I remember there were some almost

double thick records by

Deutchegramafone

spilling ?

Deutsche grammophon

that featured the classics and had an excellent clarity. But, that was long, long ago with technology now far, far, away.

(sorry, I was inspired by a Star Wars ad)

Can't they maybe film motion pictures with film and digitize them later to get that GWTW level of vibrant color?

Moi

Digital is all about compressing info. Compress data and lose detail. Keep the details and you need a much larger storage device. Pick your poison.

Sweetpickle (imported) wrote: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:35 pm digital isn't about high quality it's about efficiency of distribution.

It is more about efficiency of copying. Take copy from analog record and get all system noise, etc. Get a copy from a digital record and get the same copy every time.

Another thing to consider is that analog records, be it film or magnetic tape, do age. Film loses color and gets scratches, magnetic tape loses magnetic particles, gets dirty and aquires noise/loses high frequencies. Digital records (as digital information) live longer. (yes, I know about useful lifetime of a CD/DVD disk, and data crashes, and I DO know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_obsolescence)

A properly aligned cartridge / tonearm combo of quality will cause minimal record wear of clean records. I own some records that are 30+ years old that still sound good. Vinyl records are much more a hands on experience. A true labor of love.

Consider the movie, Gone With The Wind.

Although currently quite digital, its' colors are so much more vibrant as movies of that era that were "filmed".

There has been no apparent loss with transfer to digital storage. Why can't audio be as capable?

Moi

moi621 (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:28 pm Consider the movie, Gone With The Wind.

Although currently quite digital, its' colors are so much more vibrant as movies of that era that were "filmed".

There has been no apparent loss with transfer to digital storage. Why can't audio be as capable?

Moi

Moi,

Keep in mind that with movies like Gone With The Wind, the cinematography was planned to make maximum use of the then-new color film technology, so the colors *had* to be rich and vibrant! Same thing with TV in the mid-60's; watch some old shows from about 1965-70 or so, and you'll notice that there's a *lot* of bright colors used! The reasons are *exactly* the same; making the best use of the new color technology!

As far as audio goes, it *can* be as capable; it has to be *practical*, too, though, and that's where we run into problems...

In analog recording, the signal itself is recorded onto tape; in digital, the signal is converted into digital data first. Digital conversion is done by capturing the level of the soundwave 44,100 times per second (if you see "44.1 kHz" used wrt a CD, that's what it means), kind of like taking a picture of the waveform, then another, and another, not unlike the frames in motion picture film.

The problem, though, is that you're limited to audio signals of 22.05 kHz; it's above the range of human hearing, but those frequencies can affect the sound to a degree. Plus, there's always a 'step' between samples; that can make the sound less smooth on playback.

CDs use 16-bit audio at 44.1 kHz; higher-end recording systems use 24-bit audio at 48 kHz, 96 kHz, and even 192 kHz. The problem is that those higher rates use a *lot* more disk space!

So both analog and digital have their advantages and drawbacks...

-YPA

The reason that Technicolor resorations look so good now is partly the ability to clean up and color balanace film that is avalable now.

However the most important factor is that Technicolor was shot with a camera that used 3 monochrome (B&W) negitives to capture Red Green and Blue (RGB). These negitives captured each color at what today we would call a very high bandwith and bit depth. So using the new technology for film transfer there is far more to work with in restoration.

In the old days Technicolor prints were literally printed using colored dyes, which have outlasted many Eastman Kodak film emusions.

BroBear

I hope that you all realize that a 35mm slide (take kodachrome 100 ASA for instance) could be projected onto a movie screen or a home screen and not lose apparent detail at six to twelve or even twenty feet wide.

Don't do that with ASA 400 slide film. That has grain as big as baseballs.

No digital photography has definition like that because the 35mm slide can have detail down to a molecular level -- grains of metal.

YourPhriendlyAuthor (imported) wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:05 am In analog recording, the signal itself is recorded onto tape; in digital,

So both analog and digital have their advantages and drawbacks...

-YPA

Some vinyl records of very high audio quality were recorded Direct-to-Disc. This is a method where the artists perform and the signal is sent directly to the cutting lathe. Of course there could be no second takes. Once the mother was made and then the stampers from the mother. The stampers would be used to create the vinyl record.

Another method is to remaster a tape recording be it analog or digital at 45rpm. This method allows for better bass and higher fidelity. The stylus has an easier time tracking the groove.

There are also some examples of digital direct to disc that are also of high fidelity. Of course without editing the process is more demanding and of course more expensive if mistakes are made.

These methods are prized by people with a very revealing stereo.

I think one benefit of shooting with a digital camera is the color accuracy under many different lighting conditions. My Canon 50d images converted to Tiff files makes for very nice enlargements. Digital memory cards are nice because you do not have to stop and change film. You also have the option of multiple ISO's with digital. In the past different films were needed for different lighting situations.

I find digital photo's catching up to film faster than digital audio is catching up to vinyl.