Samsung cut a deal and I think they might even use that in their cell phone cameras. Well, I'm sure about the deal but I'm not so sure about the cell phone camera part.
Oh and there alreay is Polaroid compact digital camera that uses Foveon sensor(Does JPG, unlike SD10). Anyway, the biggest problem with current Foveon is that it generates too freaking much noise.
Anubis
No Lifer
Originally posted by: Eli
What?
Film is cheaper than digital?
Oh. Maybe you meant the cameras themselves.
300$ gets you a SLR and 50mm f/1.8 lens, buy film and you are good to go
with digital you are gonna spane d like a grand for a DSLR lens and memory card, then there like a grand for a computer and storage to do it all and liek 500$ for photoshop
Anubis
No Lifer
Yeah, wow.Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: Eli
What?
Film is cheaper than digital?
Oh. Maybe you meant the cameras themselves.
300$ gets you a SLR and 50mm f/1.8 lens, buy film and you are good to go
with digital you are gonna spane d like a grand for a DSLR lens and memory card, then there like a grand for a computer and storage to do it all and liek 500$ for photoshop
But at least it starts to pay for itself immediately since you don't have to buy and pay for developing film.
There alreay is a Polaroid compact digital camera that uses Foveon sensor(Does JPG, unlike SD10). Anyway, the biggest problem with current Foveon is that it generates too freaking much noise
Anubis
No Lifer
shilala
Lifer
- Oct 5, 2004
- 11,437
- 1
- 76
Numberswise...
Does 6000 dpi on an 8x10 negative translate to 480 Megapixels?
Does 3.3 megapixels translate to 3300 pixels on a 1"x1" sensor?
If the size of a sensor is increased (once the faveon technology is available) is that the answer to chasing film's resolution?
Or is the goal to keep squeezing more pixels on the same small sensor?
In my way of thinking sensors will need to get bigger if you'd hope to match information stored on an 8x10 negative.
Even if all that optical data can get squeezed onto a 1"x1" sensor (480MP worth) there's no way you'd ever get enough light squeezed into that small space to acurately record what's out there, could you?
Is the sensor size to light relation the bottleneck that diminishes digital reproduction?
If that's the case, the only answer is bigger cameras, isn't it?
true... there is a certain intangible romanticism to film
that said, digital has UNMATCHED convenience and ive been using it exclusively... though im going start carrying a very compact Olympus Epic 35mm around.
as far as 95% of the population is concerned, it shouldnt matter because their photo skills are the limitation.. not clarity, resolution, dynamic range, etc of the equipment
If the person taking the picture doesn't know what they're doing then yes, digital pictures suck.
Otherwise, your friend is a n00b.
Otherwise, your friend is a n00b.
Triumph
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 15,031
- 14
- 81
That's the same old digital vs. analog argument that has gone on in the music world since the advent of CD's. People who want to feel special claim that a good record sounds better than a good CD recording. They're probably all the same people who buy bottled water.
Well, there're just way too many digital cameras with so many different specs.
When you buy a consumer film camera, you know what you're getting and the outcome is about the same unless you go into Dslr level.
However, digital cameras are very different even in consumer levels. Colors variation, Shadow/highlight, dymanic range/, chrome abb., noise level are all different even in a same brand.
With someone like Anubis, I know I'm on the same subject as I know that he knows about this kind of stuff. When he says film cameras are better, I know what he means by it. But, those are things that majority of people don't notice even when they see a picture.
(Some might come with their own thoughts after using something like BenQ compact digital camera that uses CMOS sensor without any setting adjustments. )
My conclusion is, yes, film cameras are better in terms of picture quality but majority of people don't notice a thing.
What they notice is that digital cameras are
1. Cheaper to maintain(very important)
2. Convinient
3. Getting smaller that it's easy to carry around
4. easier to make adjustments
5. easier to change ISO setting .
When you buy a consumer film camera, you know what you're getting and the outcome is about the same unless you go into Dslr level.
However, digital cameras are very different even in consumer levels. Colors variation, Shadow/highlight, dymanic range/, chrome abb., noise level are all different even in a same brand.
With someone like Anubis, I know I'm on the same subject as I know that he knows about this kind of stuff. When he says film cameras are better, I know what he means by it. But, those are things that majority of people don't notice even when they see a picture.
(Some might come with their own thoughts after using something like BenQ compact digital camera that uses CMOS sensor without any setting adjustments. )
My conclusion is, yes, film cameras are better in terms of picture quality but majority of people don't notice a thing.
What they notice is that digital cameras are
1. Cheaper to maintain(very important)
2. Convinient
3. Getting smaller that it's easy to carry around
4. easier to make adjustments
5. easier to change ISO setting .
What's bottled water?
Vinyl is widely accepted as being superior to CD. But CDs were never meant to replace vinyl. They were to replace cassettes which suck. People just stopped buying vinyl when CDs became common because few could hear the difference. Anybody that says they can "hear" an improvement of CD over vinyl is either full of sh*t or the audio was recorded in 47khz (or whatever it is, I forget) to begin with.
Analog methods tend to be drastically different from the digital methods developed to imitate or replace the older technology. Not always better, but different.
Remember when videocams started replacing film cameras for TV shows in the 80's? Remember how crappy those shows looked? Now look at Episode II, a fully digital movie. Digital capture and digital processing. Looks *almost* as good as film!
We're seeing the same thing with still cameras. With enough time and patience, a skilled photographer can create great images with ANY camera. Including a pinhole camera. But film lends itself to natural scenes and gives a feel that digital is missing. Some call it the soul. Whatever. It's difficult to quantify, but having worked with both film and digital I can honestly say I still prefer my film images. But I'll keep plugging away with digital. Why? Because film and processing were eating me alive.
Now if a Hassy dropped into my lap...
Anubis
No Lifer
Originally posted by: shilala
Thanks for taking the time Anubis. That's some awesome info.
It's helped me understand a lot of the stuff I've already read. Now for the opportunity to apply some of it.
just to keep your mind going they make cameras that take 11x14, 16,20 and 20x24in pieces of film
Anubis
No Lifer
Seeing how 9/10 guitar players would rather play an amp with vacuum tubes in it over a solid state amp, I think the same logic will apply to photography, even 20 - 30 years from now.
edro
Lifer
- Apr 5, 2002
- 24,326
- 68
- 91
There will always be the critics. There are 3 types of critics though:
1. The douche who heard from a friend of a friend of a guy who read an article online, that digital will never be as good as film.
2. The actual film photographer who is in denial and will continue to have subpar photos and manipulation techniques.
3. The medium / large format photographer "artist" who knows his film is better, but also uses digital for everything else.
Any "real" photographer knows that digital is already on par with film for 99% of applications.
1. The douche who heard from a friend of a friend of a guy who read an article online, that digital will never be as good as film.
2. The actual film photographer who is in denial and will continue to have subpar photos and manipulation techniques.
3. The medium / large format photographer "artist" who knows his film is better, but also uses digital for everything else.
Any "real" photographer knows that digital is already on par with film for 99% of applications.
Well as far as compairing film vs. digital online is pretty impossible, since any film made picture would have to be scanned in thus lowering the quality.
I can tell the difference between prints of the same thing from digital and a film camera. It amazes my friends and family that I can see the difference. It's like people that can hear the difference between a Sony stereo you buy at Best Buy, or a Harmon Kardon THX certified system you'd buy at StarPower or Tweeter.
I can tell the difference between prints of the same thing from digital and a film camera. It amazes my friends and family that I can see the difference. It's like people that can hear the difference between a Sony stereo you buy at Best Buy, or a Harmon Kardon THX certified system you'd buy at StarPower or Tweeter.
Well not exactly true, some of the truely high end pro cameras do rival high end film cameras. But you are talking $15-20k vs $2k-$5k in equipment(not counting lenses).
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
All depends on the size of the print you're printing. Film is still better for large, blown-up prints, like over 20" x 20".
Digital is better in some ways:
The images are just as good to me
Looking at them is easier
They can be printed on paper, and it is cheap enough as to not concern me too much
I can make no matter how many pictures I like, and only the ones I like cost me something
I find the color of the digital cameras to be comparable to those from film
It is much easier to make "another copy of a photo" with digital
(and I use glasses, and I need them)
I am really happy with the digital camera (a Kodak CX 4300 something), I would like to have some manual control over focus distance, but it is ok the way it is
The images are just as good to me
Looking at them is easier
They can be printed on paper, and it is cheap enough as to not concern me too much
I can make no matter how many pictures I like, and only the ones I like cost me something
I find the color of the digital cameras to be comparable to those from film
It is much easier to make "another copy of a photo" with digital
(and I use glasses, and I need them)
I am really happy with the digital camera (a Kodak CX 4300 something), I would like to have some manual control over focus distance, but it is ok the way it is
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter