| General > General Technical Chat |
| Just because technology can do something, doent meant its always right |
| << < (27/43) > >> |
| tom66:
The £200 (each) I spent on my 4K monitors goes up on the top of some of the best upgrades I have done to my PC. It's a major productivity improvement. |
| Cerebus:
--- Quote from: eti on June 19, 2022, 09:02:15 am ---Anyone saying “digital is better than film” Can sit for hours and type many paragraphs, and say all they like about it, but they clearly don’t understand physics and how film works. Film is better. Period. It’s physics, not an opinion. Dynamic range is almost infinite too --- End quote --- OK. Physics then. Here's the density versus exposure characteristic curve for Kodak Ektachome E100G from Kodak's official datasheet: See how the density curve flattens completely at both ends? Where is your "almost infinite" dynamic range? Not there. What we see is a dynamic range of a little over 1000:1 in density and a little under 1000:1 in exposure, with highly non-linear tails. The physical reality is the exact opposite of what you claim. I've no objection to people having strong opinions. If you'd said that your opinion was that you just prefer film (as actually I do), fine, but to claim that film is better "because physics" when it's very clear that you don't even begin to understand that physics is beyond the pale. |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: eti on June 19, 2022, 10:02:50 am --- --- Quote from: bd139 on June 19, 2022, 09:59:41 am --- --- Quote from: eti on June 19, 2022, 09:53:53 am --- --- Quote from: bd139 on June 19, 2022, 09:53:00 am ---You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality. --- End quote --- Prove it. --- End quote --- If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like: --- Quote ---My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells. He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like. Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them. I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels. Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began. Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. --- End quote --- This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale. --- End quote --- Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response. --- End quote --- Ditto ignoring the points and resorting to giving strawman responses |
| TimFox:
When comparing film with digital imaging, remember that sampling in film is spatially random (with a continuous MTF), while digital image capture produces a spatially periodic discrete image. Of course, if you then digitally scan the film (as I do), you produce a periodic discrete image, which can oversample the MTF of the film. |
| Cerebus:
The MTF can be anything but random, in a way that works in your favour, with a little chemical manipulation. Thus it's possible to get really sharp looking images from a film like Tri-X that's got grain you could sand wood with by either using an acutance developer, or sporadic agitation during development, or highly diluted developer and long process times, to alter the transfer function and the grain formation along actual image edges on the film. This stuff is all becoming a lost art. I bet in 20-30 years time the only people who will know this stuff are going to be the modern equivalent of the people who were, 30 years ago, resurrecting photographic processes and chemistry from the Fox-Talbot era of photography. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |