I’ve been very stressed lately and have been doing some window shopping to calm down. I’m interested in gadgets, but a lot of things can just be replaced with apps. I realize a phone won’t replace very large appliances like refrigerators or washing machines so I’m trying to scope my question to portable devices. So what are some portable devices or gadgets that their specialization hasn’t been replaced by smart phone apps? Extra points if they’re super useful and reliable.

    • rabber@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      It’s impossible to get a film look with digital, you can get close but there is just something about film that feels like a capture of an actual moment

      Similar argument is vinyl vs digital, some people just refuse to believe vinyl is unbeatable

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      It’s not, really. Most of the variables are quantifiable: granularity (or resolution, what have you), dynamic range, speed. A small, disposable, fixed-lens film camera may not match a 3/4 Fuji X model, but compare similar size frames and don’t try to sabotage film by getting the cheapest no-name brand, and the measurable qualifiers are always superior on film. There are very few, if any, digital cameras available at even the professional level that can match the dynamic range and granularity of large format film.

      Edit

      I’m just going to put this here, because there are clearly lot of folks with opinions about this backed by … opinions.

      The Wikipedia article, while not authoritative, provides a good summary across a variety of factors. Aside from convenience factors, the one area where digital has a clear lead over film is noise and grain for color photography, and even so, long-exposure time photos require doing things like cooling the sensor - the not doing of which increases noise in digital photographs.

      When it comes to dynamic range, it seems modern digital cameras have finally caught up with film. HDR is described only for digital, and ignores the fact that multiple shots-at-different-exposures-combined-at-print-time has been used in film for nearly as long as we’ve had film cameras. It’s just now easier to do in digital cameras.

      There’s a distressing amount of assertions with [citation needed] in the article. There’s also odd assertion that digital is capable of better low light performance right before the admission that digital speeds at lower than ISO 100 are rarely available, whereas it’s easy to find ISO 20 and 25 film - and you can ISO 0.8 film commercially.

      @Blue_Morpho responded about how film is so bad that Kubrik choose digital, and there are certainly some directors who agree with him. Then there are directors like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino who think film’s better.

      TL;DR All of this is wildly off-topic

      The question was what devices are better as specialized devices vs apps on phones. My answer was: cameras. Not many directors are going to be shooting major films on cell phones. All of the controversy has been around film vs digital, and I’ll grant that digital has finally caught up to film in some areas, although I wonder if we throw price in as a factor how this would look.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        ignores the fact that multiple shots-at-different-exposures-combined-at-print-time has been used in film for nearly as long as we’ve had film cameras.

        Multi shot for HDR in film is restricted to still life because film is very slow compared to digital. There’s no film camera that will automatically change the stops to make that feasible. So it’s take a shot, adjust settings, take another, adjust settings. At the low and high end you’d need to swap film stock between shots.

        @Blue_Morpho responded about how film is so bad that Kubrik choose digital,

        ??? I said to achieve low light performance on FILM, Kubrick needed a lens that was (and is) so special that only 10 exist in the world. What was possible for Kubrick using extraordinarily rare and expensive equipment is achieved by anyone with a common digital camera today.

        So while you can find references to film that matches digital, it is so extreme that it isn’t valid. It would be like someone using the cryogenic cooled sensor in the $10B Webb telescope for their argument.

        • I apologize for the phrasing - my only excuse is that I use Lemmy mostly in an app, and unless it’s the comment I’m directly responding to, I have to memorize stuff from other comments. It’s usually all I can do to remember who made the comment; trying for an exact quote is beyond me.

          So: I’m sorry for a bad paraphrasing.

      • Artyom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Actually, some movies have started popping up where they film substantial chunks on iPhones. Odds are this trend will continue and the “professional camera purists” will be considered archaic like the 35mm purists are now.