That hurts.
It's cool, I was joking.
Continue your discussion, if necessary of course, but please don't make this into another tree house or something.
Decay of video game discs
- Thread starter Atomkilla
- Start date
That hurts.
It's cool, I was joking.
Continue your discussion, if necessary of course, but please don't make this into another tree house or something.
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I'm collecting and listening to gramophone records, much older technology than tapes. Sounds great and there's some charm in those old vinyls.
Ghost Recon did that to me, but it was obviously due to poor storage. I regard it as a little reminder of the old days, where if you had a cassette, and fucked it up, you no longer had that cassette. With digital ages, the internet is stuffed with back-up products (of digitally available material anyway)
I didn't take care of the disc, and finally it would not properly install the game. I think of it like this - scratch a music CD, and you get a few songs fucking up, but a single scratch on a game disc, who knows what has been affected - likely the entire product :I
I didn't take care of the disc, and finally it would not properly install the game. I think of it like this - scratch a music CD, and you get a few songs fucking up, but a single scratch on a game disc, who knows what has been affected - likely the entire product :I
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
I've read that that the MP3 algorithm tosses out much of the seemingly inaudible frequencies in analog recordings; but that those frequencies can have emotional effects on the listener, and that it's missing from the MP3 copy of the recording. This was said of classical music, but I would assume it is the same for all styles. A generation of Ipodders that have never experienced the whole of the works... but just the glaringly audible bits retained by the compression code.
Last edited:
I'm a vinyl collector too. It's one of the few hobbies I have, and the most expensive one at that.
Records don't decay though, if properly stored and listened on good record players with quality needles, since those two are just about the only ways that you can ruin a record. Especially with the modern chemistry behind the records production and the fact that 180g is becoming a standard on the market.
I personally loathe MP3.
I don't have anything against digital format, mind you - majority of the music I listen is in FLAC, since I'm rarely at home and don't have plenty of opportunities to listen to my records/CDs, but I hate when I see compression destroying good music. Nothing beats the physical format for me, no, but if I'm forced to listen to the music on my computer, why shouldn't I enjoy it best way possible? Not like it takes *much* more space on my drive, that is.
I don't think iPod accepts FLAC though. Those things are shit.
Last edited:
Drive space isn't much of a problem anymore, so FLAC all the way.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
When I get a record, I like to make a 24 bit digital recording of the first play; that way I keep the best session I'm likely to hear from it as a digital backup, in case it gets scratched or destroyed. Even Audacity will do that ~if you have the hardware for it.
That's very smart of you.
Sadly, I myself don't possess the hardware for such and endeavor, but I try to keep my records as well kept as possible. Much of my collection is actually my father's, with many vinyls 30+ years old, and majority of those are in very good shape even today. Sleeves and such are sometimes damaged, but the records themselves are still very good - maybe with an occasional noise coming from the fact that they were played a lot, but on good needles.
As for my own records, I sometimes get second hand stuff, usually first pressings of some "cult" albums. When I get them, they are in near mint/mint shape most of the time though.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Y'know, valcik earlier threw out the accusation of "claims of authority", and I should've addressed it then, because clearly not doing so has left users such as you to assume it was the case? Authority? Please... I have never, nor will I ever, relied on ethos. That's just laughable. That's why I never addressed the meme pic post of Cartman being misused to represent me, because it couldn't fit worse if you tried. It doesn't matter how you know something, but "I read about it"? I'm sorry, but if missing the way people just KNEW things before google and twitter and wikipedia and the internet IN GENERAL were immediately available resources is somehow... Actually no, I won't even finish that thought and mark it with the appropriate sarcasm. Because it's a normal, healthy sentiment. I love the way the Information Age has evolved since the 80s, and how much faster and more available information has become. But I still miss the way people KNEW things before the internet picked up steam. You could ask someone for directions, and they either knew where it was or they didn't. Now they just ask Siri on their smartphone. It does the work for them, and I lament that laziness that has taken hold of people.
To begin with: Tried to weasel out? You're confusing my foresight with backpedaling. I pointed out that I stated FROM THE START that my knowledge was dated, and that meant it was subject to all sorts of errors. Yet that's me claiming I'm not wrong and refusing to budge and not reevaluating the situation? How about you check with reality and understand what knowledge of one's own propensity for error on account of being human and on account of their knowledge being afflicted by time is NOTHING like your accusations.
Secondly: Claiming I never said what I wrote and that it was proven to be wrong? Okay, I don't even know how to address that, because it's just not true. I said something, then you said "no" in a manner I took objection with. You didn't seem to understand my objection and your following reply put words in my mouth. I corrected you that what you claimed I'd said was never said. You continued to misunderstand my replies for some kind of stubbornness and proceeded to get more and more incensed with every rebuttal. This is a spiral-out-of-control I've noticed in others ever since childhood, and being incapable of understanding other people's ways of thinking has cause me a lot of trouble when I could articulate mistakes such as yours without being able to articulate how others couldn't come to those same conclusions. Call that arrogance if you want, but it's simply the truth.
Thirdly: Again with the authority nonsense. As written above, I never rely upon authority. I see no value in it. If I did, then I'd try to use some kind of status to argue that no one should give credence to authority by virtue of that arbitrary status. But I don't, and I never will. Unless "logic" is an authority to you (which it's not), I will never bow to an authority or rely upon authority to assert a claim. Stop making the same mistake.
Am I supposed to care that you find anything I do insulting when you follow that up IMMEDIATELY with an insult? That's called burning bridges. Casting stones. You appeal to someone's humility by NOT lobbing insults at them. e.g. "I find that very hurtful. You were always such an asshole, I'm glad she broke up with you." is NOT the right way to go about things. "I find that very hurtful." and ending on that note is much better. But no, you had to inflate your position, then attack mine, then insult me. You left no room for pity, so ergo I have none.
Frankly, I didn't edit my original post, despite the corrections, because of personal quirks/preferences. NOT because I can't admit fault. So, because I refuse to edit posts and respond to mistakes of yours is perceived as me being stubbornly incapable of admitting "defeat" and wrongdoing that means I should submit and change my ways? No. I'm going to continue being me, and doing things in the way I feel is most appropriate. I STILL refuse to edit older posts, unless something (usually my OCD) prompts me to in a manner I simply cannot resist, but if I have the opportunity to stick to my principles, I shall. I'm a disciplined, principled individual, and what I believe is the right thing to do I will do. I made a statement in error, and I WILL NOT correct that error EVER. I will leave that error as a reminder that I made a mistake. If you have a problem with that method, then that's your problem. I prefer to remind myself of lessons of humility, and if you think that's arrogance, that's your problem. I have an earnest desire to keep arrogance in check and to always abide by humility whenever possible, and if you can't see that, that's your problem. I don't have anything to prove to you. Nothing. If I make a mistake, that matters to no one above me.
Incidentally, I have patience, as I don't throw out a post so recklessly and hastily that I cannot see the spell-checker. It's spelled "electromagnetic", among other errors. By the way, if this wasn't obvious enough, let me spell out the the point of this line for you. It is NOT "Oooh, you mispelled words, hurr hurr I win!!!!!!" Rather, it IS that you were so hotheaded in your response that you rushed it, when caution and tact were the appropriate course. The next time you get upset and you feel like you need to make a response, stop, take a breather, and don't.
Just cute. Feeble, pointless, proves nothing, but cute. Nothing more. People have tried to quote my mottos and principles before and use them as ammunition against me, they failed then, and you failed now. I stick to my principles, at all costs. I stated from the get-go that I could be potentially clueless, oblivious, mistaken, or simply forgetful, and somehow you labeled that as hubris and ignorance.
As always, you completely misunderstood what I said earlier when you made that meme pic post, and you misunderstand it now having posted that. I never said I helped package FO discs, I said I worked at the place that printed some of them. If I can't just refer to an event without you misunderstanding what was said, then let me spell it out to you. I, a young kid, working an internship at this place, learning about it with each passing day, am on break with one of the workers, talking about the facility. He's giving me the run of the land, and I'm just soaking it up. He mentions how they produce the discs for many different companies and I, still fresh off of my love for Fallout, ask if Interplay is one of them, to which he confirms, "Yeah, I think so." Not very definitive, but I was over the moon over that, regardless. I never TOUCHED a single FO1/2/T disc "fresh from the press" before it was in its packaging, and because the masters and betas were cataloged by numbers (not names) I have no idea if I ever held a master or beta disc of any Fallout game. But I was excited as all hell at the mere prospect that I was THAT one step closer to the creation of something I really loved. It left a lasting impression on me.
But regardless, you're STILL off on my age. First you think I'm 20, then you think I'm 35? You're atrocious at math, it seems. Since you can't seem to solve to y, I'll spell it out for you. I was 17 in the summer of 2002 when I worked at IPC Communication Services in Fountain Valley, California, where they mass produced CDs, CDRs, and CDRWs, among other electronics packaging and distribution. Now you know y. 2014 - 2002 = 12 ; 17 + 12 = 29 and I am 29. Get it now? Math is easy. Not that my personal details are any of your business, you nosy snoop.
As always, your admiration for the virile in reacting to your impotence is pitifully amusing.
Sorry man. I was just trying to help, but some people really took issue with me making a mistake and not liking the manner in which they conducted themselves. But it doesn't really matter what the reason is, certain people just will take any chance they get to have a go at certain targets of theirs. Just take a look at the users who radded Hassknecht's post, and you'll see what I mean.
POST ADD:
I know what you mean. Although I DO have a bit of an issue with digital formats. For me, it's not music that I take issue with, but games and movies. I treasure my DVD and CD and Bluray collection, and when I hear people talking about "digital is the future" is just makes me sick. I always loved seeing movies being "updated" for modern formats and the fact that the original film being in such perfect quality is the reason WHY they were able to do that. But could they reverse the process? Take that digital video and make it into that printed representation of an image based on light? Not even remotely. When I was taking classes that worked with pictures, I learned firsthand how crappy digital images really are, and I took that lesson to heart. I don't USUALLY hear the difference in most of the music I listen to, but sometimes I can tell. I hate looking for certain songs and only finding low quality versions. I love MP3s, but I can't deny that... sometimes it's really hard to find a good quality copy of a song. =/
Last edited:
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
What I used was an off the shelf 24 bit PCI soundcard (one that also recorded in 24 bit). Brands vary; it seems that some play but don't record at that rate, but I've seen some that do record selling online for as low as $33. Any musical instrument store in a city might also have these. NewEgg has 4 that seem to.
Last edited:
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You'd need proper digital/analog converter connected to external amplifier anyway, otherwise even lossless format as FLAC won't play crystal clear. There's shitty and cheap DAC used in small mobile devices as iPod or common PC sound cards, so there are some quality losses in output anyway.
Yup, I'm very curious person!
Lord Almighty...
Let's start from the beginning, eh?
There are a few possibilities here: Gizmojunk and I (and the ressources we checked) are wrong. You remembered it wrong. The guys you worked with and told you about it were wrong.
You didn't do any of this and felt patronised by being told you were wrong.
Now, I answered to that:
Instead we get this:
Oh, and notice how your worst case scenario is that the manufacturing process changed or improved? Sorry, buddy, the worst case scenario is ALWAYS that you got it entirely wrong. A telltale sign, I'd say. Luckily this was about the manufacturing process of pressed CDs, so you weren't actually wrong. Still, you actually admit that you have no idea about CD-R/RW write processes, yet you don't fancy the thought that you might have gotten that one wrong. You still maintain that the process maybe changed.
Explaining how your explanation was derived from experience is nice and all, but you absolutely implied that your knowledge was somehow inherently better than the researched knowledge. That is, in fact, an appeal to authority, even if you didn't mean it that way. The fact that other people also read it as an appeal to authority should be something of a warning sign.
Anyway, I then point out that you did in fact say that CD-R/RW are written by creating divets in the metal, in your initial post, which is factually wrong.
At that point I still thought it was all a misunderstanding which could be resolved if we both just re-examine what we wrote.
Turns out I was wrong:
Yes, Rs and RWs are made in a different way. You notice that. Yet you still can't wrap your head around the possibility that you were wrong about something.
Here you still think that maybe something changed, but you were never actually, fully wrong.
I answered accordingly:
There are two specific things you said that were wrong. Which I point out. Nothing else.
About this time I get a teensy bit fed up with your behaviour.
This is what made me snap(slav):
Now that you're more or less cornered and you can't get out of being wrong about something you resolve to tone-policing and that you were the good guy all along.
Yay. You assume that I simply decided that you were wrong without any further checks. That pisses me off, as evidenced by the rant that follows from me:
And then there's your response to that... Oh boy.
Oh, and I didn't even use Google in the beginning. I have physical books about the topic lying around, too.
You know what's great about the Internet and knowledge readily available everywhere? You can easily check up on things. When you just "know" something you can make mistakes. With the Internet you can check if you actually know it correctly. Pretty handy feature.
And yeah, I know my English isn't the most fluid or beautiful. The perils of English as a second language.
Yeah, I think we can all see how moderate and self-deprecating you are.
Let's start from the beginning, eh?
The bold part is what is incorrect. Which is what Gizmojunk and I pointed out.
And:
You took issue with that, here:The technical parts are very wrong. A CD-R/RW is written by a laser "burning" the dye-layer of the CD-R, changing the transparency locally. Underneath the dye-layer is a layer of silver (with aluminium) or gold to reflect the read-out laser beam. Note that none of the metals involved are ferromagnetic. A magnet won't do anything to it. You seem to have mixed up HDDs, MiniDiscs/MODiscs and CD production
Writable CDs are very susceptible to light, though, as the dye-layer is made from an organic dye designed to be destroyed (the write-laser). It can degrade, and earlier writable CDs degraded very fast.
How is that not an appeal to authority? While you admit that your decade-old knowledge might be fuzzy you somehow think that this knowledge is inherently better than what people looked up. Two people told you that something was wrong with your post. You could have re-evaluated your post, checked if you had some typo in it that made us misunderstand it, or maybe even checked up on the CD-R process to see if you maybe had it wrong.
There are a few possibilities here: Gizmojunk and I (and the ressources we checked) are wrong. You remembered it wrong. The guys you worked with and told you about it were wrong.
You didn't do any of this and felt patronised by being told you were wrong.
Now, I answered to that:
Here I point out specifically what I thought was wrong with your technical description. At this point you could notice that I was maybe misunderstanding you and go back to your initial post to see why that was.
Instead we get this:
Here you deny saying that CD-R/RW are written by creating divets in the metal.
Oh, and notice how your worst case scenario is that the manufacturing process changed or improved? Sorry, buddy, the worst case scenario is ALWAYS that you got it entirely wrong. A telltale sign, I'd say. Luckily this was about the manufacturing process of pressed CDs, so you weren't actually wrong. Still, you actually admit that you have no idea about CD-R/RW write processes, yet you don't fancy the thought that you might have gotten that one wrong. You still maintain that the process maybe changed.
Explaining how your explanation was derived from experience is nice and all, but you absolutely implied that your knowledge was somehow inherently better than the researched knowledge. That is, in fact, an appeal to authority, even if you didn't mean it that way. The fact that other people also read it as an appeal to authority should be something of a warning sign.
Anyway, I then point out that you did in fact say that CD-R/RW are written by creating divets in the metal, in your initial post, which is factually wrong.
At that point I still thought it was all a misunderstanding which could be resolved if we both just re-examine what we wrote.
Turns out I was wrong:
Yes, Rs and RWs are made in a different way. You notice that. Yet you still can't wrap your head around the possibility that you were wrong about something.
Here you still think that maybe something changed, but you were never actually, fully wrong.
I answered accordingly:
There are two specific things you said that were wrong. Which I point out. Nothing else.
About this time I get a teensy bit fed up with your behaviour.
This is what made me snap(slav):
Now that you're more or less cornered and you can't get out of being wrong about something you resolve to tone-policing and that you were the good guy all along.
Yay. You assume that I simply decided that you were wrong without any further checks. That pisses me off, as evidenced by the rant that follows from me:
Not much more I can add to that.
And then there's your response to that... Oh boy.
Yeah, you did appeal to authority, as explained above. You might not have done so intentionally, but several people read it as an appeal to authority.
Oh, and I didn't even use Google in the beginning. I have physical books about the topic lying around, too.
You know what's great about the Internet and knowledge readily available everywhere? You can easily check up on things. When you just "know" something you can make mistakes. With the Internet you can check if you actually know it correctly. Pretty handy feature.
Your "foresight" was that maybe something changed, but never that you were actually wrong about something from the beginning.
Now what would that be? You wrote that recordable CDs are written by creating divets in metal. That the metal could be influenced by (implied static) magnetic fields. Both wrong.
As written above, yeah, it's an appeal to authority. That you didn't even noticed that it is one tells a lot about you.
Oh, now patronising posts are insulting? Look up the meaning of the word, brah.
You're not supposed to edit your post, you're supposed to admit that you're wrong. Especially in a topic that's about a technical problem, because wrong assertions about the physical properties of CDs lead to wrong assertions about what can destroy the information on a CD.
Yeah, sorry about that. I don't use spellcheck, and sometimes letters or even words just slip away. I try my best to catch all typos, but especially missing letters still elude me, even though I reread my posts several times.
And yeah, I know my English isn't the most fluid or beautiful. The perils of English as a second language.
Yeah, I think we can all see how moderate and self-deprecating you are.
Last edited:
and how crap are they? You do realize that the quality of images has nothing do with the fact if they are digital or not, right? Unless you talk about some particular effect, like Daguerrotype. If we stay with offset printing though the quality you can achieve today with the correct printers and paper is incredible.
Last edited:
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
It would be simpler to merely state that "yes, all those times you suspected it was misunderstanding were correct", except for the fact that you STILL don't understand what went on, and your inability to understand it has led you to repeatedly resort to emotional and hostile attacks, not measured or reasoned discourse. I point out that the matter was not the contents of a rebuttal but the insinuation held within and you miss that and carry on assuming I was at odds with the contents all along. I restate that the case is not with "what was said, but how it was said", and you continue with your misunderstanding that it's all about "what". I thoroughly explain my disappointment with how access to information has resulted in laziness, and you equate that with an appeal to authority and restate that over and over. Like I said before, I've witnessed these kinds of misunderstandings all my life, so yours is nothing new. That being said, it doesn't make it any less intolerable.
You ALSO spent a great deal of that absurdity-that-which-was-snipped putting words in my mouth, assuming you understood my motives and thoughts, and voicing them here, also known as bullshitting. Claiming I was "trying to weasel out" when all I ever did was address a criticism. Claiming I was "[resolving] to tone-policing" as a result of being "cornered and can't get out of being wrong about something" and "[I was] the good guy all along" when I was disapproving of method/manner/approach FROM THE BEGINNING and never felt cornered nor switched my stances at all. Claiming "yet you don't fancy the thought that you might have gotten that one wrong," as well as, "Here you still think that maybe [...] you were never actually, fully wrong," when, as I will demonstrate below, nothing could be further from the truth. You assumed much of what I said, and despite your expressing suspicion of misunderstanding, you resolved very firmly that you understood EXACTLY what I was doing and why and how I thought about it. Maybe there's a misunderstanding, but you understand everything YOU CANNOT KNOW perfectly? The audacity of that hypocrisy is nauseating.
But onto the next point I said I'd make:
You also claimed, "Your "foresight" was that maybe something changed, but never that you were actually wrong about something from the beginning."
In stark contrast, I stated, "It was a long time ago, so doubtless my memory of everything I learned there isn't as sharp as had I been there yesterday".
I also stated, "I also said that my knowledge was rusty" and, "this was over 10 years ago" and, "Was it my memory that changed the information I was told? It could be"
Put simply, ALL of my statements were preconceived admissions of the possibility of falsehood on my part. I did my best to cover every possibility I could think of, whether it be that the technology changed OR that I was mistaken due to [insert reason, likely memory error]. And yet somehow I'm still dodging that I could have been wrong? Somehow you fixate on the first part, completely ignoring the rest of it, and you even add to that condescension with your haughty sarcasm:
At this point, you should take careful note of the difference between our two methods. At no point am I putting words in your mouth or assuming your thought processes. I'm simply summing up EXACTLY what was said and done. Facts, not assumptions.
: : : : :
Already knew the meaning of the word, but because you insist... A quick search returns: "treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority."
Also defined as "to insult using veiled politeness".
Also defined as "if someone patronizes you [...] they talk to you as if you were inferior or not very intelligent."
Also defined as "treat condescendingly, insultingly"
Also defined as "It's telling when someone has to end their sentence with the word 'brah' to demonstrate that they're just being a douchebag."
Now, where's the misunderstanding here, hmm? Is it that the crux of your statement revolved around the italicized "now" and that apparently I switched sides at any time, or something? Or is it that at any time I misunderstood the meaning of the word? Either way, you'd be wrong.
Furthermore, every time you repeated that you "looked stuff up", you ignored the meaning behind my remarks here:
It's not about self-censorship or posting method or formatting. It's about the principle of "This is what I said, stand by it, and never deny it. If I'm wrong, embrace that fact and learn from that mistake. Never cover it up." This is why "knowing" versus "researching" is so important to me, because you can always hide behind "Oh I didn't know that" if you simply use citation to make your points, and thus claim no wrongdoing, yet if you rely upon your own misunderstandings then you MUST ADMIT to your wrongdoings where you make them. Somehow, despite my best efforts to express this, you still don't understand that. But let's not forget, you know exactly what I was thinking and why I made my posts every step of the way, right?
I'm not opposed to research, and I have nothing but great appreciation for the wealth of knowledge that rests at our fingertips. I'm just appalled at the misuse of it, and that the availability of knowledge has done anything BUT empower most with greater knowledge, because tragically, it hasn't. It's simply encouraged sloppiness and sloth.
: : : : :
Yet again, you completely miss the point. I stated, several times, this is not about language or spelling comprehension or typsetting or grammar. This is about haste. This is about you firing off resentful rants in lieu of thoughtful, careful ones. This is about recklessness in place of caution. I'm cautious, careful, slow and methodical. Maybe I just see it that way, but you SEEM to be rushing and impatient. THAT'S the point, not that your grasp of English is poor. (If anything, it's not apparent in the slightest that it's a second language.)
It's besides the point, but there's a very important reason (to me) why I'm not addressing your handle on English. My mother is an immigrant and she has a fierce inferiority complex about her grasp of English, a tragedy that always breaks my heart, because SHE taught me many of my lessons of proper English growing up that, without her guidance, my writing would have never reached the state of high standards I hold it to, today. I grew up watching people I cared deeply for resent their own foothold on another language they weren't born with, so believe me, I WILL NEVER FIXATE ON SOMEONE'S POOR GRASP OF ANOTHER LANGUAGE. It's not in my nature. Stop mistaking that to be my purpose.
And let's not overlook, before we move on, that me saying "Maybe I just see it that way, but you SEEM" is a critical admission of fallibility. Again, I never miss the chance to underline that I'm not omniscient.
Now, onto something different:
Are you kidding? It's a HUGE difference! I'm not talking about the end result of a polaroid vs the end result of a print and that paper with one is not paper with the other. I'm talking about the "data" stored. The analogue negatives have INFINITELY finer detail than the compressed digital files, and one blows up however large you want it while the other just gets grainier and more pixelated. Yes, a picture with a polaroid is made up of millions of tiny dots, but that's not what I was talking about.
I like how his only retort is to get defensive and attack people who disagree with him, including myself. I applaud your patience and attention to fact, Hass.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
As always, your fantasy of what consists of a tantrum and what consists of a burn is just... well, it's it.
How it's amusing to you that the natural reaction towards being attacked is to defend is a mystery to anyone with an ounce of thought. Your feeble attempts to disguise your bitter vindictive streak are only enhanced by every attempt you make to draw attention to your grudges.
How it's amusing to you that the natural reaction towards being attacked is to defend is a mystery to anyone with an ounce of thought. Your feeble attempts to disguise your bitter vindictive streak are only enhanced by every attempt you make to draw attention to your grudges.
Seriously, digital images today are by no means "crapy". I take it that you exagerate here a little. Do you know how many informations they can store today? 16bit is for most cases more then enough and if you really want to get more then you can get as far like 32bit. The difference between digital and print is that your monitor can not display all colour ranges, while you can always add colours to printing, albeit it's very expensive. The RGB and CMYK colour create pretty much all the ranges you need. There are issues when you want to print orange for example, because CMYK cant mix that succesfully, it will always look dull, and anything metalic (silver, gold etc.) requires also special colours.
When it comes to images what counts is your camera, not so much if it's digital. Those times are gone. That was the case, maybe 20 years ago. But the digital technology today is pretty damn good. When it comes to the quality of images you are better with buying a kick ass camera.
*Edit
hmm. I am not sure if I get you right. As far as I know, and feel free to correct me here, but the colour reproduction depends mostly on the film (traditional photography) and the sensor (digital) inside the camera and the quality of the optical system and processing, it's not rare to have lenses that cost you several thousand dollar, if not more. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but with todays technology digital images are not very far behind traditional photography.
In any case, if you want to get really the maximum of your images, then you will need expensive equipment, regardless if its digital or traditional. Albeit, as soon as you get the images to the computer, it doesn't matter anymore, because the informations are stored in the pixels. So you will not get magically a better quality just because you're using a traditional film. Unless you're making everything in the traditional way, up to the printing. But I am not so proficient with photography to know everything here, just that it is a lot more work then digital printing and photography.
In any case though, considering the fact that professional equipment exceeds the 1million pixel range easily and that most people can not see more then a few million colour ranges digital photography has become pretty damn good.
You are very obscure here, because I have trouble to know what you mean by the stuff you say here. About what are you talking actually? The PPI/DPI? The camera equipment? Scaling of images on your computer? How did you worked with your images? Have you made them with a digital camera and working with them on your PC? Have you worked only with a photographic negative.It would help if you actually give me a few details here. Because I feel by saying that digital images are "crappy" when it has a lot to do with the quality of your equipment tells me exactly this. Nothing.
Last edited:
Skill always matters, no matter the medium. The whole analog/digital debacle is a tertiary concern when it comes to skill and what you create. Hemingway did wonders with the most basic vocabulary and grammar, using a typewriter.
I think he actually means the hardware behind the photography (but I am not sure ...) and not the artistic value, it can make a lot of difference if you're working with traditional or digital equipment.
But it has been quite some time that I've worked with the technology behind digital and traditional photography, and I know most of it only in German, so take it with a grain of salt.
But in general I guess you know about the camera Obscura? Basically this is how pretty much every camera works, even today. It's just recording light, and you can improve the quality of your images with the lense and the medium, typically a light sensitive surface, the quality of the film can be measured in ISO standart, in other words how light sensitive it is.
With digital cameras it is a digital sensor element on a computer chip, usually the size of a fingernail, very expensive camera equipment though might use bigger chips as you can squeze more sensors on a larger surface. Traditional cameras use a negative containing several layers of different light sensitive materials. So high quality film matters a lot.
On digital cameras the Sensitivity settings are the equivalent of the ISO settings on film. Every digicam will have settings with a sensitivity equivalent to ISO 100 film and ISO 200 film. Many will have an ISO 400 setting, though above that images from cameras with small sensors will be pretty noisy. The more expensive cams with much larger sensors have much higher sensitivity settings. They are pretty much noice free At ISO 400 and some might go as high as ISO 3200 or even ISO 6400!. Not many cameras have ISO settings lower than ISO 100, at ISO 100 the noise levels are so low there wouldn't be any real advantage in a lower settings. many digital cameras posses an auto ISO setting, the camera will pick from ISO 100, ISO 200 and sometimes ISO 400, depending on the mode in which the camera is used and the light.
Relatively insensitive film, with a correspondingly lower speed index, requires more exposure to light to produce the same image density as a more sensitive film, and is thus commonly termed a slow film. Highly sensitive films are correspondingly termed fast films. In both digital and film photography, the reduction of exposure corresponding to use of higher sensitivities generally leads to reduced image quality (via coarser film grain or higher image noise of other types). In short, the higher the sensitivity, the grainier the image will be. Ultimately sensitivity is limited by the quantum efficiency of the film or sensor (...) Wikipedia
Digital cameras store the informations in pixels, traditional cameras on film which works (I think? Again feel free to correct me here) with dots - this has nothing to do with the resolution on the computer screen though which is also measured in Pixels. In fact for quite some time digital cameras had a lot of trouble to create the same quality with images compared to traditional film, but with todays technology, there is almost no difference in the quality anymore. Definitely not if you're looking at normal films outside of professional use. hence why I am not sure what Slap means with "digital images are crapy".
It really boils down to the hardware you use. When you create images with 14 milion pixel ranges, or even more, then you will start to use so many colour ranges that it makes no difference as far as the image quality goes. Unless you are one of those rare individuals that can see like 100 milion different colour ranges ... no clue.
Well, in the end, which is better? Neither. It really depends on the application. Both have their cons and pros. If you know what you do? Like if you have your own lab, and you want to squeze the best out of your images? Then film might be the way to go, but you really need the eye for it and in the the quality might not be even that much better. Digital works for fast shots, if you dont have the time or knowledge to make your own film, its simply very convenient. Digital will give you great quality for photojournalism and portraits. Film might be better for large landscape photography.
Last edited:
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
I wasn't exaggerating so much as underlining relative differences. Also I was specifically referring to an OLDER digital camera versus a newer one (where the pixels per square inch are constantly increasing exponentially, which means better quality images), not one from "today", which I failed to clarify. I was saying that digital cameras are worse by comparison in terms of pixelation if you blow up the images, not that they were useless or terrible. My bad for not being clear on that.
Correction: just talking about different things, it seems. Again as mentioned above, I wasn't clear enough about referring to older digital cameras and that newer digital cameras are closing the gap. But I was referring to pixelation with respect to blowing up a digital image, because no matter what you do, the maximum resolution of the image is the maximum resolution. If you shrink it, you may lose detail, but you won't pixelate it. If you blow it up, you lose detail AND you pixelate it. By contrast, analogue images, so long as you're using the original negatives, can be blown up to points I'm not even sure of the extent of. I'm not a photographer by any means, so when I listen to film commentaries and the directors are talking about camera lenses it's all incomprehensible jargon, to me. I just know what I had to work with when I was using digital photos for reference material, and my digital photos couldn't be enhanced past a certain point because they just became increasingly "blocky" the more they were sized up, since the maximum resolution would always stay the same.
The primary difference between then and today is the max resolution has exploded MASSIVELY. But the limitation of max resolution is still THERE. It's just not AS MUCH of a limitation by any means.
EDIT:
100% correct. I'm not saying you can't work wonders with an older generation digital camera. As always, the control of framing and position and the speed with which the photographer is able to capture "sudden" moments are massive determinants to the end result of the picture you get. Whether it's grainy if you look up close or the detail can be maximized infinitely isn't really relevant to the original product created by the artist. I was speaking solely about what Atomkilla was talking about regarding the technology ITSELF. You can still enjoy a wonderful song even if the MP3 you're listening to has some horrible compression. That doesn't mean the MP3 has the same sound quality of a higher compression copy, or an analogue version, or etc.
Last edited: