|
Author
|
Topic: You are not a filmmaker, unless you are shooting and editing real film
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted June 30, 2016 12:12 AM
Might be time for full disclosure. Part of my job over the last decade has involved capturing analog and digital data. Not sound or video and nothing that requires that level of resolution or sampling rate to faithfully reproduce.
What I do involves various types of sensors. I'm not sampling data at a rate of thousands of times per second, but I am sampling it over a period of weeks, months, and sometimes years which brings its own set of challenges.
While the graph that Raleigh posted the link to is illustrative in how it shows the differences between analog and digital signals, it's not very representative in terms of accuracy if you were trying to capture audio or video. It's showing a very clean and smooth analog signal with a very poor digital sampling rate.
Below is a graph with better digital resolution:
As you improve the digital resolution, it will more closely follow the curve to the point where if it's audio for example, the human ear can't distinguish the difference. This has been confirmed in blind tests.
The other thing to remember is that imperfections exist and are introduced into the analog signal. When digitizing it's possible to eliminate that "noise" to give a truer representation of the actual analog information.
You're right Raleigh that we are destined to not a agree on a lot of things when it comes to analog vs digital. Here's what I will say though. While there are exceptions, In general it's not pleasing to look at a photo that's visibly pixilated. Nor is it pleasing to look at a picture that's too grainy. But a slight grain might actually be pleasing, whereas a slight pixelation is at best just OK.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
