In article , Bill Taylor
writes
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:43:16 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Take 2:

Look and listen closely - digital stuff all suffers from the loss of
that final sharpness, be it sound or images....

Alas, no matter how many 'takes' you make, your theory disagrees with my
experience. :-)



Word Insertion Technique noted - 'theory'...??

My *experience* disagrees with yours and my opinion is shared here.

Anybody care to claim 'digital radio' or 'digital TV' is sharper than
analogue?

That rather depends on what variety of TV your talking about and where
in the distribution chain your viewing it, but at the point of origin
professional digital 625/50 production equipment is better in all
respects than the analogue version.

Interesting point... where exactly is it digitised?.

And remind us of the bitrates used

Anyone care to claim that 'digital photography' is sharper than
'wet film'??

Yes. There are very good arguments to say that something like a Canon
5D or 1DS produces sharper pictures than the 35mm equivalent in the
real world, rather than the world were every picture is taken with
25ASA Kodachrome on a tripod.

As to the *sharpness* of LP over CD, even my 'deaf in one ear'
neighbour (who uses CDs all the time) commented on the clarity of the
'analogue sound' from my kit once - and that was before the Lowthers.....

(No experience of aerial or astronomical photography myself, but I suspect
it would pretty much follow suit using comparable equipment and
methods....???)

I rather understood that astronomical imaging had used digital imaging
for many years.

Bill

--
Tony Sayer