> At 2003/04/03 Thu AM 09:43:22 CEST
> petertje@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
>
> I'm a fan of the following way of thinking. When you enlarge
> a picture that's been taken with film, there's a certain threshold
> where the grain starts showing up. If the film is any good, this
> appears pleasing to humans because it's irregular. When you do the
> same with digital, it appears unpleasing because of the regular
> raster. No in-camera or post processing can change this.
Peter, I think you are absolutely right!
Irregular grain is a lot more appealing than the regular boxes produced in the
digital process. But, of course, when the digital raster is so fine that you
cannot spot it, it doesn't matter anymore.
> Then again, all these discussions are probably the same as CD vs.
> records. No, you don't get the cracks and ticks noise with digital.
> No, the superior "quality" (what a subjective term) cannot be proven
> despite all the numbers thrown at that job.
>
> I play cds and yes, they sound very well on *my* stereo to *my* ears.
This comparison with digital vs. analogue sound is well found. Harmonious
distortion, for example, is a lot more pleasing to the ear than is digital
jitter. Again, it is the amount of jitter (or lack of resolution or any other
problem in the digital sound) that is important. If it is really low, then
these digital problems are of lesser importance.
And I would add to this a little "theory" of my own :o) People are different!
(Oh, you *did* know? :)
The implication of this is of course that people may differ as to which is the
best. Some people cannot stand digital jitter that is inaudible to others (of
course, they may not know it is jitter, but they think the sound is bad). And
vice versa, some people object to analogue noise and hiss that is almost
inaudible or not very important to others. Then we have the masking effects
when you go from digital to analogue or vice versa. The harmonious distortion
of an analogue tape will mask the jitter effect of a CD, and to some ears the
(obviously inferior) tape copy may sound "better" than the original CD. It is
a matter of difference - different taste and/or different hearing capabilities.
Shall we try to apply this on digital vs. film pictures. If you compare a film
picture that is very grainy to a high resolution digital photo most people
would probably prefer the digital, unless they are very fond of grain. But as
we choose less and less grainy film and compare with a digital picture with
less and less resolution, the point when you start to prefer the film over
digital may differ between different people. It is more or less a matter of
taste. And probably even more so if we talk of colour balance instead of
resolution.
Therefore: There is not possible to say that digital or analogue is inherently
"better", neither in sound nor in photograpy. However, as digital is getting
better and better, fewer are preferring the analogue alternative.
And the technique one prefers is often the easiest way *for me* to work on a
picture
Maybe I've just stated the obvious, but I think that the 'people are different
aspect' often is forgotten.
Now, quality isn't everything...
>
> Another really bad thing is that some cameras store their pictures in JPEG
> format.
>
Here you touch another problem with digicams that I think I want to come back
to when I have hade a little more time to prepare. That is the issue of
preservation of the digital "originals".
-poo
< 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 >
|