It always amazes me when...

[wildsoyabean]

cos analog is hard to read. those small scales. those with lau hua eyes cant read.

analog watch and digital watch just as accurate.
1) but which do u use for stop watch?
2) rolex never made any digital watch.

 

[Kit]

i m more amazed when i saw them descending from the trees :bsmilie:

OT liao.

well, anal versus dig,
preference is up to individual.
as long as mission accomplished,
i for one don't care how.

today's superstitions is tomorrow's science,
someday, something will replace the digital god.

Interesting choice of words.....:bsmilie:

 

[romeo tango]

old man like me chose digital dry cabinet because it is easier to read the digital display than to try to figure out which scale the needle is pointing

For me to choose digital over analog, is not because of the so call accuracy, but because it makes reading much easier

 

[Jamesf]

...photographers somehow think that digital technology is superior. For example, people think a dry cabinet with a digital hygrometer is somehow more accurate and better than one with a non-digital hygrometer. And they'll pay more for the fomer!

The truth? The measuring instrument (ie the part that senses the air humidity) is a mechanical, analog device! There's some kind of circuit to convert the reading to digital, but the digital reading is only as accurate as the analog sensor to start with.

So why pay more for a digital dry cabinet when it costs more to purchase and operate (battery cost)? Your analog meter needs no power, and if calibrated, is just as accurate!

Beats me.

Same applies for many other things-- bathroom scales, thermometers, light meters, etc.

Digital costs more, eats batteries, and has no advantage-- yet people somehow think digital is superior.

Good read.

 

[2evans]

Haven't had coffee yet this morning and that may be why, but this seems like a very confusing/useless thread.

 

[blackman]

In general, analog device is more expensive than digital device. This is why digital devices were invented for.

 

[geekbrains]

Maybe you need to read again. This is highlighting some people's misconception that eg a digital thermometer is more accurate than a non-digital thermometer.

For certain devices (eg quartz watches vs mechanical watches) yes. But certainly not for everything. Yet people are so easily misled....

How is it a misconception? Give me an accurate analog Basal Thermometer then

What happens if the capillary width varies in a liquid in glass thermometer?

Can you tell me whether it's 37.3 or 37.6 in your regular analog thermometer?

 

[ziploc]

It is actually incorrect to refer an instrument as analog simply by looking at the sensor. While it is true that most instruments start with an analog sensor, what defines them as an analog or digital system depends on the signal processing system that they employ.

Lets use the thermistor as an example. A thermistor is a temperature sensor that varies its resistance inversely wrt to temperature changes. If we use a transistor circuitry to amplify its output to drive an analog meter (which is an electromagnetic coil), it would be classified as an analog thermometer.

On the other hand, if we convert this signal from the thermistor to digital signal (using an analog to digital converter), amplify it digitally by multiplying it to a factor, and then display it on an LCD display, it would be classified a digital thermometer.

Why going through all these trouble to make a digital system? The answer is simply due to accuracy. For the example above, assuming both thermometers uses the same thermistor, the digital ones will be more accurate then the analog ones. Why? This is because once the signal from the sensor is converted to digital, it is no longer affected by other factors like thermal variation (which affects the amplification of the transistors), noise, etc. Further more, any non linearity in the sensor can be easily compensated by the digital system by employing simple look up table. It is also cheaper to fabricate a complex digital system vs an analog one given today's technology.

Now let's come back to the original discussion. Which hygrometer/thermometer/etc (analog or digital) would be based on how accurate you need from that instrument. If you do not need the accuracy, by all means go with the cheap glass-mercury thermometer. If you do need the accuracy, pay more and get the digital ones. If you have money to spend and want the best of the best, go ahead. It doesn't bother me at all. Now why are you so bothered by what others are buying?

 

[laposto]

even though we are in a digital era now for some reason they cannot get rid of films. in the 35mm world yes i may agree that film is not longer hip. but after 35mm the film always produce superiority in medium and large format. no digital up to date has leveled with film in medium and large format.

for the sake of discussion... anyone agree? wanna bet?

 

[NovJoe]

even though we are in a digital era now for some reason they cannot get rid of films. in the 35mm world yes i may agree that film is not longer hip. but after 35mm the film always produce superiority in medium and large format. no digital up to date has leveled with film in medium and large format.

for the sake of discussion... anyone agree? wanna bet?

No $$$ to bet lah. It is true that as of today, MF and LF are superior with films but how about the future? It is still unknown. Till date, I still love the output from films but now I'm with digital as it is affordable, cost effective, pack with loads of function, and the output was pretty good as well.

Just like movies, we used to see movies produced with beta cassette tapes or film cassette rows but today, things are slowly moving to digital.

Like many said, to each it's own. If you love the older technology, go for it. If you love the newer technology, why not? If it satisfy your needs with an affordable price tag to you, just go with it.

 

[laposto]

No $$$ to bet lah. It is true that as of today, MF and LF are superior with films but how about the future? It is still unknown. Till date, I still love the output from films but now I'm with digital as it is affordable, cost effective, pack with loads of function, and the output was pretty good as well.

Just like movies, we used to see movies produced with beta cassette tapes or film cassette rows but today, things are slowly moving to digital.

Like many said, to each it's own. If you love the older technology, go for it. If you love the newer technology, why not? If it satisfy your needs with an affordable price tag to you, just go with it.

hey no $$$? come lah its only an expression lah nothing serious .

I use both digital and film cameras all the time. They each serve a different purpose.

heres e trivia. did you know that most of the movies in HD nowadays including avatar were still recorded in films for safe keeping.. you want to know why?

Its because in the future we can have better scanners... Scanners always get bette and betterr. Film shot today will be scanned better tomorrow.

Digital is always stuck in whatever quality you shot it. Digital or video has nothing to rescan. What you got it is all you're every going to get. This is why Hollywood shoots movies, and even the better TV series, on film. 10 or 50 years from now they can still get better and better images by rescanning them. Go watch the latest DVD of The Wizard of Oz shot on film in 1939. They simply went to the vault and rescanned the film with modern technology.

 

[laposto]

No $$$ to bet lah. It is true that as of today, MF and LF are superior with films but how about the future? It is still unknown. Till date, I still love the output from films but now I'm with digital as it is affordable, cost effective, pack with loads of function, and the output was pretty good as well.

Just like movies, we used to see movies produced with beta cassette tapes or film cassette rows but today, things are slowly moving to digital.

Like many said, to each it's own. If you love the older technology, go for it. If you love the newer technology, why not? If it satisfy your needs with an affordable price tag to you, just go with it.

ehehe this is a healthy discussion bro.. keep going.

 

[NovJoe]

hey no $$$? come lah its only an expression lah nothing serious .

I use both digital and film cameras all the time. They each serve a different purpose.

heres e trivia. did you know that most of the movies in HD nowadays including avatar were still recorded in films for safe keeping.. you want to know why?

Its because in the future we can have better scanners... Scanners always get bette and betterr. Film shot today will be scanned better tomorrow.

Digital is always stuck in whatever quality you shot it. Digital or video has nothing to rescan. What you got it is all you're every going to get. This is why Hollywood shoots movies, and even the better TV series, on film. 10 or 50 years from now they can still get better and better images by rescanning them. Go watch the latest DVD of The Wizard of Oz shot on film in 1939. They simply went to the vault and rescanned the film with modern technology.

ehehe this is a healthy discussion bro.. keep going.

:bsmilie: No worries. There's always knowledges and understandings to gain from discussions. True that films, beta tapes with a advanced scanner and post production will allow a big space for re-mastering and storage. Nonetheless, whenever technology evolves, it is to better things and not worsen. The future is still unknown and to be unfold with years of events ahead.

Back to old tech vs new tech, I believe that the method to make boiling hot water is a great advancement compared to the olden methods of woods and fire. Though said, on the other hand, the old method serves as a skill for survival and in case of emergencies.

Still loads of comparisons for many other devices as each has its own history, even for every characters which we are typing now.

 

[laposto]

:bsmilie: No worries. There's always knowledges and understandings to gain from discussions. True that films, beta tapes with a advanced scanner and post production will allow a big space for re-mastering and storage. Nonetheless, whenever technology evolves, it is to better things and not worsen. The future is still unknown and to be unfold with years of events ahead.

Back to old tech vs new tech, I believe that the method to make boiling hot water is a great advancement compared to the olden methods of woods and fire. Though said, on the other hand, the old method serves as a skill for survival and in case of emergencies.

Still loads of comparisons for many other devices as each has its own history, even for every characters which we are typing now.

aha.. agree.. :thumbsup:

 

[ChenGuy]

...photographers somehow think that digital technology is superior. For example, people think a dry cabinet with a digital hygrometer is somehow more accurate and better than one with a non-digital hygrometer. And they'll pay more for the fomer!

The truth? The measuring instrument (ie the part that senses the air humidity) is a mechanical, analog device! There's some kind of circuit to convert the reading to digital, but the digital reading is only as accurate as the analog sensor to start with.

So why pay more for a digital dry cabinet when it costs more to purchase and operate (battery cost)? Your analog meter needs no power, and if calibrated, is just as accurate!

Beats me.

Same applies for many other things-- bathroom scales, thermometers, light meters, etc.

Digital costs more, eats batteries, and has no advantage-- yet people somehow think digital is superior.

Hmmm... with rgds to TS concern. Being an electronic students, i know some digital dry box actually allow u to choose the level of humidity for ur box. Which we call a feedback system between the user interface and de-humidfier. And i suuppose thats why u pay more. Erm, can analouge do it? Correct me if i am wrong. Thanks.

 

[Xtol19]

Not bad. Except you forgot to point out that analog systems can have corrections too, eg the markings on a scale need not necessarily by evenly spaced, to account for the changes in sensor behaviour over the effective range of measurements.

I'm not bothered by what people buy. I just think they're blinded by the thought that digital is always better or superior when that is not always the case.

A digital

It is actually incorrect to refer an instrument as analog simply by looking at the sensor. While it is true that most instruments start with an analog sensor, what defines them as an analog or digital system depends on the signal processing system that they employ.

Lets use the thermistor as an example. A thermistor is a temperature sensor that varies its resistance inversely wrt to temperature changes. If we use a transistor circuitry to amplify its output to drive an analog meter (which is an electromagnetic coil), it would be classified as an analog thermometer.

On the other hand, if we convert this signal from the thermistor to digital signal (using an analog to digital converter), amplify it digitally by multiplying it to a factor, and then display it on an LCD display, it would be classified a digital thermometer.

Why going through all these trouble to make a digital system? The answer is simply due to accuracy. For the example above, assuming both thermometers uses the same thermistor, the digital ones will be more accurate then the analog ones. Why? This is because once the signal from the sensor is converted to digital, it is no longer affected by other factors like thermal variation (which affects the amplification of the transistors), noise, etc. Further more, any non linearity in the sensor can be easily compensated by the digital system by employing simple look up table. It is also cheaper to fabricate a complex digital system vs an analog one given today's technology.

Now let's come back to the original discussion. Which hygrometer/thermometer/etc (analog or digital) would be based on how accurate you need from that instrument. If you do not need the accuracy, by all means go with the cheap glass-mercury thermometer. If you do need the accuracy, pay more and get the digital ones. If you have money to spend and want the best of the best, go ahead. It doesn't bother me at all. Now why are you so bothered by what others are buying?

 

[ziploc]

Not bad. Except you forgot to point out that analog systems can have corrections too, eg the markings on a scale need not necessarily by evenly spaced, to account for the changes in sensor behaviour over the effective range of measurements.

I'm not bothered by what people buy. I just think they're blinded by the thought that digital is always better or superior when that is not always the case.

A digital

Yes the analog systems can have corrections using markings on the scale, and marking is the key - meaning you need to "eye-ball" the fluid (in case of the thermometer) or any other type of indicator against the marking to get a reading. In contrast a digital system gives a reading which includes a given number of significant digits. It is already quite obvious from here that which is more accurate, without even talking about other components like amplifiers and feedback loop.

 

[UandMe]

Beats me.

Same applies for many other things-- bathroom scales, thermometers, light meters, etc.

Digital costs more, eats batteries, and has no advantage-- yet people somehow think digital is superior.

To the layman, only the ease of reading matters and that's the biggest advantage.

Who will care which one is more accurate, as long as it's not grossly out? :dunno: As we're not doing science projects that requires accurracy up to X significant figures...

 

[nightwolf75]

oooo... would love to reply...

but i am still chipping away at the stone tablet with my rock....

 

[night86mare]

but i am still chipping away at the stone tablet with my rock....

i am still flopping around in the ocean as a fish!