[Leica] Analog v. Digital

[Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)]

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
>