People Preferring Analog

jscott said:

That's an excellent point. Remember back in the 1980's when those computer-generated drum machines came out to replace real drummers? The manufacturers soon found out that perfect note spacing sounded dead and uninteresting, so they programmed in a human-like randomness. Still, it doesn't sound like a human drummer; it's a computerized approximation of one. You won't notice the difference on a galloping horse.

And at some level, perhaps smaller than you can easily see, Photoshopped images don't look like film photography, they are just an approximation of it. A very elaborate and increasingly accurate approximation, but an approximation nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Very interesting point in the whole films vs digital debate.
The randomness of the drummer is an equivalent to the randomness of the grain (as opposed to the standard structure of the pixels) which in addition to the non blown highlights gives me a warm feeling whenever I look at a photograph shot on film.

Let's also not forget about the full signal bandwidth per color channel issues as well. Or the fact that interpolation is heavily used at the sensor level to fill in missing color information that wasn't originally captured, by design.

Aside from all that the non-linearity is a big win for me for the analog side of things.

And hey, what do you know, tape does the exact same thing - saturates.

clayne said:

Let's also not forget about the full signal bandwidth per color channel issues as well.

Click to expand...

Does that include white balance cross all spectrum light sources?

clayne said:

[...]
Aside from all that the non-linearity is a big win for me for the analog side of things.
[...]

Click to expand...

Non-linearity (of film) is one solid reason why Ilfochrome photographs printed with such striking depth of colour and strength. Then came a "ground-breaking process": digital files printed to Ilfochrome media. Really, this stuff never came across to me as having anywhere near the punch of film. Same, too, with digital enlargers printing to traditional photographic papers, which now seems to be a vogue movement.

I like it, I use it. Simple. I like fountain pens, tube stereos, record players, typewriters (would be cool to find an old one, I have been looking) and film cameras. I also like to make things with my hands. I don't particularly care what anyone else does and I don't feel superior or inferior either way. I do these things because I like the organic nature of them. I enjoy the process.

I typed all my university essays on a 1923 model Underwood that still lives under my stairs. (That might be giving a little bit away about my age.)
As it turns out, it is a fine photographic subject to boot.

All this gives rise to an interesting question. If the market hadn't interrupted, where would analog technology be today and in the future if the full weight of research and development had been applied to it? There have been steady advances to be sure, but nothing like it could have been. What do you think?

JBrunner said:

All this gives rise to an interesting question. If the market hadn't interrupted, where would analog technology be today and in the future if the full weight of research and development had been applied to it? There have been steady advances to be sure, but nothing like it could have been. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Interesting question.

For emulsions the law of diminishing returns had settled in. As can be sen with the APS format, innovation on further densities was neither economical nor even possible. The cost of processing was the problem. There were experiments with metal films, but at that point you are close to a charged silicon wafer, which is much less costly to manufacture. Remember: a sensor is an analog device. Photolithography with silicon is very similar to emulsions. Both only organize photon energy.

Also, the resolving power of optics is a barrier in its own way.

JBrunner said:

All this gives rise to an interesting question. If the market hadn't interrupted, where would analog technology be today and in the future if the full weight of research and development had been applied to it?

Click to expand...

Probably not very different from what we have now. Camera technology was already trending in the direction of more electronics, more automation. So there was already a push to refine features like autofocus, autoexposure, etc. Likely the cutting-edge film technology would be driven by professional needs, the movie business, just as it is now. Some stuff might be cheaper, easier to get if the market was bigger. Some products not discontinued. Lenses? How much better could they get really? We've got APO, multicoating, computer-aided design, ED glass, whatever you want to pay for. The peak years for film sales were the late 90s; it's not like we've missed decades of research.

It should also be noted that within the realm of cinema, they're not even close to the limits of the 135 medium. Most films are 3-4 perf, some even 2-perf. We've got IMAX with the 70mm format, frame similar to 645, which is like watching a movie in medium format (and why it's so visually incredible) and the rest shooting 135 at half-frame resolution.

Sure, overall runtime per mag would be reduced, taking/projecting cameras would have to make use of it, and film costs would double (of which they are not hugely significant in a major motion picture), but additional quality is already available in the currently used medium/format. Even with the non-full-frame usage, the quality of each frame is still quite high.

It's not like these things weren't tried before either, they most definitely were - and were also successful in their intent (higher quality). But it was mechanical projection issues and the introduction of finer stocks which reduced the demand for it.

My point? The already existing 135 half-frame cinema format is more than enough for most people as it is *now*.

Coincidentally I just wrote something today that addresses this topic. I was working on a statement that explains why we at Brooklyn College continue to teach analogue photography, along with digital of course. It is written to be deliberately non contentious. But hey, this is APUG. It's a first draft and needs revision.

While digital photography has been firmly established as the current method of choice in making photographs it is helpful to remember that this mode of photography is commercially driven. The demand of the amateur market for digital photography is the reason it has caught on so quickly and widely. It also serves the commercial field quite well in the way it enables photographers to immediately check the results of their shooting sessions and to deliver results to the customers much more quickly, however far flung they may be.

For both amateurs and professionals, the portability of files, the way they can be sent from person to person so quickly, is truly a wonderful thing, since photography is, after all, communication, and we are always seeking to communicate faster and more broadly.

None of these considerations, however, diminishes photographs done in the analogue way -- that is, through exposing film or paper and developing it in the chemical processes. Film can still deliver as much, if not more, detail and resolution than digital means. But even if, or more likely, when, digital photography surpasses analogue in image perfection, it will never be able to rival the experience one has when producing finished photographic prints through their own endeavors in the traditional darkroom, and this is where college and university photography programs can offer students in the arts, and in other areas of communication, a chance to experience a form of photography where their creative ideas meet craftsmanship and the pleasure of the handmade.

For those familiar only with digital photography, learning analogue photography is both an end in itself, and a gateway to a new experience of photography, one that recognizes analogue photography and digital photography for what they are, tools in the artist’s art box, different approaches to image making, different forms of studio craft.

Arkasha said:

er, no, it's not. Not by any means.

One is certainly more convenient than the other, and more portable. But vinyl definitely outputs better sound.

Click to expand...

Er, certainly not in my experience.
I enjoy listening to music at my audiophile friend's house.
The machine is pretty impressive, taking an entire room. 7-ways per side, 7 amplifiers - one per way, each way has from 4 to 16 speakers (actually one way has 25 speakers each side, but this was not completed yet).
The setup at the moment has got some 150 loudspeakers. This is important for reasons which I will not dwell in for the sake of brevity. In short, this stereo setup is a jewel and sounds wonderfully.

I listen only to classical music.

Symphonic music, opera, and somehow organ music are the real test of a stereo setup. Pop music, piano music, chamber music somehow compress the difference in quality between different systems. A full orchestra playing is the real benchmark.

I don't need to descend here into a meaningless "confrontation" by words because only experience can support what I say. Maybe if you come in Rome, we can arrange a meeting.

I say: A vinyl record cannot not on earth contain all the unbelievable detail that a CD can contain, but can be extracted only by a very, very advanced system.

We are still surprised, at every improvement of the machine, at what kind of minute and previously undetected details can come out of a CD.

The theory my friend has, and I believe he is right, is that the signal coming out from a CD is too rich and "harsh" for a common set-up to be able to reproduce it faithfully. What the setup cannot manage to reproduce faithfully gets distorted. The Vinyl (and, on a similar logic, tubes) "smooth" the signal and "simplify" it for the rest of the chain. That makes it more manageable by the amplifiers and speakers, which can reproduce it adding less of their own "distortion" (take "distortion" in the broadest sense, as "unfaithfulness").

In fact, my friend and I would agree that on most hi-fi systems playing a simple (voice and piano, or small band etc.) signal, vinyl (and tubes) can actually give a better result. And we do agree that the impression people have that vinyl (tubes) is superior is actual in experience, although "wrong in theory", as the experience is a mere consequence of the inadequacy of simple setups (3 ways, one or two amplifiers, 1 loudspeaker per way per side) to reproduce the signal of a CD without stomping and coughing.

What I say is: no way those scratches on a vinyl plate, however analogic, not sampled etc. can render the complexity of the sound coming out from a symphonic orchestra to the level of near-perfection a CD can. Sampling "more" than what a CD does is moot until one has a setup able to extract all the information in a CD. I do believe my friend's setup, which is by far the better sounding one I ever heard, is probably far from that goal.

I remember listening to a monstruous setup by another audiophile. A rich one, costing like a house. It performed wonderfully with pop music, voice and accompaniment. When confronted with symphonic music (Sibelius concert for violin) it failed miserably to my ear (that was CD, and tubes).

The owner and his friends agreed with me that the orchestra sounded quite bad. Strange, they said, EMI records are usually very well made! (you heard those kind of comments if you know audiophile people!).

I and my friend came later that night at his house, played again that CD, and it was on another league. And wonderfully recorded.

Look at the grooves on a vinyl record. There is, so to speak, "no information at all". I am surprised music can come out of that.

Vinyl can sound better than CD when it matches the limitation of the setup. A CD source is "too much" for most setups. The signal is too complicated and the loudspeaker cannot follow it faithfully, resulting in distortions.

This really is a long and interesting subject, which should better be debated in front of a good stereo apparatus.

Fabrizio

PS It is a common misconception that vinyl is more faithful because it is not sampled, while CD is less faithful because it is sampled and therefore some information is lost "by design". Vinyl is a sound produced by a scratch on a plastic support. CD sampling works better.

Whatever you are listening on, it will never be better than the master recording.


Steve.

I wonder if this Sibelius concerto was recorded on analog master tape.

Vinyls are not the best way to listen to classical orchestra music because of its lower dynamic range compared to what a CD can do. Silence can be pretty close to real silence on CD but on a vinyl there is always some friction sound. The great advantage of CD play back is that everything is ajusted well right away, with turntables you need to adjust so many parameters depending on each record to get the maximum out of it. When you do though, the result is impressive.
I wish I could listen to music on good reel to reel tape, but vinyl is the next best thing with my simple setup with only 2 loud speakers (stereo needs only 2 by definition).

Steve Smith said:

Whatever you are listening on, it will never be better than the master recording.


Steve.

Click to expand...

Quit confusing us with facts.

You'll wreck our faith.

Lionel1972 said:

stereo needs only 2 by definition.

Click to expand...

Actually, stereo (or stereophonic) doesn't mean two, it means more than one.


Steve.

We will have to agree to disagree. I, too, have listened to audiophile gear, and find that vinyl is better than CD.

Steve Smith said:

Whatever you are listening on, it will never be better than the master recording.

Click to expand...

Better than the live performance?

Aristophanes said:

Better than the live performance?

Click to expand...

My preference is always for live but it doesn't necessarily make it better as far as audio quality is concerned... or musicianship.


Steve.

Arkasha said:

We will have to agree to disagree. I, too, have listened to audiophile gear, and find that vinyl is better than CD.

Click to expand...

It's a matter of taste. Personally I don't like more than two speakers. I have heard digital front ends that I think sound fantastic, completely void of the usual digital noise (listen to crash cymbals on a high resolution system via a cheezy CD player and you'll know what I mean), and I've heard digital front ends that sound like $hit. The same is true for analog, except for the crash cymbals; some tables sound fantastic, and others sound terrible.

Either way, analog has the potential for infinite resolution, which is something digital can never have. Digital will always be an approximation. This approximation can be done well or it can be done poorly. Analog has similar challenges in that resolution is hampered by things like noise, mechanical imperfections, vibrations, etc. I claim that both technologies can offer staggeringly good results, and in my mind it the choice between the two really just comes down to what preferences we have as users.

I prefer tangible things.
For example: I don't like sticking a Super Audio CD into my SACD player, push the button, and out comes music; I like to carefully clean a vinyl record, clean the turntable stylus with LAST cleaner, and sink the stylus into the grooves. I feel a lot more connected.
I don't like clicking the shutter release button on a digital camera, and magically a picture comes out the other end; instead I like to wind the crank of the camera to advance to the next frame, manually take a light reading, change the aperture and exposure time by turning dials to get the exposure I want, develop the negative for different types of tonality in the print, and go into the darkroom and make the print to my liking. I just feel more connected and plugged into the work flow.

So, to me, it's all about philosophy and how we choose to lead our lives. I don't like to embrace something new just because it's available; first I like to know that it will actually benefit me. That is why I am head over heels impressed with my iPhone, even though it's just full of magic buttons. It actually benefits me, while a CD player or digital camera doesn't improve my life in the slightest of ways.

What Thomas has written is more or less my view on the subject too.

At the recording stage, digital is capable of superb quality. It's just a shame that most people now choose to download it as an inferior MP3 file.


Steve.

In all cases there is also a space limit. I cannot aford to have all my files as lossless codecs and so each song will take up 60MB because my storage is limited.

But this is going off topic.

stavrosk said:

In all cases there is also a space limit. I cannot aford to have all my files as lossless codecs and so each song will take up 60MB because my storage is limited.

But this is going off topic.

Click to expand...

Not really.

The key difference between analog and digital is storage once the physically finite limits of the capture medium are achieved.

Both emulsion and silicon photosites are analog, possessing nearly identical capture capacities where both can outresolve their optical intermediary.

stavrosk said:

In all cases there is also a space limit. I cannot aford to have all my files as lossless codecs and so each song will take up 60MB because my storage is limited.

But this is going off topic.

Click to expand...

So you would rather print 16x20 off 35mm because a 4x5 sheet of film takes up too much space once scanned in at over 200MB a shot?

Space is soooooo cheap now. We'll spend inordinate amounts of money on photo gear and the whine about a $150 hard drive that holds over 1 trillion bytes...really?

Aristophanes said:

Not really.

The key difference between analog and digital is storage once the physically finite limits of the capture medium are achieved.

Both emulsion and silicon photosites are analog, possessing nearly identical capture capacities where both can outresolve their optical intermediary.

Click to expand...

They way digital cameras sample from their silicon sensors is digital. Pretty much no analog at all. The shear design of digital sensors induces loss into the sample itself. Yes, all 'captures' are analog, but the processing and sampling methods are wholey digital. Not to say you can get very high fidelity from digital sensors. Granted we keep running into issues with digital sensors.
The latest Nikon D800 with its 36MP sensors is amazing. Yet, you have an AA filter that induces fidelity loss. Get the D800E you say? Moire much?