mawz wrote:
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.
I simply disagree, as do text books on the subject of analog versus digital media. But hey, perhaps some of these guys will rewrite the text based on quantum physics.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
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.
Um, no. Simply not the case. Using a physical property to record has _nothing_ to do with being analog or not.
An analog signal measures a physical property and produces a continuous output between a maximum and minimum. It's the continuous output which makes it analog.
An analog medium records a continuous signal or a quantized signal at a resolution so high as to be indistinguishable from a continuous signal.
EVERY physical medium uses a physical property of the medium to record. That's the definition of a physical medium, not an analog medium. By your definition a CD is an analog medium (it uses the physical property of reflectivity of the medium to record data).
As to Answers,com, their definitions are simply incorrect. Laughably so. The dictionary.com definition is almost accurate (it's missing the necessary requirement of being a continuous signal)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I simply disagree, as do text books on the subject of analog versus digital media. But hey, perhaps some of these guys will rewrite the text based on quantum physics.
I'm pretty much quoting my Signals textbook here, which is:
Linear Systems and Signals, by B.P. Lathi, second edition 2005.
You won't find a Signals text which doesn't agree with that one on the requirements to be an analog signal. The signal MUST be continuous, or high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from continuous to be analog
mawz wrote:
I'm pretty much quoting my Signals textbook here, which is:
Linear Systems and Signals, by B.P. Lathi, second edition 2005.
You won't find a Signals text which doesn't agree with that one on the requirements to be an analog signal. The signal MUST be continuous, or high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from continuous to be analog
Exactly. Everything I have stated about the random distribution of the non-uniform film grain within the emulsion that forms an image agrees with this.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Per the scientific dictionary definition I posted, quoted and linked to earlier, Yes.
You are arguing against an accepted characteristic of an analog medium.
Umm, no I'm not. And you've yet to link to a scientific dictionary. You've linked to a wiki (Answers.com, whose definition is flat out incorrect) and to reference.com (whose definition is simply incomplete).
By the definition you're using a CD is an analog medium. Which is utterly ridiculous. All physical media use physical properties of the media to record data. That's what makes them physical media. They are NOT analog unless they';re recording a continuous signal or a quantized signal that is high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from a continuous signal.
I'm paraphrasing the following ACTUAL textbook here:
Linear Systems and Signals, by B.P. Lathi, second edition 2005.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Exactly. Everything I have stated about the random distribution of the non-uniform film grain within the emulsion that forms an image agrees with this.
The randomized distribution of the grain does not make it continuous. It makes it randomly distributed. The fact that grain is visible in the print or scan means that it is not high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from a continuous signal (unless printed at low magnifications). If film was a truly analog media there would be no grain visible at any reasonable magnification
That's fine, you can of course disagree with the earth being round if you want. But what everyone here with extensive experience in analog and digital systems is trying to tell you is that your "definition" is not at all in line with what all texts and, most importantly, what all practitioners of analog and digital measurement and processing consider the distinguishing feature of "analog" - namely a continuous rather than discrete measurement.
With regards to a random ensemble of binary detectors being "analog" again no one would agree with you, but see theSuede's apropos comments on the matter. Once you step back far enough from any discrete measurement with enough quantization levels in it the effect is for all intents and purposes "analog".
In any case, the discussion is now pointless and moot as it doesn't relate to what the OP was asking about at all.
mawz wrote:
Umm, no I'm not. And you've yet to link to a scientific dictionary. You've linked to a wiki (Answers.com, whose definition is flat out incorrect) and to reference.com (whose definition is simply incomplete).
By the definition you're using a CD is an analog medium. Which is utterly ridiculous. All physical media use physical properties of the media to record data. That's what makes them physical media. They are NOT analog unless they';re recording a continuous signal or a quantized signal that is high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from a continuous signal.
I linked to Dictionary.com and at the bottom you will see the "Science Dictionary" which is where the quoted definition comes from.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I linked to Dictionary.com and at the bottom you will see the "Science Dictionary" which is where the quoted definition comes from.
The inherent physical property of the medium being used is only ONE characteristic of an Analog medium, not the ONLY characteristic.
The defining characteristic of analog, either a medium or signal, is being continuous or indistinguishable from continuous. Film fails on that (grain is visible in scans and reasonably-sized prints).
The Science Dictionary definition you link to requires that the output be a physical property, but that's true of the output of any transducer, analog or digital (note that film would be a transducer in this case as a transducer simply converts a measurement of one physical property to another physical property).
mawz wrote:
If film was a truly analog media there would be no grain visible at any reasonable magnification
Your statement is incorrect because you could just as easily state that if a vinyl record or magnetic analog tape had any noise, it would not be analog. Of course that's ridiculous.
I tried to read through the whole thread, it is very academic and hard to read.
For me - what does count? If I print out 40 x 30 cm I can see no quality difference between analog and digital when I look at the pictures at a normal distance (no loupe). But analog pictures look more vivid out of cam, but not generally. So at the end it is all the same.
praktinafan wrote:
I tried to read through the whole thread, it is very academic and hard to read.
For me - what does count? If I print out 40 x 30 cm I can see no quality difference between analog and digital when I look at the pictures at a normal distance (no loupe). But analog pictures look more vivid out of cam, but not generally. So at the end it is all the same.
One major difference beyond the aesthetic look of the final product or the way each medium technically works that can be important to the final user is the completely different PROCESS of getting to that end product that each medium entails. For a lot of film users, the process can matter as much or even more then the end product (and that's not to say it does not matter for digital users)...but that's of course totally subjective. The process of creating can certainly influence the final product/ image as well, both in positive and negative ways - pun intended.
uintaangler wrote:
I have seen this expression many times, "I just prefer the look of film"
Which leads me to this question....If you shoot a scene using Medim Format Film and then use a good scanner like the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 to scan the image into Photoshop for some editing - - - Do you still have the look of film? Or have you simply created another digital image?
The look of film in a digitized environment still holds up.
This was photographed in 1982 with a Nikon body and lens (don't recall which body or which lens). What I see in this photograph, among other things, are:
1) The man and child look very alive; living and breathing humans living in the there and now; even my 1Ds II tends to render people as quasi-drawings to a certain extent.
2) The infant's cheeks look naturally round, full and soft; I can imagine touching them and experiencing them feeling that way.
3) The man's hair has a natural coarseness, as does his skin to a certain extent
4) The fine hair and skin details are quite striking ... without being overly sharpened, as is the case with most digital images.
You guys can screw around all you want to with the definition(s) of analog and digital. I will maintain for the time being that film's basic, core qualities hold up nicely when a film image is scanned or otherwise digitized.
mawz wrote:
The Science Dictionary definition you link to requires that the output be a physical property, but that's true of the output of any transducer, analog or digital (note that film would be a transducer in this case as a transducer simply converts a measurement of one physical property to another physical property).
Just to clarify, analog requires that the medium of information storage (what you are referring to as the 'transducer' above) is physical and directly analogous to the original (photochemical reaction of silver to light forming the latent image, grooves of a vinyl record) as opposed to just a mathematical representation that is not dependent upon some inherent physical quality of the medium to store and convey the information of the original in an analogous way. This is the inherent quality, along with the continuous nature aspect, that defines an analog medium.
veroman wrote:
The look of film in a digitized environment still holds up.
This was photographed in 1982 with a Nikon body and lens (don't recall which body or which lens). What I see in this photograph, among other things, are:
1) The man and child look very alive; living and breathing humans living in the there and now; even my 1Ds II tends to render people as quasi-drawings to a certain extent.
2) The infant's cheeks look naturally round, full and soft; I can imagine touching them and experiencing them feeling that way.
3) The man's hair has a natural coarseness, as does his skin to a certain extent
4) The fine hair and skin details are quite striking ... without being overly sharpened, as is the case with most digital images.
You guys can screw around all you want to with the definition(s) of analog and digital. I will maintain for the time being that film's basic, core qualities hold up nicely when a film image is scanned or otherwise digitized.
That is an absolutely beautiful image! It is what I aspire to capture some day. Thank you for sharing!
p.s. While I know that this thread is supposed to be about the virtues of one media over another, I just had to interject that this photograph represents what I believe photography is all about; capturing a defining moment. It has captured a moment in time which defined the emotions of two human beings. This photograph speaks on a very emotional level.
That is an absolutely beautiful image! It is what I aspire to capture some day. Thank you for sharing!
p.s. While I know that this thread is supposed to be about the virtues of one media over another, I just had to interject that this photograph represents what I believe photography is all about; capturing a defining moment. It has captured a moment in time which defined the emotions of two human beings. This photograph speaks on a very emotional level.
You are quite welcome ... and I agree with you. The emotional content of the image is very strong. That's one of the reasons I posted it as opposed to posting some others. I believe that the emotional content comes through as powerfully as it does because the image is film-based. Had it been shot digitally to begin with, I think something would have been lost.
And that is where we part ways, since I have taken heaps of shots (Both on film and on digital) and I never seem to find that emotional content gets lost in the binary translations on my sensor. I suspect that is a matter of either taste or placebo. The image is great, I just think that it would not have lost it's greatness had it been taken digitally
I agree with Ulrik. It isn't emotion that gets lost in digital, unless the artist is unable to handle the medium. This does happen often though, and could be compared to the quality of films with a high CG content. The ability to use digital to shoot cost-free encourages many not to use this merely for speeding up learning, but to shoot more with lower average quality. Anyone who thinks about what they want to shoot carefully, with digital as with film, can get shots which are just as good, and just as emotional.
To answer to the original question, the scanner will record whatever information the film has. So you will still get the film-like qualities, whatever these may be. Otherwise, you could take the arguement the other way around:
If a scanned film image looks like a digital then, does a printed digital image look like a printed film image, due to loosing the "digital" qualities by being transferred to an analogue medium (the print) via an analogue process (the printing)? Well, no, they still retain their film/digital qualities.
Also, for those comparing film and saying you can make film look like digital and digital like film. Yes you could probably make a 35mm shot look like a 5DII/D700 shot. However you cannot make a 120 film (or larger) look like a 5DII/D700 shoot for the same reasons that you cannot make a 70D/D300 shot look like a 5DII/D700 shot. You could compare medium format film to medium format digital, of course. But the thing with MF digital is that it costs so much that you if you have it, either you don't need convincing and know what you're getting out of it or you shouldn't be using it.
All the other techno-mumbo-jumbo is just silly. You can argue yourself to the tiniest detail but the end result is that film is a different look to digital. It is not better or worse.
