Film vs Digiatal, lets put it to the test

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 19:55:42 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Grain has figured in the
subsequent discussion but that's by no means the only way of
distinguishing digital from film.

if the sampling is done properly, you won't be able to use grain as a
determining factor.

What sampling? Nobody said anything about sampling (except you).

that's how digital works.

given that statement, you have demonstrated that you haven't a ****ing
clue about how it works.

How_does_sampling_apply_to_film_grain? Real film grain.

Are you going to digitize it and then compare it to it's own digital
emulation?

you're *so* lost.

I am while you refuse to answer.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 10 September 2017 02:03:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 9, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 11:31:48 -0400,
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

No it isn't the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem reuires
that the
signal
to be sampled must be perfectly band limited.

which it will be for a piece of film.

By what?

the grain.

THat's the very point. Details of grain go down to atomic size.

you're seriously grasping.

are you actually claiming that an atomic difference in two film
grains
makes a difference in a photo?

No. For a start I am not claiming that the difference in two film
grains makes a difference in anything. I am claiming that the
difference between film grain and digital emulation of film grain can
be detected.

not if it's properly done, it can't.

Wait until something important hangs upon it (like a murderer). You
will find specialists you have never heard of coming out of the
woodwork.

The California DOJ labs are very capable. However, we also used other
resources starting with the FBI labs, NASA labs, and JPL labs. Though I
cannot recall that there were too many inquiries made with regard to
forensic, comparative examination of film grain, and digital emulation of
film grain. I suppose it could happen.


Just supose so new movie footage or still photographs were found of the
'assassination' of JFK I wonder if it could be proved that the new evidence
was acutally created with a modern digital camera.

C'mon. Everybody knows that Jackie was the third shooter and that Jack's
brain was destructed to hide that fact... If you remember the x-rays
provided at the time of the Bobby shooting showed that you could easily
see the path of the bullet... The question is: Who armed Jackie?

It's all on film of course but who would believe it now? That that can
be faked is not a technical witness without a documented history of it
authenticity...

On UK TV there a program called Fake or Fortune which looks at art and uses
differnt techniques to find out whther the painting or drawing is by the
person claimed or a clever fake.
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 02:10:01 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Sunday, 10 September 2017 02:03:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 9, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 11:31:48 -0400,
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

No it isn't the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem reuires that the
signal
to be sampled must be perfectly band limited.

which it will be for a piece of film.

By what?

the grain.

THat's the very point. Details of grain go down to atomic size.

you're seriously grasping.

are you actually claiming that an atomic difference in two film grains
makes a difference in a photo?

No. For a start I am not claiming that the difference in two film
grains makes a difference in anything. I am claiming that the
difference between film grain and digital emulation of film grain can
be detected.

not if it's properly done, it can't.

Wait until something important hangs upon it (like a murderer). You
will find specialists you have never heard of coming out of the
woodwork.

The California DOJ labs are very capable. However, we also used other
resources starting with the FBI labs, NASA labs, and JPL labs. Though I
cannot recall that there were too many inquiries made with regard to
forensic, comparative examination of film grain, and digital emulation of
film grain. I suppose it could happen.


Just supose so new movie footage or still photographs were found of the 'assassination' of JFK I wonder if it could be proved that the new evidence was acutally created with a modern digital camera.

It probably could.

On UK TV there a program called Fake or Fortune which looks at art and uses differnt techniques to find out whther the painting or drawing is by the person claimed or a clever fake.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sep 12, 2017, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 8 September 2017 15:12:44 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 8, 2017, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Thursday, 7 September 2017 20:11:19 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
In iganews.com,
Savageduck wrote:

Savageduck:
...and now there is what Fujifilm is doing with SOOC film
emulations in-camera, which is very good.

android:
And there is there it will end for most people... Gimmick features
to make bland snaps somewhat more interesting. Could as well be
done in the camera.

That's not saying that tonal adjustments of this kind hasn't it's
place but that content is king and without a king the crown is
without meaning.

http://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/the-newest-film-simulation-acros
https://jonasraskphotography.com/2016/02/22/acros-again

It's a bit weird in thee instagram times that not more cameras have SOOC
emulation of different styles. Not necessarily of film, but of different
styles and themes. Many have some color/image settings but few affect the
image to any greater extent.

The iPhone has had apps for this for ages, why not most consumer/prosumer
cameras?

I think it's because they assume people with 'proper' cameras don't 'fake'
things a photographer will dom their best to represent the scene as
accuratly
as possible where as someone with a phone just wants either a moment or
place
recorded but from their own personall POV.
A friend of mine has worked on an app which can add a tree or a flock of
birds to your picture and it doesn't matter if it's an astro-picture or an
underwater picture you can still add birds and clouds to it.

You have a friend who worked on Photoshop?

This is what he's worked on.
Distressed FX

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/dist...585702631?mt=8

Nice as a phone app, but it is something that can be done easily with
Photoshop, On1, and a whole bunch of other apps with texture overlays, and
composite overlays. I suspect that there are other iOS/Android apps which do
much the same thing.

--

Regards,
Savageduck