02-28-2018, 04:00 PM
I'm not a sound person, as I said, so I don't know how all that works, but I have learned a few things about imaging, which may or may not be analogous. The longstanding film/digital debate usually turns on perceptions - subjectivity rather than objectivity, in other words - but there are concrete differences between the two (most of which, but not all, favor film).
The contention, mostly peddled by dslr makers, that the human eye can only see 16 million colors (which is to say 8 bit with 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling - what you get shooting H264 or MP4 on your whatever camera) is both empirically true, but also likely misleading. Through something I've seen referred to as color smoothing, the hvs can detect smoother or harsher transitions in color and contrast. As it stands, pro digital cinema cameras shoot 12 or more bit raw and or log video, which have (at least, I think, at 14 or more bit - it's a quick math problem) a color depth in the billions. If the 16 million outside limit was all there was to the story, there'd be no reason (other than clipping in post) to shoot raw video, or even stills. Color depth in film is infinite (and even though most distribution now is digital rather than prints scanners can still capture higher bit depths than digital cinema cameras).
So I guess what I'm wondering is: do ears work in a similar way such that analog or analog-to-digital is still better than digital? Dunno.
Another thing about film v digital is format size. Historically, photographers tended to work in the largest reasonable/feasible format, largely because the larger the format the more fine detail that can be resolved. A picture, all other things being equal, taken on a 4x5 view camera is going to look better than the same one taken on a small or medium format camera - and not just blown up to poster or wall size, but even just as snapshot/print size.
So, in film-only times, people who shot small format (35mm) tended to be news, sports, and wildlife photographers (largely because they needed long telephotos, which would be ginormous, or even more so than they already are, as well as even more insanely expensive). Medium format tended to be for weddings, and some portrait, fine art, and landscape work. And large format was always the gold standard for landscape/architecture, as well as for portraits and fine art when applicable.
What's happened with digital is that logic/understanding has been tossed out the window. Digital sensors top at about halfway between 35mm/"full frame" and the smallest medium format, 645 (not to mention the fact that the camera in question, the newish top end Phase One, costs like 50 grand - you could 20-some complete 645 film outfits for that price). So, basically, much or almost everything is shot on small or ultra-small format now.
Yet another issue is exposure. At the same exposure values (ev), digital sensors are able to resolve more shadow detail, and film is able to resole more highlight detail without blowing out the bright spots. (Something like 90% of digital raw files are devoted to preserving and even reconstructing highlight detail.)
Finally, I think, there's the issue of resolution. Film, of course, doesn't work in megapixels, and different film stocks have different "resolutions," but the guesstimate of at least 75mp of usable detail in a 35mm still by internet photo guy Ken Rockwell sounds reasonable enough.
The contention, mostly peddled by dslr makers, that the human eye can only see 16 million colors (which is to say 8 bit with 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling - what you get shooting H264 or MP4 on your whatever camera) is both empirically true, but also likely misleading. Through something I've seen referred to as color smoothing, the hvs can detect smoother or harsher transitions in color and contrast. As it stands, pro digital cinema cameras shoot 12 or more bit raw and or log video, which have (at least, I think, at 14 or more bit - it's a quick math problem) a color depth in the billions. If the 16 million outside limit was all there was to the story, there'd be no reason (other than clipping in post) to shoot raw video, or even stills. Color depth in film is infinite (and even though most distribution now is digital rather than prints scanners can still capture higher bit depths than digital cinema cameras).
So I guess what I'm wondering is: do ears work in a similar way such that analog or analog-to-digital is still better than digital? Dunno.
Another thing about film v digital is format size. Historically, photographers tended to work in the largest reasonable/feasible format, largely because the larger the format the more fine detail that can be resolved. A picture, all other things being equal, taken on a 4x5 view camera is going to look better than the same one taken on a small or medium format camera - and not just blown up to poster or wall size, but even just as snapshot/print size.
So, in film-only times, people who shot small format (35mm) tended to be news, sports, and wildlife photographers (largely because they needed long telephotos, which would be ginormous, or even more so than they already are, as well as even more insanely expensive). Medium format tended to be for weddings, and some portrait, fine art, and landscape work. And large format was always the gold standard for landscape/architecture, as well as for portraits and fine art when applicable.
What's happened with digital is that logic/understanding has been tossed out the window. Digital sensors top at about halfway between 35mm/"full frame" and the smallest medium format, 645 (not to mention the fact that the camera in question, the newish top end Phase One, costs like 50 grand - you could 20-some complete 645 film outfits for that price). So, basically, much or almost everything is shot on small or ultra-small format now.
Yet another issue is exposure. At the same exposure values (ev), digital sensors are able to resolve more shadow detail, and film is able to resole more highlight detail without blowing out the bright spots. (Something like 90% of digital raw files are devoted to preserving and even reconstructing highlight detail.)
Finally, I think, there's the issue of resolution. Film, of course, doesn't work in megapixels, and different film stocks have different "resolutions," but the guesstimate of at least 75mp of usable detail in a 35mm still by internet photo guy Ken Rockwell sounds reasonable enough.