[Leica] Analog v. Digital

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

I know, Ken, I know. But as I said, digital smidgital - it's electronic
capture v film capture. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Ken Firestone
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:43 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Analog v. Digital


On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:47:06 -0400, B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> 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.

The 'digital' comes from the fact that the output of the electronic
sensor is stored as a binary integer, a series of '0s'  and '1s'. You
could also store the signal as analog, where it would be a real number.
Think older video recorders. But I guess I'm taking us further down that
Yellow LUGroad with extraneous bovine scatology. Maybe I just have too
much time on my hands.


> 
> 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.

You can also print digital to silver based film and paper. I don't know
how widespread this is. And, the technique of printing a photo from an
analog electronic signal goes well back into the last century. The wire
services used to do this all the time.

> 
> But someone, at some point, decided that "electronic" was pass? 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.

Well, we do have to be throughly "modern" now, don't we? 

> 
> JustMHO.... :-)
> 
> B. D.

> 

-- 
================================================
Ken Firestone, W3CAT    Kerry-Courage under fire.
kenf01@gmail.com          Bush-Driving under the influence.
kenf@speakeasy.net ================================================

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information