Anyone got any useful articles on this?
Full Version: Analogue Vs. Digital Cameras
Besides the obvious whats the difference? Advantages/Disadvantages?
Anyone got any useful articles on this?
Anyone got any useful articles on this?
home made filth...you get reported to the police if you try to get the analogue ones developed at your local snapshot...bloody prudes
i prefer the digital although mines is a pretty good one
i prefer the digital although mines is a pretty good one
QUOTE (the anomaly @ Jun 5 2004, 07:29 PM)
home made filth...you get reported to the police if you try to get the analogue ones developed at your local snapshot...bloody prudes
i prefer the digital although mines is a pretty good one
i prefer the digital although mines is a pretty good one
What he said...
it depends on what type of cameras we're talking about here.
on point-and-shoot cameras, i'd say that digital cams are a lor better, i.e. better image quality, shooting convenience (you can view shot image instantly and be able to erase it should you find it unpleasing, automatic exposure/apperture/etc. adjustments, need not to peek through a small lens hole - the LCD screen is there, etc.), no need to have pics developed and scanned before u can get it into the pc, and many more.
on SLR-type cameras (professional), however, there's a debate on the image quality and performance. and the debate often involves the issues in Sports Illustrated switching to digital SLRs (DSLRs) and National Georgraphic sticking to the utilization of analog SLRs.
there are still pros who claim that analog SLRs produce better image quality, i.e. crisp/sharp, better color, etc. this is the reason, they argue, why National Geographic stays with using such cameras because they're after high image quality, as opposed to Sports Ill. which is more on the image content, i.e. your favorite athlete on his/her snap of the moment pose. Such snaps could be taken with DSLRs thru the multi-burst mode, i.e. the camera takes multiple shots of an action taking place (just like the chronological slides of a cartoon animation) - that's why the photographers are able to choose which action shot is best.
however, there are also pros who argue that DSLRs can now also achieve the same (or even better) image quality as that of analogs. and they also argue that the reason why National Geographic hasn't switched to DSLRs is because of logistics - it would mean major change in the way they operate, let alone giving up analog photo equipment.
so if it's point-and-shoot cameras you're thinking about, i highly recommend choosing digital cameras, particularly Sony. nothing to worry much about the initial investment because you'd later save from the non-purchase of films and photo developing everytime.
on SLRs... i recommend doing more research on it.
on point-and-shoot cameras, i'd say that digital cams are a lor better, i.e. better image quality, shooting convenience (you can view shot image instantly and be able to erase it should you find it unpleasing, automatic exposure/apperture/etc. adjustments, need not to peek through a small lens hole - the LCD screen is there, etc.), no need to have pics developed and scanned before u can get it into the pc, and many more.
on SLR-type cameras (professional), however, there's a debate on the image quality and performance. and the debate often involves the issues in Sports Illustrated switching to digital SLRs (DSLRs) and National Georgraphic sticking to the utilization of analog SLRs.
there are still pros who claim that analog SLRs produce better image quality, i.e. crisp/sharp, better color, etc. this is the reason, they argue, why National Geographic stays with using such cameras because they're after high image quality, as opposed to Sports Ill. which is more on the image content, i.e. your favorite athlete on his/her snap of the moment pose. Such snaps could be taken with DSLRs thru the multi-burst mode, i.e. the camera takes multiple shots of an action taking place (just like the chronological slides of a cartoon animation) - that's why the photographers are able to choose which action shot is best.
however, there are also pros who argue that DSLRs can now also achieve the same (or even better) image quality as that of analogs. and they also argue that the reason why National Geographic hasn't switched to DSLRs is because of logistics - it would mean major change in the way they operate, let alone giving up analog photo equipment.
so if it's point-and-shoot cameras you're thinking about, i highly recommend choosing digital cameras, particularly Sony. nothing to worry much about the initial investment because you'd later save from the non-purchase of films and photo developing everytime.
on SLRs... i recommend doing more research on it.
SLR = Single Lens Reflex (Stills Camera)
The battle still rages across the film-making community over the aesthetic qualities of Film (analogue) versus Digital (1001001001110010). Film has a much deeper contrast to its image, meaning richer blacks and thus a greater feel for perspective, in contrast the digital image tends to be flat. This can be rectified with some nifty lighting (back lighting), colourful art direction and composition of frame.
Film also seems to have a sharper focus, whilst digital can often pixelate and appear slightly blurry.
The bottom line with film is expense, the process of film takes longer, requires a lot of careful film stock handling and then expensive development. Editing film on non-linear machines means that teh film as to be transfered onto computer and then a print made of the final online cut. This cost a lot of money, let alone the cost of the camera. Digital offers a cheaper solution, stick tape in camera, shoot and then capture onto edit suite.
I'm a big fan of digital in terms of handing productions over to the people. Ideas and projects become soo much cheaper and easier to self finance and make at home on a half decent PC/Mac. A decent semi professional DV Cam, such as a Sony PD170, or the relatively new Panasonic and the trusty Canon XL1 will produce quality image that satifies some of the best in the industry: Danny Boyle - 28 Days Later (Canon), Steven Soderburgh - Full Frontal (Canon), Spike Lee - Bamboozled. Directors and artists can take back the creativity in their productions and take risks, working with the digital image, rather than attempting to aspire to the look of film.
The range of digital cameras is also revolutionising the field of documentary, with such ease of use and quality of audio, one man productions are possible. Allowing for access to subjects that would have been previously unavailable. I mention a great film Crackhouse with this point. An ex user Carl films his old cohorts with adigital camera for a year and cuts together a rather intriguing insight into their world. The initmacy was only possible due to his sole presence with a hand held camera.
I do like film, and having shot on both formats prefer its lustre and image quality, but digital does have some equally great attributes and will allow creatives to take charge of their work again, imspiring others to have a go.
The battle still rages across the film-making community over the aesthetic qualities of Film (analogue) versus Digital (1001001001110010). Film has a much deeper contrast to its image, meaning richer blacks and thus a greater feel for perspective, in contrast the digital image tends to be flat. This can be rectified with some nifty lighting (back lighting), colourful art direction and composition of frame.
Film also seems to have a sharper focus, whilst digital can often pixelate and appear slightly blurry.
The bottom line with film is expense, the process of film takes longer, requires a lot of careful film stock handling and then expensive development. Editing film on non-linear machines means that teh film as to be transfered onto computer and then a print made of the final online cut. This cost a lot of money, let alone the cost of the camera. Digital offers a cheaper solution, stick tape in camera, shoot and then capture onto edit suite.
I'm a big fan of digital in terms of handing productions over to the people. Ideas and projects become soo much cheaper and easier to self finance and make at home on a half decent PC/Mac. A decent semi professional DV Cam, such as a Sony PD170, or the relatively new Panasonic and the trusty Canon XL1 will produce quality image that satifies some of the best in the industry: Danny Boyle - 28 Days Later (Canon), Steven Soderburgh - Full Frontal (Canon), Spike Lee - Bamboozled. Directors and artists can take back the creativity in their productions and take risks, working with the digital image, rather than attempting to aspire to the look of film.
The range of digital cameras is also revolutionising the field of documentary, with such ease of use and quality of audio, one man productions are possible. Allowing for access to subjects that would have been previously unavailable. I mention a great film Crackhouse with this point. An ex user Carl films his old cohorts with adigital camera for a year and cuts together a rather intriguing insight into their world. The initmacy was only possible due to his sole presence with a hand held camera.
I do like film, and having shot on both formats prefer its lustre and image quality, but digital does have some equally great attributes and will allow creatives to take charge of their work again, imspiring others to have a go.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.