Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think so... definitely. That's one of the main reasons businesses spend money on strategic advertising; to create an undertow that will cause first adopters (you and me) drag brand and product extensions through high margin channels at full price, just to be first! Len -- -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+ljkapner=cox.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+ljkapner=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of B. D. Colen Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:36 AM To: 'Leica Users Group' Subject: RE: [Leica] Analog v. Digital And a sensible thought....One has to wonder why Kodak isn't cleaning up with a wide line of digital printing paper...and Kodak CF cards...Watching them not corner these markets is a bit like watching Polaroid fail to see digital as the future of "instant imaging." After all, wouldn't all the folks who used Kodak film have been inclined to use Kodak digital capture media? And wouldn't those who grew up using Kodak chemical and papers have been inclined to use Kodak papers? -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Leonard J Kapner Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:36 AM To: 'Leica Users Group' Subject: RE: [Leica] Analog v. Digital B.D. Yeah, if I were in product management at Fuji and Kodak, worried about life-support of my consumer markets, I'd get busy building the most amazing range of amateur and professional digital printing consumables, surrender high ground in image capture commodities to the pixel crowd, and win the war on the back end, with the brand cache and marketing muscle that I have in abundance. Just a thought... ;-) Len -- -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+ljkapner=cox.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+ljkapner=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of B. D. Colen Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:47 AM To: 'Leica Users Group' 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 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. JustMHO.... :-) B. D. -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Frank Dernie Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:15 AM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Analog v. Digital And of course conversely film images are made up of grain clumps so are in that sense digital. I remember digital being explained by this analogy by some teachers, with the point being that if there are sufficient small units the picture becomes indistinguishable from continuous tones so in any digital system there can be an adequate sample rate at which the digital becomes indistinguishable from continuous. This does not, of course solve the thorny question over where this sampling rate lies! Frank On 14 Jul, 2004, at 12:35, Buzz Hausner wrote: > Perhaps I am alone in the belief that analogue is not the opposite of > digital. Both film and digital reproduction produce analogies of > three dimensional scenes and objects on a two dimensional surface. > Thus, they are both a form of analogue reproduction. The earlier > definitions of analogies refer to different biological organs and > organisms that serve the same function. It should be sufficient to > refer to film and digital > formats. On the other hand, I do not wish to take up the definition of > digital which, in my opinion, is used inappropriately for photography > and just about everything else, save the digital watch. > > Buzz Hausner > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+buzz.hausner=verizon.net@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+buzz.hausner=verizon.net@leica-users.org] On > Behalf Of Philippe Orlent > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 5:31 AM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost > > I'm not saying that analog will disappear completely, but I do think > that it will become a medium used by a minority of people, who will be > paying a lot > more for it than they do now. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > 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 _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. 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 _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information