3 ms·

Probably for the same reason that people still think it's romantic or nostalgic to use analog film cameras to take photos, when a digital camera can reproduce e

Probably for the same reason that people still think it's romantic or nostalgic to use analog film cameras to take photos, when a digital camera can reproduce everything that the old film camera can do, and more easily? It makes you feel somehow more in touch with some bygone era. People talk about the "warmth" of a tube amp or some kind of other intangible / A-B-test-inconsistent quality. But it's all just perception.

astrange 4y ago
A film camera is certainly superior to a modern digital camera in all kinds of ways, especially a medium/large format one. It’s just also worse in a lot of other ways. But audiophile equipment generally isn’t better than, say, Apple or Sony products. This is for the simple reason that none of those companies are large enough to afford actual R&D or product testing. What they are capable of doing is making more expensive products and lying to their users, which is why so many of them think they need a “better DAC” with “more effortless PRAT”.
- supernova87a 4y ago
  Mostly I see the hipsters carrying around 35mm, with the few who actually benefit from the points you made above lugging around a Mamiya tank once in a while. But agreed on the audio. Hey, at least someone can make some money off something that's doing some better service for maintaining old technology than hawking gold-plated cables.
- Tarq0n 4y ago
  Audiophile equipment certainly is better than what Sony and Apple make. Mainstream electronics manufacturers design for a price-point that has a large assessable market. This certainly leaves room on the table for marginal gains. Audiophile gear manufacturers are also willing to make use of hard to mass-manufacture technologies like planar-magnetic drivers that have some advantages, while bigger manufacturers pretty much exclusively use dynamic drivers. Some of this can be demonstrated though objective measurements, for instance bass extension into the sub-100 Hz range can be much better on audiophile equipment. (Sony also makes some very high end headphones that few people are aware of)
  - astrange 4y ago
    Planar-magnetic drivers certainly sound different, but the “plucked” effect from them is so obvious I’m not sure it’s actually lower distortion or just something people like because it’s noticeable, kind of like a tube amp. My Anandas do sound good in general too, but the entire class of headphones isn’t technologically advanced at all. They don’t have consistent reproducible sound because different people have different head shapes, background noise levels, are wearing glasses… fancy drivers with more theoretical bass can’t make up for not having an ear seal. Plus they look like you’re wearing football helmets on both ears. (AirPods Max are the only product I know of that claims to do something about this. Though I don’t think they sound great, I do think noise cancelling closed headphones sound better than open audiophile ones in any reasonably noisy location.)
beezle 4y ago
This is debatable even in the 'full frame' 35mm range and certainly so when moving up to the various medium formats and larger. That is just speaking about resolution. There are other things to consider as well, such as dynamic range and texture/sharpening resulting from the use of bayer filters Digital is quicker to view (not necessarily print) and has the ability to change iso on each shot if necessary. Definitely an advantage for say a photojournalist who is on deadline and may have subjects in wildly different lighting only moments apart. More corrections are also available out of the box vs at the enlarger, though of course a negative can be scanned (giving up at least some of film resolution advantage). I view that entire category as a crutch to fix photos that were not shot correctly in the first place. Where at one time thought was given before pressing the shutter, now there is a tendency to just snap away and hope one shot looks good or can be 'fixed' to do so (not the same thing as capturing multiple frames of high speed action).
JKCalhoun 4y ago
With 12 shots on my roll of film, I try very hard to make every one count. :-)
crispyambulance 4y ago
> But it's all just perception. Agree, but "perception" is A LOT. Taking digital media and making it look like film in an artistically skillful way is hard. Shooting in film and making it look good is hard too, in a different way, requiring different skills. Two films come to mind. Both of them beautifully shot. Tangerine (https://youtu.be/ALSwWTb88ZU https://youtu.be/ALSwWTb88ZU) Was shot with an iPhone 5s-- and yes, there was a lot of work involved in post-production, but it was a deliberate decision. The directory, Sean Baker, later went on to shoot Red Rocket (https://youtu.be/Wfndmy-6e28 https://youtu.be/Wfndmy-6e28) this time in 16mm film. Both films are amazing in terms of cinematography and visuals. Licorice Pizza (https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/licorice-pizza/ https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/licorice-pizza/). The director, Paul Thomas Anderson, exclusively works in film. This was a big-budget production with some A-list actors, he could have shot with whatever digital equipment he wanted but he chose 35mm. Whatever the case, the outcome was stunning. At the end of the day, it comes down to choices the creators make for their workflow and which tools and techniques they've mastered. Is it "possible" for a fully digital A/V workstation to give the operator a level of control that blows away analog media? Of course. But what does that level of control actually mean? Endless mouse-clicks, sliders, drop-down menus, and application "plug-ins" and licenses? Unfortunately, yes. Not everyone is willing to do that.

astrange 4y ago

A film camera is certainly superior to a modern digital camera in all kinds of ways, especially a medium/large format one. It’s just also worse in a lot of other ways. But audiophile equipment generally isn’t better than, say, Apple or Sony products. This is for the simple reason that none of those companies are large enough to afford actual R&D or product testing. What they are capable of doing is making more expensive products and lying to their users, which is why so many of them think they need a “better DAC” with “more effortless PRAT”.

supernova87a 4y ago
Mostly I see the hipsters carrying around 35mm, with the few who actually benefit from the points you made above lugging around a Mamiya tank once in a while. But agreed on the audio. Hey, at least someone can make some money off something that's doing some better service for maintaining old technology than hawking gold-plated cables.
Tarq0n 4y ago
Audiophile equipment certainly is better than what Sony and Apple make. Mainstream electronics manufacturers design for a price-point that has a large assessable market. This certainly leaves room on the table for marginal gains. Audiophile gear manufacturers are also willing to make use of hard to mass-manufacture technologies like planar-magnetic drivers that have some advantages, while bigger manufacturers pretty much exclusively use dynamic drivers. Some of this can be demonstrated though objective measurements, for instance bass extension into the sub-100 Hz range can be much better on audiophile equipment. (Sony also makes some very high end headphones that few people are aware of)
- astrange 4y ago
  Planar-magnetic drivers certainly sound different, but the “plucked” effect from them is so obvious I’m not sure it’s actually lower distortion or just something people like because it’s noticeable, kind of like a tube amp. My Anandas do sound good in general too, but the entire class of headphones isn’t technologically advanced at all. They don’t have consistent reproducible sound because different people have different head shapes, background noise levels, are wearing glasses… fancy drivers with more theoretical bass can’t make up for not having an ear seal. Plus they look like you’re wearing football helmets on both ears. (AirPods Max are the only product I know of that claims to do something about this. Though I don’t think they sound great, I do think noise cancelling closed headphones sound better than open audiophile ones in any reasonably noisy location.)

beezle 4y ago

This is debatable even in the 'full frame' 35mm range and certainly so when moving up to the various medium formats and larger. That is just speaking about resolution. There are other things to consider as well, such as dynamic range and texture/sharpening resulting from the use of bayer filters Digital is quicker to view (not necessarily print) and has the ability to change iso on each shot if necessary. Definitely an advantage for say a photojournalist who is on deadline and may have subjects in wildly different lighting only moments apart. More corrections are also available out of the box vs at the enlarger, though of course a negative can be scanned (giving up at least some of film resolution advantage). I view that entire category as a crutch to fix photos that were not shot correctly in the first place. Where at one time thought was given before pressing the shutter, now there is a tendency to just snap away and hope one shot looks good or can be 'fixed' to do so (not the same thing as capturing multiple frames of high speed action).

JKCalhoun 4y ago

With 12 shots on my roll of film, I try very hard to make every one count. :-)

crispyambulance 4y ago

> But it's all just perception. Agree, but "perception" is A LOT. Taking digital media and making it look like film in an artistically skillful way is hard. Shooting in film and making it look good is hard too, in a different way, requiring different skills. Two films come to mind. Both of them beautifully shot. Tangerine (https://youtu.be/ALSwWTb88ZU https://youtu.be/ALSwWTb88ZU) Was shot with an iPhone 5s-- and yes, there was a lot of work involved in post-production, but it was a deliberate decision. The directory, Sean Baker, later went on to shoot Red Rocket (https://youtu.be/Wfndmy-6e28 https://youtu.be/Wfndmy-6e28) this time in 16mm film. Both films are amazing in terms of cinematography and visuals. Licorice Pizza (https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/licorice-pizza/ https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/licorice-pizza/). The director, Paul Thomas Anderson, exclusively works in film. This was a big-budget production with some A-list actors, he could have shot with whatever digital equipment he wanted but he chose 35mm. Whatever the case, the outcome was stunning. At the end of the day, it comes down to choices the creators make for their workflow and which tools and techniques they've mastered. Is it "possible" for a fully digital A/V workstation to give the operator a level of control that blows away analog media? Of course. But what does that level of control actually mean? Endless mouse-clicks, sliders, drop-down menus, and application "plug-ins" and licenses? Unfortunately, yes. Not everyone is willing to do that.