Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

Monday, 14 February 2011

Digital Versus Film Photography

1
digital versus film photography

Shopping for a Piano: Acoustic Vs. Digital


The most serious piano teachers will adamantly point their students in the direction of an acoustic piano. For serious piano studying, I agree with this completely for reasons I will discuss shortly. But for many reasons, a genuine handcrafted instrument may not be the best choice for you. With the affordability, portability, and the many features that come with digital pianos, you may wish to head the other way. Summarily, the question of acoustic versus digital boils down to a matter of authenticity versus everything else.


Mostly, the drawbacks of an acoustic piano are matters of practicality, such as price. For what you could get a new, decent quality digital piano with, you’ll be dealing with a rather meager acoustic. This can encompass a number of problems. For instance, aside from any tuning it might need, the overall sound quality of a cheap acoustic piano can be quite poor. This may not just be an issue of bad strings, but can result from an infinite number of possible factors arising from any of the complex mechanics of the piano being in disrepair. Other common problems of old pianos are broken keys and sticky keys, which is when the keys fail to spring up the way they should. There may also be faults with the framework that can range from nuisances to impending hazards. The list of the possible troubles of a bad acoustic continues indefinitely, and it is likely that the piano will need a decent amount of initial maintenance, in addition to periodic maintenance, which is likely to pull a few additional large bills out of your wallet right way.


Also, because of its bulk and weight, an acoustic may be a very difficult accommodation for people living in tight or elevated spaces, such as dorm rooms and certain city apartments. Some buildings may even prohibit pianos, particularly on floors above the ground level, because the weight and bulk of pianos make them quite cumbersome and possibly hazardous to either the tenants or the buildings themselves. This raises the issue of portability as well. Do you gig? Do you relocate frequently? Toting a 500 pound upright piano isn’t possible for most people; moving one across the room is a challenge for most people. If your music should ideally be ready to go, your hulking wooden companion is not going to be sympathetic.


Acoustic pianos also lack the many features present in digital pianos nowadays that may be valuable tools to you. For example, volume control may be necessary in dormitory, or close living, situations. Newer digitals also come with a suite of onboard functions, including on-the-fly recording, voice customization, electronic metronome, and even music mixing features, which you won’t have. You will also lack the benefit of porting your music to your PC; a simple MIDI connector would feed your performance directly into your computer’s audio card without any ambient noise or loss of sound quality, which will probably beat any recording made with an acoustic piano and consumer grade recording hardware available at a neighborhood electronics store.


In light what you’re giving up in bells and whistles, surely you will be at a degree of inconvenience being committed to an acoustic piano. Still, despite the great deal of effort digital piano makers have put into their product, none have been able to truly reproduce the sound and feel of a good acoustic piano. First, lets talk about the piano sound. To most people, casual or occasional listeners of piano music, the sounds made with an acoustic piano and a digital piano are quite identical and equally satisfactory musically. But listen closely, because there is an important difference.


A digital piano outputs high quality recordings of the sounds that were made by a real piano at one time. During the process of making a digital piano, each key of a real concert grand piano is struck a number of times at varying velocities and recorded with sophisticated equipment. This array of high quality recordings will serve as the digital voice, and will give the digital piano a rather broad range of tonality and an overall likeness of an acoustic piano in varying music dynamics. But once the notes have been recorded and finally integrated with the digital piano’s voicing mechanism, they are never going to be changed. Even though the aesthetic quality of the sound may be state of the art, it is the way the sounds should behave but cannot because they are fixed recordings that is the fundamental problem of digital pianos.


An acoustic piano uses a complex array of hammers, strings, a soundboard, and other moving parts that function in collaboration. This means that when any note is played, it is not played with entire independence, but is highly affected by the current state of the surrounding components of the piano. For example, playing a chord on a digital piano will simply result in three notes being played, as they were recorded individually, at the same time, whereas with an acoustic piano, the three notes will interact with each other through the soundboard and become a stew of vibrations, producing a different, more complex, and ultimately richer sound. Lacking this quality of pliability, what comes out of digital speakers will typically be quite simplistic and boring, and will be most unsatisfactory to aficionados of the true piano tone.


An acoustic piano is also an analog instrument, which means is has virtually infinite range. For example, there is no limit to the loudness or softness a note may be played on an acoustic piano. With digital pianos, there is a point at which a minimum or maximum will be achieved. This means there will be occasions when you will not be able to play a note as softly or as loudly as you wish. In order words, true pppp or ffff are probably beyond the scope of digital pianos without you resorting to adjusting the volume dial while you’re performing. Even if you were to do that, the tonal quality of the notes would remain static from that point on, when it would further continue to dull or brighten on an acoustic piano.


Another problem of digital devices is the matter of intervals. In photography, for example, pixels are the intervals. With a traditional film camera, the amount of detail you are able to capture is theoretically unlimited because film is a single and continuous malleable body. The “film” of a digital camera is not single or continuous but is a multitude of pixels, each of which is only able to record a solid block of color. The amount of detail a digital camera is able to capture will depend on how small the pixels are and how tightly they’re packed together. If the pixels, or intervals, are small enough and packed closely enough, the amalgam of the blocks of color they record will appear to be smooth curves and gradients to the human eye.


There is a similar issue of intervals with digital pianos, which is mainly the issue of touch sensitivity. Digital pianos have a finite number of intervals when it comes to key pressure. The more intervals there are and the closer they are to each other, the more realistically the piano will respond to your dynamics. High end digital pianos will have quite a lot of them. But digital pianos within the means of average shoppers may not have sufficient sensitivity. This means that while the vast difference between piano and forte may be noticeable, the most intricate variances of touch pressure may be disregarded. This will be quite a nuisance to pianists seeking a highly responsive instrument, particularly when it comes to meticulous classical music.


It also manifests in pedaling. Piano pedals are ranged. Between simple on and off, or up and down, there are degrees. “Half-pedaling” and “quarter-pedaling” are crude terms describing the manner of pedaling in which the pedal is only pressed partially down in order to create an intermediate effect. For instance, rather than completely depressing the pedal so that the full brilliance of a note is sustained, you may wish to depress it only half way to dampen about half of the note and let only the remainder of it sustain for a subtler, suppressed quality. Certainly a scrupulous pianist will wish to employ the complete range of pedaling available to him, which may not be represented entirely accurately in a digital piano.


Aside from sound, as mentioned previously, key touch is also an important issue. Digital piano makers these days have gone to great lengths to reproduce the feel of acoustic pianos. For the most part, they’ve done a good job. They’ve even gone as far as implementing graded hammer action, which is in line with the hammers of acoustic pianos gradually becoming lighter from left to right. As a matter of fact, if you could take a look at the inner workings of a digital piano, you would be quite surprised and impressed with the complexity of the hammer mechanics. However, as long as digital pianos look the way they do, being the shape and size they are, there is going to be a limit as to how authentically the key feel can be made.


The hammers in a digital piano are simply extensions of the pianist’s fingers. When the pianist presses a key down, it will raise the opposing side of the lever, which touches an electronic pad inside the piano that serves as the string. The hammers in an acoustic piano do not behave this way. Instead of being extensions of the pianist’s fingers, they are rather like projectiles that are sprung at the strings high above them. Imagine the carnival game where you hit the pad on the ground with a mallet, which flings a projectile up the meter towards the bell at the very top. The finger is the mallet, the visible piano key is the pad, the hammer inside the piano is the projectile, and the string is the bell. First of all, this means if you press a key all the way down but not with the minimum amount of force needed, the projectile hammer will never leave its seating and the string will actually never be struck. On the part of the pianist, this launch-pad-like action will need a slightly different technique than the seesaw-like action of digital piano hammers, predominantly in difficult works. Secondly, it will feel noticeably different under the fingers.


The only way this can truly be reproduced in a digital piano is by the use of bona-fide acoustic hammers. And there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But the problem is there isn’t enough room for them inside the compact size of most of the digital pianos today. That’s why as long as they look the way they do, the action of digital pianos will not feel completely akin to that of acoustic pianos. Certain higher end models do integrate the acoustic hammer action simply to recreate the key feel. Even higher end models, which are called “silent pianos,” integrate strings as well and are bona-fide acoustic pianos with the added ability to remove the strings from the action and toggle on digital mode in order to provide volume control! But these tend to be even more expensive than acoustic pianos.


In terms of what the average piano shopper will be able to afford, the difference in the overall performance between a digital and acoustic piano will be stark. To restate what I said at the beginning of the article, it really boils down to the authenticity versus everything else. And the authenticity is usually going to cost you more to get. What you should think about is how important it is to you that the piano truly resembles an acoustic. Are you a classical piano student looking at a long road of perfection and possibly a career as a concert performer? Then a digital piano is probably not what you want to be practicing on, even as a temporary substitution, because there is a good chance it will hurt your technique. It is possible to get financing on an acoustic piano, so I would recommend going that route, using your budget of cash as a down payment. If this is not necessarily what you have in mind for your musical venture, then perhaps a digital piano is all you require. Depending on your needs, it may not be a mere reduction of an acoustic, but a substantial upgrade with all the features you’re going to get. Typically, a digital piano will be more than enough to satisfy one’s musical appetite.


About the Author

E. Chung is a student of classical piano and webmaster at Piano Lessons with Master Teachers, a freely available collection of interviews held with over 30 legendary concert pianists and teachers concerning the art of piano mastery. To learn more, visit his website at http://www.piano-lessons-master-teachers.com.



Photography experiment. Digital vs Film.









digital versus film photography5
digital versus film photography5

Monday, 8 November 2010

Photography Digital Vs Film

1
photography digital vs film
digital vs film photography class?

Which one is better? Which one do you recommend? I'm thinking about taking a digital photography class or maybe a regular photography class. Can someone just give me some information and advice because I have cameras for both but I dont know which one would be more fun.. etc etc. Any information will be helpful.

*Please no comments on just picking which one I like. I'm not sure yet so I'd like some information. THANKS!!


I'd say do both, but probably not at the same time. Film has different qualities than digital. What are you into? What do you want to be into? Biggest question is what kind of equipment do you have?

For me I like digital. Just not having to change film every 36 frames is a big plus, especially if your in a moving environment like chasing the kids around the yard. But I keep the old Pentax K1000 around from 30+years ago even though its 100% manual, not even auto focus. Why? Because its the only camera I have with a macro lens. And its built like a brick. Drop it and what ever you dropped it on is broken, not the other way around.

Digital is new and frankly I think its better to learn with. You dont have to waste your half used roll of film to change from ISO 100 to 800, just for a few shots and go back to 100. You dont have to have tons of filters that you may or may not use to compensate for the color of the light. You dont have to develop your film and have the cost of that. You dont have to choose just which shot to take for fear that you'll run out of film. You dont have guess which speed of film you will need later on (oops I forgot to pack some 400 speed film). More and more things are being made for the digital world every day, and less and less for film (in fact Nikon is currently only producing 2 film cameras, the F6 and the FM10. I am sure that the other camera companies are following suit). Most film companies are drastically scaling back production of the actual 35mm film because digital is so popular.

My vote is go digital first.


digital vs. film









photography digital vs film5
photography digital vs film5

Sunday, 14 March 2010

Film Versus Digital Photography

1
film versus digital photography

Myths About Costs For Digital Photography

Because of the new technology that is in use with digital photography, many people are under the impression that it is a very costly hobby to take up. What many people do not realize is that this is simply not true. There are many misconceptions about the cost and some of those will be put to rest right here.



The cost of a standard digital camera that one would use to preserve memories of their family and vacations is just slightly more than the cost of a high quality 35mm camera. Each producing pictures of about the same level. The difference is that with the 35mm you will need to purchase film as well as the camera. Then one will be faced with the cost of developing as well. That is not to say that these costs are not worth the preservations of your memories. However for the cost of about three rolls of film you can usually find a memory card to use with your camera. So consider three rolls of film versus one memory card. Approximately 72 pictures versus 200. However, here is the kicker, if you are to download the pictures from the memory card onto your computer, you can reuse the memory card and refill it with 200 more pictures at no additional cost. Once you have uploaded these pictures onto your computer you can view them and decide which ones you will want to have copies.



Once you figure out how much money you would have to spend on film and then how much money you would save on the use of a memory card you will realize that in itself makes a digital camera a worthwhile investment. However not only does it save money, but time as well. With the ability to order your prints online or with a photo quality printer be able to print them yourself, your timesavings is incredible as well. Consider not having to run to the store to drop off the film, being able to pick the pictures that you want to have printed instead of having a whole roll and half of which are bad shots, you are saving time and money in one fell swoop. In all the myths about digital photography being overly expensive are exactly that myths that need not apply. It is simply something new that some people will fear until they are used to it .


About the Author

Deniece Mize wrote the Article “Myths About Costs For Digital Photography” and recommends you visit http://www.freeinformation4you.com for more information Digital Photography



Zacuto Great Camera Shootout 2010: It's all About Latitude









film versus digital photography5
film versus digital photography5

Sunday, 14 February 2010

Digital Photography Vs Film

1
digital photography vs film
Discursive essay topic?

I have three main choices so far:

Film Photography vs Digital Photography
Animal Experimentation
School Uniform

I thought of doing abortion but I think that topic is over used and I'm sure my teacher will have read it so many times.

What do you think of my main choices? I would prefer the photography one, is that a good one to do? Or should I do something else? Do you have any suggestions and tips? Thank you.


Personally, I'd go for the animal testing topic. Photography is an interesting subject - for people who are interested in photography. But for the rest of the world, it's a pretty dry subject - all technical, no real ethical question there.

The subject of animal experimentation, however, is something most people have an opinion on, and there are compelling arguments for andagainst. Up to you, but I think that's the sort of topic that fills the pages, you know? I know if it were me, I'd have an easier time whipping out a paper on something that gets both sides fired up as opposed to a question for tech geeks. But that's me - and that's what I would rather read about, too. Although your teacher is supposed to be impartial, I think you might fare better with a more "hot button" topic than which camera is better.

Just an opinion - you do what you think is best. Hope you get a good grade.


Santa Vs. Santa (short film) - Shay Carl, wheezywaiter, and Corey Vidal (Christmas 2010)









digital photography vs film5
digital photography vs film5

Sunday, 18 October 2009

Digital Vs Film Photography

1
digital vs film photography

Old Film Camera Out, Digital Camera In

Digital cameras have created a revolution in the world of photography. Although this maybe a tad too expensive, the results can be absolutely marvelous. Unlike others, Digital Photography captures an image via a set of binary codes. These images are transferred from the picture card to a PC for printing with the help of a USB (universal serial bus). The picture card is made up of flash memory modules or recordable CDs. You can also transfer the digital photographs to a website for viewing. The digital photographs on the website can be updated using the various tabs available. This will help in viewing the digital photographs in various formats.




Digital Photography vs. Traditional Photography




Digital Photography requires less work and is less expensive. Traditional Photography is time consuming and needs a lot of details like photocomposition, lighting, styling and other factors.




Advantages of Digital Photography




1 – See and improve pictures in a heartbeat
You can review pictures instantly with a digital camera, so you'll be taking better pictures than ever before. Like somebody frowning, somebody acting like a clown. It is just another picture.




2 – E-mail and print photos instantly
Share digital photographs seconds after taking them; e-mail them anywhere; print them at home or online; or place them in an online album, so friends and family can view your digital photographs and order prints.




3 – Perfect your pictures with the "digital magic"
Was a digital photograph too dark? Did someone have red eyes? That is okay. You can use picture-editing software to lighten the digital photograph. These help in cropping the digital photographs and make lots of other improvements after you take the picture.




4 – Unleash your creativity
Fulfill those creative urges. Turn your digital photographs into photo greeting cards, high quality prints, CD album covers, photo T-shirts, online slide shows.




5 – Enjoy pictures and enjoy life!
Invigorating, exciting and delighting. Digital photography is all these things and more. Escape into a realm where you can do almost anything you want with your pictures.
6 – The promise of preview!
In digital photography the images can be viewed even before they get printed. If you do not like the digital photograph that you have taken you can simply edit them to your taste.




7 – No usage of chemicals!
Digital photography does not involve the use of any kind chemicals that is otherwise needed for the development of a traditional film. Here you also do not have to wait for finishing the film roll already loaded onto your camera. Digital photography lets you take as many photographs as possible.




8 – No more film rolls
It is bye bye to those good old days when you have to buy rolls of film and pay for developing it. With Digital Photography there is no more of those double trips to the shop to drop your negatives and then to pick them up.




Application of Digital Photography




Today digital photography is used for all kinds of photographic takes, especially for studio shots. One reason digital photographs are so popular is because they are so simple to share. One minute the picture is in your camera, the next it is gone around the world to a friend. So, now it is your turn to get yourself a new digi cam.




About the Author

Capture your favorite moment with a
portrait from photo
oil painting. We have an expert
portrait artist
waiting to create your masterpiece.

Photography: film versus digital









digital vs film photography5
digital vs film photography5

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

Film Versus Digital Photography

1
film versus digital photography

International versus Indian Photography

Recent years have see an increase in photography exhibitions, Bollywood films that touch the topic of becoming a photojournalist (Wake Up Sid), wildlife photographer (3 Idiots) or even fashion photography (Fashion) as well as photography courses in Mumbai.




Such an close up on the subject has inspired a good portion of the urban and 2-3 tier cities' Indian youth to take up Art streams at University and has also made parents rethink their pre 90's economic liberation fears and the entire socio economic safety of pushing their kin into becoming an Engineer or Doctor.




On the other hand, this new importance given to photography, has also inspired and attracted to the big cities of India, many international photographers who are said to be more into abstract, conceptual and creative photography than famous Indian photographers such as Raghu Rai, who are known for their photojournalist skills and aesthetics considered ‘classic' or ‘realistic' in nature - people, landscapes and what is blatantly recognized as ‘travel photography' or "the India of Lonely Planet".




Whether all this fits into theoretical debates on Art or to the various theory discourses accepted by the international photographers' community and the Art snobby/bitchy fraternity, is up to the reader/thinker to decide, but no one can deny that if we are looking for a unique style of photography to be called Indian, we can surely look at every single bharatiya wedding album sitting in the dusty corner of any kind of accommodation of any kind of society strata in India – be it a slum in Dharavi, a penthouse in Bandra, a chawl in Lower Parel or a historical building in Colaba.




Half of the job in the business of wedding photography relies on retouching softwares used with digital files and cameras and that allow photographers to bring out the creativity accumulated during their IT and graphic design studies. People and married couples are copied and pasted in floral, architectural and ‘spaceshipeal' backgrounds; colors are emphasized and saturated; people's faces are on the gothic white skin tones and everybody needs to essentially look very serious, sad and solemn in the face of a new scary wedded life.




Has anyone seen an exhibition on Indian wedding photography? Is this form of clicking considered Art? Folk Art or Commercial Art? Will any of the new generations of photographers embrace this career path?




Some international photographers and artists would surely define Indian wedding photography a popular, kitsch or even folk art form, while Indian photographers despise these media products and do not consider them as part as anything. Does this repeat overrun issues of the Kantian philosophy of aesthetics popular in the 18th century? Has not the artistic clock stopped into the past by 300 years for these critics/artist/individuals who are not even interested in this form of media production? Is Postmodernism only part of the Global North?




Many questions to answer and many photographs to be clicked and looked in India. International photographers escaping the first decade of millennium recessions can surely become refuges of the great virgin lands of India. Art galleries better keep their doors wide open.


About the Author

The Author of this article is a Professional Photographer



my photo kits: film & digital









film versus digital photography5
film versus digital photography5
film versus digital photography5

Friday, 7 August 2009

Film Vs Digital Photography

1
film vs digital photography
Canon A-1 vs Canon AE-1 & making artistic images?

So basically i'm new to traditional SLR photography. My friend owns a Canon AE-1 and produces BEAUTIFUL artistic, grainy, colorful, flawed images (which I want to do also!). They look quite lomographic (I think thats the right word) The guy at the store said if I was going to get an AE-1 that I might as well get the A-1 and that it could do the same and more as the AE-1. Well, basically the A-1 produces images that are "too clear" for me, and even with the same film as my friend uses for her AE-1, it looks almost like a digital photo. I think i'm going to take it back to exchange for an AE-1 instead. Can someone with photo advice help me choose whether or not this is a good idea? Thanks so much for your help.


There is nothing wrong with your camera. If you want flawed images you should just buy a lomo camera or a diana. your friends camera is old and is desperate need of maintaince.

You actually got a well functioning canon a1. (which is an updated model of the ae1.

Really you have two options.
One. Buy a lomo or diane
two. Drop your camera on the floor and throw it in the wash cycle of your washing machine. That ought to damage your camera sufficiently to get the result you are after.

the canon a1 were percise tools made for serious photographers who were serious about learning their craft (exposure, composition and light).
Lomo and diane were toys made for people who find inaccurate, poorly made cameras, artistic


Estevan Oriol Vlog #3: Digital Era Vs. Film Era









film vs digital photography5
film vs digital photography5

Monday, 22 September 2008

Digital Versus Film Photography

1
digital versus film photography
What film camera should I get?

My digital camera is ruined (buttons won't work), and I'm thinking about getting a new camera.
I don't really have a lot of money to spend, and I prefer a film camera this time. Since it's my senior year of high school, I know that I'll have to start taking lots and lots of photos (trips, parties..), and I really like the creativity involved with film, versus digital photography. I was thinking about getting a Holga 120 GCFN, what do you think?


I have a Holga 120N and it's a pretty good camera to have. Keep in mind that the shutter spring may wear out if you use it ALOT and also 120 film is a bit more pricey (not much) than 35mm film. Also, printing your pictures will be a bit more expensive (also not much) with 120 film because it can't be developed at the 1 hour photo places. However, the quality of 120 film and the unpredictability of the Holga Lomo cameras means that you'll get great quality pictures sometimes with unintended effects. You can also get a 35mm converter for your Holga so you can shoot both 35mm and 120 film. You might want to consider getting a flash for your Holga if your model doesn't already have one as it enables night shots to come out better. I'd also suggest you start off with ISO 400 film if you're not used to taking pictures with film. It's a very forgiving film speed and works well in both day and nighttime settings. Keep in mind that the camera body is made of plastic so it can be a bit cheap feeling but that's part of the appeal, it's also a-lot bigger than you typical digital camera. In addition, the lenses of certain models are made of glass while others are made of plastic (like mine) and these produce different types of effects. All in all it's a pretty great camera to have given that you understand what you're getting and are willing to experiment. Enjoy!


Beginning Photography Tips & Techniques : 35 mm Film Camera Versus a Digital SLR









digital versus film photography5
digital versus film photography5
digital versus film photography5

Wednesday, 23 July 2008

Film Vs Digital Photography

1
film vs digital photography
For digital photography - is "just like film" still the goal?

...or have we surpassed that? I am not trying to start a film vs. digital war, but I am asking whether you think digital photography is still chasing certain qualities of film imagery or if it has gone off in its own directions, with new standards.

"Grain," colors, sharpness, dynamic range...

Whatever you think of is valid, but please try to avoid elevated blood pressures and emotionally charged responses.
My point is NOT to decide whether film is better than digital or not! Please don't go there.

My question is whether you or not think that digital has arrived as its own medium, no longer feeling the pressureto "chase after film."

Yes, film is better and will always BE better at certain things, but digital is better at certain other things.

My point is to ask whether digital has matured into its own tree from the tree from which it fell or if it is still just the red-headed step-child, struggling for recognition in the world.


Just like film is still the goal until the prices of digital cameras decline and technology stabilizes, doesn't obsolete itself so quickly. Achieving something just like film is not available to most consumers unless they purchase expensive cameras, I believe in the $5000-$6000 range. I have a NikonD200, already it is obsolete with the D300 that just came out.


Film Vs Digital_MP4 HD 360.mp4









film vs digital photography5
film vs digital photography5
film vs digital photography5

Monday, 19 May 2008

Digital Photography Vs Film

1
digital photography vs film

Photography - Understanding Film Vs Digital Cameras

Emulsion film, as a medium for capturing photographic images, has been around in one form or another for more than 150 years. But due to the rapidly growing popularity of digital cameras, newcomers to photography are sometimes surprised to discover that film is still being manufactured and sold for all-purpose photography. Once their first digital camera is in hand, and they have mastered the art of recording images electronically, and storing them as files, the idea of using film seems a strange concept indeed.

So why is film still being used by some photographers?

To understand the answer to this, we will need to take a look at the differences between film stock and the modern image sensors that make digital cameras possible.

Let's start with the newer technology: the light sensitive electronic surface that sits at the center of a digital camera, and which is known as an image sensor. Basically these sensors are a specialized form of microchip. But they do not carry out any computations. Instead, all they do is measure the amount of light that falls on different parts of the sensor surface in a given time window. If you were to zoom in on one of these thumbnail-sized chips, blowing it up to the size of a football stadium, you would see that the surface of the sensor looked a lot like your tiled kitchen floor.

Each one of those square tiles represents a separate photodiode, capable of measuring just the amount of light that falls on it. In fact, sitting just above each photodiode is a colored filter. The filter is there to block all but the wavelength of light that it sends on to the photodiode. These filters come in red, green, and blue, so that any given photodiode will be measuring only the intensity of light for the particular color of the filter sitting above it.

Imagine for the moment that every tile on that kitchen floor is green. Now take one row of tiles and color every second tile blue. For the next row of tiles, color every second tile red, but shift the red tiles across by one space so that the red tiles appear beneath the green tiles of the previous row. Then repeat the process with blue tiles on the next row, and so on, until the entire floor is covered with these alternate rows of green/blue and green/red tiles. This is just what the surface of the image sensor looks like when seen close up.

In point of fact, this particular arrangement of colored filters, with twice as many green pixels as either red or blue, is known as a Bayer array. It is the most commonly used color filtering method employed in digital cameras, but it is by no means the only one used. Because the human eye is more sensitive to green light than red or blue, the green-favoring of the Bayer system actually works to its advantage when the colors are finally combined to produce printable images.

Every time a digital camera is used to record an image, this mosaic of colored tiles captures the various intensities of red, green, and blue light. So every photodiode, or "electronic pixel", has associated with it a color and a number. If a perfectly green lime was being photographed, the red and blue pixels would have the number zero associated with them, while the green pixels around them would carry non-zero numbers. In reality, small contributions of red and blue light would be mixed with much stronger green contributions to produce the hues of green that color the skin of the lime.

All of this information is whisked away from the image sensor and stored in a temporary image buffer, later to be transferred to the memory card used by digital cameras to store images as files. Software is then used to manipulate the images (or not) before they are finally sent to a photo printer.

The resolution of the images is determined by the number of photodiodes (pixels) that can be crammed onto the surface of an image sensor. These days it is not uncommon to find about 4000 pixels along one edge of the sensor, and 2500 along the other. The product of these numbers is 10 million, or 10 megapixels in the digital camera parlance.

So, how does this compare with film resolution?

Well, these days the brand of film stock recognized as offering the finest resolution is Fuji's Velvia 50 RVP. While it is not possible to ascribe a grain size to the emulsion that is used in slide film (there are a number of different sized grains in the dyes that make up the emulsion) an effective number of pixels per inch can be assigned to film stock based on how many closely-spaced "thin lines" can be resolved in the laboratory. The effective PPI, or pixels per inch, for Velvia is about 4000. This translates, assuming a 35mm frame size, to about 22 megapixels of image resolution. For better known film brands, like Kodachrome, the number is closer to 9 megapixels.

Clearly, with current top-end digital SLR models offering resolutions that surpass 20 megapixels, the numerical advantage that film once offered in terms of image resolution has all but vanished. Digital cameras now match the image resolution of even the very best film stocks, and will surpass them as image sensor technology continues to improve.

So now we are back to our still-answered question: why is film stock still produced when digital imagery is on a par with it, at least in terms of resolution?

The answer is that resolution is by no means the full story when it comes to creating a great image. As mentioned, emulsions contain a range of grain sizes and dye components that work together to produce effects that cannot easily be reproduced with three sets of red, green, and blue numbers. Velvia, for instance, adds more warmth to the actual recorded colors, and produces landscape images that look better than the real thing.

Fortunately for us, the makers of film stock, and the makers of digital cameras, are not, by and large, the same people. Otherwise film stock might disappear a lot more quickly from the world of photography. That probably will not happen for a while though. Not as long as film stock can produce images that surpass the quality of digital methods. Until that is no longer the case, photographic film will have a place in the world of photography.

To help you select a suitable digital camera to get started with, I have put together an article for you about how to find the right Beginner Digital Camera.

Whether you need a simple point-and-shoot model, or a more complex digital SLR model, you will find the answers, and greatly discounted digital camera offers, at http://www.bestdigitalcameradiscounts.com/


About the Author

Stephen Carter is a web developer and creator of the review script Review Foundry. He is also the creator of Best Digital Camera Discounts His interest in photography spans decades.



Digital vs Film









digital photography vs film5
digital photography vs film5
digital photography vs film5