Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AdamWarren
But isn't that a bit more expiensive in the long run? Film, developing... bad shots could end up costing you a lot. With digital you just hit delete. Plus you can show them on the back of your camera, or d/l them to your laptop and show them to the world.
You can also take short video clips now-a days too. I've heard that some of the higher priced digtal ones can take photos better than the 35mms
Man, I need a new camera, lol
|
Expensive, but much higher quality. Digital, regardless of the number of megapixels, creates a pixel-by-pixel digital imprint of the subject. The spaces between the pixels are filled by erronious color, just like white noise is used via digital recording. In that sense, megapixel count is exactly like the sampling rate on a digital recording device. The higher the count, the greater the quality, but you will never have the true image fidelity due to the filler used.
Film captures the actual image via light, which actually burns the image onto the film. It is exactly like analog recording, which captures the actual sound wave on the tape, not a digital representation of the wave along preset sampling points.
It is true that digital cameras will show you what your picture looks like instantly. It is also less expensive to print the photographs, but you sacrifice quality for convenience.