audio and photography parallels??

It is somewhat similar Tubino, and there are certainly some parralells in the two. In simplistic and basic terms it is a matter of resolving detail, nuance and accuracy in reproduction. The digital imaging technology is moving and changing at a faster rate than music I'd say. The film vs. digital debate is similar to the analogue vs. digital debate in music, in some ways. Film is still capable of more subtle nuance and a more 'fluid' tonal flow, much like a good analogue setup can do with music. With digital imaging the technology has been getting better and better at a very rapid pace to the point where with some of the better professional digital cameras and digital backs the average person and even many professionals would have a hard time telling the difference between a film image and a hi-end digital image. For professionals digital offers speed and convenience and the end of the latent image anxiety (there are other anxieties that go with digital though).

With digital, it's all a matter of zero's and ones, but not only the amount of information recorded in (megapixels or khz), but the actual technology implemented to interpret and translate that information in something the eye see's or the ear hears. In the same way just because two cameras each create a 5mp image does not mean those images will appear the same, nor will one oversampling CD player sound the same as another. In turn there are 4mp camers that create better looking images than other 8mp cameras, just as there are standard redbook players that reproduce music better than some oversampling players.

To respond to Rives question regarding film scanning; Given that film is capable of greater subtleties and nuance - the scanning technology at the high end is capable of resolving the subleties in the film image that the direct to digital professional cameras and backs cannot yield. This is not your typical $300 desktop scanner I'm referring to here but instead far more expensive scanners. These scanners may be translating an image into the same zeros and ones that the digital camera might create, but the scanning technology (at the high end) is capable of doing justice to and recording all those nuances that film has to offer that makes in marginally superior to direct-tp-digital cameras. Why the difference? Again, in simplistic terms, with the digital camera the sensitive light recording device in the camera (ccd) is fixed and limited in its size. The scanning device moves across the surface of the film or print rather slowly recorting information as it moves along and is not limited to the size of a receptor, but rather the size of the scanner bed or drum itself and the technology of the scanner. It's kind of like if a person were to step back twenty feet to view a mural there is only so much information you'd take in from that distance with finer details and nuances getting lost or interpretted by that persons wee brain. But if the same person comes close to the same mural and moves across it slowly bit by bit taking in all the finer details and nuances (the scanner) that may have been missed or interpretted differently from a distance.

Hope that made some sense!

Best,

Marco

I don't think the parallel is as close to audio. A digital picture is not recreated by a "sample" of the image - it captures it whole, similar to film. Whereas the film image is created by a chemical reaction stimulated by light onto a finite number of crystals, a digital image is formed by the wavelength of light acting on a finite number of pixels. And, the final product for digital is a color printer - which is where the parallel to film processing ends. Or maybe not - the 10 grand printers do a great job imitating film prints but the off the shelf 200 dollar ones do not. But it may just be a matter of time - after all, photography has a bigger mass market than high end audio.

I, too, consider myself an avid amateur. I could spend hours in a B&H looking at the Canon L Series lenses the way I look at gear in an audio store.

I've been shooting digital SLRs for the past couple years. I recently took a b&w film class at Penn State Univ and while I hate the waiting and the tons of extra work and time that go into developing everything myself, I found my film work to be much more pleasing to me than the majority of my digital work. I was able to capture the dark moody essense of my subjects in a way I've never been able to digitally. That having been said, I still shoot digitally 95% of the time.

I wish I could draw a parallel to vinyl but I've never had a chance to spend much time with a good analog rig. I will say that I listen to CDs because they're convinient (like digital photography) but if I had the time and money I'd probably be listening to vinyl and shooting 6x6 negatives.

Perhaps our friends at Audiogon recognize this parallel as well. Maybe that's why there is this internet site called Photogon... If you haven't already, check it out.

Marco: I know the scanners are very high res. Even a 35 mm produces 100 megabyte file sizes. It's kind of like doing mastering in the digital domain with 24 bit 384 kHz sample rate. It's much easier to master in the digital domain, both photographically and in audio. However, unless you get up to the very high sample rates (Ray Kimber believes at 384 kHz you can't tell from analog) you do lose something. In film, I'm not a professional, so I don't really know how high the resolution and bit depth need to be in order not to lose anything. It would seem if you were at 1/3 the grain size of the film for scanning, but I don't know about bit depth. My original comment was really more of a philosophical one--but you do bring up a good point.