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: bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Tue Feb 14 12:37:26 2006

Hairsplitting? On the LUG? Nooooooo.


On 2/14/06 3:28 PM, "Didier Ludwig" <rangefinder@screengang.com> wrote:

> 
>> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from rangefinder at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig) ([Leica] digital or analogue)
In reply to: Message from rangefinder at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig) ([Leica] digital or analogue)