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: kenf01 at gmail.com (Ken Firestone)
Date: Wed Jul 14 11:43:12 2004
References: <004e01c469b1$6f3a0de0$35b1fea9@ccapr.com>

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
================================================


Replies: Reply from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)
Reply from bladman99 at yahoo.ca (Dan C) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)
Reply from george at imagist.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)
In reply to: Message from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)