The fact that several (no more) prominent people still use film is not evidence that it is better. In all practical ways digital has exceeded the capability of film for some time. Certainly if there is an effect which one wishes to achieve, using a vintage LF lens for example, film may have to be the choice but that does not make film better, just an appropriate choice in some circumstances. Analogue sound is the same. The fact that some people prefer the sound of analogue is not evidence that it is better (I am one by the way) but that it matches their taste in sound. My Mum likes her old valve (tube) radio - "lovely tone" and it does sound nice, but there are no high frequencies at all, along the same lines as LPs in real world systems but more extreme. When Meridian, the digital specialists, were looking at the frequency and amplitude of the "music data" on LP records the -highest- dynamic range they found was equivalent to 11-bit IIRC, though many "experts" attribute the inferiority of digital as they hear it to the inadequacy of 16 bit recording, which it almost certainly can't be. The shortcoming of the 44.1kHz sampling frequency is a different story in real engineering implementation though. I designed high end HiFi equipment for a while. I have never seen so many ridiculous pseudo-technological explanations for real phenomena in any other field of work I have done.
cheers, Frank On 12 Jan, 2009, at 14:58, Eric Goldstein wrote:
Hi Rob - I think we have to choose our words carefully here. Yes, digital capture will continue to evolve and continue to replace film as a mainstream technology. As to whether it will "surpass" it is a dicey matter. Remember, there are the cognoscenti who still operate analog tape recording studios and have no shortage of customers recording top-end albums there. And vinyl has reemerged as a small, top-end premium medium for recording distribution. Film has been the dominant visual technology for about a century, a remarkable stretch of time, and it was inevitable that it be largely replaced by something else. But I suspect film will remain with us as a small, top-end market for those who can afford to work in the best medium available. Film-makers such as Scorsese and Coppola have gone on record that they will NEVER use HD/digital capture as a first generation medium; we will see who will follow in their footsteps. I am confident some will even many years from now... Eric Goldstein --On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Robert Lilley <54moggie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:Eric,But as you sort of said, it peaked and it's not evolving. Whether I like it or not, the 'emerging technology of digital imaging' will eventually surpassfilm. Rob On Jan 12, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Eric Goldstein wrote:Hi Elias - Fair is in the eye of the beholder but my point really is to use the comparison to demonstrate the difference in the maturity between thetwo industries. 50 years ago, Rollei could design a film camera whichis still close to the best available all these many years later, and which even bests the emerging technology of digital imaging on just about every measure but low-light shooting and turn-around... Eric Goldstein -- On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Aaron - Yes, I mis-spoke... it is the 25th anniversary of Macintosh. Eric Goldstein --On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Aaron Reece <oboeaaron@xxxxxxx> wrote:On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Eric Goldstein wrote:This month is the 25th anniversary of Apple...Apologies for nitpicking (what? on THIS list?) but Apple Computer wasincorporated January 3, 1977, making it 32 years old. Best regards, Aaron --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'in thesubject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' inthe subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'in thesubject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in thesubject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
