|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.19.76.104
In Reply to: RE: You know what's interesting about digital photography? posted by Dave_K on June 22, 2015 at 10:31:28
Audio and photography are different. In audio, one can't directly match up and compare two sounds. Memory is alwasys involved. In photography, one can place two pictures side by side and compare them. No memory is required.
The increased difficulty in comparing audio made it possible for Sony and Philips to fool the audio market with their "perfect sound" BS. Kodak couldn't do this with digital photography, because the low resolution of the early sensors was obvious. Psychopathic trolls got no purchase where photography was involved.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Follow Ups:
Well, it's harder compare two audio samples than compare two pictures, I'll give you that. However, if I took a 24MP RAW image, downsampled it to 6MP and wrote it out as a HQ JPEG, and then sent both files to a print shop, I suspect you couldn't tell which was which.
"However, if I took a 24MP RAW image, downsampled it to 6MP and wrote it out as a HQ JPEG, and then sent both files to a print shop, I suspect you couldn't tell which was which."
Isn't that kind of the entire point of the "CD is good enough" crowd?
I don't think anyone is arguing that there is no merit in hi-res music files for production purposes, just as no one is arguing that high MP cameras are worthless. Of course you will want to have as much latitude as possible in capturing an event and later in tailoring your captured event. But when it actually comes to distributing a product for public consumption, if normal folks struggle to tell the difference between a 24MP RAW image and a down sampled 6MP image, or between a hi-res file and a redbook file, why bother with the extra overhead associated with the hi-res file?
JE
I think it's a bit hypocritical to say that high res is OK for recording and production but not for playback. There is a rationale for using a longer word length during mixing and mastering, but no reason why the bit depth on playback needs to be different from the bit depth of the original recording. Also, I don't see why you would need a higher sample rate during recording and production than playback. Or to put it another way, I don't see why you need to downsample to a lower rate for playback except in applications where minimizing storage size or transmission bandwidth is a major design driver.
Getting back to my original point regarding digital audio vs. digital photography:
One difference between the two hobbies is that audio includes some notorious anti-high enders and their followers who insist that playing CDs on mass market Best Buy level gear is as good as anything and who demand DBTs from anyone claiming they can get better sound, regardless of whether it's from better gear or higher resolution source media. There are even some like Chris Montgomery of xiph.org who claim that higher resolution playback is worse than CD. I don't see an analogous group in amateur photography.
The audio hobby also has a sizeable percentage of analog devotees who insist that digital can never be as good as analog. While I know there are still photographers who prefer to shoot film for artistic reasons, I haven't noticed very many people in amateur photography who still believe that film photography is technically superior.
"I think it's a bit hypocritical to say that high res is OK for recording and production but not for playback."
I'm not saying that high res is not OK for playback. I was instead using your earlier example comparing photos to point out that for most, high res is not necessary for satisfying playback.
"There is a rationale for using a longer word length during mixing and mastering, but no reason why the bit depth on playback needs to be different from the bit depth of the original recording."
Have you ever watched someone cram an iPod or a cell phone with music? All but the tiniest minority would argue there is a very good reason for a different bit depth for playback purposes. Indeed, this ties in with my previous point: for the vast majority of listeners today, redbook quality itself is unnecessary. They are perfectly happy with far smaller file sizes.
I think high res files are kind of beside the point in this age of loudness wars. Do you want to hear even more detail in those screechy mixes? To me, the quality of the final mix is far more important than whether it is in redbook or high res.
JE
One difference is that sooner or later photographers,if they are going to make claims about better and worse, have to show their work to people.
The vast majority of photos taken by amateur photographers aren't seen by anyone outside of immediate family, and the vast majority taken by professionals are for an individual client.
And when amateurs and professionals do show their work to the public, nobody ever demands proof that they can make a better photo in higher resolution through a DBT where resolution is the only variable under test and all other variables are controlled.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone demanding that photographers conduct controlled blind tests.
No, blind tests in photography. You have to stick cotton in your ears, however.
There are, of course, endless arguments about sensors and lenses. There are arguments about how lenses "draw." A lot of people think Zeiss and Leica lenses draw better than others. It seems always to be the most expensive items that have these mysterious qualities, in both photography and audio. And there is another mysterious "bokeh" which has to do with the how the out of focus parts of the photo look.
But Sony has a forthcoming 42mp camera with an maximum ISO at 102,400, It will be possible to capture hi resolution images practically in the dark; this is pure technical, measurable stuff that would have been impossible with film. (I have no connection with Sony, except I use a Sony camera; Canon and Nikon have hi-rez cameras, But Sony has the sensor technology for the present. Nikon uses a Sony sensor in their high-end camera, not sure about Canon.)
The "extra overhead" of an album in hi-res audio rather than CD quality is one or two gigabytes. The cost to distribute this is less than $0.25 per copy. Now contrast that with the purchase price the consumer pays. There is no significant overhead.
"Normal folks" do not read and post on audiophile web sites.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"'Normal folks' do not read and post on audiophile web sites."
Oh, it's not so bad as all that. With a tip of the hat to the abnormal folks who post on audiophile web sites, I can assure you that there are still some normal folks posting as well.
JE
I have been involved with fairly serious levels of both audio and photography for 30 years.
They are not significantly comparable. Audio systems are devices for reproducing a signal as accurately as possible.
Photographic systems, except in certain scientific applications, are creative tools.
Digital has simplified both audio and photo systems. Digital audio, however, has made little difference in the outcome. Turntables and vinyl were a pain in the rear to use, but they would get the job done. I don't know that digital has made great difference in what I hear when I sit down after dinner to listen to music.
For years I used Hasselblads and Rolleiflex Twin Lens Reflex cameras. They were wonderful machines. They were, however, big, heavy, and difficult to use. I can carry a Sony A7r with some of the smaller lenses in a jacket pocket. This makes a real difference in the pictures I get to take.
In terms of picture quality, Apple has been running commercials showing what can be done with an IPhone; very spectacular on a HDTV. Of course, IPhones work better with some kinds of subject matter than others, and if you want large prints, you will quickly run into limitations.
I really don't have much an opinion about this. In practice, I'm going to use hi-rez digital cameras, and in theory, it seems to me a silly question, that will produce a lot of silly arguments. Here are a couple of pieces by good photographers talking about the relevant issues. There might be many reasons to use film. I have never used an 8x10camera,but I did use a 4X5 for some time. It puts you in an entirely different relation to the subject matter, and there are a lot of questions that cannot be answered simply. The assumption is that in audio one might want to leave subjective stuff out. In making art it is at least in some sense about subjective expression.
https://luminous-landscape.com/rolleiflex/
https://luminous-landscape.com/rediscovering-8x10/
Playing recordings made by other people is akin to looking at photographic prints made by other people. To participate in audio as you have with photography requires making recordings as well as playing them back. If one does this, one soon realizes that this is an art as well as a science.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Yes, Tony, true enough, but doing photography is perhaps more like making recordings of yourself making music. Or making music in your own studio.
One might think of limiting oneself to photographing with an old simple box camera, and it would put an interesting limit on your work. One can, and people have, done great work with such constraints. I cant imagine anyone being much interested in doing recording with a cheap 1960s tape recorder you might pick up at garage sale.
There is a large scene of photographers devoted to working with a toy camera called the Diana.
When one takes a poor picture and then makes it presentable as a record using D Lighting, Image sharpening, all kinds of adjustments etc, what is being recorded?
I suppose it's like Moog Strikes Bach which was interesting but was a result of electronic manipulation (I am not sure if the musician, or the technician produced it).
Same great work can be done with simple equipment. It does need to be in good repair.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Photographers love the Diana camera because it has such crappy lenses, and no two the same.
nt
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: