A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film Lover's Lament



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 19th 06, 01:58 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

Fuji haven't announced there withdrawal, doing that would probably
throw the industry into disarray, Kodak recently stated that 90% of
pros are using digital, but 2 thirds of those are still useing film for
some stuff and that's also 10% who still use film exclusively.

Fuji made The Times publish an apology.

  #32  
Old March 19th 06, 09:29 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

As I said - taking a picture of the screen. It is second generation. Far
better to intelligently back-up and archive the digital file than to waste
time and/or money on lossy copies that are themselves only reproducable as
third generation copies. Every digital copy is a first generation image -
unless one chooses to degrade it.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Summer Wind" wrote in message
. com...
"Tony" wrote in message
m...
Exactly what would you back up on film - a picute snapped of the

computer
screen, or a picture taken of a print? both are going to be vastly
inferior
to the original.
As to corrupted files - it can happen - which is why you should open up
the file and look at it before putting it away as your only archive.

Isn't
that sort of a given? Or do you expose enlarging paper, carefully
cropping,
dodging and burning for the best print quality and then put the paper

away
undeveloped?


See this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_recorder

SW




  #33  
Old March 20th 06, 12:59 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

I think they have a more advance way tan taking a picture of a screen,

  #34  
Old March 20th 06, 03:03 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

"Tony" writes:

As I said - taking a picture of the screen.


It was obviously good enough for some high end purposes. It also says a
bit further into the article that lasers are now employed to do the same
thing.

It is second generation.


Yes, yes it is. And for some purposes, it is more than good enough, I am
sure. Otherwise it wouldn't be in use anymore.

Far
better to intelligently back-up and archive the digital file than to waste
time and/or money on lossy copies that are themselves only reproducable as
third generation copies.


Agreed. How lossy those film recorders are probably depends only on the
size of the film medium and the wavelength of the laser. And of course
price. ;-)

I would ask, however, what exactly "intelligently back-up and archive
the digital file" means?

Would that be storing files on multiple CDs, followed by storing those
same files on DVDs, then keeping the master archive on a few hard
drives, just to make sure that a single failure doesn't render the disk
archive useless? That is, unless one is willing to shell out a fair bit
of money to professional disk restoration service to try and restore the
data.

Once the data is archived, should be it accessed periodically to make
sure it is still readable? How would that access be controlled?

Every digital copy is a first generation image -
unless one chooses to degrade it.


Every digital copy can be a first generation image, but not necessarily.
It depends on how the copy was made.

Cheers,

Saso
  #36  
Old March 20th 06, 07:31 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

"VS" wrote
"Tony" writes:
As I said - taking a picture of the screen.

It was obviously good enough for some high end purposes.


For making a slide to be projected.

To back up 1's&0's you need to save a record of 1's&0's.

Else why not run the picture data through the sound card and record
the result with a cassette recorder - a bit extreme of analogy.
When a slide is made with a film recorder the data is manipulated to
match the dynamics of the film and projection environment, color
is adjusted, sharpness is enhanced...

The whole point of digital [one of the points] is the ability
to make lossless copies/backups.

If the backup is a slide then the image is no longer digital and
no longer relevant in a discussion about backing up _digital_
data.

To backup data to a slide you need to draw a pattern of dots on the
slide that correspond to the binary data in the picture file. Although
this is not a 'human readable' image the data can always be recovered
by scanning the image and retrieving the original 1&0 data with a
short computer program. We can posit that there will always be a way
to have a computer look at an image. If there are no more scanners
in the world we are all probably living in caves again and trying to
remember how to bang rocks together.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
  #37  
Old March 20th 06, 08:32 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament


"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:k1DTf.3061$hC.1878@trnddc08...

Microfilm stored under proper conditions has a projected life of 500
years,


So this is a "projection" you trust, without question?

and it requires only a light and a magnifier to enable it to be read.


Well, if you want a useable print, it takes a bit more than that...
There's a whole infrastructure of chemistry, for example.

And, the microfilmed images can always be re-digitized into whatever image
formats are currently in use at any time in the future. So an analog
backup may in fact be better for long-term storage to ensure that the
file's contents remain readable long after media and file formats have
changed. We simply do not know what the landscape will be like in two
centuries. What we take for granted today, in terms of file formats, may
be virtually unreadable then.



In two centuries, at the rate we're going, we'll have far
more serious issues to deal with.

There's no reason to presume that digital file formats will
necessarily disappear. There are so many good, and
*important* images now in JPG, TIF, and PSD formats
(to name a few) that we can assume these will last for
generations to come. The standards are in the public
domain, and thousands of implementations (eg. of TIF
readers/writers) exist.

The *media* on which the files are stored -- ah, that's
a very different issue. Personally, I think punched
cards of Solomonic gold are the way to go.

Personally, I try to assume as little as possible. I make
multiple copies of my images, on multiple media, and
spread the copies around. And every now and then,
I retrieve some of those copies and make sure they're
sill readable.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


  #38  
Old March 20th 06, 09:54 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

Jeremy wrote:


But the floor space that is currently dedicated to one-hour film developing
will probably be gone. They might offer to send film out for processing
off-site, but I doubt that most retail locations will continue to maintain
the equipment and handle the chemicals as they do now. Making digital
prints will be much easier for them, because the process can be handled
without the need for trained employees and can be done in a smaller space,
like that used by the Kodak kiosk.



Probably not. The latest machines are all in one chemical development of
film with auto-scan of the negs, which are then printed digitally using
RA-4 paper process (chemical).

Untouched by human hands.

Roll of film goes in one end; prints & negatives come out the other. If
you bring in a digital file to print, it just gets inserted into the middle.

There's really no chemicals to handle, they're pre-packaged & you just
plug them in., same as with paper.
  #39  
Old March 20th 06, 09:56 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

JimKramer wrote:

Bandicoot wrote:

"Tony" wrote in message
. com...

There is nothing like the security of a piece of medium that has to go
through a chemical bath process run by a minimum wage kid more interested


in

oogling the better looking customers than keeping an eye on his machine.


But if security of the medium is your interest, then that isn't the sort of
place that you get your processing done, now is it?



Peter



But, here at least (Chapel Hill/RTP/Raleigh/Durham), it is hard to find
anyone but that to do the processing, I've been through all of the
local labs including the "professional" ones and I still get obvious
drip marks and scratches on my slides and mis-mounted slides. If I pay
a premium rate I expect a premium service and that doesn't seem to be
available here.

Jim


That's not been my experience with JW Photo Labs or with NC Tricolor.
  #40  
Old March 20th 06, 11:00 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film Lover's Lament

Jeremy wrote:
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message news:nyCTf.7708

If the backup is a slide then the image is no longer digital and
no longer relevant in a discussion about backing up _digital_
data.


Kodak has made a very good case for microfilm backups of digitized
documents--particularly those documents that are being archived for the long
term.


And of course we should note Kodak is making the microfilm.

They note two risks with digital archiving:

1: The image file formats now in use will almost certainly be replaced, and
the current formats may be difficult to decode in, say, 50 years.

There will be no problem with either jpeg or tiff.


2: The storage media will be replaced as time progresses, and the ubiquitous
CD or DVD may be difficult to read because of the unavailability of
appropriate hardware.

This will become in issue at some point in time and the data will have
to be transfered to the new media what it looks like the readers for
the old might disapear, much like we transfered our floppys to CD when
CDs came out. It should be noted that even now most media can be read
if you sent if off.

Microfilm stored under proper conditions has a projected life of 500 years,
and it requires only a light and a magnifier to enable it to be read. And,
the microfilmed images can always be re-digitized into whatever image
formats are currently in use at any time in the future. So an analog backup
may in fact be better for long-term storage to ensure that the file's
contents remain readable long after media and file formats have changed. We
simply do not know what the landscape will be like in two centuries. What
we take for granted today, in terms of file formats, may be virtually
unreadable then.


New image file formats come from time to time but we never seem to lose
the old one, even obscure ones.

Of course Microfilm is not good for color images and little use for
monochrome ones.

Archiving on film is not all that pratical. First are you going to
archive to slide or negative film? If you are going to archive to
slide film you are going to loose a lot of the dynamic range in the
photo. If you archive to negative film the colors will be reinterpered
when the slide is scanned.

Any color media is going to fad some with time, long term storage of
color image on film just does not work that well.

And just what are people going to do with the film 200 years from now,
do you believe there are going to be working slide projectors, film
scanners, in 200 year? Do you really think it will be anything but a
real pain in the ass to get a print from a negative 200 years from now?
Or do you think people will be happy to just look at the bit of film
with their eyes?

Digital formats move forward in time with much greater ease then analog
formats. As an example I am struggling with converting a large
collection of 8mm film movies to DVD, this is not easy or cheap.

If you are going to pick a format for backup of images that is not
digital I would think prints is the better way to go. They don't seem
to fade as fast as film and they don't need any equipment to be viewed.

Scott

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Elementary questions on film handling. Liopleurodon In The Darkroom 22 December 8th 05 07:37 AM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Photographing Nature 15 December 8th 05 12:03 AM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Digital Photography 1 November 28th 05 08:44 PM
What film? Art Reitsch Large Format Photography Equipment 5 November 10th 05 01:14 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.