At 09:53 AM 3/13/2000 -0000, atk@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>The difference between film and cd is you can copy the cd without error --
>so the 10000th copy of the 9999th copy can be the same quality of the 1st
>copy. Try that with film.
I don't think it will be necessary to try it with film. I can go to film
when I want a good digital source to copy from. That's what I do now. I
could do that 10000 times, but I don't need to.
I tried to burn several CDs of John Lennon-originated Beatles songs to a
single CD only to discover that the original Parlophone/EMI/Capitol CDs had
lost some of the musical information, in a couple cases lost Lennon's voice
altogether. Who wants to copy that 10000 times? It was a waste of time
and resources copied even once. I think the technical term is GIGO
(=garbage in garbage out).
Digital may be forever, but that's basically theoretical. From a marketing
standpoint it's hype, and it's dishonest to the extent that the digital
media are so relatively fragile (since last time I checked "forever" was
supposed be more than 10 years). I'm glad I replaced all my Beatles vinyl
with Japanese pressings about ten years ago. The CDs (when they did play
correctly) could not touch the musicality of those records anyway.
When all there is is digital photography, I wonder whether we'll suffer
from palette impoverishment, since different films provide a different
emotional and interpretive palette in which to express one's vision. Like
dictating that all paintings will be in oils, not watercolors.
Sorry for the rant.
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|