lct Posted August 20, 2009 Share #81 Posted August 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wasn't suggesting they were. All I said was that they're adequate for my needs. Sure but one can hardly compare a 5MB jpeg to 50MB or 100MB tiff files digital cameras produce normally. Would be like comparing MP3 to wav 24/96 audio files if you see what i mean. Of course jpeg files are larger when uncompressed but data lost with compression are lost for ever. How much does your lab quote for hi-res scans of 50/100MB size if i may ask? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 20, 2009 Posted August 20, 2009 Hi lct, Take a look here What will happen to film M cameras? (Speculation warning!). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
JBA Posted August 20, 2009 Share #82 Posted August 20, 2009 Sure but one can hardly compare a 5MB jpeg to 50MB or 100MB tiff files digital cameras produce normally. Would be like comparing MP3 to wav 24/96 audio files if you see what i mean. Of course jpeg files are larger when uncompressed but data lost with compression are lost for ever. How much does your lab quote for hi-res scans of 50/100MB size if i may ask? No idea about audio files, so I don't get that comparison. Sorry. So far, the only time I've needed a high-res scan done was for printing a photo for an exhibit. The printer scanned from the negative referencing a lower res scan for cropping. I still have to retrieve my negative from the printer and can ask him then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 20, 2009 Share #83 Posted August 20, 2009 No idea about audio files, so I don't get that comparison. Sorry... I made it unclear, my apologies. Do you like Verdi? Here's a track from La Traviata: http://tinyurl.com/lcbz4h recorded from vinyle in CD quality. In fact it is an mp3 copy i.e. a compressed file (kind of jpeg) the size of which is about 2MB. The original file in aiff format (kind of tiff) weighs about 25MB. Now suppose that we're discussing on respective quality and cost of vinyle and CDs and i come to explain that i prefer vinyle because i'm happy with mp3 copies of it and the latters are less expensive than CDs. I guess you'll tell me that i'm comparing apples to oranges no? Still totally unclear i bet... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted August 21, 2009 Share #84 Posted August 21, 2009 I made it unclear, my apologies. Do you like Verdi? Here's a track from La Traviata: http://tinyurl.com/lcbz4h recorded from vinyle in CD quality. In fact it is an mp3 copy i.e. a compressed file (kind of jpeg) the size of which is about 2MB. The original file in aiff format (kind of tiff) weighs about 25MB. Now suppose that we're discussing on respective quality and cost of vinyle and CDs and i come to explain that i prefer vinyle because i'm happy with mp3 copies of it and the latters are less expensive than CDs. I guess you'll tell me that i'm comparing apples to oranges no? Still totally unclear i bet... Yeah, I get it. But since you have the vinyl anyhow and can make copies of it in any file type you like, aren't you going to be pretty happy with the mp3 copies if your purpose is to put your entire music library on an iPod and listen to it on the go through earbuds? You can still fill your home with glorious sound playing your vinyl or the 25mb files. 4-5 mb scans are good enough for putting up on Flickr, Facebook or this forum, where 50-100 mb files would be a waste. There's nothing keeping me from selectively scanning my best photos at higher resolution or getting wet prints made from them if the necessity arises. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 21, 2009 Share #85 Posted August 21, 2009 No problem of course as long as you don't compare, but if you compare like you did above, you can hardly do it between a 5MB digitalized analogue and a 50MB digital file as far as quality and cost are concerned IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted August 21, 2009 Share #86 Posted August 21, 2009 You can't really compare in terms of cost parity, but that's not what I was arguing anyway. My original point was that film is not an inherently nostalgic medium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 21, 2009 Share #87 Posted August 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...My original point was that film is not an inherently nostalgic medium. Agree, like vinyle 15 years ago Just kidding of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobebop Posted August 22, 2009 Share #88 Posted August 22, 2009 i think this would be relevant if the m9 were to use film as well as digital. even so it would be too expensive. there will always be those who want to shoot film using leica m cameras in any case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.