Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: So digital can do it all?

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: So digital can do it all?
From: poo@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:08:01 +0200
> 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz