General > General Technical Chat
Just because technology can do something, doent meant its always right
thinkfat:
--- Quote from: Cerebus on June 21, 2022, 10:39:51 pm ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
This is Ektachrome, it's a slide film. You should probably look at an Ektar 100 datasheet to make a fair comparison. Slide film is known to be quite finicky regarding exposure, because the usable range is quite small compared to negative film. Also, the density range is not that important, you can influence that with the developer used, time and temperature anyway, the usable exposure range is what defines dynamic range.
ebastler:
--- Quote from: thinkfat on June 22, 2022, 08:12:21 am ---This is Ektachrome, it's a slide film. You should probably look at an Ektar 100 datasheet to make a fair comparison. Slide film is known to be quite finicky regarding exposure, because the usable range is quite small compared to negative film.
--- End quote ---
Hmm... OK, three usable decades of exposure range there. Still less than a digital camera with a reasonably large sensor (i.e. not a phone camera), I believe. And once you create a print on paper, your dynamic range is gone anyway?
Zero999:
--- Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on June 21, 2022, 07:53:21 am ---
--- Quote from: Psi on June 21, 2022, 07:40:10 am ---One thing to consider is that people are not all the same.
Some people may not see the ocular detail that others can, and if people assume everyone else must 'see' the same as they do, then you will always get pointless arguments.
--- End quote ---
I knew a guy that had a gaming rig set up with three monitors. He had it running at 60Hz. The outer monitors caused him to see flicker in the periphery so he had to beef it up to 120Hz.
It had nothing to do with buying new hardware. Honest. :)
--- End quote ---
I don't see how 60Hz would cause him to see flicker, unless they were CRTs. LCDs don't flicker, even when run at low refresh rates, unless the backlight driver is faulty, or badly designed.
thinkfat:
--- Quote from: ebastler on June 22, 2022, 09:25:39 am ---
--- Quote from: thinkfat on June 22, 2022, 08:12:21 am ---This is Ektachrome, it's a slide film. You should probably look at an Ektar 100 datasheet to make a fair comparison. Slide film is known to be quite finicky regarding exposure, because the usable range is quite small compared to negative film.
--- End quote ---
Hmm... OK, three usable decades of exposure range there. Still less than a digital camera with a reasonably large sensor (i.e. not a phone camera), I believe. And once you create a print on paper, your dynamic range is gone anyway?
--- End quote ---
That's just where the datasheet spec ends, but practically, you can add another decade of exposure latitude and still get a reasonable response (i.e. density increase). Translated to camera "stops", you get around 13 to 14 "stops" of dynamic range. Each "stop" means half or double amount of light. A "reasonably sized" camera sensor would be APS-C, and there you have to look at the top-of-the-line models from Sony or Nikon to find a match.
Also, film tends to "compress" highlights, so that means even if the response is no longer linear, you still get a density increase and recoverable information, though you'd have to digitize the film with a good scanner to make use of it. A digital sensor will clip instead, hard.
And, yes, you lose that dynamic range once you print, that's why you "dodge" and "burn".
Miyuki:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on June 22, 2022, 09:49:34 am ---
--- Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on June 21, 2022, 07:53:21 am ---
--- Quote from: Psi on June 21, 2022, 07:40:10 am ---One thing to consider is that people are not all the same.
Some people may not see the ocular detail that others can, and if people assume everyone else must 'see' the same as they do, then you will always get pointless arguments.
--- End quote ---
I knew a guy that had a gaming rig set up with three monitors. He had it running at 60Hz. The outer monitors caused him to see flicker in the periphery so he had to beef it up to 120Hz.
It had nothing to do with buying new hardware. Honest. :)
--- End quote ---
I don't see how 60Hz would cause him to see flicker, unless they were CRTs. LCDs don't flicker, even when run at low refresh rates, unless the backlight driver is faulty, or badly designed.
--- End quote ---
Sounds so
But some LCDs do backlight "magic" to appear sharper and do flicker
And plenty of even expensive ones do flicker when dimmed, but it is a different story :palm:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version