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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Kibo informs me that "Gene Palmiter" stated
that: "Robert Lynch" wrote in message What kind of standards do you think are lacking in the world digital photography? Well....RAW files....why can't they be standarized so that the programs that handle them can improve? You mean like the 'DNG' (for "digital negative"?), open RAW file format that Adobe have just announced? Lion Battery packs...do they all have to be different and proprietary? Yeah, that part still sucks, but I think it's unlikely to change. It's still the same way for laptops, & there have been a couple of failed attempts to bring in a standard set of battery formats for them over the last 15 years or so. But....the market will decide what the standards will be....but not for awhile. Well, the memory cards are a standard format (well, maybe 1.5 formats , & the communication protocol for downloading or printing direct from the camera is reasonably standardised already. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Mardon" wrote in message ...
"Drifter" wrote... We're standing in the shallow end and I'm telling you now that digital photography is still very, very, new. Thanks for some thoughtful comments. BTW, I agree that your words are not a rant! :-) Your comparison of the digital timeline to the overall photography timeline raises an interesting issue that you did not address. The quality and archival durability of many 19th century and early 20th century negatives (glass plate and film, as well as tintypes) are often much better than negatives produced by the 'advanced' technology of the mid-20th century. I have worked with almost 2,000 glass plate negatives and many large format film negatives from the period around the beginning of the 20th century and they are generally much better in quality and preservation than the negatives that I have from the 1960s and '70s. I think that, like many things, the loss of quality was a result of the disposable economy / lowest price mindset that overcame the marketplace in the late 20th century. Do you see a similar analogy being possible with digital; that is, where quality suffers even though the technology advances? In some respects, the very nature of digital photography creates this paradox, since digital is anathema to archival considerations. A hundred years from now, will my great grandchildren be able to see an image from a 1DMarkII, just as I can see images of my great grandfather in those old 19th century negatives? If you take care of your flash card (assuming you don't upload your images to a hard disk, or print them), then yes, why not? Flash is good for indiscernable data loss after decades. To the human eye, probably good forever. Even with current post-processing technology, one could probably pull out data from a chip after centuries, and eliminate intrinsic data loss (short of catastrophic environmental failures) to see the image good as new. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:45:22 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:57:56 GMT, "Gene Palmiter" wrote: Way back when I got my Oly E-10 I would hear people whisper "That's a digital camera!," others would freak when I showed them a photo on the viewer...they had no idea that digital existed. I think that is what people are refering to when they talk of when digital was new...the days before it was ubiquitous. I do agree though that we are where the PC was before the IBM-PC. There are no standards. Standards? As opposed to film? I can go into a camera store that stocks 35mm film, and see the lack of standards there. Or lenses. Or cameras themselves. Standards? We've got hundreds of standards, none of them standard. :-) How about Pentax calling themselves "The official camera of the Internet"? What standard elected them that? The International Pentax Marketers Association, of course. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Drifter wrote:
Okay, this one is driving me nutz so I'm going to blow off a little steam and be done with it. Repeatedly I have been seeing/hearing the phrase "back when digital photography was new", sometimes with a wry intent, but more often with complete seriousness that carries a sort of blasé "been there/done that" attitude (possibly a symptom of a sort of time-compressed, multitasking, revved-up, "Moore's Law" mentality that many of us live with today). I have to admit that I find it triggers equal measures of irritation and humor. Photography in general stems from the ancient concept of the "Camera Obscuras", but for the sake of my comparison I consider modern photography to be a direct descendant of the first film negatives created by Henry Talbot in 1834. That gives photography a pedigree of at least 170 years. Even starting from the first Leica (1924) we have a photographic history of 80 years! By contrast, digital photography (using a sensor as opposed to a film negative) can, at best, claim a history of roughly 17 years with Kodak's first commercial sensor around 1987 or, more practically, about 13 years because the 1991 release of the DCS cameras by Kodak could be considered the spiritual equal of the stunning release of the 1900's "Brownie" camera. Today (2004) we have moved well into the equal of the "Leica/Kodachrome" phase (roughly equal to 1936 in film terms). Obviously development of digital photography has been accelerated since digital took only 13 years to cover roughly the same span that took film photography 36 years. This is no real surprise as many aspects of digital photography (especially lens technology) rest firmly on the well developed shoulders of film photography. However even at this faster pace it seems apparent that digital photography is still a very young sibling to it's parent (film photography). Just as Talbot had no idea what his creation would (pardon the pun) develop into, we have no idea what digital photography will accomplish in 80 (or 170) years. We're standing in the shallow end and I'm telling you now that digital photography is still very, very, new. I think you have the time line wrong. I took my first digital picture in 1976, recorded onto 9-track tape. The birth of digital imaging started much earlier in the space program, I believe with one of the first satellites that took pictures of the earth. That later led to weather satellites. Of course, the birth may have been in the spy business, but I have no knowledge about that (beyond reading aviation week and space technology). So my guess would be around 1960. Roger |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
---snip---
I think you have the time line wrong. I took my first digital picture in 1976, recorded onto 9-track tape. The birth of digital imaging started much earlier in the space program, I believe with one of the first satellites that took pictures of the earth. That later led to weather satellites. Of course, the birth may have been in the spy business, but I have no knowledge about that (beyond reading aviation week and space technology). So my guess would be around 1960. Roger Roger- I tried to make my whole point very clear that I'm talking about the development and use of both film negatives and digital sensors from their common -commercial- release point; that "everyman" usability that the "Brownie" and then the Leica gave to film, and the same with the Kodak DCS systems for digital. Having established (I thought) that point I was then trying to show just how short the digital timeline really is and how new everything surrounding the use of a digital sensor to capture images really is. The underlying points of my rant...(keeping in mind that this is directed to the world in general, not at you personally)... 1) Digital based photography is still very new, not only have the bugs not all been worked out. Heck, we probably don't even know what all of the bugs are yet! 2) The hype from the sales departments of various companies is that you are buying solid, mature, technology. "Oh we solved all those issues from the early days". Well there is some amazing equipment no doubt, but the truth is that if you jump in now the you are still an "early adaptor" (equal to the brand new Leica days) and as a result you are probably going to get "nicked" here and there by issues. I wanted to issue a really big "reality check" about where we are on the digital development timeline. 4) Like film, many of the issues that plague us today (limited range, long term storage, incompatible formats, battery life, and so on) will most likely be solved as photography is too popular for the issues to remain ignored. In the meantime it's up to the user to either compensate for those issues, or avoid digital until it grows up. 5) These problems will probably not be solved within the next 2-3 years, but it will most likely take less than the 40-70 years that it took for film, so stop being so darn impatient! grin. The great divide that I trip on all the time can best be illustrated this way. I have a friend who bought the Digital Rebel and paid "serious bucks" so the camera would do everything for him. He absolutely cannot understand why I paid "serious bucks" for a 10D so that I could get the camera to STOP trying to do everything for me grin. Ah well, east is east and west is west I guess. Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 04:08:04 GMT, friend®
wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:40:50 -0400, Drifter wrote: --------------------in general you're right. But there is one only thing in common amongst Leaf digital back, DSLR a nd compact digital cameras - [concept of a sensor. Otherwise, they are different spewcies. Which has no bearing on my point... Summed up ..again... Film Photography development timeline Begin-------------------long timeline----------------current day Digital Photography development timeline Begin-short timeline-Current day Easily 80% of the complaints I hear about digital photography have their roots in people forgetting (or not knowing in the first place) just how new the technology is. The point of my rant was a reminder that it's all still very new (in spite of what corporate advertising would have you think, but hey, they're just trying to instill confidence in their product so it'll sell). Because it's so new be ready to compensate -for now-. If you aren't ready to compensate then don't let anyone fool you into jumping in until things have matured a little more. Personally, I love the fun of figuring out new technology grin. Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Drifter wrote:
---snip--- I think you have the time line wrong. I took my first digital picture in 1976, recorded onto 9-track tape. The birth of digital imaging started much earlier in the space program, I believe with one of the first satellites that took pictures of the earth. That later led to weather satellites. Of course, the birth may have been in the spy business, but I have no knowledge about that (beyond reading aviation week and space technology). So my guess would be around 1960. Roger Roger- I tried to make my whole point very clear that I'm talking about the development and use of both film negatives and digital sensors from their common -commercial- release point; that "everyman" usability that the "Brownie" and then the Leica gave to film, and the same with the Kodak DCS systems for digital. Having established (I thought) that point I was then trying to show just how short the digital timeline really is and how new everything surrounding the use of a digital sensor to capture images really is. The underlying points of my rant...(keeping in mind that this is directed to the world in general, not at you personally)... 1) Digital based photography is still very new, not only have the bugs not all been worked out. Heck, we probably don't even know what all of the bugs are yet! 2) The hype from the sales departments of various companies is that you are buying solid, mature, technology. "Oh we solved all those issues from the early days". Well there is some amazing equipment no doubt, but the truth is that if you jump in now the you are still an "early adaptor" (equal to the brand new Leica days) and as a result you are probably going to get "nicked" here and there by issues. I wanted to issue a really big "reality check" about where we are on the digital development timeline. 4) Like film, many of the issues that plague us today (limited range, long term storage, incompatible formats, battery life, and so on) will most likely be solved as photography is too popular for the issues to remain ignored. In the meantime it's up to the user to either compensate for those issues, or avoid digital until it grows up. 5) These problems will probably not be solved within the next 2-3 years, but it will most likely take less than the 40-70 years that it took for film, so stop being so darn impatient! grin. The great divide that I trip on all the time can best be illustrated this way. I have a friend who bought the Digital Rebel and paid "serious bucks" so the camera would do everything for him. He absolutely cannot understand why I paid "serious bucks" for a 10D so that I could get the camera to STOP trying to do everything for me grin. Ah well, east is east and west is west I guess. Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." Hi, You raise interesting points. I guess I got confused about the origin of photography when you mentioned Talbot in 1834--that was not a commercial venture. In a sense the commercialization of digital photography did start in the 1960s with NASA funding contractors to build camera systems for spacecraft. It was that research and development that eventually led to commercial products. But what I think you should rant about has more to do with commercial decisions than technology. Companies dribble out a slightly better product to try and get people to buy it. Each company just puts out a product they believe slightly edges out their competitor. But they could actually leap way ahead. We see this with computers all the time: 2.6 GHz, 2.8 GHz, 3.2 GHz, and with digital cameras: 4 Mpixels, 6 Mpixels, 8 Mpixels. These are small steps in the scheme of things, but a commercial effort to keep profits rolling in. Once the top is reached, and one needs no better tool, sales will drop and profits will drop. At what point is it good enough, like the evolution of audio CD players, which have plateaued for years? Roger |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Mardon" wrote in message ...
"zach" wrote... Even with current post-processing technology, one could probably pull out data from a chip after centuries, and eliminate intrinsic data loss (short of catastrophic environmental failures) to see the image good as new. Given the trouble that I've had finding a 'regular 8' (mm) movie projector to transfer some old family movies, combined with my contining search for a reel to reel recorder that will play some old family audio tapes recorded at 3 3/4 ips, I have to be skeptical that the technology to read today's flash card format will be available 100 years from now. I did a university computer program in the early 1960s (a Fortran course) and prepared my program and data on punched cards. I suspect that the chances of finding a computer to run that program today are better than the chances of reading a flash card a century from now. Do you really think that the technology will still exist to do this? I was thinking of more on the silicon level, but you are right from a practical standpoint. I was also thinking more for future anthropologists. A negative image is still a negative image, whether on a glass plate, or a piece of film. There are many flavors of flash memory, each with its company's proprietary (cross-licensed or not) method of reading the data out from each memory cell. As for when digital photograhy started, as someone else pointed out, you could probably say with the invention of the CCD, in the late 1960s quick google seach ok, 1969. And the first major applications were(spy?) satellite photography and space telescopy. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
You mean like the 'DNG' (for "digital negative"?), open RAW file format that Adobe have just announced? YES! That is exactly what I mean. How can a "standard" be "just announced"? At best it's something that is, or will be, a proposed standard. How many others like it are on the drawing board. Have others been announced? If so, then none are standard. Is Adobe's the first? The first bicycle was like a hobby horse....the gearing did not become standard for a long time. Time will tell. On the other hand....Mark Twain wrote a novel, Huck Finn I think, using a typewriter...the first to do so. He typed it double spaced on one side of sheets of paper....that became a standard. Being proposed by Adobe gives it an advantage...but time will tell. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
Outdoor photography resources - articles, newsletter, forum, digital editing | PT | Digital Photography | 0 | September 13th 04 07:54 PM |
New Digital Photography Community Forum Announcement | George | Digital Photography | 1 | June 24th 04 06:14 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |