On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:11:07 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

I used to play about with colour photo printing some while ago and
in general digital seems better then what I remember the piccy quality
we got.. all of which is rather unscientific!...
--

Agreed, digital allows the hobbyist to print better pictures. Home
colour processing was a thankless task.

In article , 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'...??

Your theory is that **all** "digital stuff" is as you describe.

Yet in reality you probably haven't listened to *all* recordings. Nor does
your theory make much sense once you take into account that a number of the
LPs you like were probably in digital form prior to being cut to vinyl.
:-)

I have also made CDRs of LPs, and I - and others who I have tried them one
- then can't tell them apart if they only have the sounds to go on.

So the problem is that you convert some specific experiences into a theory
which you then apply to *all* "digital stuff". But which fails to agree
with some cases which you fail to take into account.

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

But that was not what you said above. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Bill Taylor
writes
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:06:48 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

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?.

Well the CCU output is available as SDI but I don't know enough about
modern cameras to say where in the camera the digitisation takes
place, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was fairly early in the
signal chain and some of the processing was done digitally.

Yes its a rather moot point.. would the signal be more accurate as an
analogue signal directly off the CCD as digitising needs to quantify
that signal so in a way analogue is nearer the mark

And remind us of the bitrates used

About 270Mbps for standard def.

Yep..amazing!, its ticking away at that rate and then just to see what
the viewer sees of it

Although I know you don't like transmitted digital TV (and I wish the
bitrates were higher), it is an impressive feat to achieve a nearly
100:1 compression ratio and still get pretty good pictures most of the
time.

Well suppose it is but you'd think that bandwidth availability on
satellite transmission etc...never mind I must write out 10000 times

"In the 21st century Quantity is more important than Quality"

Bill

--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
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?.

I'd assume the mixing console was digital these days?

Video chains these days can be digital from camera onwards. Audio only
usually after the microphones. However, with audio, you can get
satisfactory results with analogue in much of the path. The problems come
with recording, transmission systems and the path to the transmitter.
Sadly, the digital transmissions systems capable of transparent end
results are also amenable to transmitting lower quality at a lower overall
cost, and this seems to be the way things have gone in the UK.

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
Agreed, digital allows the hobbyist to print better pictures. Home
colour processing was a thankless task.

I had a good mate - sadly now deceased - who got a great deal of pleasure
out of home colour printing. Just because something is difficult to
achieve well doesn't make it thankless - quite the reverse, often.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I had a good mate - sadly now deceased - who got a great deal of pleasure
out of home colour printing. Just because something is difficult to
achieve well doesn't make it thankless - quite the reverse, often.

So did I. (Only he's still breathing, last time I looked.) He too
took great pleasure in the technical process. Eventually he realised
he was spending a LOT of time and money to be almost as good as the
machine at the camera shop :-) I had less money to burn and stuck
to black & white. Until digital came along I don't think I'd ever
shot in colour. Now the process is trivial and I enjoy making
photographs.

There's some audiophile analogies in there somewhere :-)

In article ,
Bill Taylor wrote:
Well, I'm listening to R4 DAB off the house balanced distribution
system via home assembled LS 3/5A and a Linsey Hood 75 watt amp while
I type. Would you like to know what the sound system is in each
bathroom? Toilet? Workshop? Kitchen? Guest bedrooms?

You probably mean Lindsey Hood?


Perhaps he meant Linsley Hood?

Rule 1 of the internet is that when some prat decides to correct another's
spelling or typo he invariably gets it wrong. ;-)

The gentleman's name for the record is John Linsley Hood - or that's the
name on his books. At least one Hi-Fi News article had him as J.L.
Linsley-Hood. Dunno which is correct.

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.? writes

I had a good mate - sadly now deceased - who got a great deal of pleasure
out of home colour printing. Just because something is difficult to
achieve well doesn't make it thankless - quite the reverse, often.

So did I. (Only he's still breathing, last time I looked.) He too
took great pleasure in the technical process. Eventually he realised
he was spending a LOT of time and money to be almost as good as the
machine at the camera shop :-) I had less money to burn and stuck
to black & white. Until digital came along I don't think I'd ever
shot in colour. Now the process is trivial and I enjoy making
photographs.

There's some audiophile analogies in there somewhere :-)

The problem with the colour process is the number of stages and the
requirement for keeping the whole lot at the right temperatures etc all
in all dictates a home lab setup, unlike monochrome where it can all be
done in the bathroom
--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:28:58 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.? writes

I had a good mate - sadly now deceased - who got a great deal of pleasure
out of home colour printing. Just because something is difficult to
achieve well doesn't make it thankless - quite the reverse, often.

So did I. (Only he's still breathing, last time I looked.) He too
took great pleasure in the technical process. Eventually he realised
he was spending a LOT of time and money to be almost as good as the
machine at the camera shop :-) I had less money to burn and stuck
to black & white. Until digital came along I don't think I'd ever
shot in colour. Now the process is trivial and I enjoy making
photographs.

There's some audiophile analogies in there somewhere :-)

The problem with the colour process is the number of stages and the
requirement for keeping the whole lot at the right temperatures etc all
in all dictates a home lab setup, unlike monochrome where it can all be
done in the bathroom

Many years ago I bought a Cibachrome kit, with drum, box of filters
for the enlarger, thermometers, chemicals and so on. I must have made
a hundred test prints trying for a decent colour balance - which I
never managed to get to my satisfaction. Add to that the lousy
contrast range and you have expensive misery.

Digital photography is incalculably better than that. From picture
taken to people the far side of the world looking at it in a couple of
minutes - no contest.

I still have a 35mm camera which appears to be getting more expensive
by the day on ebay - quite inexplicable.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote


Many years ago I bought a Cibachrome kit, with drum, box of filters
for the enlarger, thermometers, chemicals and so on. I must have made
a hundred test prints trying for a decent colour balance - which I
never managed to get to my satisfaction. Add to that the lousy
contrast range and you have expensive misery.


Ditto....



Digital photography is incalculably better than that. From picture
taken to people the far side of the world looking at it in a couple of
minutes - no contest.


No-one grabbed digital photography quicker than I did. Even back in the 640
x 480 days (256K ???) days, getting a pic onto the screen in moments (even
before fast modems/broadband) beat all that ****ing about with film and
waiting for results. Nowadays, being able to get large, hi-res pix to
anywhere in the world in a heartbeat is still quite staggering by
comparison!!

Add to that the (effectively) zero cost of film and there's no contest, as
you say - I once took 21 pix on my way up to the post box and back and
That's on the corner of our front garden!! (Can't say I bother to print much
out these days....)


I still have a 35mm camera which appears to be getting more expensive
by the day on ebay - quite inexplicable.


Ah....!!

See my original remarks about *ultimate quality* - it'll be a long time
before wet film cameras dry up completely!!

Now, by the power of digital photography, go and see my pix of the
excavations I got finished today:

****BLOG ALERT***

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Patch%202.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Patch%204.JPG


(Note the 'compost delivery' hard on my tail - no pressure, like.....!! :-)

If you're really lucky, I'll show you a pic of my butt tomorrow.....

;-)