Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > The disappearance of darkness

Reply
Thread Tools

The disappearance of darkness

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Produ...ll_Dill/MattMe
> yerScript.htm
>
> The Top 10 Reasons to Teach Film to the Video Generation:


that contradicts itself too.

Twenty years ago, it was a rare opportunity for a filmmaker to get
his or her story on the silver screen. The digital revolution has
democratized filmmaking, making some of the filmmaking tools that
were once only available to a privileged few more easily available to
the masses.

First and foremost, the equipment is far more affordable than even a
few years ago. Editing software, which takes the place of the
Moviola, film lab and optical house, is now frequently included as
part of the bundle of software that comes with new computers. Another
benefit of working with video is speed. Students today can edit their
scenes immediately after they¹re shot, without having to wait days
for dailies. As a result, 48-hour and 24-hour film festivals are
commonplace, with filmmakers racing to complete an entire film in one
or two days. There¹s even a four-hour film challenge in the U.K.

in other words, digital wins.

There are serious side effects to the digital revolution, which are
especially problematic for the educators of this new wave of
videomakers.

translated "teachers are having a tough time adapting to new technology
to be able to teach it to students."

The very traits that have made the media available to the masses have
seriously undermined its quality. Many videos produced by high school
and college students will not be seen in a movie theater, but will be
streamed on YouTube or other Web sites. The image is heavily
compressed with severe artifacts, but that doesn¹t matter much
because it¹s viewed in a window the size of a playing card. Although
other capture devices are capable of delivering high resolution
images, why bother if the final product is destined to be viewed on a
cell phone? As a result, many student videos pay scant attention to
lighting, composition or camera movement, and are shot quick and
dirty without a tripod.

who cares? the fact is they're making movies, capturing moments, and
learning as they do it. that's a good thing.

besides, not everyone wants to make a theatrical movie anyway, and many
who actually do make theatrical movies should have sought an alternate
career.

> 1. It’s an investment:


it's not an investment. it's a waste of money. invest in digital
equipment, which will be useful going forward. film won't be.

> When a student realizes that he or she is burning a
> buck every second of the shoot, that student approaches the production
> differently. Lines are rehearsed. Movements are set up more carefully. And
> lighting is set up more carefully, because audiences will be seeing the
> images on higher resolution screens. The result is better filmmaking, which
> carries over to video projects.


that's just bullshit.

you can still rehearse each line, block the scenes, etc., just as much
with digital.

> for the others go to the link.


that link is just more of the usual idiocy.

It looks better: The fact is, there¹s more resolution in film than
1080 HD. There¹s even more resolution in film than a 4K scan can
produce. There¹s also a wider dynamic range than HD, and an organic
Œfeeling¹ that film gives that you still can¹t obtain in video.

that's flat out false. digital has higher resolution and whatever look
'organic feeling' is supposed to be can be done digitally.

movie theaters are all going digital these days anyway. film is on its
way *out*.

Film is more forgiving: Because film has a higher dynamic range than
video, there¹s more latitude for correction in post if the exposure
isn¹t quite perfect.

that's also false. digital has higher dynamic range (and has for quite
a number of years).

The concepts of cinematography are better honed: It¹s a lot easier to
understand what an aperture is when you can look inside the lens, or
what the focal plane is when you can see the film gate. The same goes
for shutter speed, depth of field, gamma, film speed, etc.

more idiocy. you can look inside the lens with digital too. you can
turn on live-view and see what is imaged on the focal plane. you can
adjust the shutter speed, depth of field, etc. and see the effect
*immediately*.

this guy teaches?? scary.

> Digital being cheap and costing nothing gives a studetn the idea that time
> isn't money either. When they see a physical product being used and not able
> to be reused that makes an impact .


not really. tell them they have to do just one take, no editing.

> I even see this here in electroniccs taking a writing down the digital value
> of a result without understanding it they want a resitor of 207 ohms, I even
> had a reasearch student spending a two days fussing over whether or not to
> use a 180 or a 220, it's what he's calculator showed him so he wanted the
> exact value.


what does that have to do with digital photography? and depending on
the circuit, 207 might have been what he needed, not 180 or 220.

> http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2...or-me-in-stree
> t-photography/


that's the same self-contradictory link you gave before.

> I noticed a few advantages when shooting with film- namely that when people
> asked me to delete the photo I told them I couldn’t- as it was film.


stream the photos to the cloud and you won't be able to delete them
either.

or just say 'no.'

> Also
> while in Tokyo I was working on a small project titled: “Dark Skies Over
> Tokyo” – a project about the irony of Japanese society: they are one of the
> richest countries in the world, yet have one of the highest depression and suicide
> rates. Shooting film helped me stay focused on the project and the whole-picture,
> rather than individual images.


nothing about film makes someone stay focused on a project any better.
if a person can't stay focused, then the problem is the photographer,
not the technology.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
> >> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
> >> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they
> >> can
> >> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

> >
> > i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
> > wire.
> >
> > there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
> > but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.

>
> Not quite true.


it's definitely true. it's all snake oil with a huge price tag for
suckers who fall for the deceptive marketing.

> For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
> a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.


oxygen free copper is not that recent, has no significant difference in
resistance and most copper wire is oxygen free *anyway*, whether it's
specifically listed that way or not.

if less resistance is the real goal (which it isn't), the easy solution
is get a larger gauge wire, or use silver instead of copper, which is a
better conductor. the drawback of course, is the word 'silver' doesn't
sound as impressive as 'oxygen free copper'. price isn't an issue
because these idiots will spend thousands and thousands of dollars on
all sorts of stuff thinking it will improve their sound.

<http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#oxygenfree>
However, as indicated above, most C11000 common copper sold today
meets or exceeds the 101% IACS conductivity and overlaps C10200
³oxygen free² that has a minimum of 100% IACS conductivity. In
practice, there is no significant difference in conductivity between
all three of the grades as far as audio use is concerned.

> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.


any difference they can measure is completely insignificant (fractions
of an ohm) and won't have any audible effect. period.

according to this calculator, 25' of 14 ga wire is 0.063 ohms, which is
less than 1% of a typical 8 ohm speaker impedance. a slightly higher or
slightly lower resistance won't make *any* difference whatsoever. drop
down a gauge to 16 ga and it's 0.1 ohm, a whopping 0.04 ohms more, into
an 8 ohm load. even that won't make a difference.

<http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html>

> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).


that's the entire point.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
On 5/12/2013 9:29 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <519037aa$0$10756$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
>>>>>> How much teaching experience do you have?
>>>>>
>>>>> digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.
>>>>
>>>> You still did not tell us how much teaching experience you have.
>>>>
>>>> Nor, have you told use what you would teach in a photography course.
>>>
>>> my experience is not relevant to whether digital photography is more
>>> effective at teaching photography than film. your attempt at turning it
>>> personal means you are grasping at straws.
>>>
>>> imagine a classroom where any time a student asks a question of the
>>> teacher, the student has to wait a week for an answer.
>>>
>>> plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
>>> that are no longer of much use. students today need to learn digital
>>> workflows, not wet chemistry.
>>>

>> IOW you have zero teaching experience. From you answers, I respectfully
>> submit that you are also in desperate need of some genuine learning
>> experience.

>
> nothing but insults. i expect nothing less from you. where's your proof
> that teaching film is better? oh right, there isn't any.
>


I am continually learning. BTW You made the first statement about
teaching tools. I have now been questioning you, but you fail to prove
it, other than by repeatedly mouthing declarations, and attacking.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
On 5/13/2013 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-05-13 08:54:32 -0700, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>> I can tell you strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate but can I
>> prov
>> e it ?

>
> No it isn't!! Chocolate is KING!!!! Strawberry is so avoidable.


Haagen Daz rum raisen, runs neck and neck with Breyer's vanilla.
Choclate is for wusses, and much too sweet.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
On 5/13/2013 6:16 PM, nospam wrote:


<snip>
>
> my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
> that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
> better, but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.
>


Is that really what you said, in those exact words?
The aboe question requires a yes or no answer. So, just answer it, Yes,
or no.
Capitalization and speling dunt count.
--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
In article <51918854$0$10823$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
> > that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
> > better, but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.

>
> Is that really what you said,


yes.

> in those exact words?


using the exact same words does not matter. what matters is the
message. you are nitpicking on irrelevancies.

it was my original point and still is.

> The aboe question requires a yes or no answer. So, just answer it, Yes,
> or no.
> Capitalization and speling dunt count.


see above.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
On 5/13/2013 8:55 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <51918854$0$10823$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
>>> that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
>>> better, but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.

>>
>> Is that really what you said,

>
> yes.
>
>> in those exact words?

>
> using the exact same words does not matter. what matters is the
> message. you are nitpicking on irrelevancies.
>
> it was my original point and still is.
>
>> The aboe question requires a yes or no answer. So, just answer it, Yes,
>> or no.
>> Capitalization and speling dunt count.

>
> see above.
>


Use the exact words, so we can tell if you are: forgetful; a
prevaricator; ignorant of the plain meaning of the English language, or
some combination of the above.


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
In article <51918d89$0$10828$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
> >>> that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
> >>> better, but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.
> >>
> >> Is that really what you said,

> >
> > yes.
> >
> >> in those exact words?

> >
> > using the exact same words does not matter. what matters is the
> > message. you are nitpicking on irrelevancies.
> >
> > it was my original point and still is.
> >
> >> The aboe question requires a yes or no answer. So, just answer it, Yes,
> >> or no.
> >> Capitalization and speling dunt count.

> >
> > see above.

>
> Use the exact words, so we can tell if you are: forgetful; a
> prevaricator; ignorant of the plain meaning of the English language, or
> some combination of the above.


none of the above. maybe you're the one who is ignorant of the english
language.

you are desperately trying to find some trivial inconsequential and
meaningless difference in two posts made several days apart, just
because you like to argue.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
On 14/05/2013 12:29 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Browne
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
>>>> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
>>>> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they
>>>> can
>>>> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).
>>>
>>> i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
>>> wire.
>>>
>>> there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
>>> but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.

>>
>> Not quite true.

>
> it's definitely true. it's all snake oil with a huge price tag for
> suckers who fall for the deceptive marketing.
>
>> For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
>> a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

>
> oxygen free copper is not that recent, has no significant difference in
> resistance and most copper wire is oxygen free *anyway*, whether it's
> specifically listed that way or not.
>
> if less resistance is the real goal (which it isn't), the easy solution
> is get a larger gauge wire, or use silver instead of copper, which is a
> better conductor. the drawback of course, is the word 'silver' doesn't
> sound as impressive as 'oxygen free copper'. price isn't an issue
> because these idiots will spend thousands and thousands of dollars on
> all sorts of stuff thinking it will improve their sound.
>
> <http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#oxygenfree>
> However, as indicated above, most C11000 common copper sold today
> meets or exceeds the 101% IACS conductivity and overlaps C10200
> ³oxygen free² that has a minimum of 100% IACS conductivity. In
> practice, there is no significant difference in conductivity between
> all three of the grades as far as audio use is concerned.
>
>> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
>> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.

>
> any difference they can measure is completely insignificant (fractions
> of an ohm) and won't have any audible effect. period.
>
> according to this calculator, 25' of 14 ga wire is 0.063 ohms, which is
> less than 1% of a typical 8 ohm speaker impedance. a slightly higher or
> slightly lower resistance won't make *any* difference whatsoever. drop
> down a gauge to 16 ga and it's 0.1 ohm, a whopping 0.04 ohms more, into
> an 8 ohm load. even that won't make a difference.
>
> <http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html>
>
>> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

>
> that's the entire point.
>

One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
In article <kms79s$h0l$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
> a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm
>
> Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.


not only does that improve sound but it increases horsepower. amazing
what technology can do.

just be sure your vinyl records are fully demagnetized before
listening. otherwise you won't obtain the full effect of shatki.

<http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm>
Well, according to Furutech, the material added to vinyl to color it
black has magnetic properties, and demagnetizing LPs makes them
sound better.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Is there any way to get the raw image data from a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera? Tony Cooper Digital Photography 16 04-17-2013 07:49 PM
Windows 8 - so bad it's hastening the death of the PC? ~misfit~ NZ Computing 18 04-15-2013 04:15 AM
Re: Is there any way to get the raw image data from a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera? nospam Digital Photography 0 04-09-2013 07:42 PM
Re: Can anyone please help me in resolving the error => Peter Otten Python 0 04-09-2013 07:57 AM
Re: Can anyone please help me in resolving the error => Steven D'Aprano Python 0 04-09-2013 05:14 AM



Advertisments