Wouldnt an active noise cancellation system need a computer to control it? And that computer would need another computer for its noise cancellation system, and that computer would need yet another computer for its noise cancellation system, etc.
I imagine a morbidly quiet room, filled to the brim with noise-cancelling systems...
Check out CML, the cinematography mailing list. There this has been a holy war for many years.
Many believe that the higher frame rates of video subconsciously tell us that something is "real" and that good ol 24 fps film tells the subconscious: "You are watching a story"...
From Luminous Landscapes: "I have had drum scans made from my 35mm and medium format film on several occasions. Yes, an 8000 ppi scan is impressive, and can make bigger prints. But, I'm also convinced that while they give me more pixels, I don't get a whole lot more real data. "
Rrriiiight. Hes convinced. Good enough for me. This is a perfect example of the mass hysteria that "digital has to be better no matter what". A scanned image is only as good as the scanner that scanned it, and scanners are not evolving as rapidly as digital cameras.
Accept the fact that at present film is *technically* better, but digital is easier to use. Select your tool for the task at hand.
In photography brightness is defined in f-stops. Opening up the lens aperture by one f-stop results in twice as much light hitting the image sensor/film. Films such as this one record an effective brightness range of 11+ f-stops. Video/Digital has a long way to go to match that, although resolution is getting similar.
Id also like to see a purely electronic camera shoot 3000+ frames per second like this one.
Video/digital is a whole lot easier to use and is quite good enough for most applications, but film has the advantage in every *measurable* quality. Dont forget that.
Slashdot Mirror
Unary logic. Also solves the pesky problems of users making mistakes.
>Probably the most powerful income reducing agent known.
I thought that was element 51: Anti-Money?
(drum roll)
This is great news. The traditional users of creatine are those who need more brain power!
Wouldnt an active noise cancellation system need a computer to control it? And that computer would need another computer for its noise cancellation system, and that computer would need yet another computer for its noise cancellation system, etc.
I imagine a morbidly quiet room, filled to the brim with noise-cancelling systems...
Check out CML, the cinematography mailing list. There this has been a holy war for many years.
Many believe that the higher frame rates of video subconsciously tell us that something is "real" and that good ol 24 fps film tells the subconscious: "You are watching a story"...
From Luminous Landscapes:
"I have had drum scans made from my 35mm and medium format film on several occasions. Yes, an 8000 ppi scan is impressive, and can make bigger prints. But, I'm also convinced that while they give me more pixels, I don't get a whole lot more real data. "
Rrriiiight. Hes convinced. Good enough for me.
This is a perfect example of the mass hysteria that "digital has to be better no matter what".
A scanned image is only as good as the scanner that scanned it, and scanners are not evolving as rapidly as digital cameras.
Accept the fact that at present film is *technically* better, but digital is easier to use. Select your tool for the task at hand.
--
Jóhannes Tryggvason
Filmmaker
In photography brightness is defined in f-stops. Opening up the lens aperture by one f-stop results in twice as much light hitting the image sensor/film.
Films such as this one record an effective brightness range of 11+ f-stops. Video/Digital has a long way to go to match that, although resolution is getting similar. Id also like to see a purely electronic camera shoot 3000+ frames per second like this one.
Video/digital is a whole lot easier to use and is quite good enough for most applications, but film has the advantage in every *measurable* quality. Dont forget that.
--
Jóhannes Tryggvason
Filmmaker