Decay of video game discs

[Crni Vuk]

you should not forget though that non-digital film had aprox. 100 years to evolve. Digital film has gone a long way in the last lets say 20 years or so.

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.

OK! You are talking about this, right?

Today at least, for 90% of the potography this will have no impact. Like I said, the technology today is good enough.

Anyway, if you are a photographer then you will know what you're doing anyway and not "blow up" an image anyway. So it really is a non issue.

 

[SnapSlav]

Exactly! I wasn't saying it's a huge dilemma unless circumstance highlights it. In my cases, circumstances highlighted it, so I became aware that digital photographs have some drawbacks to them. That is NOT to say they're bad.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Now, onto something different:

When I was taking classes that worked with pictures, I learned firsthand how crappy digital images really are

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.

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.

No photographer worth their salt would work with compressed digital files. When you really want to work with digital photographs, you'll use uncompressed raw-files.
Analogue negatives don't have "INFINITELY finer detail". Analogue film has a resolution limit, too, most often measured in line pairs per millimeter. It is true that analogue film can, in theory, capture a higher spatial resolution than current digitial means. In reality, digital cameras can easily produce images equivalent to 35mm film.
You can't blow up analogue pictures "however large you want" without them getting grainier. Film consists of chemical grains and the more you blow up the picture, the more they become visible. It doesn't get finer in detail the more you blow it up; the more you blow it up, the more noise you get. The same is true for digital images, it's just different noise. It's certainly more complex than "digital images are crappy compared to analogue".

(where the pixels per square inch are constantly increasing exponentially, which means better quality images)

[video=youtube_share;V3y3QoFnqZc]http://youtu.be/V3y3QoFnqZc[/video]

The pixel count says exactly squat about image quality. It's a marketing ploy. It doesn't mean shit except that people compulsively buy stuff that boasts higher numbers than their old stuff. My 10MP 2006 Pentax will beat any 16MP cheapo-cam when it comes to image quality. A higher maximum resolution is utterly useless if the camera/lens can't capture enough details to fill it.
See also: A 4GHz Pentium 4 isn't faster than an i7 with only 2GHz.

 

[SnapSlav]

[Religiously and thoroughly devours his own foot]

Welcome to the point. Cause you missed it.

Also, it's an important note to distinguish the difference between literal and figurative.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Does it really matter if he proved you literaly or figuratively wrong

 

[Gizmojunk]

You can't blow up analogue pictures "however large you want" without them getting grainier. Film consists of chemical grains and the more you blow up the picture, the more they become visible. It doesn't get finer in detail the more you blow it up; the more you blow it up, the more noise you get. The same is true for digital images, it's just different noise. It's certainly more complex than "digital images are crappy compared to analogue".

Someday ~when drug-store pocket cameras are like Iphones to 1980's XTs... We might see them capable of generating [really good] vector imagery of the lens capture.
Then unlimited scaling could perhaps become a reality, and we could all print 1500MP snapshots of our breakfast toast, birthday cakes and automotive damage.

 

[SnapSlav]

Does it really matter if he proved you literaly or figuratively wrong

Actually, it kinda does totally matter. Cause if someone says "-and it paid off in dividends!" figuratively, and knowing that it literally was not true, someone proceeded to lecture that person on why what they were doing had nothing in common with corporate stocks with dividend payments, that would stupid. The cause for said stupidity being mistaking figurative speech for literal speech. Very, very important. Consequently, what you said is not true. =P

And this thread demonstrates why I've been finding discretion is often the better part of valor in discussions where I don't always know what I'm talking about...

You mean "that vatted one" wasn't enough?

 

[Buxbaum666]

[No matter what he claims, won't ever admit to being wrong even a little.]

Hey look, two can play at that game.

Also, it's an important note to distinguish the difference between literal and figurative.

In this case? Not really. Unless you're hellbent on reducing your wrongness from "INFINITELY" to "very" wrong. In that case be my guest.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You can't blow up analogue pictures "however large you want" without them getting grainier. Film consists of chemical grains and the more you blow up the picture, the more they become visible. It doesn't get finer in detail the more you blow it up; the more you blow it up, the more noise you get. The same is true for digital images, it's just different noise. It's certainly more complex than "digital images are crappy compared to analogue".

Someday ~when drug-store pocket cameras are like Iphones to 1980's XTs... We might see them capable of generating [really good] vector imagery of the lens capture.
Then unlimited scaling could perhaps become a reality, and we could all print 1500MP snapshots of our breakfast toast, birthday cakes and automotive damage.

Oh well @Gizmojunk >_> it might not take that long! And it sounds fascinating.