Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Digital video?

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Sil Greene <Sil_greene AT unc.edu>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Digital video?
  • Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:27:57 -0500 (EST)


Reported 04.03.09 20:56 from James Dasher:
.:On Tuesday, Mar 9, 2004, at 20:18 US/Eastern, Sil Greene wrote:

.:> If you want proof, consider that Digital Zoom is done in software (or
.:> occasionally hardware -- circuitry -- which can be just as buggy as
.:> software, with the advantage of being harder to patch). Ask yourself
.:> how often your commercial software works as advertised, every time.
.:>
.:> Optical zooms don't have that problem. :)
.:
.:To go off on a related tangent: One problem optical zooms *do* have,
.:though, is that camera and lens manufacturers haven't really begun to
.:modify the lenses for digital photography. As a result, whether you
.:use a point-and-shoot or digital SLR, digital prints always look -
.:well, *digital*. No matter how great the image resolution, You can
.:almost always tell a digital print from a film print.

That's not an optical zoom problem; it's a problem that you could (and I
will) argue is inherent in the *digital* mechanism. This is why a great
optical lens on an old film SLR is still a great optical lens on a
digital SLR. I've noticed the same effect. It's not the lens, it's the
medium you're capturing to.

Face it, oh tech companies of the world -- digital, for all it's pros and
all your R&D dollars, doesn't hold a candle to analog.

--Sil

--
"If you put your supper dish to your ears you can hear the sounds
of a restaurant." --Snoopy (Charles Schultz 02-12-2000 RIP)
Sil_Greene AT unc.edu





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page