I thought digital was a sign language they teach orangutans.
I thought digital was a sign language they teach orangutans.
Anal+log...hmm...? Lets not go there!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I will-
as I said, it's just a pet peeve-
Up there with 'no brainer' and 'trust me'.
That is just a matter of technology.
Right now, sensors are organized in a Bayer array, or a Foveon array, or something similar. And the files are organized as rows and columns of pixels. But that is just the current technology, and there's no reason to think that is how it will always be.
Consider e-Ink displays as used on e-readers like the Kindle. The display comprises a random scattering of variously sized bubbles. Each bubble is filled with an opaque white fluid within which is suspended black magnetic ink particles. When charged one way, the ink sinks revealing the white fluid. When charged the other way, the ink rises and becomes visible. E-Ink looks as good as it does because it does not depend on an array of rows and columns. It's easy to imagine that we will outgrow orderly rows and columns in other imaging systems someday, too.
Analogue usually means that the signal used to drive it has not been described numerically, but rather is interpreted directly as a continuous waveform rather than as a numerical description of a continuous waveform. For example, all "analogue" televisions made for many years received analogue signals (continuous waveforms transmitted over the air or over a cable), and then immediately digitized them for processing and display on the screen. The only difference between "analogue" and "digital" television is that the signal transmitted over the air is a continuous waveform on the one hand and a series of numerical descriptions (whatever numbering system that might be used--binary, hexadecimal, octal, decimal--does it matter?) on the other. When one views a television, that's a pretty abstract distinction, though there are specific advantages and disadvantages of each, based on specific technologies as they exist (or existed).
In photography, the only real difference I can find between film photography and digital photography is that in the former case, the artifact of the activity is a piece of film, and in the latter, it is a computer file, based on what was actually exposed to light within the camera. Aesthetic differences are a matter of technology, not concept, and it's easy to imagine how the technology of digital systems will continue to change, perhaps radically, so that all the aesthetic generalizations people make now become obsolete (assuming they have any truth now, which they usually don't). There is a real difference, however, in that artifact, in terms of its storage, management, application, durability, reliability, longevity, life-cycle cost, loss risk, and on and on. And those differences are also changing all the time as the supporting technologies emerge and recede.
There is a current practical difference, too. With film, people can explore extremely high image quality using modest equipment, if they are prepared to practice impeccable technique. The image coming from a cheapie Calumet view camera is as good as the image coming from a Linhof, Arca, or Sinar. The difference between a Caltar lens and the latest high-end wonder from Schneider or Rodenstock is also too subtle to provide much of a limitation on those with modest means. Not so with digital. With digital, high-end image quality costs, and costs big. So, we move from a model of approaching the state of the art even with modest equipment (if we are willing to make the investment in technique) to needing not only that technique, but perhaps tens of thousands of dollars in high-end equipment. That more than anything keeps me a film user. I just can't afford the digital equipment that would even have a chance of satisfying me in terms of image quality, when that quality is what is driving my inspiration for a photo. That, too, will probably change--I just hope it does before film (or its critical supporting technology infrastructure) goes away.
Rick "who fondled a Pentax 645D again this weekend, and is depressed" Denney
Bookmarks