[hellofunk]

Is it really an issue of image quality? Because while the qualities are different, analog media has its own character. You have to do quite a bit of image manipulation in digital to get that "super 8" look, and it isn't always that convincing. Same with black/white photography vs. digital -- the way a digital chip reacts to light is very different than the way chemicals in film react, and some film stocks have a range and tone that is very hard to emulate with digital images. I don't think it is a question of which is "better" but rather that aesthetic that an individual wants. You have to learn lighting techniques in a new way when you switch from celluloid to digital, and a good DP's intimate understanding of how a particular film stock will respond in the shadows and highlights no longer applies when dealing with a very different medium.

[cornholio]

At first it might seem like a fad, but "character" is essential when making art. You are trying to reach another human being, not simply deliver the best image possible, so her past experiences, memories, the fact that she grew up watching grainy movies at the local theater, will all interact and elicit a certain emotional or instinctual response. It's not that analog is better, is that your audience reacts uniquely to analog artifacts, even when delivered digitally.

This, and not superstition is the reason we still have tube amps, 24 fps polyester film ("celluloid"), vinyl records and the rest. That's not to say superstition is not rampant in the professional fields, We've all seen it: gold plated wires that deliver no measurable improvements, creators that refuse to touch the same application in an (much cheaper and faster) Windows PC as opposed to the "pro" Mac version, "magic" equipment brands that "all the pros use" and so on.

It's essentially a cargo-cult: we try to emulate successful creators and get fixated on the appearances. If we get success, often time by sheer luck, we attributed to brand X or Y and spread magic thinking to others.

[earlz]

Heh, I'd say tube amps are a bit more out there than everything else you listed (unless you mean tube headphone amps or something). It's INCREDIBLY difficult to accurately emulate tubes on normal computers in real-time due to their non-linear behavior. And there is at least some kind of science behind tubes "sounding better" since second-order harmonics are suppose to be more enjoyable for a listener, and are generated naturally by a single-ended tube amp design. I wouldn't say musicians using tube amps are trying to elicit memories of the past, rather that's just the best way they can make their instrument sound good

[wreckimnaked]

Sure, on a normal computer that may be the case. But, products like the Kemper Profiling Amp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0SmSl1aS1w) are on the same price range as high-end amps and have been able able to model _any_ amp with an incredible precision for years already. Still, it's easier to find a wide selection of analog amps in recording studios than one of those. That said, I think it has a lot to do with the guitar player "fetish" of recording on a boutique valve head with a pair of 4x12 cabinets.

[developer2]

creators that refuse to touch the same application in an (much cheaper and faster) Windows PC as opposed to the "pro" Mac version

You're ignoring the fact that the application must run within the confines of an operating system.

I'm not using a single application at a time. "The same application" you refer to might be nearly identical on both platforms, but I need to switch between applications. On OS X I have Mission Control (with trackpad gestures!) that makes context switching incredibly efficient. On Windows I have to click taskbar buttons, or press alt+tab hundreds (thousands?) of times a day, or take a break to hit windows+tab to have a laugh at the incredibly useless task switcher (I've never understood why windows+tab was allowed to ship). How people multitask on Windows is beyond me, with no friendly built-in solution and third-party applications that all have problems.

How about copy/pasting? Using ctrl+c and ctrl+v on Windows with a PC keyboard is frustrating compared to the cmd+c and cmd+v finger positioning on an Apple keyboard with OS X. Microsoft requires an awkward readjustment to reach for the control key, while Apple uses your thumb that is already resting on the spacebar to hit the cmd key that is right there. When you use copy/paste hundreds of times in a typical day (ex: programmer), this minor annoyance adds up.

How about finding per-application settings? On OS X this is always accessible via the cmd+, shortcut and the menu entry is always within the app's primary menu. On Windows every application has its own shortcut (if any), and the menu entry might be found under any of File, Edit, View, or Window. It's always a hunt just to open application preferences. I personally find this to be a frustrating experience and a waste of my time.

Finally, I simply prefer the visuals and widgets/controls of OS X compared to Windows. OS X is flat and simple whereas Windows tries way too hard to look "cool" (ie: designed by children for children). Also, OS X developers (other than for game clients) don't think it's cool to throw away the default window border and window controls (minimize, close, etc.). Whereas far too many Windows developers think it's cool to customize their fucking window style. Leave the system components alone.

[TheMagicHorsey]

Even photography experts can't tell the difference between a digital photo that has simulated grain added to it, and tone manipulation done in post, versus a picture shot on film and scanned to digital.

I suspect its the same thing in cinematography.

Double blind tests do real havoc to all kinds of fetishism from wine-tasting to high end audio.

[hellofunk]

You are confusing the experience of the audience with the creative process of the artist.

[TheMagicHorsey]

That is a good point. It is different experience to shoot with film than to shoot digital. However, I haven't heard people argue for film from a strictly process point of view. It is, after all, a strength of digital that everything is just software--easy to manipulate, reset, copy, distribute.

Having said that, you are still probably right. There is always going to be someone that prefers an analog process--maybe BECAUSE of how inconvenient it is--to a digital process. Some people also like working within constraints as it stimulates their creativity.