Video: Smarter Every Day shows the science behind film development

snapa
What is "better" is a complex issue. You have to consider which digital and film formats you are using to make the comparison. There are also many issues beyond IQ to consider. For many reasons, you must be specific as to what criteria you are using to decide which is "better".

@tbcass... Ok, lets say you shoot mostly sports, action, or wildlife for example. Do you think ANY film format can equal what the Sony a1 can do? Lets say you need at least 10 fps for anything that is moving, what film format can do that? If you like using an EVF, do film cameras have one? Lets say you are in changing light and need to adjust exposure, can film formats do that?

Those are only a few examples of how Digital cameras are 'better', IMO.

snapa
That's good. You gave specific examples where, for you, digital is better. Rob Tupper gave an example where he thinks film is better so you are both right depending on what the photographer is trying to achieve. Personally, for me and as a film shooter for 40 years before switching entirely to digital, I consider digital better for my needs but I will never claim digital is better for everybody.

On last thing, when you said "Lets say you are in changing light and need to adjust exposure, can film formats do that?" The answer to that is yes. Auto exposure in cameras predates digital and of course, there is the manual alternative.

@tbcass, since you said "Personally, for me and as a film shooter for 40 years before switching ENTIRELY to digital". That tell me you feel digital is better, for all of your current needs, at least you have the guts to admitted it.

That is more than I can say for most the rest of this crowd who have done the same. But they are all still saying how great film is, go figure. :/

@Anastigmat & tbcass - Depends on what you mean by 'better sound' and 'high quality sound' right? There are many factors that contribute to the overall 'quality' of something. What you measure by, or what a machine measures by, may not be a priority factor to some people who value other aspects instead.

I grew up listening to CD's and digital audio. Never paid attention to music on records until about 5 years ago...overall I've spent less than $300 on my turntable setup (most of it I got for free), and can hand on heart say that some mastering/pressing combos sound above and beyond better than any other time I heard those albums on CD, uncompressed WAV & MP3 over the course of 25 years. I have no nostalgic sentimental memories of vinyl records to draw my attention that way. It's just what I hear. Can the same mastering process be used for digital music? Probably.. but I've never heard it from the music I listen to.. so it suits me fine.

My take on paying for vinyl records and phonographs thinking they are equal or better than digital CD's, is rediculous. Most people who do that are old(er), and hearing deteriorates with age. If a person can't hear between 20-20k frequencies, spending hundreds or thousands of dollars is a complete waste of money.

I'll know people pay many thousands of dollars to get super hi-fi systems that can only hear 200-1200k frequencies, or less. Does that make any sense, no.

It's like people buying the latest and greatest FF cameras & lenses that do not know how to us them, just because they can. Some people simply have more money than sense.

@snapa well that's the thing, if people think vinyl sounds better all the time, that's not the case. It comes down to whether the mastering process is suitable for the output. Like matching your camera to your monitor to your printer, and carefully considering the glass on the frame and the type of lighting in the studio that will illuminate the photograph. It all contributes to the overall experience.

So I tend to seek out specific mastering releases or pressings that are said by reviewers to be better than others. I had to track down a specific pressing of Opeth's Pale Communion and the only way to tell if it was the right one or not was by opening it and checking the runoff inscriptions before purchase. So I got the seller from Europe to confirm before sending it. Most of the time the barcode is enough to tell them apart though. Sometimes there is no good pressing of an album on vinyl.

But you're right about a lot of audiophiles not being able to hear properly.. lol.. I have a friend with a VERY expensive setup and he gets mentioned in best vinyl collection lists, yet he thinks Alabama Shakes Boys & Girls album sounds just as good as the live version on his vinyl hi-fi.. when it's an objective truth that it was deliberately recorded on a trash system with a lo-fi mastering process for 'effect'.. and it sounds utterly horrendous on any medium.

fmian
Vinyl records have more harmonic distortion which many people find pleasant but it's a less accurate representation of the original. My goal was always the most accurate reproduction possible. My biggest problem with vinyl has to do with surface noise, pops and scratches. It's something I hate with a passion. The more you listen to a vinyl record the worse the noises become no matter how careful you are because they wear out.

It bothers me so much that back in my vinyl days I would make cassette copies of my records the first time I played them and put them away never to be played again. When I bought my first CDs the absolute absence of background noise was a revolution.

CDs have is a greater dynamic range. Vinyl is compressed in an effort to mask the surface noise. Less dynamic range makes for a less realistic sound. CDs have much less distortion, flat frequency response, and no wow and flutter. Preference for vinyl means a preference for less accuracy in sound.

snapa
Any person who can hear only 200-1200 Hz would be nearly deaf. Typically an older person's hearing is limited to around 20-10,000 because as we get older the ability to hear high frequencies, not lower diminishes.

@tbcass, your are correct, I meant to type 20-12,000 HZ, I put the zero in the wrong place. My hearing is around 40-12,000 Hz, so that's why I don't invest thousands in extremely high fidelity sound equipment. What would be the point, right?
It would be like people how buy cameras like the Fujifilm GFX 100S to take pictures of their cats and lowers.

@tbcass you're talking about physical properties of the recording medium, I'm talking about mastering. Two different things.

CD's can have whatever high dynamic range they have, but if the music isn't mastered to utilise it properly then it becomes irrelevant. With many record labels wanting the sound to have mass appeal for profit, they compromise on dynamic range to increase output levels.. Cause 90%+ of their customers are using headphones that came in a box with their mobile phone.. and can't hear the dynamic range anyway.. and THAT isn't the most accurate representation of the original.

Theoretical limits vs realistic outcomes.

fmian
Mastering is a totally separate issue. Masters for CDs have to be different than masters for vinyl. Some of the first CDs made from vinyl masters didn't sound that great because they were "juiced up" to sound good on vinyl which made them sound harsh and brittle on CD. That said CDs are a better more accurate medium for music. That is why many old albums have been released digitally remastered for better sound on a CD.

@tbcass
You just repeated half of what I said and then repeated what you already said as well.. despite how the second half of what I said makes what you said irrelevant. As if you didn't read a good chunk of what you responded to. Happens to me sometimes as well.