Analogue?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Hi all,

Just a word. Seems there is an increase in describing non-digital, still
cameras as 'analogue'. Surely, the correct term should be either, 'Film'
cameras, or, specific to the format, eg, 35mm, 120, 127 etc.

Analogue has absolutley NO meaning in this field.

But it DOES have a relelvance to electronics in older Video cameras which
were analogue.

Eddie
15 answers Last reply
More about analogue
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 05:44:21 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
    vaguely proposed a theory
    .......and in reply I say!:
    remove ns from my header address to reply via email

    It's an unusual use of the word. But basically as I understand it, the
    film process is analogue, (although I have bagged the use of the word
    here myself <G>).

    The greater the intensity of the light that falls on any part of the
    film, the more the sensitive parts( colour or BW) are affected. AFAIK
    they are not in a discrete state, but can vary infinitely. Their state
    is analogous to the amount of light that falls on them.

    I suppose there must be a molecular or cellular discrete level
    involved! <G>

    >Hi all,
    >
    >Just a word. Seems there is an increase in describing non-digital, still
    >cameras as 'analogue'. Surely, the correct term should be either, 'Film'
    >cameras, or, specific to the format, eg, 35mm, 120, 127 etc.
    >
    >Analogue has absolutley NO meaning in this field.
    >
    >But it DOES have a relelvance to electronics in older Video cameras which
    >were analogue.
    >
    >Eddie
    >

    ****************************************************
    I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
    us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
    .........no I'm not.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
    news:099970lgc4uf7qqeb2iskudf5fekhf66tv@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 05:44:21 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
    > vaguely proposed a theory
    > ......and in reply I say!:
    > remove ns from my header address to reply via email
    >
    > It's an unusual use of the word. But basically as I understand it, the
    > film process is analogue, (although I have bagged the use of the word
    > here myself <G>).
    >
    > The greater the intensity of the light that falls on any part of the
    > film, the more the sensitive parts( colour or BW) are affected. AFAIK
    > they are not in a discrete state, but can vary infinitely. Their state
    > is analogous to the amount of light that falls on them.
    >
    > I suppose there must be a molecular or cellular discrete level
    > involved! <G>
    >
    > >Hi all,
    > >
    > >Just a word. Seems there is an increase in describing non-digital, still
    > >cameras as 'analogue'. Surely, the correct term should be either, 'Film'
    > >cameras, or, specific to the format, eg, 35mm, 120, 127 etc.
    > >
    > >Analogue has absolutley NO meaning in this field.
    > >
    > >But it DOES have a relelvance to electronics in older Video cameras
    which
    > >were analogue.
    > >
    > >Eddie
    > >

    Each silver halide particle in a photographic emulsion is digital. It must
    absorb two photons to become developable. It is a go-no go situation.
    Absorbing one photon won't do the job, and absorbing more than two won't be
    different than absorbing two. When the blackening in the developed emulsion
    is measured in small areas, one is effectively counting silver particles,
    and the counting statistics control the measurement noise.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
    news:4074757b$0$16606$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Just a word. Seems there is an increase in describing non-digital, still
    > cameras as 'analogue'. Surely, the correct term should be either, 'Film'
    > cameras, or, specific to the format, eg, 35mm, 120, 127 etc.
    >
    > Analogue has absolutley NO meaning in this field.
    >
    > But it DOES have a relelvance to electronics in older Video cameras which
    > were analogue.
    >
    > Eddie
    >
    >


    People often try to describe something that has an alternative by using the
    opposite of that alternative.

    The funniest is calling dial-up 'narrowband' in comparison to 'broadband'.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
    news:099970lgc4uf7qqeb2iskudf5fekhf66tv@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 05:44:21 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
    > vaguely proposed a theory
    > ......and in reply I say!:
    > remove ns from my header address to reply via email
    >
    > It's an unusual use of the word. But basically as I understand it, the
    > film process is analogue, (although I have bagged the use of the word
    > here myself <G>).
    >
    > The greater the intensity of the light that falls on any part of the
    > film, the more the sensitive parts( colour or BW) are affected. AFAIK
    > they are not in a discrete state, but can vary infinitely. Their state
    > is analogous to the amount of light that falls on them.
    >
    > I suppose there must be a molecular or cellular discrete level
    > involved! <G>
    >
    > >Hi all,
    > >
    > >Just a word. Seems there is an increase in describing non-digital, still
    > >cameras as 'analogue'. Surely, the correct term should be either, 'Film'
    > >cameras, or, specific to the format, eg, 35mm, 120, 127 etc.
    > >
    > >Analogue has absolutley NO meaning in this field.
    > >
    > >But it DOES have a relelvance to electronics in older Video cameras
    which
    > >were analogue.
    > >
    > >Eddie
    > >

    He he he, great try Nick. (ummm, you a rugby player?)

    Eddie
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:41:26 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
    vaguely proposed a theory
    .......and in reply I say!:
    remove ns from my header address to reply via email

    Beg your pardon?

    >He he he, great try Nick. (ummm, you a rugby player?)
    >
    >Eddie
    >

    ****************************************************
    I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
    us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
    .........no I'm not.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:34:06 -0400, "Marvin Margoshes"
    <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> vaguely proposed a theory
    .......and in reply I say!:
    remove ns from my header address to reply via email


    >> I suppose there must be a molecular or cellular discrete level
    >> involved! <G>

    >Each silver halide particle in a photographic emulsion is digital. It must
    >absorb two photons to become developable. It is a go-no go situation.
    >Absorbing one photon won't do the job, and absorbing more than two won't be
    >different than absorbing two. When the blackening in the developed emulsion
    >is measured in small areas, one is effectively counting silver particles,
    >and the counting statistics control the measurement noise.
    >
    >

    OK. As I said, I feel that using "analogue" to describe film is
    questionable, or not usual.

    But I went looking to see how things had fooled my failing brain.

    The stuff below seems to contradict you in both essence and fact,
    unless you feel tha molecular/atom level (which I had mentioned)
    counts. If electron levels and atoms are what you are talking about,
    then everything is digital. Photons are digital.

    I get the distinct impression that the _grains_ can have many levels
    of interaction with light, and behave accordingly.

    This is how I remembered it, but I use quotes to try to back me up.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/film4.htm

    "When a photon of light is absorbed by the spectral sensitizer sitting
    on the surface of a silver-halide grain, the energy of an electron is
    raised into the conduction band from the valence band, where it can be
    transferred to the conduction band of the silver-halide-grain
    electronic structure. A conduction-band electron can then go on to
    combine with a positive hole in the silver-halide lattice and form a
    single atom of silver. This single atom of silver is unstable.
    However, if enough photoelectrons are present at the same time in the
    crystal lattice, they may combine with enough positive holes to form a
    stable latent-image site. It is generally felt that a stable
    latent-image site is at least two to four silver atoms per grain. A
    silver-halide grain contains billions of silver-halide molecules, and
    it only takes two to four atoms of uncombined silver to form the
    latent-image site.

    In color film, this process happens separately for exposure to the
    red, green and blue portions of the reflected light. There is a
    separate layer in the film for each color: Red light forms a latent
    image in the red-sensitive layer of the film; green light forms a
    latent image in the green-sensitive layer; blue light forms a latent
    image in the blue-sensitive layer. The image is called "latent"
    because you can't detect its presence until the film is processed. The
    true photoefficiency of a film is measured by its performance as a
    photon detector. Any photon that reaches the film but does not form a
    latent image is lost information. Modern color films generally take
    from 20 to 60 photons per grain to produce a developable latent
    image."


    ****************************************************
    I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
    us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
    .........no I'm not.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
    news:107as7dm9cjfj2e@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    >
    > Each silver halide particle in a photographic emulsion is digital. It
    must
    > absorb two photons to become developable. It is a go-no go situation.
    > Absorbing one photon won't do the job, and absorbing more than two won't
    be
    > different than absorbing two. When the blackening in the developed
    emulsion
    > is measured in small areas, one is effectively counting silver particles,
    > and the counting statistics control the measurement noise.
    >
    >
    OK, point, Marvin, so, this would make it DIGITAL not ANALOGUE!

    Now I am going to jump on my horse. Digital, as related to cameras, works
    exactly the same as it does with computers, scanners etc. It it electronic
    technology where the discrete units are BITS - binary digits, (regardless if
    it's words, double words, sentences or paragraphs, ummm, sorry!) and not a
    continuous signal, varying in intensity as in video and tapes. It is more
    related to CD's than tapes.

    Photography is part optical and part CHEMICALLY. No electronics need be
    involved.

    The process you have discribed could, in fact, label normal photography as,
    umm, errrr, as, ahhhh, DIGITAL!

    But no, let's be a little more consrvative and respectful to the original
    system and call it as either 'film' or style, 35mm etc.


    Eddie
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
    news:g0ob70d42lr34t5ln5865hpdkll5c8bqh2@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:34:06 -0400, "Marvin Margoshes"
    > <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> vaguely proposed a theory
    > ......and in reply I say!:
    > remove ns from my header address to reply via email
    >
    >
    > >> I suppose there must be a molecular or cellular discrete level
    > >> involved! <G>
    >
    > >Each silver halide particle in a photographic emulsion is digital. It
    must
    > >absorb two photons to become developable. It is a go-no go situation.
    > >Absorbing one photon won't do the job, and absorbing more than two won't
    be
    > >different than absorbing two. When the blackening in the developed
    emulsion
    > >is measured in small areas, one is effectively counting silver particles,
    > >and the counting statistics control the measurement noise.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > OK. As I said, I feel that using "analogue" to describe film is
    > questionable, or not usual.
    >
    > But I went looking to see how things had fooled my failing brain.
    >
    > The stuff below seems to contradict you in both essence and fact,
    > unless you feel tha molecular/atom level (which I had mentioned)
    > counts. If electron levels and atoms are what you are talking about,
    > then everything is digital. Photons are digital.
    >
    > I get the distinct impression that the _grains_ can have many levels
    > of interaction with light, and behave accordingly.
    >
    > This is how I remembered it, but I use quotes to try to back me up.
    >
    > http://science.howstuffworks.com/film4.htm
    >
    > "When a photon of light is absorbed by the spectral sensitizer sitting
    > on the surface of a silver-halide grain, the energy of an electron is
    > raised into the conduction band from the valence band, where it can be
    > transferred to the conduction band of the silver-halide-grain
    > electronic structure. A conduction-band electron can then go on to
    > combine with a positive hole in the silver-halide lattice and form a
    > single atom of silver. This single atom of silver is unstable.
    > However, if enough photoelectrons are present at the same time in the
    > crystal lattice, they may combine with enough positive holes to form a
    > stable latent-image site. It is generally felt that a stable
    > latent-image site is at least two to four silver atoms per grain. A
    > silver-halide grain contains billions of silver-halide molecules, and
    > it only takes two to four atoms of uncombined silver to form the
    > latent-image site.

    It doesn't disagree at all: "It is generally felt that a stable
    latent-image site is at least two to four silver atoms per grain."

    Regardless of whether two, three or four photons absorbed, you get one
    silver particle after development.

    Generally speaking, I'd expect that a photon flux large enough to result in
    three or more latent image sites in more than a very few silver halide
    grains will be over-exposure.

    > In color film, this process happens separately for exposure to the
    > red, green and blue portions of the reflected light. There is a
    > separate layer in the film for each color: Red light forms a latent
    > image in the red-sensitive layer of the film; green light forms a
    > latent image in the green-sensitive layer; blue light forms a latent
    > image in the blue-sensitive layer. The image is called "latent"
    > because you can't detect its presence until the film is processed. The
    > true photoefficiency of a film is measured by its performance as a
    > photon detector. Any photon that reaches the film but does not form a
    > latent image is lost information. Modern color films generally take
    > from 20 to 60 photons per grain to produce a developable latent
    > image."
    >
    >
    > ****************************************************
    > I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
    > us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
    > ........no I'm not.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
    news:4075cb51$0$16583$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
    >
    > "Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
    > news:107as7dm9cjfj2e@corp.supernews.com...
    > > >
    > >
    > > Each silver halide particle in a photographic emulsion is digital. It
    > must
    > > absorb two photons to become developable. It is a go-no go situation.
    > > Absorbing one photon won't do the job, and absorbing more than two won't
    > be
    > > different than absorbing two. When the blackening in the developed
    > emulsion
    > > is measured in small areas, one is effectively counting silver
    particles,
    > > and the counting statistics control the measurement noise.
    > >
    > >
    > OK, point, Marvin, so, this would make it DIGITAL not ANALOGUE!
    >
    > Now I am going to jump on my horse. Digital, as related to cameras, works
    > exactly the same as it does with computers, scanners etc. It it electronic
    > technology where the discrete units are BITS - binary digits, (regardless
    if
    > it's words, double words, sentences or paragraphs, ummm, sorry!) and not a
    > continuous signal, varying in intensity as in video and tapes. It is
    more
    > related to CD's than tapes.

    A three year old counting 1, 2, 3 ... is being digital. The sensor works
    more like that three-year-old than does a transistor in a computer. The
    transistor can only have two values - 0 or 1. The pixel in a sensor can
    have any charge value from 0 to 256, plus noise. Inside the camera, each
    pixel's signal is read as an analogue signal, then converted to digital by
    an A/D converter.

    Yes, the camera works more-or-less like a scanner. It does not work like a
    computer; it does contain a computer.

    > Photography is part optical and part CHEMICALLY. No electronics need be
    > involved.
    >
    > The process you have discribed could, in fact, label normal photography
    as,
    > umm, errrr, as, ahhhh, DIGITAL!
    >
    > But no, let's be a little more consrvative and respectful to the original
    > system and call it as either 'film' or style, 35mm etc.
    >
    >
    > Eddie
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
    news:a7nb7056k5v74p1s2c8f774k5h5kjl5ae9@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:41:26 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
    > vaguely proposed a theory
    > ......and in reply I say!:
    > remove ns from my header address to reply via email
    >
    > Beg your pardon?
    >
    > >He he he, great try Nick. (ummm, you a rugby player?)
    > >
    > >Eddie
    > >
    >
    > ****************************************************
    > I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
    > us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
    > ........no I'm not.

    Ahh, bad pun, Nick....TRY...yes? Oh, oh, well, forget it.

    Eddoe
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
    news:107dns6sku8ab99@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:4075cb51$0$16583$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
    > >
    > > "Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
    > > news:107as7dm9cjfj2e@corp.supernews.com...
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Each silver halide particle in a photographic emulsion is digital. It
    > > must
    > > > absorb two photons to become developable. It is a go-no go situation.
    > > > Absorbing one photon won't do the job, and absorbing more than two
    won't
    > > be
    > > > different than absorbing two. When the blackening in the developed
    > > emulsion
    > > > is measured in small areas, one is effectively counting silver
    > particles,
    > > > and the counting statistics control the measurement noise.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > OK, point, Marvin, so, this would make it DIGITAL not ANALOGUE!
    > >
    > > Now I am going to jump on my horse. Digital, as related to cameras,
    works
    > > exactly the same as it does with computers, scanners etc. It it
    electronic
    > > technology where the discrete units are BITS - binary digits,
    (regardless
    > if
    > > it's words, double words, sentences or paragraphs, ummm, sorry!) and not
    a
    > > continuous signal, varying in intensity as in video and tapes. It is
    > more
    > > related to CD's than tapes.
    >
    > A three year old counting 1, 2, 3 ... is being digital. The sensor works
    > more like that three-year-old than does a transistor in a computer. The
    > transistor can only have two values - 0 or 1. The pixel in a sensor can
    > have any charge value from 0 to 256, plus noise. Inside the camera, each
    > pixel's signal is read as an analogue signal, then converted to digital by
    > an A/D converter.

    No, the three year old is NOT being digital. He/She is counting past 1! In
    digital, the three year old would have counted, '1 + 1'. then got
    0000000010, next he/she would have added 1 to the last 0 to get 11, the full
    10 fingers thus, '0000000011'. You know this Marving.

    I agree, each camera pixel can have values from 0 to 256, but, only in
    discrete steps of 1. Analogue signals would, if measured, go from 0 to 1 in
    a sine-wave.

    Eddie
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
    news:40771c08$0$16585$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
    >
    > "Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
    > news:107dns6sku8ab99@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    > > "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
    > > news:4075cb51$0$16583$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
    > > >
    > > > "Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:107as7dm9cjfj2e@corp.supernews.com...
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Each silver halide particle in a photographic emulsion is digital.
    It
    > > > must
    > > > > absorb two photons to become developable. It is a go-no go
    situation.
    > > > > Absorbing one photon won't do the job, and absorbing more than two
    > won't
    > > > be
    > > > > different than absorbing two. When the blackening in the developed
    > > > emulsion
    > > > > is measured in small areas, one is effectively counting silver
    > > particles,
    > > > > and the counting statistics control the measurement noise.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > OK, point, Marvin, so, this would make it DIGITAL not ANALOGUE!
    > > >
    > > > Now I am going to jump on my horse. Digital, as related to cameras,
    > works
    > > > exactly the same as it does with computers, scanners etc. It it
    > electronic
    > > > technology where the discrete units are BITS - binary digits,
    > (regardless
    > > if
    > > > it's words, double words, sentences or paragraphs, ummm, sorry!) and
    not
    > a
    > > > continuous signal, varying in intensity as in video and tapes. It is
    > > more
    > > > related to CD's than tapes.
    > >
    > > A three year old counting 1, 2, 3 ... is being digital. The sensor
    works
    > > more like that three-year-old than does a transistor in a computer. The
    > > transistor can only have two values - 0 or 1. The pixel in a sensor can
    > > have any charge value from 0 to 256, plus noise. Inside the camera,
    each
    > > pixel's signal is read as an analogue signal, then converted to digital
    by
    > > an A/D converter.
    >
    > No, the three year old is NOT being digital. He/She is counting past 1! In
    > digital, the three year old would have counted, '1 + 1'. then got
    > 0000000010, next he/she would have added 1 to the last 0 to get 11, the
    full
    > 10 fingers thus, '0000000011'. You know this Marving.

    Digital is not equal to binary. The base can have any integer value.
    Normally it is a power of 2, including decimal, octaol, hexadecimal. But it
    does not define digital.

    >
    > I agree, each camera pixel can have values from 0 to 256, but, only in
    > discrete steps of 1. Analogue signals would, if measured, go from 0 to 1
    in
    > a sine-wave.

    The maximum strength of an analogue signal obviously depends on the units.
    It is arbitrary - not set at 1.

    >
    > Eddie
    >
    >
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 05:59:31 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >
    >"Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
    >news:107dns6sku8ab99@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >> "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:4075cb51$0$16583$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
    >> >
    >> > "Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
    >> > news:107as7dm9cjfj2e@corp.supernews.com...
    >> > > >
    >> > >
    >> > > Each silver halide particle in a photographic emulsion is digital. It
    >> > must
    >> > > absorb two photons to become developable. It is a go-no go situation.
    >> > > Absorbing one photon won't do the job, and absorbing more than two
    >won't
    >> > be
    >> > > different than absorbing two. When the blackening in the developed
    >> > emulsion
    >> > > is measured in small areas, one is effectively counting silver
    >> particles,
    >> > > and the counting statistics control the measurement noise.
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > OK, point, Marvin, so, this would make it DIGITAL not ANALOGUE!
    >> >
    >> > Now I am going to jump on my horse. Digital, as related to cameras,
    >works
    >> > exactly the same as it does with computers, scanners etc. It it
    >electronic
    >> > technology where the discrete units are BITS - binary digits,
    >(regardless
    >> if
    >> > it's words, double words, sentences or paragraphs, ummm, sorry!) and not
    >a
    >> > continuous signal, varying in intensity as in video and tapes. It is
    >> more
    >> > related to CD's than tapes.
    >>
    >> A three year old counting 1, 2, 3 ... is being digital. The sensor works
    >> more like that three-year-old than does a transistor in a computer. The
    >> transistor can only have two values - 0 or 1. The pixel in a sensor can
    >> have any charge value from 0 to 256, plus noise. Inside the camera, each
    >> pixel's signal is read as an analogue signal, then converted to digital by
    >> an A/D converter.
    >
    >No, the three year old is NOT being digital. He/She is counting past 1! In
    >digital,

    "Digital" and "binary" are not synonymous terms.

    > the three year old would have counted, '1 + 1'. then got
    >0000000010,

    .... which is 2 base 10.

    >next he/she would have added 1 to the last 0 to get 11,

    .... which is 3 base 10.

    >the full
    >10 fingers thus, '0000000011'. You know this Marving.

    10 (dec) = 1010 (binary)

    >I agree, each camera pixel can have values from 0 to 256, but, only in
    >discrete steps of 1. Analogue signals would, if measured, go from 0 to 1 in
    >a sine-wave.

    Huh?


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
    news:8q7f70l9jt1t13f5odj0l9ilssi8viunq3@4ax.com...

    ase remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

    Franc,

    Digital is based upon the fact that current is increased in steps rather
    than a continuous signal. Otherwise it would be analogue. You are correct in
    stating that Digital is not necessarily a BINARY mode, but let's face it, in
    computer technology, of which digicams are now a part, BINARY mode is the
    standard, not base 10. (yes, I know hex etc are used, but it is still based
    upon discrete signals). So my counting with a binary result of 3 being
    .....00011 is correct.

    But, if I'm wrong....well....I'm sure you'll tell me.

    But Franc, we are forgetting something. That is that my original point was
    that regardless of the technology behind Digital camaras, film cameras are
    not 'Analogue'

    But hey, thanks, nice to have a discussion without some idiot flaming.


    Long live FILM cameras!

    Eddie
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
    news:4077b854$0$16583$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
    >
    > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:8q7f70l9jt1t13f5odj0l9ilssi8viunq3@4ax.com...
    >
    > ase remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
    >
    > Franc,
    >
    > Digital is based upon the fact that current is increased in steps rather
    > than a continuous signal. Otherwise it would be analogue. You are correct
    in
    > stating that Digital is not necessarily a BINARY mode, but let's face it,
    in
    > computer technology, of which digicams are now a part, BINARY mode is the
    > standard, not base 10. (yes, I know hex etc are used, but it is still
    based
    > upon discrete signals). So my counting with a binary result of 3 being
    > ....00011 is correct.
    >
    > But, if I'm wrong....well....I'm sure you'll tell me.
    >
    > But Franc, we are forgetting something. That is that my original point was
    > that regardless of the technology behind Digital camaras, film cameras are
    > not 'Analogue'

    When I was in high school - a long time ago - and had to take NY Regents
    exams, I was warned to just answer the question. One could lose points for
    an error in the information given that wasn't asked for, but would not get
    extra credit if it was right.

    My reply to your comment was meant to clarify the notion that film is not
    digital. At a basic level, it is. Normally, that doesn't matter, but I've
    made measurements on photographic film and plates where it did because of
    the small areas measured had a limited number of developed grains.

    A knowledge of this somewhat esoteric topic can help in understanding some
    emulsion properties, including the S-shape of the response curve.

    >
    > But hey, thanks, nice to have a discussion without some idiot flaming.
    >
    >
    > Long live FILM cameras!
    >
    > Eddie
    >
    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Cameras Electronic Peripherals