On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
It is kinda like the video version of what... digitizing has done to
imaging standards.
Prosumer digital cameras now exceed the resolving power of 35mm film.
Debatable. Cramming too many pixels of resolution onto a sensor of
limited size may provide for resolving power, but at the expense of
noisy images. Additionally, dynamic range is not nearly what even
cheap film can offer. I love my digital cameras, all of them, but I am
aware of their limitations along with their convenience. With most
digital camera users, convenience is their reason for using digital
over analog, not quality.
Your other points are basically features that digital can offer that
analog could not, other than image stabilization, albeit via the lens
in the analog world.
As to my initial point, I was not focusing on cameras or photography
exclusively. I was also referring to scanned images for use in print
media, and the seeming acceptance these days of the resultant pixilated
images that can create. Back in the day, an art director would have
said, "Clean up that image!"
Steve
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
