The disappearance of darkness

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Me, May 7, 2013.

  1. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <518a960c$0$10823$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > >>> technology.
    > >>
    > >> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    > >> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

    > >
    > > go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
    > >
    > > there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    > > proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

    >
    > When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?
    >
    > BTW Your statement was
    > "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > technology."
    >
    > When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
    > a proper introduction.
    >
    > > digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    > > goes on, the difference will get bigger.
    > >
    > > digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    > > colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    > > batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    > > it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    > > results.

    >
    > Not the issue - see above


    it's *exactly* the issue.

    the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
    not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
    it happens to be.

    the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    software.
    nospam, May 8, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 2:33 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <518a960c$0$10823$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >>>>> technology.
    >>>>
    >>>> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    >>>> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.
    >>>
    >>> go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
    >>>
    >>> there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    >>> proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

    >>
    >> When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?
    >>
    >> BTW Your statement was
    >> "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >> technology."
    >>
    >> When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
    >> a proper introduction.
    >>
    >>> digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    >>> goes on, the difference will get bigger.
    >>>
    >>> digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    >>> colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    >>> batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    >>> it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    >>> results.

    >>
    >> Not the issue - see above

    >
    > it's *exactly* the issue.
    >
    > the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
    > not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
    > it happens to be.
    >
    > the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    > films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    > software.
    >


    Stop shape shifting.
    You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
    accept new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet
    real people who do not fit your classification.

    that is the sole issue.
    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    Me Guest

    On 9/05/2013 12:29 a.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    > "Me" wrote:
    >> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    >>> misplaces
    >>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
    >>> mourn the
    >>> passing of wet film.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    >> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).

    >
    > Count me as a guitarist who thinks said preference is misplaced. I've
    > owned a lot of amps, tube and solid state, and the tube amps have all
    > been noisy, ugly of sound, heavy, and a pain in the butt. Of course, I'm
    > into a clean sound and my "effects chain" consists of just a single
    > cable between guitar and amp. The folks who hate the sound of their
    > guitar (i.e. use effects) and love ugly sounds like tube amps.


    Hold on a minute...
    Whoops - you just accused (with very few exceptions) the (electric)
    guitarists featuring in practically every top 100 list of rock / pop /
    blues / jazz musicians, of "hating the ugly sound" of the equipment that
    they use.
    As I mentioned in another post, SS amps are used for clean sound,
    sometimes jazz, blues, steel guitar etc. I've got an example here (my
    son's) from the '80s, a SS stereo chorus 2 x 12" combo, ideal for that
    kind of thing. But for tone, it sucks big time compared with a small
    1x12 valve combo amp, at half the size and weight. He's performed at
    gigs using the valve amp miked to large PAs (support band - I insist
    that he gets a day job before ever committing to the idea of performing
    music for money) . No - he doesn't play heavily distorted metal, but
    blues and country influenced rock. (He plays the banjo as well).
    The tube amp he normally uses has the same set of tubes as when he
    bought it new about 3 years ago.

    >
    > The cabinets and speakers used are way more important than the
    > amplifier. But there aren't a lot of other guitarists with degrees in
    > EE. (One place I play has a solid state pedal steel guitar amp with a
    > 15" speaker; my guitar (a hand-made Gibson L-4 equivalent) sounds
    > insanely wonderful through it, despite the player.)
    >
    >> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as
    >> digital sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called
    >> "modelling amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear
    >> response) of valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in
    >> photoshop etc, to replicate the look of film.

    >
    > Yes. But as of this month, Fujifilm is still making film (including both
    > Velvia 50 and Velvia 100), and has even released a new ISO 400 color
    > negative film.
    >
    Me, May 8, 2013
    #23
  4. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <518aaa9f$0$10819$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > >>>>> technology.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    > >>>> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.
    > >>>
    > >>> go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
    > >>>
    > >>> there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    > >>> proven. it is not a matter of opinion.
    > >>
    > >> When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?
    > >>
    > >> BTW Your statement was
    > >> "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > >> technology."
    > >>
    > >> When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
    > >> a proper introduction.
    > >>
    > >>> digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    > >>> goes on, the difference will get bigger.
    > >>>
    > >>> digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    > >>> colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    > >>> batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    > >>> it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    > >>> results.
    > >>
    > >> Not the issue - see above

    > >
    > > it's *exactly* the issue.
    > >
    > > the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
    > > not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
    > > it happens to be.
    > >
    > > the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    > > films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    > > software.

    >
    > Stop shape shifting.
    > You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
    > accept new technology." I called you on it.


    you did not call me on anything nor am i shape shifting.

    > Now when do you want to meet
    > real people who do not fit your classification.


    i have no immediate plans to go to new york. maybe photo plus next fall.

    > that is the sole issue.


    your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
    being an argumentative twit.
    nospam, May 8, 2013
    #24
  5. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, R. Mark Clayton
    <> wrote:

    > >> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    > >> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    > >> software.

    > >
    > > Stop shape shifting.
    > > You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept
    > > new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet real
    > > people who do not fit your classification.

    >
    > Peter is basically right. There may be a few niches left for film (X-rays
    > for instance, but even then...),


    x-ray is not what this is about, but even that has gone digital.

    digital x-ray is faster, uses lower power x-rays which is safer for the
    patient and the technician, has lower storage costs and is easier to
    manage. it can also be instantly sent to another doctor anywhere in the
    world.

    > but essentially almost all who still use
    > film do so because they are set in their ways or they have not got around to
    > buying new equipment yet.


    that's exactly what i said. they aren't embracing new technology.

    some claim film looks better, but whatever film look they like can be
    done in software, so that excuse won't fly.

    > Again, when I was a kid in the sixties I used to be able to tell which
    > pictures in National Geographic were Kodachrome and which Ektachrome just by
    > looking and this was after process colour printing. Even with the highest
    > standards of professional shooting and production there was a big colour
    > cast on both (slate grey / blue on the former; orangy red on the latter).


    how do you know if you were right? did it say in the magazine which
    film they used?

    > Sure film has improved since then, but has now been completely overhauled by
    > digital.


    exactly.

    the film luddites refuse to acknowledge this.

    > Similarly in the late 1980's I could tell when Signal Radio was playing CD's
    > by ear as I drove along the M6 because the sound quality was so much better.
    > This was despite the fact that Signal obviously had top quality vinyl decks,
    > it had a radio segment and was playing in my relatively noisy car.
    >
    > On my home system it is easy to forget and leave the amp is on because the
    > noise level is so low with no signal you just can't hear it. There would be
    > [intrusive] audible hiss from a valve amp.
    >
    > People who think vinyl is better than CD, valves amps are better than
    > transistor and since fairly recently film is better than digital are just
    > deluding themselves.


    yep, and sometimes it's funny how far they'll go to rationalize it.

    > These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
    > digital] interconnects...


    that's nothing.

    i've seen $300 usb cables and $500 ethernet cables, the latter which
    has directional arrows on it so it's not plugged in backwards.
    apparently, network packets only go in one direction. who knew. it's a
    good thing usb cables have different plugs on either end so you can't
    plug it in backwards.

    but none of that matters until you replace the power cables.

    <http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2011/nov/power-cable.cfm>
    An audio power cable costing over £20,000 has been described as "the
    most advanced cable technology ever developed"

    that's over $31k as of right now. for a power cable.

    for some reason, the regular wire inside the walls of the house, out to
    the pole and the miles back to the power company don't need to be
    replaced.
    nospam, May 8, 2013
    #25
  6. Me

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:14:44 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
    >> In article <518a6438$0$10808$-secrets.com>, PeterN

    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >
    >>>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >>>> technology.
    >>>
    >>> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    >>> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

    >>
    >> go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
    >>
    >> there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    >> proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

    >
    >
    >When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?
    >
    >BTW Your statement was
    > "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > technology."
    >
    >When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
    >a proper introduction.
    >
    >>
    >> digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    >> goes on, the difference will get bigger.
    >>
    >> digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    >> colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    >> batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    >> it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    >> results.

    >
    >Not the issue - see above


    Typical of nospam not to understand that the preference is based on
    the process and not the result. He must think that a woodworker who
    lovingly makes a table in his workshop is someone who refuses to
    accept new technology because he won't buy a mass produced table from
    Rooms To Go.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, May 8, 2013
    #26
  7. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > > These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
    > > digital] interconnects...

    >
    > If you dig around you can find a story about some audiophiles having an
    > epic fail when coat hangers were used in lieu of some high end speaker
    > cable in an ABX test.


    i bookmarked that long ago.

    <http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-
    between-monster-cable-and/>
    nospam, May 8, 2013
    #27
  8. Me

    Me Guest

    On 9/05/2013 9:18 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2013.05.07 22:53 , Me wrote:
    >> On 8/05/2013 8:42 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
    >>>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    >>>>> misplaces
    >>>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
    >>>>> mourn the
    >>>>> passing of wet film.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    >>>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
    >>>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
    >>>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
    >>>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
    >>>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
    >>>> to replicate the look of film.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is <snip>

    >> No.

    >
    > Yes. Precisely as described. Crossover distortion between the -ve and
    > +ve sides of the circuit has always been the chief criticism of class B
    > amps. Not that Joe Consumer or Audi O'Phile can hear it.
    >

    No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
    electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
    the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
    over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.
    Your argument may have merit for discussion about "hifi" applications,
    but until recently (using DSP - in "modelling amps" which I referred
    to), clipping from over-driven class AB or B SS amps have completely
    undesirable harmonics, as well as typically a bias / asymmetry in
    waveform leading to equipment damaging effects (DC burn of speaker voice
    coils).

    >
    >> But I think you'll find that professional performers almost unanimously
    >> use valve amps that they favour - I doubt that Eric Clapton for example
    >> would have much real interest in performing with a modelling (DSP) amp
    >> on which he can flick a knob to change tone to sound like Joe Satriani's
    >> setup one minute, Stevie Ray Vaughn the next, then flick back to the
    >> Eric Clapton setup DSP preset.

    >
    > Many musicians experiment with new sounds over time and that includes
    > emulating or experimenting with the sounds of other musicians. Not
    > necessarily to copy in performance but as part of a voyage somewhere
    > else. It's part of the creative process and discovery.
    >

    Sure. I expect that if you were to design an instrument based on the
    needs behind the creation of original violins or pianos, but using 2013
    materials and technology, then you'd come up with a result completely
    different from what most people would consider to be a piano or violin.
    It could be "better" technically - but it probably wouldn't be
    considered to be be a violin as such, and a musician would still likely
    covet a stradivarius - not just for "investment value".
    The history may be shorter (but getting close to a century now) for
    electric guitar rigs (which include amplification), but the same things
    apply. There is evolution, but not revolution there. Solid state guitar
    amps are an alternative (but not a replacement).
    Revolution might be something like "autotune" as used by singers who
    can't hold a note (ie they can't sing). That's allowed the truly
    talentless to prosper - a tragic outcome IMO.
    Me, May 8, 2013
    #28

  9. >
    > the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
    > not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
    > it happens to be.
    >
    > the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    > films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    > software.
    >


    You may be right about film. I won't argue.

    But I will about B&W prints. There as aspects of silver ... not
    to even include platinum or palladium or gold ... that cannot be
    duplicated. Certain types of papers have reflection characteristics that
    cannot be duplicated without metals in the emulsion. Of course,
    digital images can be printed on those papers.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, May 9, 2013
    #29
  10. On 5/8/2013 5:44 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

    >>
    >> I'm not debating the advantages of transistors, only pointing out the sole
    >> true weakness of a class B amplifier v. a tube amplifier,

    But that is like comparing a tube amplifier to a tube amplifier!

    Or a solid state amplifier to a solid state amplifier!


    "tube" versus "class B" is meaningless ... you are not specifyin the
    class of the tube amp!

    Is it class A, class AB1, class B or even class C?
    (you really can't use class C for audio without modulation, in which
    case its called "class D".
    )


    Tube does NOT imply that it isn't class B!!!
    In fact amps exceedingly close if not actually class B were at one time
    used to mudulate (a typo, but I think I'll leave it in!) AM radio
    transmitters. The efficiency gain was important at megawatt power levels.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, May 9, 2013
    #30
  11. Me

    Me Guest

    On 9/05/2013 11:24 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2013.05.08 18:52 , Me wrote:
    >>>

    >> No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
    >> electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
    >> the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
    >> over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.

    >
    > Got it. But I look at amps from the POV of music playback, not
    > point-of-performance. In that sense the sole advantage of a tube amp is
    > the continuous transition. (Class A transistor amps too, I suppose, but
    > they are rather out of vogue).
    >
    > I don't know how well tube amps are wrt to noise these days. I'll have
    > to wander across the street to my richer neighbor and play with his
    > system one day using some good CD's. (And CD is good enough for me).
    >
    > Every time I hear a tube amp I can hear a hum.
    >
    > On Stevie Ray Vaughn's last album, on Little Wing, the hum from the amps
    > is audible. A credit to using the raw recordings, but irritating.
    >

    Yup - hum is pretty normal and probably exacerbated by high gain setting
    from the preamp section, as well as (probably) the amps SRV would have
    used probably would have had "tank" reverbs (old-fashioned springs
    between two audio transducers - a sender and receiver - still in common
    use today), and also IIRC SRV played a standard fender strat with single
    coil pickups (as opposed to dual "humbucker" pickups) and wait there's
    more - the standard guitar cable and amp input sockets are old style 2
    wire (shielded) phono connector with unbalanced signal, even though
    balanced signal has been pretty much standard (using TRS phono sockets
    or xlr) for other instrument and microphone signal cables for a long
    time, with the result being able to do much longer runs of cable, with
    much less noise.

    I'm using a small "tri-amped" active speaker system as a home hifi
    system ATM. In this case, class D for subs and main drivers, class AB
    amps for the HF drivers, connected through a small mixer by balanced
    XLR. It is phenomenally loud in a domestic setting, "only" about 2000
    watts, but claimed maximum SPL is approaching 130dB at 1 metre. At full
    volume (only ever used for demo purposes and to /really/ get the
    neighbours upset <G>) There's no hum I can hear, but a very faint hiss
    which isn't coming from the power amp circuits but the mixer (if I turn
    the master gain down, then the hiss disappears). Unlike old-style small
    PAs, it sounds excellent at lower volume and the close listening
    distances in a typical house. I put most of this down to DSP, with
    digital x-over at a very high 28dB/octave, built in digital delay
    between drivers to avoid phase difference issues, and pre-set DSP
    correction of spectral non-linearity of speaker response. This is not
    high-end, but relatively middle of the road equipment (Mackie), in the
    same sort of market as JBL etc.
    It is however pretty ugly and industrial. It is also a "hifi purist's"
    worst nightmare - especially those who believe that small low powered
    amps can faithfully reproduce rock music - as it was meant to be heard.
    Me, May 9, 2013
    #31
  12. Me

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:14:44 -0400, PeterN
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
    > >>> In article <518a6438$0$10808$-secrets.com>, PeterN

    > >
    > > Typical of nospam not to understand that the preference is based on
    > > the process and not the result. He must think that a woodworker who
    > > lovingly makes a table in his workshop is someone who refuses to
    > > accept new technology because he won't buy a mass produced table from
    > > Rooms To Go.

    >
    > This might be true for something hand crafted with aesthetic qualities, like
    > a table.
    >
    > It is not true for items with technical perfomance issues - like a car.
    >
    > Time was hand crafted cars like Rolls Royce, Bentley and Aston Martin were
    > seen as the best. By the 1980's they had been overtaken (figuratively and
    > lterally) by mass produced top end cars like BMW, Audi and Mercedes. All
    > these grand marques are now owned by big makers and whilst the leather seats
    > and wooden dash boards might still be made by loving craftsmen, the engines
    > and running gear are made by engineers in factories.


    It's rather sad that the job market has declined to the point where
    engineers have to work on production lines, however you really need to
    explain what underemployment has to do with product quality.
    J. Clarke, May 9, 2013
    #32
  13. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 3:51 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    > "Me" <> wrote in message
    > news:kmddkj$1bv$...
    >> On 8/05/2013 10:16 p.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:p...
    >>>> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
    >>>>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    >>>>>> misplaces
    >>>>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
    >>>>>> mourn the
    >>>>>> passing of wet film.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    >>>>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
    >>>>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
    >>>>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
    >>>>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
    >>>>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
    >>>>> to replicate the look of film.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
    >>>> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
    >>>> whereas
    >>>> transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
    >>>> transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
    >>>> amplifier).
    >>>
    >>> Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but
    >>> +5V
    >>> to +25V.
    >>>
    >>> Valve amps do demonstate tonality and high [thermal] noise.
    >>>
    >>> Transistors were adopted in amps (and much else) because they
    >>> outperformed
    >>> valves on linearity / distortion, frequency response, reliability, noise,
    >>> size, energy consumption and last but by no means least cost.
    >>>
    >>> Example - a basic EF81 (AF valve) was over £1 retail in 1973, when they
    >>> were
    >>> still in mass production - that is about £11 ($16) today. Even now an
    >>> equivalent transistor would cost less than a dollar and out perform it in
    >>> every way.
    >>>

    >> Some still are in mass production - perhaps just not in the kind of volume
    >> as 50 years ago, ie:
    >> http://www.jj-electronic.com/
    >> There are also makers in Russia and China.

    >
    > No doubt - quite a good design IIRC.
    >
    >>>
    >>>

    >> It's moved on a bit recently too, with class D amps setting efficiency
    >> standards, increased efficiency means less heat, smaller size. For large
    >> concert PA systems - this type of audio amp may be used these days:
    >> http://www.powersoft-audio.com/en/products/touring-amplifiers/k-series/k20.html
    >> 2 x 9000w in a small rack mount unit, 12kg weight.
    >> (but you can almost guarantee that the guitarist will still be using his
    >> valve amp, miked in to the PA)

    >
    > My partner worried when I bought a Sony AV amp (7x100W) - note sure what she
    > would make of 18kW!
    >

    I didn't know I had such pretensions. And I don't know what you mean by
    inferior technology.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 9, 2013
    #33
  14. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 4:05 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    > news:518aaa9f$0$10819$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/8/2013 2:33 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article <518a960c$0$10823$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>

    > SNIP
    >>>
    >>> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    >>> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    >>> software.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Stop shape shifting.
    >> You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept
    >> new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet real
    >> people who do not fit your classification.

    >
    > Peter is basically right. There may be a few niches left for film (X-rays
    > for instance, but even then...), but essentially almost all who still use
    > film do so because they are set in their ways or they have not got around to
    > buying new equipment yet.
    >
    > Again, when I was a kid in the sixties I used to be able to tell which
    > pictures in National Geographic were Kodachrome and which Ektachrome just by
    > looking and this was after process colour printing. Even with the highest
    > standards of professional shooting and production there was a big colour
    > cast on both (slate grey / blue on the former; orangy red on the latter).
    > Sure film has improved since then, but has now been completely overhauled by
    > digital.
    >

    I seem to recall Ecktachrome as haveing the blueish cast, and Kodachrome
    as being warmer. For that reason, and its higher ASA, I used Ektachrome
    for my underwater photography.


    > Similarly in the late 1980's I could tell when Signal Radio was playing CD's
    > by ear as I drove along the M6 because the sound quality was so much better.
    > This was despite the fact that Signal obviously had top quality vinyl decks,
    > it had a radio segment and was playing in my relatively noisy car.
    >
    > On my home system it is easy to forget and leave the amp is on because the
    > noise level is so low with no signal you just can't hear it. There would be
    > [intrusive] audible hiss from a valve amp.
    >
    > People who think vinyl is better than CD, valves amps are better than
    > transistor and since fairly recently film is better than digital are just
    > deluding themselves.
    >
    > These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
    > digital] interconnects...
    >
    >
    >>
    >> that is the sole issue.
    >> --
    >> PeterN

    >
    >



    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 9, 2013
    #34
  15. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 5:02 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <518aaa9f$0$10819$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >>>>>>> technology.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    >>>>>> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    >>>>> proven. it is not a matter of opinion.
    >>>>
    >>>> When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?
    >>>>
    >>>> BTW Your statement was
    >>>> "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >>>> technology."
    >>>>
    >>>> When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
    >>>> a proper introduction.
    >>>>
    >>>>> digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    >>>>> goes on, the difference will get bigger.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    >>>>> colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    >>>>> batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    >>>>> it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    >>>>> results.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not the issue - see above
    >>>
    >>> it's *exactly* the issue.
    >>>
    >>> the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
    >>> not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
    >>> it happens to be.
    >>>
    >>> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    >>> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    >>> software.

    >>
    >> Stop shape shifting.
    >> You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
    >> accept new technology." I called you on it.

    >
    > you did not call me on anything nor am i shape shifting.
    >
    >> Now when do you want to meet
    >> real people who do not fit your classification.

    >
    > i have no immediate plans to go to new york. maybe photo plus next fall.
    >

    Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.

    >> that is the sole issue.

    >
    > your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
    > being an argumentative twit.
    >


    That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.

    BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
    BASIC meaning.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 9, 2013
    #35
  16. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 6:01 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:14:44 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article <518a6438$0$10808$-secrets.com>, PeterN

    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >>>>> technology.
    >>>>
    >>>> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    >>>> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.
    >>>
    >>> go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
    >>>
    >>> there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    >>> proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

    >>
    >>
    >> When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?
    >>
    >> BTW Your statement was
    >> "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >> technology."
    >>
    >> When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
    >> a proper introduction.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    >>> goes on, the difference will get bigger.
    >>>
    >>> digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    >>> colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    >>> batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    >>> it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    >>> results.

    >>
    >> Not the issue - see above

    >
    > Typical of nospam not to understand that the preference is based on
    > the process and not the result. He must think that a woodworker who
    > lovingly makes a table in his workshop is someone who refuses to
    > accept new technology because he won't buy a mass produced table from
    > Rooms To Go.
    >


    Wow you just hit a chord. I once made a hand inlaid chess table, out of
    birch and maple. It took months. When my daughter was in grade school,
    she wanted to play the cello. After renting one for the first year, I
    picked up an old beat up cello that had been carelessly covered with
    shellac, for $5. We spent a summer stripping the instrument to bare
    wood, staining it, and hand finishing it with violin varnish. Her music
    teacher commented that it was rare to see a beginning student playing
    such a fine instrument, and that it was worth over a thousand dollars.
    My original reason was so that my daughter would help finish the
    instrument, therby having an investment in it. She kept her interest for
    about seven years. But, I guess nospam would prefer a machine made
    Chinese instrument.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 9, 2013
    #36
  17. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kmeqgp$2ni$>, Doug McDonald
    <> wrote:

    > > the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
    > > not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
    > > it happens to be.
    > >
    > > the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    > > films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    > > software.

    >
    > You may be right about film. I won't argue.
    >
    > But I will about B&W prints. There as aspects of silver ... not
    > to even include platinum or palladium or gold ... that cannot be
    > duplicated. Certain types of papers have reflection characteristics that
    > cannot be duplicated without metals in the emulsion. Of course,
    > digital images can be printed on those papers.


    print the digital image on silver based paper, as you mentioned.

    in fact, that's what photofinishing shops do. the negatives are scanned
    and then digitally printed on photo paper.

    don't tell the film luddites though. they'll probably have a fit.
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #37
  18. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <518b22f2$0$10806$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>>>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > >>>>>>> technology.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    > >>>>>> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    > >>>>> proven. it is not a matter of opinion.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> BTW Your statement was
    > >>>> "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > >>>> technology."
    > >>>>
    > >>>> When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
    > >>>> a proper introduction.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    > >>>>> goes on, the difference will get bigger.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    > >>>>> colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    > >>>>> batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    > >>>>> it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    > >>>>> results.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Not the issue - see above
    > >>>
    > >>> it's *exactly* the issue.
    > >>>
    > >>> the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
    > >>> not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
    > >>> it happens to be.
    > >>>
    > >>> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    > >>> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    > >>> software.
    > >>
    > >> Stop shape shifting.
    > >> You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
    > >> accept new technology." I called you on it.

    > >
    > > you did not call me on anything nor am i shape shifting.
    > >
    > >> Now when do you want to meet
    > >> real people who do not fit your classification.

    > >
    > > i have no immediate plans to go to new york. maybe photo plus next fall.

    >
    > Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.


    that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
    know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
    engineering would be invalidated.

    nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
    take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.

    > >> that is the sole issue.

    > >
    > > your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
    > > being an argumentative twit.

    >
    > That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.


    you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #38
  19. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, R. Mark Clayton
    <> 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.
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #39
  20. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
    >> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >>>
    >>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
    >>> misplaces
    >>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
    >>> mourn the
    >>> passing of wet film.
    >>>

    >> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
    >> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
    >> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
    >> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
    >> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
    >> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
    >> to replicate the look of film.


    > The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
    > smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
    > whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
    > "push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
    > class B amplifier).


    That's not an inherent charcteristic difference between transistor and
    tube amps, it's simply a difference in the way te amplifier is
    designed, e.g. class A, B, etc.. Neither device inherently can make
    the +ve to -ve transistion. Tube amps managed it by simply biassing
    themselves high so that the zero signal point was handled half way up
    its voltage range. In the earky days of transistor amps the devices
    didn't have the power to do that, so they chose to switch between
    devices, one handling the +ve side, the other the -ve.

    But teansistors are now powerful enough to run in the smae mode as
    tube amps, i.e. with the zero signal point biassed half way up their
    voltage range. And for those who care there are transistor amps made
    to that design.

    > That discontinuity in transistor based circuits


    or tube amps operating the same mode.

    > is audible to about
    > 1/1000th of a percent of listeners. IOW, even "audiophiles" <cough>
    > with the best trained ears would fail to pick it out in an ABX test.


    > Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits
    > - more so in processing.


    There were more differences than that. When tube amps were pushed past
    their limits the distortion started rising, but it did so gracefully
    and slowly. Whereas transistor amps pushed past their limits move very
    rapidly into higher levels of distortion, and also a kind of
    distortion which has a harsher sound. Since the loudest music tends to
    be when lots of instruments (or voices) are playing at once, this
    difference was most obvious as a muddying of clarity in loud
    orchestral or large choir passages. Those with keen ears could also
    pick up it with instruments which had very large sharp transient peaks
    in the attack of their notes, such as a piano.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, May 9, 2013
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ric

    Bookmark Icon Disappearance

    ric, Apr 9, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    960
    Splibbilla
    Apr 9, 2005
  2. CarlO

    Disc Disappearance

    CarlO, May 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    413
    Ben Myers
    May 17, 2005
  3. Max Christoffersen

    Wilner's Bizarre Disappearance..

    Max Christoffersen, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    125
    Views:
    2,542
    vanpall
    Feb 9, 2004
  4. Gary

    Minimizing window causes disappearance

    Gary, Aug 12, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    401
  5. Evensong

    Partition Disappearance problem.

    Evensong, Feb 6, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    320
    Evensong
    Feb 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page