View Single Post
  #116  
Old May 25th 04, 03:36 PM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MF future? ideal cameras?


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Recently, Jeremy posted:
(much snipped)
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
link.net...

As it is, many
feel that 6 MP satisfies the majority of 35 mm user's requirements,


I use a 2.3 MP model, with 1200 x 1800 ppi resolution. It makes a
perfect 4 x 6 print, at 300 ppi resolution.

Resolution is not the only criteria. How much of this "perfection" is
attributable to limitations in your printing / reproduction capabilities?
And, how much is attributable to visual literacy, e.g. the ability to
distinguish and appreciate the differences between images?

For casual users, 4 x 6 may be all that they ever print anyway.

However, this is a discussion about MF, right? Casual users and 4 x 6
prints are not the appropriate measures for determining the impact of
digital technology, as neither is relevant to MF. MF has always been a
niche product, and I don't think that will change or even significantly
impacted by digital for reasons mentioned in other posts.

So you're correct that 5-6MP is more than the casual user will ever
need. I don't even need that much, because I have my film gear for
those times that I need better image quality.

This will impact the development of digital cameras, but, once again, will
have no impact on MF.

It is in the mass-market that film will suffer, because many families
are finding that their little digital cameras satisfy their needs
just fine. I would think that this is where the film manufacturers
will take their biggest hit. Just think of all those family and
vacation snapshots that are not going to be recorded on film . . .
The number must be in the billions.

Just wait until these families try to reprint their vacation shots 5 years
from now...
"Honey, what was that file name?" ;-)

Neil


I was merely pointing out that, for many less-critical applications, today's
digital cameras meet the needs of users just fine. I did not mean to
suggest that digital would replace all film, or that film was doomed--jut
that the mass-market appeal of film was probably going to be supplanted.

There was a time that MF was the mass market film used by amateurs, but 35mm
supplanted it.

Those of us that have multiple formats can pick and choose which format best
suits our particular application. I have found that digital, with its
shortcomings, remains suitable for certain uses.

As for achievability, I agree with you that it will be a problem, but,
considering that most casual film users probably lose their negatives
anyway, I do not see digital archiving being much worse for them. Careful
users will always find a way to properly store their source images, whether
they are digital or negatives.

What seems clear is that film in virtually all formats is headed toward
being somewhat of a niche product. As digital imaging improves, it will
probably take over the consumer market, and that will impact the rest of us
in terms of prices headed higher for both equipment and film processing.

Look at fountain pens, as an example. Sure you can still get them. I own
and use several. But they are priced much higher than when they were used
by everybody, the ink and cartridges are priced much higher, and it is
extremely difficult to find ink at local stores. I typically have to order
my refills and ink online. That is a far cry from the 40s, when pens, nibs,
and inks were in plentiful supply in every town in America.