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 13:12:36 2004

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

-----Original Message-----
[] 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 <>
> 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.          Bush-Driving under the influence. ================================================

Leica Users Group.
See for more information

In reply to: Message from kenf01 at (Ken Firestone) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)