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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Whitehead" wrote in message How does anyone know? Was Leonardo da Vinci secretly copying his work on to microfilm strips, perhaps? Several independent sources have corroborated this claim. Also, several US Government agencies require that important documents be stored on microfilm to ensure long-term accessibility. To the extent that we can know, we do know that microfilm offers the least-risky way to store information at today's state of the art. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message news:0Ym4d.11118 Now, *there's* a clever plan! Increase the percentage of digital product sales by selling off those film products that make up the majority of their current sales. So, their overall sales volume will be *lower*, and they'll be selling more of the marginally profitable products. And, this makes investors happy? Go figure. I think that Kodak has reached the conclusion that, for the consumer market in the industrialized world, digital will overtake film just as ballpoint pens overtook fountain pens, a couple of generations ago. Kodak made its reputation and name recognition on its consumer end, not its professional side. For them the question was how to remain relevant in a digital world. I suspect that they were not happy with the change in the wind, but that they had to do something to ensure their survival. They played up on their traditional strength: that of making the complex part of photography easy to the consumer. Their long-standing slogan of "You push the button, we do the rest," was applied to digital imaging. Kodak offers a simple system of cameras, printer docks, EasyShare software and online printing services--all of which serve to take a lot of the complexity out of the digital imaging process for consumers that have little or no interest in the technical end, but who just want to create well-exposed photos. My point is that the market would have dictated the outcome, not Kodak. Kodak merely tried to find a way to cope with those forces. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Elliot wrote:
"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?" I would suspect that in 100 years from now, even people who are very unfamillar with film will be able to extract the maximum available content from film with equipment designed for other purposes. Celluloid has not been used as film base in many decades. 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. Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary, while not every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any old photo with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative; anthropologists also glean great information from photographs... etc. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Elliot wrote:
"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?" I would suspect that in 100 years from now, even people who are very unfamillar with film will be able to extract the maximum available content from film with equipment designed for other purposes. Celluloid has not been used as film base in many decades. 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. Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary, while not every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any old photo with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative; anthropologists also glean great information from photographs... etc. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gould wrote:
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? http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame. for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF. http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
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 |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
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 |