Search results

I said million, maybe billions, and this was to get a picture of the quality of a large format film camera, yes. That statement is completetly correct, but I understand how I was unclear, and why you misunderstood me. My fault. Maybe you should have said that this was the point you were trying...

Well, it may be a surface level of understanding, but it's evidently vastly deeper than yours. Yes, I'm still missing the point. What is your point? That doing something that is the photographic equivalent of 8-bit audio sampling was hugely expensive 20 years ago? Is that your point? So? Again...

??? 2 K by 2k is 4 megapixels. That's what I have in my camera. It aint anywhere near enough to compete with film. Which is the hard part, just as in the hard part in digital audio is making A/D D/As. No, but you have millions of points to sample, instead of 2. ;) why am I not suprised...

Sure, but digitizing images is much harder than audio, becuase you need to make really huge CCDs to get to the point that you can compete with film.

I gather you have no brain.

Honestly, I must have stated that fiftyeleven times in this thread already.

You seem to confuse "good" and "accurate". I never said any such thing. I know. You can look up the data on the internet, and both high-end digital and high-end analog have similar numbers when it comes to just mixers, whoch are stupidly low and competely inaudible, yes. This is not magic or...

Hehehe. I ment to say digital *electronics* engineer. :)

I'm not sure you have done that either. :confused: Yes, you gave me your background, for some reason that is way beyond me. As a long time professional computer programmer and digital engoneer I am almost amazingly unimpressed. I don't give a shit about your CV. I care about arguments and...

No, I said filtering would skew it. Any filtering will mean that the output is highly different from the output. That's the whole POINT of a filter!!! Surely you must see this? But that have nothing to do with "accurate", which is what we are discussing now. And still you seem to know so little...

well, the emulator II only had 8bits and it did a great job! :) (Ok, ok, it was unlinear so it actually had more like 70db of range).

Exactly. you could have fooled me. More so than analog yes. And you are still wrong. It is now well established that the word is "accurate". Can we drop that question now? "Accurate" is a relative word. You must compare it with something. No. I have the feeling (but I'm not sure) that your view...

No, I do not "suppose". I am convinced, through the knowledge and experince and general insight I have, that high-end digital reproduction colours the signal much less than the corresponding analog reproduction does. When it comes to something so relatively simple as just propagating a signal...

And how are things going with Dulcinea? No. YOU are doing that. You, and a couple of other people, like cjacek and A Reel Person, are constantly arguing against some sort of imaginary straw man that claims that digital is superiour in every way and using analog is a bad decision. Claiming that...

I can't see that you have even tried. This part of the discussion, however, is long finished. Just propagating a signal without doing anything to it, like recording, is an easy task. Most likely the signals would in that case be pretty much identical. So, you go ahead and do this test. Be my guest.

Ifail to see how that test is relevant for the discussion on wording. The word we are looking for is "accurate". Digital recording is more accurate than analog.

Whats is your point, and why did you direct this post to me?

which of course is exactly what I do. But you wouldn't expect the Don himself to see that would you?

So, the word we are looking for is "accurate". Still.

Funny then, how many of your posts were full of crap about our attitudes and other personal attacks... In this thread YOU have been the worst offender when it comes to personal attacks and outright lying, so I think you should simply shut the fuck up, you hypocrite. Or at least offer some...