P�l Wrote: "The problem, however, starts when this type of comparion is used to say something about the original. To take an example. If I compare a high-end turntable playing vinyl records with, say, a low resolution digital recording like minidisc, by taping both to a cassette tape and then say that minidisc sounds equally good as LP because I can't hear any difference on a tape, or perhaps even better because of lack of noise. Surely someone would say the whole setup was bogus. However, it may make sense from a pragmatic point of view if it turns out that I copy all my music to tape."
Good analogy. I surpirsed no one had made the comparison of analog & digital sound recording mediums to this whole film vs digital arguement. Most audiophiles agree that the analog sound is superior...providing you have a top-notch turn-table for example. Many music artists record on an analog equipment, and then may mix digitally, since they feel that recording digitally has a very "cold" sound & does not pick up all the detail that analog equipment does. Analog recording sound much more "warm". But for 95% of the population, a cheap CD player delivers great sound...and cheap to produce CD's that sell for 500 times the price make record companies more money than do producing records. Funny thing about this whole "digital camera quality thing" is that when I recently looked back at John Shaw's first "How To" book published in 1984, I marvel at the incredible sharpness & grain-free images he produced with 35mm equipment & film & old manual equipment. Incredible quality by ANY standard. And get this, this book was printed in the 1980's!! So does all this new digital equipment increase our enjoyment & appreciation of photography? No, but it makes gear-hungry buyers buy more gear & the camera companies fatter. The latest and the greatest sells. Period. Peter --- P�l_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark wrote: > > > What I like about Michael Reichmann's approach is > that he *doesn't* do this: > > He judges by the final results - he compares > prints vs. prints, which is > > really what it's all about in the end. > > > Nope. He is compariung the quality of two digital > cameras; one of them capturing images of film. Now, > I've nothing against this kind of comparisons from a > pragmatic point of view. I mean, if the person in > question let all his images through this process > anyway he may be only interested in the end result. > Mind you, this is an uncommon stance as hardly > anyone use great lenses, fine grained film, or > larger format primarily because the end result > demands it (after all, in the final print you can > hardly see the difference between a third party lens > and top original lenses. Still many prefer the > latter anyway), but because they want the best > possible original so that they have larger freedom > when it comes to end results. > The problem, however, starts when this type of > comparion is used to say something about the > original. To take an example. If I compare a > high-end turntable playing vinyl records with, say, > a low resolution digital recording like minidisc, by > taping both to a cassette tape and then say that > minidisc sounds equally good as LP because I can't > hear any difference on a tape, or perhaps even > better because of lack of noise. Surely someone > would say the whole setup was bogus. However, it may > make sense from a pragmatic point of view if it > turns out that I copy all my music to tape. > > P�l > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
