Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 9:28 PM +0100 2/14/06, Didier Ludwig wrote:
> >Not sure where the digital vs. analog got started... This isn't the
> first
>>place I've seen it. Traditional film is *not* analog. If you want to
>>classify it between digital and analog, you'd have to classify film
>>emulsion
>>as digital, too. :)
>
>We can talk about if film is analog or not, but there's no doubt it
>has no digital character at all. Film emulsion is not rasterized in
>a straight matrix. The grains sizes are varying, and their
>arrangement is stochastic and three-dimensional. Even the
>sensibility may change from grain to grain (one of the reasons why
>grain can be seen on shots with low light).
>
>If film is analog or not, doesn't mind very much, as long as
>everyone knows what's meant with analog. Going further might turn
>into hairsplitting... ;-)
>
>Didier
>
Planck's constant rules!
All is digital! Digital is all!
:-)
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com