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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
link.net... Recently, jjs posted: You don't even have to go that far to outlast current digital media. Archiving of any physical object is a challenge, as entropy is a constant. But, beyond the physical degradation that will affect digital media as well as film, you have many other factors. Obsolescence of the media, obsolescence of the media's format (8" floppies are less than 30 years old), and obsolescence of the data format also work against reliable archiving with digital media. Neil We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become obsolete with time. It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid and what good are those grainy shadows on them?" Digital or film, 100 year from now who is going to care one way or another about most of the images that any of us are producing today? Any that are good enough to be important will be reproduced so often that they will always be in the current format, regardless of what it is. Scott |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Elliot wrote:
We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become obsolete with time. Also digital images get printed. My current "darkroom" is a bag, where I put the film into tank. After development the film gets scanned, and everything from there on is digital. It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid and what good are those grainy shadows on them?" By that time youu can use your digicam as a scanner. -- Lassi |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net,
Neil Gould wrote: Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for 35 mm format digital, ....only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about. Canon have leapfrogged them again. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Brown" wrote in message ... In article .net, Neil Gould wrote: Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for 35 mm format digital, ...only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about. Canon have leapfrogged them again. And it's manufactured not by Kodak, but by FillFactory. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Lassi Hippeläinen posted:
Scott Elliot wrote: It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid and what good are those grainy shadows on them?" By that time youu can use your digicam as a scanner. Or, if BobM is correct, you can use your cell phone. ;-) Neil |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Scott Elliot posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message link.net... Recently, jjs posted: You don't even have to go that far to outlast current digital media. Archiving of any physical object is a challenge, as entropy is a constant. But, beyond the physical degradation that will affect digital media as well as film, you have many other factors. Obsolescence of the media, obsolescence of the media's format (8" floppies are less than 30 years old), and obsolescence of the data format also work against reliable archiving with digital media. Neil We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become obsolete with time. It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid and what good are those grainy shadows on them?" Quality issues aside, you'll still be able to discern the *content*, which is the important part of the message. With MF film, you won't even need a magnifying glass to "get the picture". Conversely, the content in digital media is completely lost once any of the above factors sets in. Digital or film, 100 year from now who is going to care one way or another about most of the images that any of us are producing today? Any that are good enough to be important will be reproduced so often that they will always be in the current format, regardless of what it is. I don't agree with this. The importance of images can't always be determined at the time of their taking. Neil |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Chris Brown posted:
In article .net, Neil Gould wrote: Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for 35 mm format digital, ...only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about. Canon have leapfrogged them again. I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is this a real product that I can go out and purchase today? Neil |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
You need to get out more and go to a museum or two.
In article oBs4d.129581$XP3.108204@edtnps84, "Scott Elliot" wrote: We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become obsolete with time. It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid and what good are those grainy shadows on them?" Digital or film, 100 year from now who is going to care one way or another about most of the images that any of us are producing today? Any that are good enough to be important will be reproduced so often that they will always be in the current format, regardless of what it is. Scott |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message news Recently, Chris Brown posted: In article .net, Neil Gould wrote: Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for 35 mm format digital, ...only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about. Canon have leapfrogged them again. I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is this a real product that I can go out and purchase today? Late November. 1Ds mark II, 16.7MP. Besides, the Kodak cameras are such dogs it not clear that one should count them as actually existing... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message news Recently, Chris Brown posted: In article .net, Neil Gould wrote: Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for 35 mm format digital, ...only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about. Canon have leapfrogged them again. I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is this a real product that I can go out and purchase today? Late November. 1Ds mark II, 16.7MP. Besides, the Kodak cameras are such dogs it not clear that one should count them as actually existing... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 199 | October 6th 04 01:34 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? | William J. Slater | General Photography Techniques | 9 | April 7th 04 04:22 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | Photographing People | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |