[Leica] Analog[ue] v. Digital

[leicajh at earthlink.net (James Harrison)]

I teach night vision devices, you are right.  Photons to electrons to
photons via analog conversion


James Harrison
http://home.earthlink.net/~leicajh/




> [Original Message]
> From: Adam Bridge <abridge@gmail.com>
> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> Date: 7/14/2004 12:10:57 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: [Leica] Analog[ue] v. Digital
>
> I'm glad it was a humble opinion because it's also wrong, especially
> with regard to the camera sensor description. If the camera sensor
> kept the incoming photon energy and then sent out an electrical signal
> proportional (in some way) to that energy it would be an analog
> system. Military night-vision goggles used to work this way, probably
> still do.
>
> But digital cameras take the charge collected in the sensor and
> convert the amount of energy held in each cell into a digital
> measurement of the signal - crossing the line from the analog to the
> digital domain. At that point the image can be copied exactly without
> changing it's nature - it's been changed once by the conversion
> process from analog to digital. After that: it's all 1's and 0's.
>
> The signal that goes to the inkjet printer is, of course a digital
> representation of the image that entered the software required to
> transform the RGB -> CMYK and then to whatever the printer needs in
> order to run its tiny droplets of ink out the nozzles.
>
> That's all in the digital domain. There is some analog operation going
> on somewhere in the printer, I'm thinking, but I don't know where or
> even have an inkling of how it works.
>
> Film isn't digital, of course.
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:52:51 -0400, buzz.hausner@verizon.net
> <buzz.hausner@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Humble, B.D.?  HUMBLE!?!? <<INSERT SMILEY HERE>>  Anyway, the words
"analog[ue]" and "digital" are still being used wrong and dtand to be
corrected.
> > 
> > Buzz
> > >
> > > From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
> > > Date: 2004/07/14 Wed AM 10:47:06 EDT
> > > To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
> > > Subject: RE: [Leica] Analog v. Digital
> > >
> > > Ah, here we go, wandering off down the Yellow LUGroad.
> > >
> > > Digital smidgital - I would submit that what we're really talking
about
> > > is electronic image capture v. film image capture: using the first
> > > process the image - light - passes through the lens, strikes an
> > > electronic sensor, and is converted to electrical impulses and stored
> > > electronically; using the second, the image, light, passes through the
> > > lens and strikes and exposes a piece of film, creating what will
become
> > > a negative of the image - or a positive in the case of a slide, and is
> > > "stored" on the film itself.
> > >
> > > And "digital" printing is, of course, either inkjet printing, dye
> > > sublimation, or some other specific form of printing that converts the
> > > electronic impulses captured by the camera to colors on paper.
> > >
> > > But someone, at some point, decided that "electronic" was passé and
> > > oh-so-50s, and that "digital" was a more marketable term, and,
besides,
> > > it was one people could come to understand in terms of watches and
> > > clocks - digital is modern and up-to-date, analogue is old-fashioned
and
> > > stodgy.
> > >
> > > JustMHO.... :-)
>
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information