Robin Bowes;581981 Wrote: > > That's not so. I recall a test in some photography magazine where they > took two pictures of the same subject with essentially the same > camera, > except one had a digital body, the other was (high quality) film. They > then blew up both photos very large. The digital one was far better. > It > had better colour balance and better resolution.
Photography is meant to be enjoyed by people, not blown up to a very large size and then analyzed. Such experiment is at best geeky and thus useless. You can compare for yourself. Take a fancy digital camera, the fanciest one there is (let's say something with 20,000+ pixels that retails for $10,000.00+). Go to a park, preferably on a late sunny afternoon/evening, and find a spot where the sun rays are shining through leafy trees. Face the sunny rays so that your eyes squint, and take a snapshot with the digital camera, and then from the same spot take a snapshot with a film camera. Compare the prints -- you'll see that film is way superior in retaining the extremes between bright light and shadows. Digital cannot come even close at handling such heavy and demanding contrast. Thus digital is clearly inferior to film. Similar reasoning goes for digital sound vs analog. -- magiccarpetride ------------------------------------------------------------------------ magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
