Posted by Justin Q Ramond at nas-23-17.la.navinet.net on November 28, 1999 at 01:19:07:
In Reply to: A Q Vincent... posted by BugMEout on November 28, 1999 at 00:44:51:
right now, digital captures and assigns a value to a pixel of the full screen image. the number of pixels and how tightly they are packed determines the quality of the image. more pixels, better resolution, higher quality.
Film, however, is an emulsion pad which reacts to photons, so the image is a lot crisper than pixels simply because of the minuteness of the light waves that create them and the silver nitrate particles that react.
it has nothing to do with the audio analogy and without sounding insulting, i think the LP vs. CD argument is rather bullshit. digital is a FLAWLESS rendition of a recording. if an LP sounds better to you, it is because of FLAWS in the LP and your ear interpretting that as "warmth". in that regard, digital recording is superior, but that's not necessarily a good thing to you LP die-hards, I guess.
I sympathize, however. I am a photographer. Born and bred in the film medium. When digital camera started coming in to the market, I was pissed, too, simply because of loyalty to the medium, so i understand your feelings.
As far as video goes, though, digital is less perfect than film (for now). Despite Vince's misgivings, I think it will dominate very soon. Within a decade at most.