harder to ignore.

Analogue systems can get away with murder and still appear normal, where even
the slightest digital distortion is immediately obvious. Digital has to perform
far better than analogue with far lower distortion to seem equal.

So things that produce natural-sounding distortion have more leeway than those
that don't.

This isn't just an issue with digital. Your lovely class A tube amp has noise,
uneven compression and soft clipping. Transistors are much better behaved but
since when did your ears suffer from crossover distortion?

A few more thougths on the subject:

*Most engineers, being their job is to improve technology, ignore artistic or
intangible elements. My father, an electrical engineer, couldn't believe it
when I bought a bunch of vintage tube equipment. (I have a Dolby Digital
system with tube amps.) He did have to admit it sounds a lot nicer that the
terrible specs (by todays standards) would suggest.

*The same thing is happening to film that is happened to tubes right after
transistors were first perfected- transistors/digital totally dominated the
mainstream market. Tubes/film stuck around for a while as a player in the
high-end market, artistic market (guitar amps), and the ultra-cheap market, ie
cheap table radios, disposable cameras.

*Even 40 years after tubes disappeared from the mainstream, because they were
so ubitiquous they are still available today, either as new production or
leftover stock. Several decades from now, Kodak and Fuji may be out of the
picture as far as film production, but I think new film will still be in
production someplace.

--
Monte Castleman, Spamfilter in Use
Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from address