Thank you mawz, you're one of the first to actually seem to grasp that difference outside the inner circle of analog afficionados at Fraunhofer and some people at Kodak I've met.
The only valid modification I can think of is that grain often "clogs", building unified structures of maybe 4-8 units combined. This makes them 3-bit digital entities - not 1-bit - at pseudo-random spatial intervals. Digital is ~11bit entities at ordered intervals.
Regarding "having seen very large format negatives":
I have. I've also seen prints from scanning backs (11x16cm, 8.000x18.000 pixels) printed in 42" width large format printers - at 200dpi real resolution. I've also seen panoramas made from 20 seconds worth of handheld shots (and 60s of number-crunching in a computer), giving you HDR possibilities in a 20x30.000 pixel area and Adobe RGB+ gamut prints in mural sizes. Let me tell you, sheet film isn't even close (unless you're into the extreme contrast presentation camp, where all you need is 6Ev between plugged black and blown white).
Colour is actually where I see the biggest difference, it's very close to impossible to get accurate colour out of negative film. Some people may LIKE the distorted colours, but from a factual, objectivistic PoV they literally [insert censored words here, involving suckling, rear ends and goats].
Anyone that's ever tried to get a good catalogue print, or have done some art repro from film originals know what I'm talking about. "Nice colours" for personal more artistic means is one thing, but unfortunately the national archives, Ford, Clinique and Ikea (and also most smaller publications/companies if they have any AD woth the name) couldn't care less. They want accurate colour, not "artistic" colour. I also know from first-hand experience about the amount of work that has to be done to correct film "original" colours in publications like NG.
But as Makten says, a smaller, cheaper, simplified high quality camera body is sadly missing from the scene right now. FM2's seem rather sought after btw, I haven't found any for less than 500kr (50€) - though the 50/1.8AIS is often icluded.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
2) Film, as the recording medium, does record in a non-discrete or continuous nature no matter what logic you attempt to employ to convince yourself otherwise!
No, that is flat out wrong, read even the most basic introduction to film and darkroom chemistry. There are numerous texts in the library, and numerous articles available from film and developer manufacturers on the web. FILM IS NOT A CONTINUOUS MEDIA - IT NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Wow, I come back after a few days and you guys have convinced yourselves that film is not an analog medium. By definition, of course it is. It meets these requirements:
1) Film uses a physical property of the medium itself to record. Digital does not. Thus, we have a photochemical reaction that creates a latent image with traditional photography. With digital, even though the ccd itself may be an analog device, this is recorded as a mathematical representation which leads to the discrete nature of digital.
2) Film, as the recording medium, does record in a non-discrete or continuous nature no matter what logic you attempt to employ to convince yourself otherwise!...Show more →
Wrong, on both accounts... :-)
The only thing that is purely "analog" with film captures is the spacing between the grains. That property is fairly analog, until you get silly and look at it from a quantum PoV.
What most people like about film is the noise. Not that it is there, but that it is almost perfectly random, both in strength and in grain placement. My guess is that the placement is more important than the strength. Film has a total lack of aliasing effects, one of the most visually disturbing defects with digital captures.
theSuede wrote:
Wrong, on both accounts... :-)
The only thing that is purely "analog" with film captures is the spacing between the grains. That property is fairly analog, until you get silly and look at it from a quantum PoV.
What most people like about film is the noise. Not that it is there, but that it is almost perfectly random, both in strength and in grain placement. My guess is that the placement is more important than the strength. Film has a total lack of aliasing effects, one of the most visually disturbing defects with digital captures.
I disagree of course but you did not address the main reason that film is considered an analog medium - that a physical property of the medium (film) is employed to record.
kwalsh wrote:
No, that is flat out wrong, read even the most basic introduction to film and darkroom chemistry. There are numerous texts in the library, and numerous articles available from film and developer manufacturers on the web. FILM IS NOT A CONTINUOUS MEDIA - IT NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE.
Ken
Film responds to light in a continuous nature. You can conceptualize 'zones' of tonality or whatnot but these are not discrete with gaps between them. There is a smooth, continuous transition between these tones which is the bases for a non-discrete medium, unlike digital where we can easily measure the bit depth and gaps.
By the way, I'm not here advocating one medium over the other, just stating the facts!
pawlowski6132 wrote:
Huh. Interesting. I'm not sure film is not analog though. I understand what you're saying about the Silver Halide crystals but, they are not just exposed or not exposed to light. Or, maybe it is on the molecular level, when you're talking about individual photons of light but, isn't more practical to talk about the amount of light striking a part of the film? Doesn't that continuous aspect of light lend itself more to an analog medium
Silver Halide grains are either exposed or not exposed. Their size determines the light quantity necessary to expose an individual grain (not at the molecular level but at the grain clump level). The variation in density comes from the number of exposed grains at any location and as they vary in size (and thus sensitivity) to get varying density. This is also why faster film is grainier.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I disagree of course but you did not address the main reason that film is considered an analog medium - that a physical property of the medium (film) is employed to record.
Where are you getting this "definition" of analog from? I can find it nowhere, and I've never heard your representation of it despite 20 years spent straddling the analog and digital domains.
The most apropos things I could find:
Webster:
"of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities"
New Oxford American:
"relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position or voltage."
And film fails this definition, it doesn't record continuously - it records discretely.
Again, its discrete counting method is very different from a digital sensor's discrete counting method and hence it really does have a very different character but it certainly isn't analog. As already pointed out, the only thing "analog" about it is the irregular spatial distribution of its binary recording grains.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Film responds to light in a continuous nature. You can conceptualize 'zones' of tonality or whatnot but these are not discrete with gaps between them. There is a smooth, continuous transition between these tones which is the bases for a non-discrete medium, unlike digital where we can easily measure the bit depth and gaps.
By the way, I'm not here advocating one medium over the other, just stating the facts!
I'm not advocating one or the other either, I've used and loved both naturally. But your facts aren't facts, they are wrong. Go read up on the subject, as everyone is telling you film is not a continuous medium!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I disagree of course but you did not address the main reason that film is considered an analog medium - that a physical property of the medium (film) is employed to record.
While that is correct as to being a property of film, it has absolutely nothing to do with being analog. It is entirely possible for a medium to be analog and recorded purely electronically (most audio tape is exactly thus) or to be digital and recorded entirely physically as a property of the medium. For historical reasons most physical media is analog, but that's correlation not causation.
@Tariq: In Ken's explanation above, he seems to claim that film grains (or small clusters of them) are either exposed and converted to silver by the developer, or not -- so that would mean they are binary. Film grains can't be partially exposed. If that is true, then there is no continuous tone, but only dithered tone. Exposure translates to a number of exposed grains, not the darkness of the individual grains.
Edit: I see the others have chimed in already.
Anyway, I'm glad I learnt this little fact of information. I'm sure I have read about this many years ago, but it did slip from my memory.
kwalsh wrote:
Where are you getting this "definition" of analog from? I can find it nowhere, and I've never heard your representation of it despite 20 years spent straddling the analog and digital domains.
The most apropos things I could find:
Webster:
"of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities"
New Oxford American:
"relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position or voltage."
And film fails this definition, it doesn't record continuously - it records discretely.
Again, its discrete counting method is very different from a digital sensor's discrete counting method and hence it really does have a very different character but it certainly isn't analog. As already pointed out, the only thing "analog" about it is the irregular spatial distribution of its binary recording grains.
This is THE most widely known difference between a digital and an analog medium. I would be surprised if the engineers and scientist around here did not chime in.
"analog or analogue (ān'ə-lôg') Pronunciation Key
Adjective Measuring or representing data by means of one or more physical properties that can express any value along a continuous scale. For example, the position of the hands of a clock is an analog representation of time. Compare digital "
mawz wrote:
While that is correct as to being a property of film, it has absolutely nothing to do with being analog. It is entirely possible for a medium to be analog and recorded purely electronically (most audio tape is exactly thus) or to be digital and recorded entirely physically as a property of the medium. For historical reasons most physical media is analog, but that's correlation not causation.
Wrong, tape records using the magnetic property of the medium itself to represent the sound waves.
kwalsh wrote:
Where are you getting this "definition" of analog from? I can find it nowhere, and I've never heard your representation of it despite 20 years spent straddling the analog and digital domains.
The most apropos things I could find:
Webster:
"of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities"
New Oxford American:
"relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position or voltage."
And film fails this definition, it doesn't record continuously - it records discretely.
Again, its discrete counting method is very different from a digital sensor's discrete counting method and hence it really does have a very different character but it certainly isn't analog. As already pointed out, the only thing "analog" about it is the irregular spatial distribution of its binary recording grains.
AhamB wrote:
@Tariq: In Ken's explanation above, he seems to claim that film grains (or small clusters of them) are either exposed and converted to silver by the developer, or not -- so that would mean they are binary. Film grains can't be partially exposed. If that is true, then there is no continuous tone, but only dithered tone. Exposure translates to a number of exposed grains, not the darkness of the individual grains.
Edit: I see the others have chimed in already.
Anyway, I'm glad I learnt this little fact of information. I'm sure I have read about this many years ago, but it did slip from my memory....Show more →
Again, it's the random distribution of the film grain.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Wrong, tape records using the magnetic property of the medium itself to represent the sound waves.
And that has nothing to do with being analog (in fact tapes can record analog or digital signals, both representing the sound waves that were recorded).
Tariq, a spatial distribution delta of quanta can only make the medium "analog" if the resolution is high enough to be "not discernible".
So yes, if you never print a 24x36mm frame film larger than 6x9", and you never look at that print up close, then film fills most of the prerequisites of being "analog".
The parallel to analog tape audio is unfortunate since that medium contains another integration factor that images don't. Width.
The magnetic signal is put onto the magnetic tape in a "width" travelling over the length of the tape - not in a "point". What you read from the tape is an integration of maybe thousands of magnetic entities at any one (analog!) point in time. This in itself gives you a 10-bit signal level resolution, and that's before you even consider that the magnetic particles in themselves have maybe 6 bits of excitation levels.
In pictures you don't have this resolution enhancement factor. You can't integrate a 1x1mm area and say that that area has got a usable "resolution". In a picture you either have grains placed (and activated) at the right places to give you a semblance of resolution - or you don't.
All from this page but I'm sort of over arguing the obvious. You guys should know better...but then there is that over 200 post thread on Zeiss lenses, overrated or not!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This is THE most widely known difference between a digital and an analog medium. I would be surprised if the engineers and scientist around here did not chime in.
"analog or analogue (ān'ə-lôg') Pronunciation Key
Adjective Measuring or representing data by means of one or more physical properties that can express any value along a continuous scale. For example, the position of the hands of a clock is an analog representation of time. Compare digital "
Tariq, the Engineers are chiming in. They're the ones arguing with you. (I've got the equivalent of an Associate's Degree in Electrical Engineering and am currently in my 3rd year of my B. Eng in Electrical Engineering after over a decade in the networking business. IIRC theSuede and Ken are both Engineers).
What you are missing in the definition is the 'continuous' part. Film is discrete, not continuous because of how film grains are exposed or not exposed. The randomization of grain position does not alter this. The definition you just posted in fact proves the opposite point.
mawz wrote:
And that has nothing to do with being analog (in fact tapes can record analog or digital signals, both representing the sound waves that were recorded).
Analog tape can record whatever but the medium itself is still an analog medium due to the fact that a physical property of the tape (medium) is employed to record.
