Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] digital or analogue
From: rangefinder at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig)
Date: Tue Feb 14 12:28:06 2006
References: <6237B136-D9A3-4FE2-854E-CCCD05D93EC5@ralgo.nl> <m9e4v157lv52cu1ldgtle4a7qs9lq27sfg@4ax.com>
 
>Not sure where the digital vs. analog got started...  This isn't the first
>place I've seen it.  Traditional film is *not* analog.  If you want to
>classify it between digital and analog, you'd have to classify film emulsion
>as digital, too.  :)

We can talk about if film is analog or not, but there's no doubt it has no 
digital character at all. Film emulsion is not rasterized in a straight 
matrix. The grains sizes are varying, and their arrangement is stochastic 
and three-dimensional. Even the sensibility may change from grain to grain 
(one of the reasons why grain can be seen on shots with low light).

If film is analog or not, doesn't mind very much, as long as everyone knows 
what's meant with analog. Going further might turn into hairsplitting... ;-)
 
Didier
Replies: Reply from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] digital or analogue)
Reply from frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE) ([Leica] digital or analogue)
Reply from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] digital or analogue)
 In reply to: Message from bruce at ralgo.nl (bruce) ([Leica] digital or analogue)
Message from ericm at pobox.com (Eric) ([Leica] digital or analogue)