On 1 Aug 2004 16:52:21 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 8/1/04 10:43 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

It sure it a primary issue, but the point I was making is that the weakness
of digital is more in color balance and depth than in resolution per-se.

Only because you're trying to skate away from your initial poor
analogy between digital audio and digital photography.

Not at all - actually I felt the same about you trying to widen it to a
discussion of pros and cons of digital and film.

Actually - you had said that resolution was the achilles heel of digital
photography and that the color balance and depth was better.

I said no such thing - you were the one who brought up colour balance.
I did say that digital photography is currently inferior in resolution
to film, which of course it is, despite your attempts to cloud the
issue by only talking about fast film.

My initial analogy would be that since you got it wrong-way-round regarding
digital vs. film -- such can be true of audiophile related items.

Rubbish - film still has greatly superior resolutioon to digital
photography, whether 35mm or medium format. Even basic 16/55 digital
audio, OTOH, has superior resolution to analogue *master* tapes, never
mind vinyl.

I didn't
skate out of anything, nor did you offer anything other than an insistance
that you were somehow correct, even if it meant changing your tack.

You are looking in the mirror, not at me..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 1 Aug 2004 17:53:17 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 8/1/04 10:43 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

I would hone your photoshop skills, though, as we have found that a lot of
the shops that developed our Medium format films have shuttered or only do
digital.

Sadly, this is true in the UK also, I believe there are only a couple
of top-class professional printers left that do 'wet work'.

I fear that that is more of a trend - even wedding photographers are moving
away from the Mamiya medium format standard these days - especially since
making the bride look "perfect" is so much easier in digital mediums.

Agreed.

Here is where you and I will agree 100% about audiophile stuff - Digital
sound is much, much, MUCH easier to "clean up" than anything analog - even
if the resolution is lost a bit.

No, we don't agree at all. Why will you not understand that the
resolution of digtal audio - even basic 16/44 - *vastly* exceeds the
resolution of analogue?

And while the capabilities are a bit
different (there is no substitute for talented performances in a decent
acoustic space simply miked and recorded)

Excuse me? What on earth has this to do with analogue/digital?

it is clear that the sound
engineer's work is to piece together a number of takes to make the
performance as "perfect" as possible.

Well, that's the way it's usually done, but I'm often convinced that a
truly 'live' performance has more musical integrity.

I would consider it - but be really careful as the technology is about to go
through another round as the CCD arrays have now been developed that have
inherently better color depth and balance. Right now you have to have 3
pixels to catch each of the primary colors - and now they have figured out
the way to have 1 pixel capture all 3 colors.

Foveon? That is far from fully developed.

[Also, how the heck do you deal with the color balance, reciprocity and
other issue using Kodachrome indoors with Tungsten lighting?]

I find no reciprocity 'issues', I just give an extra 1/3 stop indoors,
and a wide range of colour correction filters has been around for a
*long* time! Of course, you do need to be careful that you don't mix
your lighting, as coloured shadows are impossible to balance!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 1 Aug 2004 17:54:01 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 8/1/04 10:47 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

I get excellent results - at 4800 dpi from Kodachrome 25, which is
*way* above what any digital camera can currently provide. Naturally,
I don't save as jpegs.

The film itself is the limiting factor

No, it isn't. You simply refuse to believe what's written even in the
article you cited yourself.

- so you can scan it at just about
any DPI you want - you are effectively "over and up sampling" the print.

Utter rubbish for fine grain film.

You should also make sure that the 4800 dpi is true resolution and not
interpolated, though if you are getting results you feel are fine, you
should be OK either way.

I am talking about true optical 4800 dpi, as 2400 is *not* adequate
for scanning K25.

6-8MP is the current consumer SOTA.

Agreed. although many would argue that it's really 5, since the
current 8MP sensors have some significant flaws.

8-16MP is the current professional SOTA for 35mm film backs

Actually, it's 14, and that camera is a dog. The real SOTA is the 11MP
of the Canon 1DS.

25-32MP is the pro bleeding edge to replace Medium format.

And has even more inferior resolution to medium-format film (remember,
6x6 has more than 4 times the area of 24x36) - although adequate for
most magazine photography, and certainly all wedding photography, so
since this is overwhelmingly a pro-photography sector, film cameras
almost certainly will disappear from this market before long.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 1 Aug 2004 22:20:35 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 8/1/04 5:28 PM, in article TfdPc.229386$XM6.147515@attbi_s53, "Glenn
Booth" wrote:

In message 1YjOc.178583$a24.9390@attbi_s03, B&D
writes
On 7/29/04 8:02 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

There is however one vital difference he the resolution of
fine-grain film still far exceeds that possible with even the best
digital cameras.

Actually, that is not true. The current 4+ megapixel cameras equal to
exceed high quality (low speed) 35mm film. In fact, at the 6+ megapixel
range, it approaches or equals medium format film.

I think Stewart is correct. It's common practice to scan 35mm film to
4000 lines with telecine, which puts it way higher than 6 megapixels.
The guys at Quantel reckon on upwards of 25 million samples per frame,
at a minimum of 36 bits of colour information, more for processing. The
dynamic range of film is pretty awesome too, especially near black.

Film has greater contrast and color depth than digital - no argument form me
since it is absolutely true and verifiable. 6-8MP has every bit as much
resolution as most 35mm films - though you would have to get closer to 10-12
to have all but the most exotic and slow films if resolution was your only
goal (and according the Stewart, this is his main goal and metric).

Please stop putting words in my mouth. *You* brought up resolution as
a comparison between audio and photography, I simply pointed out that
it was a poor analogy, since the best digital photography has poorer
resolutuin than the best film, whereas even basic 16/44 audio exceeds
the resolution of the very best analogue.

Scanning film - you have to achieve nyquist and all kinds of other
considerations. You certainly would want to scan at much higher the raw
film rate to make sure everything is there - but also a lot of scanners
interpolate so its native resolution may not be the resolution you claim.

It's always a bad idea to use terms you don't understand. Scanning a
film is not the same as sampling audio, and you don't need to scan at
more than twice the film resolution to capture all the detail. Also,
don't try to duck the issue by talking about interpolation, when there
are several perfectly good scanners with true optical 4800 dpi
available. When I say you need 4800 dpi to fully scan Kodachrome 25, I
*mean* 4800 dpi, not processed 2400 dpi.

I've been involved on the periphery of some digital cinema developments
lately that are using 4x1080p24 systems (i.e. four times the vertical
resolution of 1080 line HDTV, for over 4000 lines). We showed these guys
a playout display system running at 3840*2400, and they had to scale the
images down significantly to display them. You need ultra-wide SCSI 320
just to play this stuff back at full frame rate.

By those measures, even 10+ megapixel SLRs have a way to go.

Except the measures are not correct.

Of course they are - why would they not be?

If resolution is your only metric,
35mm film has been matched in almost every film commonly used.

You are trying to move the goalposts by talking about 'happy snapper'
film, *not* what professionals use when they want high-quality
results.

Basically, you're saying that analogue audio is better because most
people use MP3 at 128kb/sec, and this isn't as good as 1/2 inch 30 ips
analogue tape.

The slower
ebd of the spectrum is not yet matched - but it is close.

No, digital photography has to more than double before it gets close
to Kodachrome 25.

Here are some websites that are worht looking at:

http://www.dlcphotography.net/Digital%20vs%20Film.htm
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,4351,00.asp

Did you miss this paragraph in your second site cite (so to speak)?:

"To set the scale of detail, a digital camera's resolution is measured
according to the total number of lines it can resolve before they
begin to run together. A typical 3 megapixel digital camera has a
resolving power of about 1,000 lines over the entire image sensor. So,
if the CCD is 1/2" in size, that amounts to a total resolution of
2,000 lines per inch. By contrast, the resolution of fine grain 35mm
Kodachrome film is about 2,200 lines--per millimeter! That's more than
50 times better raw resolution than digital. Using this for
comparison, film scientists sometimes peg Kodachrome's digital
equivalent as a 100 megabyte file. Of course, larger film--2 1/4x
31/4, 4x5", etc.--will yield correspondingly more data and overall
resolution than a 35mm frame. "

So much for your claims about digital image resolution. BTW, note that
the SOTA Canon 1DS has a 24x36 11MP sensor, which is only a fraction
over 1,000 lines per inch, so still fifty times less than Kodachrome!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article 1YjOc.178583$a24.9390@attbi_s03, B&D
wrote:

On 7/29/04 8:02 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

There is however one vital difference he the resolution of
fine-grain film still far exceeds that possible with even the best
digital cameras.

Actually, that is not true. The current 4+ megapixel cameras equal to
exceed high quality (low speed) 35mm film. In fact, at the 6+ megapixel
range, it approaches or equals medium format film.

The only problem with the digital cameras is color reproduction and
contrast. And that is right now equal to most common films.

Um, no. A properly exposed 35mm slide has more "pixels" than the best
digital cameras by a big margin, and the digital cams aren't even in the
same ballpark w.r.t. dynamic range.

A competent photographer can make photographic images with considerably
over 1000:1 density on the film; try that digitally.

Isaac

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 03:29:19 GMT, Isaac Wingfield
wrote:

In article 1YjOc.178583$a24.9390@attbi_s03, B&D
wrote:

On 7/29/04 8:02 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

There is however one vital difference he the resolution of
fine-grain film still far exceeds that possible with even the best
digital cameras.

Actually, that is not true. The current 4+ megapixel cameras equal to
exceed high quality (low speed) 35mm film. In fact, at the 6+ megapixel
range, it approaches or equals medium format film.

The only problem with the digital cameras is color reproduction and
contrast. And that is right now equal to most common films.

Um, no. A properly exposed 35mm slide has more "pixels" than the best
digital cameras by a big margin, and the digital cams aren't even in the
same ballpark w.r.t. dynamic range.

A competent photographer can make photographic images with considerably
over 1000:1 density on the film; try that digitally.

You need 10 bits for 1000:1, and the vast majority of digital cameras
only use 8 bits. QED.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Isaac Wingfield wrote:



Um, no. A properly exposed 35mm slide has more "pixels" than the best
digital cameras by a big margin, and the digital cams aren't even in the
same ballpark w.r.t. dynamic range.

A competent photographer can make photographic images with considerably
over 1000:1 density on the film; try that digitally.



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

Reply, off topic of our normal high-end audio discussion subjecst:

This is absolutely true. The common digital camera user doesn't know
this, being happy with small prints rendered with coarse ink blobs on
paper, or low resolution images on a monitor; and their tendency to say
that any photo that shows their grandkids with a nice expression, no
matter how blurry, is a good one.

I will leave it to the rest of you to make an analogy to audio with this!

-Gene Poon

On 8/2/04 6:49 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Here is where you and I will agree 100% about audiophile stuff - Digital
sound is much, much, MUCH easier to "clean up" than anything analog - even
if the resolution is lost a bit.

No, we don't agree at all. Why will you not understand that the
resolution of digtal audio - even basic 16/44 - *vastly* exceeds the
resolution of analogue?

Here is where you are not listening to me. I am agreeing that it is easier
to clean up digital even if the digital signal resolution is lost a little
bit.

Note, I made no reference to resolution or performance of vinyl, nor did I
intend. I was trying to point out that we agreed on something.

If you do not want to agree with me about the fact that it is easier to
manipulate and clean up a digital signal than it is analog - fine by me,
though I do really think we agree about *that*

"Gene Poon" wrote in message
...
==============================================

Reply, off topic of our normal high-end audio discussion subjecst:

This is absolutely true. The common digital camera user doesn't know
this, being happy with small prints rendered with coarse ink blobs on
paper, or low resolution images on a monitor; and their tendency to say
that any photo that shows their grandkids with a nice expression, no
matter how blurry, is a good one.

I will leave it to the rest of you to make an analogy to audio with this!

Well if they do any b/w darkroom hobbying, perhaps we can learn what audio
equipment they listen to while in their darkrooms. IIRC the safelight I used
with Polycontrast paper was "OC" and the filter passed greenish light so we
are all set to listen to CDs. While in Costco a recent demo showed gorgeous
sharp color saturated ~ 5 X 9 prints on photo paper taken with a 3
megapixel camera, landscapes, etc. (no kids blowing out birthday candles).
Owning a couple of Leicas, other 35 mm stuff as well as 2 medium format
cameras, I'd say the shots were as good as any I'd ever seen (and btw my
eyes are much better than my ears).

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:31:51 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote:




I need to read up on dither. I'm sure they didn't teach this in class!


They should have! You'll find it (and lots more!) in Ken Pohlmann's
seminal text on the matter - Principles of Digital Audio


well, they taught too much theory in class and hardly any practical
applications. I think they wanted to push us into maanagement and not a
"lab rat" role ... uhm, no offence meant with that term to all those
reading.


The 'stair steps' claim is an intuitive urban myth, with no existence

in reality.

well, you tend to get those diagrams in signal pro text books. Now,
where did I put mine ...


Yep, that diagram goes right before the reconstruction filter, which
removes the HF components which cause the stair steps............


I vaguely remember seeing that somewhere, not in the text book I have on
hand (which is fairly rubbish).

So the reconstruction filter is a low pass, anti-aliasing filter right?
I remember that during the signal reconstruction, images of all
frequency components below the sampling frequency will appear at
multiples of the sampling frequency, and hence the need for the
anti-aliasing filter.


At the output of a properly designed DAC (I put this rider because
Peter Qvortrup simply didn't include a reconstruction filter in his
ludicrous Audio Note devices!), the output is a pure analogue signal
band-limited to 22kHz, with no sign of stairsteps.

if the reconstruction filter is the anti-aliasing filter I mentioned
above, it would be interesting to listen to such a DAC, since the
reproduced signal is not accurate. Hmmmm ... now I'm curious as to how
it would actually sound.

On 4 Aug 2004 03:26:01 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote:


So the reconstruction filter is a low pass, anti-aliasing filter right?
I remember that during the signal reconstruction, images of all
frequency components below the sampling frequency will appear at
multiples of the sampling frequency, and hence the need for the
anti-aliasing filter.

Yes, although strictly speaking it's an anti-imaging filter, the term
aliasing is properly used for the ADC function.

At the output of a properly designed DAC (I put this rider because
Peter Qvortrup simply didn't include a reconstruction filter in his
ludicrous Audio Note devices!), the output is a pure analogue signal
band-limited to 22kHz, with no sign of stairsteps.

if the reconstruction filter is the anti-aliasing filter I mentioned
above, it would be interesting to listen to such a DAC, since the
reproduced signal is not accurate. Hmmmm ... now I'm curious as to how
it would actually sound.

Airy but vague is perhaps the nearest I can come to describing the
sound. I can understand why a valve/vinyl guy might like it, but it's
basically broken!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 3 Aug 2004 23:04:32 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 8/2/04 6:49 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Here is where you and I will agree 100% about audiophile stuff - Digital
sound is much, much, MUCH easier to "clean up" than anything analog - even
if the resolution is lost a bit.

No, we don't agree at all. Why will you not understand that the
resolution of digtal audio - even basic 16/44 - *vastly* exceeds the
resolution of analogue?

Here is where you are not listening to me. I am agreeing that it is easier
to clean up digital even if the digital signal resolution is lost a little
bit.

But with digital, no resolution is *ever* lost, unless you dither down
to a lower bit depth. I'm listening, but you're not making sense. And
what do you mean by 'clean up', in any case?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering