Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Frank, which , at the end of the day, is all a matter of sampling accuracy/density (how fine we can resolve, or the number of sensors/grains/receptors involved) which in turn defines the quality of what we see or hear. This is where we start getting into fractal relationships - the large mirrored in the small. ( "......and so, ad infinitum." QED: there is actually no difference between digital and "analogue" photography after all - some people may not be pleased. Roll on the sensors at a molecular level! Douglas FRANK DERNIE wrote: >Hi Douglas, >Sound is converted by movement of a finite number of >tiny hairs in our cochlea. The signal received by our >brain is therefore digital (or maybe quantised is the >correct term? what is the difference?). I suppose one >could say that since everything is quantised it can be >digitally represented, even if the sampling frequency >is random. >Frank >--- Douglas Sharp <douglas.sharp@gmx.de> wrote: > > > >>Possibly in the sense of sampling an image in tiny >>pieces i.e. film >>grains and pixels? The only difference being that >>digital has an ordered >>(matrix) structure - what would film look like if >>grain wasn't randomly >>distributed? >>Frank, I gather you mean the conversion of wave >>motion to electrical >>impulses when you say our ears are digital, or am I >>missing something? >>Douglas >> >>FRANK DERNIE wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi Didier, >>>what definition of digital are you using here? In >>> >>> >>what >> >> >>>way does film have "no digital character at all" ? >>>AFAIU it -is- digital, like our ears, for example. >>>Frank >>> >>>--- 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Leica Users Group. >>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for >>> >>> >>more information >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Leica Users Group. >>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for >>more information >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > >