Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Possibly in the sense of sampling an image in tiny pieces i.e. film grains and pixels? The only difference being that digital has an ordered (matrix) structure - what would film look like if grain wasn't randomly distributed? Frank, I gather you mean the conversion of wave motion to electrical impulses when you say our ears are digital, or am I missing something? Douglas FRANK DERNIE wrote: >Hi Didier, >what definition of digital are you using here? In what >way does film have "no digital character at all" ? >AFAIU it -is- digital, like our ears, for example. >Frank > >--- Didier Ludwig <rangefinder@screengang.com> 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 >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Leica Users Group. >>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for >>more information >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >