NY Times On The End of Film and The End of the Megapixel Race

Blah, blah, blah. Pretty boring stuff. The future of imaging is more
cameras that fit into your pocket . . . wow, that really gets me
excited. I guess the least common denominator is the goal . . . we
should all be grateful. :-P

I've got some big pockets. ME Super and 50mm in one coat pocket no problem.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:LJrEf.19430$oo1.8466@trnddc02...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/te...ts/02pogue.htm

Interesting article. I have a few bones to pick for fun.

They may include global positioning system receivers, so that, as you
browse
your photos in iPhoto or Picasa, you'll know not only when you took them,
but where.

I already know where the picture was taken - I was there when it happened.

That's a shocker. After 10 years of hearing how they need more, more, more
megapixels, are consumers really expected to believe that eight megapixels
will be the end of the line?

I guess in consumer point and clicks this is true - personally I find 5mp
pocket camera perfectly fine for situations where my SLR's aren't there, or
don't belong in the environment (someplace you're not allowed to take photos
for example).

But I'd sure like to see more medium format sized sensors.

ABANDONING THE FILM LOOK Now that consumers are comfortable with going all
digital, camera companies no longer feel compelled to mimic the size,
shape
and features of film cameras. Today's cameras embrace their electronic
nature, taking on more radical looks and talents.

Yup, time to toss 100 plus years of ergonomic research to the wind and start
making crap again. Yay! I hope they don't mind if I stick with my camera
shaped cameras for the time being.

Well, we'll see. But if the age of megapixel insecurity is really over,
what
will motivate us to buy a new camera every couple of years?

Nothing - who does this? I can barely afford to buy a new lens each year.

WIRELESS The N1 from Nikon and Elph SD430 from Canon both offer Wi-Fi
wireless networking. Unfortunately, the only thing those cameras can do is
transfer your pictures wirelessly to a computer or printer; they don't
connect to the Internet.

Why do I want my camera to connect to the internet? I want it to take
photos, not play video games, or send email.

Some of Nikon's CoolPix models already contain face-recognition software,
a
feature that supposedly assists focus by scanning the scene for human
facial
features. And Canon is working on even more sophisticated recognition
software. One, called Blink Shot, would prevent the camera from taking the
picture when your subject's eyes are closed. A companion feature, called
Smile Shot, waits to fire until your subject manages a grin.

Great, a few focus gimmick features you'll have to turn off every time you
"boot" the camera because the brilliant designers always forget to save
state.

I can see the photography news groups filled with "Why won't my camera focus
on non-human subjects?" and "I can't take photos of my friends when they're
sleeping. What's going on?"

Here's a tip for the camera manufacturers - I'll PRESS THE SHUTTER RELEASE
when I want to take a photo.

BETTER BATTERIES Most compact cameras today use lithium-ion cells that, on
average, provide 300 shots between charges.

My 20D can take over 1300 shots and my Rebel 2000 (35mm SLR) has been
shooting on the same batteries for almost 2 years. Funny how technology
often creates as many problems as it solves.

According to Mr. Westfall of Canon, however, the future is hydrogen fuel
cells, which will provide far longer-lasting power. "This technology is
already in development," he said. "They'll probably make their debut in
laptop batteries first, and then make their way into cellphones and
digital
cameras."

Great, now I get to carry my camera around worrying that if I drop it it's
going to explode. g

Yet digital S.L.R.'s are big, bulky and heavy. And you can't use the
screen
to compose your shots, which, on other cameras, is a delicious
convenience.
You must frame your shots by peering through the eyepiece.

Uh... Of course you frame through the eyepiece. I WANT to look through the
eyepiece. Even my laptop LCD doesn't have enough resolution to see what I
can see through the lens - there's no way the crappy little LCD's on cameras
will ever have any use at all other than a gimmic for hacks.

THE POCKET-SIZE S.L.R. For complex reasons involving lens design and
light-sensor dimensions, the photos taken by today's sleek,
shirt-pocketable
minicams can't touch the quality of scenes captured by digital S.L.R.
(single-lens reflex) cameras.

Because pocket cams are cheap and have crappy lenses and tiny sensors.
What's complex about that?

THE NEXT-GEN CAMERA Paradise is still not in the cards; for one thing,
nobody has yet figured out how to store all those digital photos for
future
generations. It's not clear how long hard drives and home-burned CD's can
last, and the software question is even more frightening. Will the
under-the-skin nanocomputers of 2100 still recognize JPEG files?

One more reason to make archive quality prints of the 1 or 2 /decent/ images
the average person makes in a lifetime after thousands of exposures. The
rest might as well be moved to the little trash bin on the desktop.

Even so, you have a lot to look forward to: hydrogen-powered shirt-pocket
cameras with liquid lenses, four-inch OLED touch screens, G.P.S. features,
software that snaps only the best facial expressions and wireless
circuitry
that beams the result to your friends and fans.

It's the end of art as we know it.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery

Gordon Moat wrote in :

(...) I guess the least common denominator is the goal.

Well, this ~was~ the New York Times after all...

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
m...
"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:LJrEf.19430$oo1.8466@trnddc02...
From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/te...ts/02pogue.htm



I didn't see a thing in there that would improve the average serious
amateur/pro's photography...

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com



Neither did I.

The Times was reporting on consumer trends.

Jeremy wrote:

From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/te...ts/02pogue.htm

_______________________________l

February 2, 2006
David Pogue
Pixel Counting Joins Film in Obsolete Bin

Except that the Next Big Thing could be scanned film.

One of the instructors talked to a graduate who's doing well in PJ right
now (getting lots and lots of AP, Time, Newsweek exposure) about recent
changes in the appearance of his work.

He's shooting T-Max, scanning the negs, and the editors are apparently
eating it up.

"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:dWyEf.14291$Ix.4375@trnddc07...

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
m...
"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:LJrEf.19430$oo1.8466@trnddc02...
From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/te...ts/02pogue.htm



I didn't see a thing in there that would improve the average serious
amateur/pro's photography...

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com



Neither did I.

The Times was reporting on consumer trends.

Consumer - someone who asks why the Canon 5D doesn't have a built-in flash.


--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery

and the "Democratic" party pays big bucks to make the government look bad.

Ironically the Lobbyist are paying the Republicans the big money to make the
government look bad. The Democrats look their worst when they seek some of
that easy corporate cash.

"Beach Bum" wrote:

Here's a tip for the camera manufacturers - I'll PRESS THE
SHUTTER RELEASE when I want to take a photo.

No. You won't. Future cameras won't have shutter releases... or have any
need for you at all...

Lud·dite [lú dit]
(plural Lud·dites)
noun

1. Opponent of new technology: somebody who opposes technological or
industrial innovation.

2. 19th century protester against technology: a worker involved in protests
in Britain in the 1810s against new factory methods of production and in
favor of traditional methods of work.

[Early 19th century. Origin uncertain: according to tradition, named for Ned
Ludd , an 18th-century farm worker in Leicestershire, England, who destroyed
two stocking frames in a fit of rage.]

Ken

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:C7BEf.14311$Ix.4703@trnddc07...
"Beach Bum" wrote:

Here's a tip for the camera manufacturers - I'll PRESS THE
SHUTTER RELEASE when I want to take a photo.

No. You won't. Future cameras won't have shutter releases... or have any
need for you at all...

They will always need my pocketbook........

According to Mr. Westfall of Canon, however, the future is hydrogen fuel
cells, which will provide far longer-lasting power. "This technology is
Great, now I get to carry my camera around worrying that if I drop it it's
going to explode. g

OH, THE HUMANITY!