mendonphoto Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 <p><i>When did clumps of material deposits, obstructing the path of a "light wave" (analogue) somehow become digital? Light is analogue, in any of it's forms, even if pulsed, amplified, filtered or otherwise.</i></p> <p>When did very high frequency (analog) light waves being variably reflected off of a CD become digital?</p> <p>The method of producing prints from either format (which is what you are talking about) has nothing to do with this discussion.</p> <p><i>There is nothing numeric about material deposits.</i></p> <p>There's not? Film grain, when processed, doesn't end up in one of two very distinct states? Are you saying that with a relatively cheap microscope, I couldn't map out and describe with coordinates every single grain on a frame of film? I must be in a total fog about how film works, then. Explain to me then how it really works.</p> <p><i>Just an aside, you can't bend zero's and one's, you can bend light.</i></p> <p>Oh, puuulleeezzzeee! That has nothing to do with anything. Just an aside, the same [bendable] light that is exposing film is exposing a "digital" image sensor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 >>Film grain is random, but still discrete and digital<< grain is digital? Perhaps we should define DIGITAL as it relates to the SAMPLING of ANALOG values. A digital representation of a 440HZ wave is NOT analog and will never be analog. Viceversa film GRAIN is, was and will remain analog. Just like a painting done in the style of "puntinismo" (fr. "pointillisme"), is still analog even if it's made of thousands of little dots. If I draw 100 dots with a black pen on a white paper it is NOT digital, and neither is grain. An inkpen drawing is not digital either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 It all depends where you want to see the digital or analog. The film grains do not represent continuous information of the scene. Their positions are arbitrary but fixed and the positions are not continuously determined by the light that hits the film. So it's like digital, except the photosites are not spaced in a regular grid, but in a random pattern. The pattern can only be described precisely in the analog domain, but the pattern is not an analog (exact, no discretization) representation of the light that came from the subject. Photons analog? Hmm. Interesting thought. Objects are not either analog or digital, information is represented in an analog or digital manner. I guess physical objects in space have *positions* which are in the analog domain but the objects themselves are not D or A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I think you're all lost in a sea of wave/particle duality, without shedding much useful light. In principle, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Digital is a subset of analog in electrical engineering. The raw signal outputs off of "digital" tape; CD's; hard drives; DVD's is NEVER a square wave; but a crude analog transisition; that logically is a transistion enough to be thought as an on or off state. The raw signal outputs of a digital storage devices is abit of a mess; when pushed to "state of the art" recording densities. In electronic still image capture; analog was the technique used in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Calling "film" analog is marketing BS by losers; who like to create cute new terms; for century old established industry terms. It creates confusion; thus if fills the marketers goals of BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 "When did very high frequency (analog) light waves being variably reflected off of a CD become digital?" When you stop in for shooters, give some Johnny Walker Red a consideration. Try it neat and don't gulp it cause it should be sipped and enjoyed:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 "Oh, puuulleeezzzeee! That has nothing to do with anything. Just an aside, the same [bendable] light that is exposing film is exposing a "digital" image sensor." You really do need to go have a few drinks:) Photography: "The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces." Analog-to-Digital converter: "Device for converting analogue signals into digital signals." Wishing you the best with your windmill tilting:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendonphoto Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 And I wish you the best with your insightless regurgitation of dictionary definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Barry Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 <p> <blockquote><em>Photography:<br> "The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces." </em></blockquote> <p> Thomas, you're going to have to get a better definition for photography. CCDs and CMOS sensors are both photosensitive surfaces. Not that I have a preference one way or the other (I still shoot film). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 "Thomas, you're going to have to get a better definition for photography. CCDs and CMOS sensors are both photosensitive surfaces." "Not that I have a preference one way or the other (I still shoot film)." Photo: From Greek: Phos or Light. Graphy: From both Latin and Greek: Graphia: to write. "Writing or representation produced in a specified manner or by a specified process: photography." Photography means "To write with light." It's not specific as to how that process is to be acomplished. So far, I'm doing just fine:) Some here are pedantic and polemic in nature. When put to task their dialectic efforts become a bit thread bare as they should put more effort into their didacticism:) This stuff has already been figured out as to what is analogue and what is digital but it seems some want to use their very own, personally created out of convenience, lexicon to suit their capricious nature.<p> Can we say phantasmagorical:) Aren't words fun:) LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendonphoto Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Thomas found a thesaurus. I'm really not trying to prove that film cameras are "digital". But, they're not analog, either - neither in the common, nor the strict definition of the word. If somebody wants to prove me wrong, fine. I can handle it. But, it better be somebody that knows a little more about digital/analog than a parrot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomHildreth Posted February 8, 2005 Author Share Posted February 8, 2005 OK then, it's (un)settled. I've considered all your replies and I thank you for each. The one involving a couple of shots of Johnny Walker Red is at the moment the most attractive. But I had better leave that until after I answer this guy's email. I'll assume he is using a trendy adjective to descibe a film camera and respond accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Wall Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Language is a living thing. We're changing it right now, as we communicate in various ways. Cool, huh?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cougar_allen Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 The reason it's irritating is it's using a three syllable word for a thing that already has a perfectly good one syllable word. It's also likely to cause confusion, which "film camera" does not. And it's a new usage that does not seem to have any advantage whatsoever. The term "analog watch" has an advantage -- it's the most concise way to say it. "Analog camera" doesn't have that advantage. Does it have any advantage? I can't see any.... -Cougar :{) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 "But, it better be somebody that knows a little more about digital/analog than a parrot." And it would be better if someone knew more about the English language than a parrot:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loreneidahl Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Any camera that does not have a "D" in the name. :) :) A joke. until photo collection devices came around that used Digital in their name, their was no "Analog" camera. Their were just "Cameras" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpdno Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Analog - as in film. APUG.org - The Analog Photography Users Group APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes. APUG is sponsored by member and corporate donations. The site is based on an 'open source' model. In other words, this site is driven by the feedback and content we receive from our members. APUG is an active photographic community; our forums contain a highly detailed archive of traditional and historic photographic processes. We'd like to thank all of the photographers out there who have given us the encouragement to see this concept through. ...as an example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 What are your thoughts on the use of the term "analog camera"? The meaning of the word analog seems to have been changed, by some. They can call it what they want, but it doesn't make it correct in usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 IT seems that the term Analog Camera confuses some who think of film as a non-analog medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 To me an analog camera has vacuum tubes and burns a quart of oil per hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now