> but sensitivity and resolution aren't amongst them.
Digital cameras have been more sensitive than chemical film for some time now, hence I didn't mention sensitivity (film is clearly inferior).
Regarding dynamic range and resolution, it really depends on what kinds of stock you compare to digital. If you take a low sensitivity ISO 50 fine grain stock, that one will easily outperform current generation electronic sensors – except for low-ish resolution high dynamic range sensors with large charge collecting capabilities¹. But you get this at the expense of having to use slow shutter speeds or a fast aperture.
You're right that in the "usual" ballpark of operational parameters (ISO 400 to ISO 2000, ~30MP resolution) modern electronic image sensors are getting close or are on-par with standard application chemical film stock.
----
1: Ironically chemical film stock resolution and dynamic range increase "in the same direction": Smaller grain → higher DR, higher resolution, but lower sensitivity. It's exactly opposite for electronic sensors since pixel size determines charge collection capacity and therefore saturation levels.
if you enlarge a film the traditional way for printing it goes way beyond 20M pixels. Probably closer to 50M pixela at least. Try enlarging a current 20M pixels digital picture to A2 format you will see a huge difference and film clearly wins.
The Sony A6300 offers 13.7 stops of dynamic range (according to DxOMark, so not entirely uncontroversial). The slightly more expensive Nikon D810 goes up to 14.8 stops. It's hard to find definitive numbers for film, though.
I work with post production for tv/movies. Current digital sensors are much better than film in clarity, noise, dynamic range, etc. Film is still, arguably, superior in look.
The noise inherent to film. Aka film grain is more irregular than digital sensor noise and can be more pleasing to people. People have argued that part of this is familiarity. People who grew up watching film have a large base of memories and associations with their favorite movies and the 'film look'
IN vfx work we use a large library of film-stock grain patterns to add noise to cg elements.
Large and medium format completely blow the best digital sensors out there. Dynamic range (unless you have a 3000 USD DSLR), contrast in black and white... and the rendering of colors. With a DLSR you are stuck with one sensor, with film every new roll is a different experience.
And as long as you have the negs, you can keep your pictures almost forever. Try reading that fancy RAW, proprietary format from your 2010's camera in 2050.
Technically that's a limitation of the price point, though. There is no physical reason medium- and large-format DSLR's couldn't be made with higher resolution and sensitivity than film.
Price is a big deal though. You can buy a 4x5 camera and some sheet film for a few hundred bucks online and get started making some amazing photographs right now. To buy a medium format digital back with comparable resolution you're looking at prices rivalling an entry level luxury car.
You can take that 15 year old photo, scan it and upscale it to meter width and keep sharp edges and so on. Try doing this with that fancy iPhone picture.
An early-2000s consumer film camera, addressing roughly the same market as a modern iPhone camera, is not going to have nearly the lens quality, nor will the mass-market film stock have the grain resolution, nor will the 1-hour photo print have the transfer sharpness to survive a scan enlargement to a 1-meter-wide print. The result will look grainy and blurry compared to an enlargement from a recent iPhone.
An early-2000s 35mm SLR with professional film and a high-end darkroom print will look great enlarged, but then an iPhone is no longer an appropriate point of comparison.
You know what fans (the real ones) do? They try to know more about the thing they are fans of, and to understand it. Your comment shows nothing of the kind.
Sorry but who wants to be some lame "fan"? We want the best tool for the job, too get that job done and we're willing to pay for it. The tools are no longer up to scratch or functioning as expected and we are voicing our concern.
I'm sorry I re-read GP and I'm still unclear what you're talking about. For as long as I've been using Apple it has always been because of the superior experience. Its with regret I have to say I am let down by (in particular) their software quality recently. I've gotten to the point where I'm fairly certain my next phone won't be an iPhone. I can't ... understand your line of reasoning .. that as an Apple user that means I should have some loyalty to them if what they're selling me doesn't fulfil my needs. I'm really interested in knowing where you're coming from but your snarky tone is making that difficult.
I wrote this comment before the one above. I'm open to other points of views if you write them down. I can't tell you for certain whether my statement is an absolute fact, but there seems to be some truth in it that is worth thinking about. Are you aware of any thriving, long-lasting society that rejects monogamy?
Iceland has low rates of marriage, but is fairly conventional about monogamy. Iceland also has roughly as many residents as Tulsa, OK - a population just large enough to avoid inbreeding depression.
Actually, that HN thread left a mark on me.
Before that I was vaguely familiar with the concept. "History is written by the winners", the concept of superstitions, marketing, appeal to the majority, etc.
But I was mostly dismissing it, considering that rational thought would in the end triumph. Considering that, in the least, each repetition should bring extra information for the effect to manifest.
That thread prompted me to give some though to the subject and the answer I arrived at so far does not make me happy at all.
Realizing that repetition by itself is enough, clarifies some things I did not understand and simply classified as reality not making sense.
I feel ever more justified in my energy consuming efforts to fact-check information I receive and in my strides to present information as opinion/personal thought/conclusion based on sources/mere reproduction of sources instead of truth.
I am more aware of this than before but at the same time it causes a lot more stress to me now than it did before.
I am less willing than I was to engage in live discussions where I receive information, because that places a burden of fact checking on me and I can not always do that at the speed of real life. And depending on the interlocutor I can not rephrase the discussion in terms of hypothetical statements.
The burden of proof really is a burden- one sometimes wishes one could take the whole heap of aggregated knowledge from one discussion board to the next.
With automated named references to counter arguments.
The problem is, people would tend to not read this Wiki:Discussion page, as its "external" to the community, so in addition a system for metering trustworthiness (trusted by users i trust) would be needed.
How is that relevant? I've lived in a country that wasn't communist, but had a whole communist vs right/centre civil war. And I've visited a number of ex-communist countries, and know people from there.
But this is not about what I've seen with my eyes, it's about what's recorded in history.
Note also that I didn't say "preferred" (as in making barter the dominant and/or official economy).
Barter was very common in communist countries for "black market" stuff (and in times of great crisis, for essentials).
Here's from Wikipedia, about the aftermath of the revolution in USSR:
Civil War ensued and the economy of the new regime became even more chaotic. With mismanagement rampant and hunger sweeping the land, the value of the ruble, currency of the nation, essentially collapsed.[1] During this interval, remembered by the name War Communism, money lost its function as a store of value and a means of exchange. A return was made by people in their daily lives to a _primitive barter economy_ (emphasis mine)
Bicycles and Land Rovers are both operated on the street. Humans are on the street as well, with varying degrees of protection. I often use the street while mounted on a bicycle. If my skull is crushed by a Land Rover's tire that will be a markedly different experience from my skull being hit by a bicycle tire.
Please elaborate; I don't really understand what you mean.
GP's point was asinine as well. They have failed to address the core issue - the difference between operating a two+ tonne metal box and a 15 kilo bicycle, and how getting hit by either of those varies.
That's a really shitty comparison. Unless cyclists really do drive in such packs (which they don't). In reality, the effective space taken by cyclist on genera purpose road is bigger than a car — you need a huge safety margin to overtake a cyclist, and if you cannot do that you a forced to follow them untill you can and that's really ineffective.
All this does not apply to dedicated cyclist roads/lanes, of course.
Depends where you are but some cities easily have the density suggested there.
> In reality, the effective space taken by cyclist on genera purpose road is bigger than a car — you need a huge safety margin to overtake a cyclis
More than a car? I've certainly not been given more space when people overtake me. Remember a car is 6 feet wide, that's quite a bit of space already that's taken up by a car.
The city in these videos has many cyclists (and one of the most successful bike-share schemes in the world), but rather scandalously provides very little bike infrastructure and even less enforcement (bike lanes are generally used for parking).
Finally, you might wish to note that one generally refers to "riding" a bike in English, rather than "driving". The same goes for motorcycles in most contexts. This is different from some other languages, such as German, where the same word is used for operating all of those conveyances.
You're going to have to explain that one a bit. Or perhaps you think Tim Berners-Lee is responsible for popunder ads, and Jon Postel for unsolicited Viagra spam?
So people use Uber because it costs less to ride and because it does not allow tipping idea being that companies should pay more.
This is a sound logic.
