Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Analog v. Digital
From: bdcolen at (B. D. Colen)
Date: Wed Jul 14 07:47:29 2004

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

JustMHO.... :-)

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
[] 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!

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
> digital which, in my opinion, is used inappropriately for photography
> and just about everything else, save the digital watch.
>       Buzz Hausner
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] 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 for more information

Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Replies: Reply from masonster at (David Mason) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)
Reply from kenf01 at (Ken Firestone) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)
Reply from ljkapner at (Leonard J Kapner) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)
In reply to: Message from Frank.Dernie at (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)