gdanmitchell wrote:
Then the sun will gradually expand in size and ultimately form a supernova, destroying the earth. Later, the universe itself may either inflate into complete disorder, or perhaps instead compact upon itself in a big crunch.
What will you do then, huh? Huh!?
Since we're off the subject, the sun doesn't have enough mass to supernova, but we will be destroyed in a red giant if that makes you feel better.
Besides, no one is saying that the 5D proponents will be huddled in a dark room protecting their coveted cameras from the evil techno-geeks.
Eventually they'll love another camera just as much, just not the 5D2.
surf monkey wrote:
Besides, no one is saying that the 5D proponents will be huddled in a dark room protecting their coveted cameras from the evil techno-geeks.
I am.
Eventually they'll love another camera just as much, just not the 5D2.
Blasphemy! You'll rot in Hell for that one. Heathen!
Blasphemy! You'll rot in Hell for that one. Heathen!
You know you're just fueling the fire for the people that think "your kind" are a bunch of crazies. I mean more crazy than the rest of us, like Smeagol crazy.
And I thought I was going to hell for my need for more "Zeiss 3Dness."
yes, exactly. film forms an image with elements that "resemble or suggest forms found in nature" which is why I used the analogy of the distribution of different colored sand grains on a beach further back in this thread... this is the basis of film imaging whereas digital is based on an array of hypothetically perfect squares (where do you see them in nature?).
I went to the Art Inst. Chicago and Detroit College of Creative Studies... both of which are much less rigorous than say the Pasedina Art Center... but I can tell you that there was no highly restrictive definition of the term "organic" when used in the discussion of art... it was always based more on "feeling."
Granted, the typical FMer has no time for emotion and feelings (while worrying about back focusing and corner resolving power of L-lenses)... but some people are capable of operating in this realm and do find it meaningful.
surf monkey wrote:
Fine Arts definition: of or pertaining to the shapes or forms in a work of art that are of irregular contour and seem to resemble or suggest forms found in nature.
I'm not sure how this usage of the term can be applied to the way it's used in this discussion. Usually in art or architecture or other forms of design, organic refers to a smooth shape or asymmetric form.
mh2000 wrote:
yes, exactly. film forms an image with elements that "resemble or suggest forms found in nature" which is why I used the analogy of the distribution of different colored sand grains on a beach further back in this thread... this is the basis of film imaging whereas digital is based on an array of hypothetically perfect squares (where do you see them in nature?).
In reality, digital (bayer) images are not captured as squares. Yes, the photosites are square, but the light hitting one comes from a soft bordered circle, thanks to the anti - aliasing filter. Furthermore, the demosaic process uses information from adjacent sensels.
A more correct approximation would be that digital images are captured as regular array samples of overlapping discs.
It is the processed image that is supposed to be represented by square pixels, because that is the most efficient way for computers to handle them. However, unsharpened images can be interpolated with no loss of information, and then be overlaid irregular structures. The purpose of my example was to show how a digital image can be represented liberated from square pixels. The simulated grain could have been done way better, but you get the point.
Look at the teeth and lower lip. The organic looking lip (it looks like a lip, which is an organ) was acheived by representing the array samples of discs as something else than an array of squares.
dhphoto wrote:
What does that mean? How do you define organic?
Lol, I knew that was going to be trouble...
I only mean; as opposed to more digital <what ever that means....
The images on my 5DMK2 are warmer and richer than my 1DsMK2, (which I know is just that way they are processed in camera). I was just trying to make a point that they do not look more digital (whatever "more digital" means)
mh2000 wrote:
it may not be the best the of terms, but that's what is used in art schools etc... so we are stuck with it.
>>organic may not be the best term to use in regards to the image quality
Bingo - it's a freakin buzzword. Essentially when I pressed an artist friend on this she waffed and finally said to her it mean smooth flowing shape and form versus sharp, hard and industrial looking stuff. Interestingly people seem to react to the word - probably because of all the social pressure to perceive organic=good=natural.
So - I don't use the word organic when I describe the difference. But there *is* a difference and I react more positively on an aesthetic level as an artist to my 5D files than I do my 5D MkII files.
surf monkey wrote:
You know you're just fueling the fire for the people that think "your kind" are a bunch of crazies. I mean more crazy than the rest of us, like Smeagol crazy.
And I thought I was going to hell for my need for more "Zeiss 3Dness."
I don't know you guys personally but I love you anyway!
*raises a toast to Smeagol-crazies everywhere*
Yes, I understand all that, but that all doesn't matter to me because at the end of the day, I am only given an array of square pixels. Your example does look "better" to my eye at that magnification, but it still reads as very digital and lacking depth. You aren't "liberating" your image from square pixels, just interpolating with smaller square pixels with the introduction of noise... no information (based on the source) has been created.
alundeb wrote:
In reality, digital (bayer) images are not captured as squares. Yes, the photosites are square, but the light hitting one comes from a soft bordered circle, thanks to the anti - aliasing filter. Furthermore, the demosaic process uses information from adjacent sensels.
A more correct approximation would be that digital images are captured as regular array samples of overlapping discs.
It is the processed image that is supposed to be represented by square pixels, because that is the most efficient way for computers to handle them. However, unsharpened images can be interpolated with no loss of information, and then be overlaid irregular structures. The purpose of my example was to show how a digital image can be represented liberated from square pixels. The simulated grain could have been done way better, but you get the point.
Look at the teeth and lower lip. The organic looking lip (it looks like a lip, which is an organ) was acheived by representing the array samples of discs as something else than an array of squares. ...Show more →
mh2000 wrote:
Yes, I understand all that, but that all doesn't matter to me because at the end of the day, I am only given an array of square pixels. Your example does look "better" to my eye at that magnification, but it still reads as very digital and lacking depth. You aren't "liberating" your image from square pixels, just interpolating with smaller square pixels with the introduction of noise... no information (based on the source) has been created.
The intended reference was drum scans oversampling the film grain, and that would have those small pixels too.
I wonder if a 375 megapixel drum scan of anything from APS-C to Medium Format film would have more depth at the same magnification...
FYI - the largest non interpolated drum scan file from a full frame 35mm is about 240mb in 8 bit RGB making that about 80 megapixels worth of data. That doesn't mean you get 80 megapixels worth of detail though, as most film - maybe TechPan excepted - and certainly most lenses doesn't come near that ability to resolve detail. Howtek and Aztek use a 3 micron scanning aperture giving 8000 ppi. ICG claims 12,000 ppi optical but I think they are still using a 3 micron aperture so it has to be interpolated in at least one direction.
My training is also in the arts, though not specifically in visual arts. I've heard the term used meaningfully to describe something that seems to be "of a whole" - essentially an integrated structure. I've also heard it used to describe forms that remind one of "natural" objects - in other words, something with an organic form might have a form seeming more related to a biological structure (plant, animal, etc) than to a synthetic structure.
Vague stuff, for sure, but when those who share the context hear those terms they do have some meaning. (Occasionally a pretentious meaning, but not always.) In fact, those who use the term in these contexts have a shared idea of what it means. They can even articulate it in sensible form.
I haven't seen that any one can do that regarding the use of the term "organic" to compare two digital cameras - e.g. describe the thing that makes it organic or agree to the perception of it.
Dan
mh2000 wrote:
yes, exactly. film forms an image with elements that "resemble or suggest forms found in nature" which is why I used the analogy of the distribution of different colored sand grains on a beach further back in this thread... this is the basis of film imaging whereas digital is based on an array of hypothetically perfect squares (where do you see them in nature?).
I went to the Art Inst. Chicago and Detroit College of Creative Studies... both of which are much less rigorous than say the Pasedina Art Center... but I can tell you that there was no highly restrictive definition of the term "organic" when used in the discussion of art... it was always based more on "feeling."
Granted, the typical FMer has no time for emotion and feelings (while worrying about back focusing and corner resolving power of L-lenses)... but some people are capable of operating in this realm and do find it meaningful.
I'm on the fence... I see images that I might consider "more organic" than others... very subtle... I was more in this for all the OT content anyway.
Bingo! The problem is that vague and subtle terms are only meaningful to those that care about them (like Eskimos talking about snow for instance... it's just freaking snow to me).
Really, I can see differences in images coming from different cameras, even cameras that I've tested side by side, but it has hardly ever been "hit me over the head," levels of differences...
Just for the record, I have heard musicians talk about organic sound when they are using digital equipment too... I don't know anything about music, but from what I heard I could kind of hear it... even though it was all digitally synthesized sound...
gdanmitchell wrote:
My training is also in the arts, though not specifically in visual arts. I've heard the term used meaningfully to describe something that seems to be "of a whole" - essentially an integrated structure. I've also heard it used to describe forms that remind one of "natural" objects - in other words, something with an organic form might have a form seeming more related to a biological structure (plant, animal, etc) than to a synthetic structure.
Vague stuff, for sure, but when those who share the context hear those terms they do have some meaning. (Occasionally a pretentious meaning, but not always.) In fact, those who use the term in these contexts have a shared idea of what it means. They can even articulate it in sensible form.
I haven't seen that any one can do that regarding the use of the term "organic" to compare two digital cameras - e.g. describe the thing that makes it organic or agree to the perception of it.
