SA Footy

Surely we are going backwards, heading down the digital path?
Reading a magazine whilst waiting for my foood, cam across an article which stated;
analogue is a gradual change, where as digital is "defined".
An example of problems with digital is obvious in file compression, & when enlarging, the "staircase" type effect.
Larger colour range in analogue, sharper images- I don;t think you can beat the "old-fashioned" camera & film.
The only advantages you have with digital, is up-loading pic's straight to your pc.

While this may be old news to some, it's opened my eyes a bit more- i've always been miffed at the lack of quality in re-sizing digital opics

Steve Albini was very correct in dismissing the digital age.

Punk Rooster wrote:Surely we are going backwards, heading down the digital path?
Reading a magazine whilst waiting for my foood, cam across an article which stated;
analogue is a gradual change, where as digital is "defined".
An example of problems with digital is obvious in file compression, & when enlarging, the "staircase" type effect.
Larger colour range in analogue, sharper images- I don;t think you can beat the "old-fashioned" camera & film.
The only advantages you have with digital, is up-loading pic's straight to your pc.

While this may be old news to some, it's opened my eyes a bit more- i've always been miffed at the lack of quality in re-sizing digital opics

Steve Albini was very correct in dismissing the digital age.

I agree Punky.
The same applies to sound reproduction, which is why I have lerge speaker boxes and run the whole thing on valves.
I use a digital camera only for the convenience and cost savings.
Similarly, I play CD sound for convenience. Some old "direct-to-disk" vinyl recordings I have are actually better recordings.

Digital formats and technologies mostly get a bad wrap when they are poorly implemented, which is usually (but not always) when first introduced to market:

-early CD players had limited digital to analog conversion technology and were consequently criticised for their sound quality
-digital cameras took years to reach quality comparable to film
-Foxtel make digital tv look crap because of over compression of the signal
-low bit rate mp3 files 'dumbs down' many listeners to accept poor quality as good enough

Overall though, the versatility and convenience of digital technologies make them far preferable to analog for me.
I would always prefer a sharp and clean FTA tv signal over an old analog, with possible noise and ghosting problems.

Quality comes down to implementation -see how good a well made DVD (or hidef disc) can look for instance...sure it could be done in analog, but who wants tapes?

Interceptor wrote:Digital formats and technologies mostly get a bad wrap when they are poorly implemented, which is usually (but not always) when first introduced to market:

-early CD players had limited digital to analog conversion technology and were consequently criticised for their sound quality
-digital cameras took years to reach quality comparable to film
-Foxtel make digital tv look crap because of over compression of the signal
-low bit rate mp3 files 'dumbs down' many listeners to accept poor quality as good enough

Overall though, the versatility and convenience of digital technologies make them far preferable to analog for me.
I would always prefer a sharp and clean FTA tv signal over an old analog, with possible noise and ghosting problems.

Quality comes down to implementation -see how good a well made DVD (or hidef disc) can look for instance...sure it could be done in analog, but who wants tapes?

You are correct overall, it is implementation. Generally portability is giving priority over quality.

So, digital cameras are constantly upping the megapixel count by putting in bigger sensors, but even lenses from good makers stay small, limiting light gathering and shutter speeds unless you shell out big bucks for the true SLRs, and even then they tend to come with inferior lenses. A friend of ours bought a Canon digital SLR, but by the time he shelled out for that he had to go with the standard lens and not the S series. As soon as you step out of the mainstream it suddenly gets very expensive, and that is not caused by increased production costs, but by pricing strategy. My wife's cheaper compact has the S series lens which gives a sharper picture, but is only an f3.5.

Similarly, MP3 never appealed to the audiophile because the sound quality was inferior to ordinary CD sound. You would not use it to listen to real music.
Tape was never good that's why I bought some "direct-to-disc" vinyls that bypassed taping anything.They are of better sound quality still than most CD recordings, but not as portable or convenient to play.

Digital TV is either clear or non-existant like digital mobile phone signals. Where I live both are full of holes, whereas analog signals bounce around the hills and at least you get some signal. I can't get the same mobile phone reception now that I had on my old CDMA service, and I won't unless the telco's put up a lot more towers. That, of course, leaves us all living in a stronger electro-magnetic field, which raises other concerns.