Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*
Isn't mp3 inferior to traditional sound recording because it condenses the range? While digital video literally improves the picture?
My understanding is best described here from another board:
First, film has grain; Film is a strip of clear material with an emulsion on it. The emulsion is sensitive to light. When it is exposed, it contains a 'latent image'. Upon processing, the latent image becomes visible. The emulsion may produce colour or black-and-white images, depending on its composition. The thing about the emulsion is that it's made up of small particles that are uniformly but randomly dispersed on the base. That is, a particle may exist at coordinates X, Y on one frame, but an identical particle isn't in exactly the same position on the next frame. Multiply this millions of times (or however many times) across the frame, and the grains will seem to 'swim around' a bit. Larger grains are more sensitive to light than smaller ones, so 'fast' film will appear more grainy than 'slow' film and there will be more apparent movement or 'noise' (to use a video term).
Video pixels are arranged in a fixed matrix. Since there is no 'grain' in the film sense, you don't get the 'swimming' effect on the picture. This, I think, gives video a 'harder' look than film.
'Latitude' is the degree to which film can be over- or under-exposed and still get a good image. Film has greater latitude than video, so you can get richer contrasts with film.
This is seen a lot when the camera moves as well as the subject
Plus working with film in your hands is a true organic experience that video can't replace, but that us a true personal like