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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... Mark Weaver wrote: Yes, CDs and JPGs will be readable in 20-30 years. I already have 20 year old audio CDs that are perfectly playable. If CDs, DVDs, and JPG files were to become unreadable in a generation, that would mean a near total loss of popular culture (music, movies, photographs). When has such a thing ever happened? Punch cards and "digital cassettes" were never ubiquitous like CDs and JPGs. Mark Partly inspired by this thread, I downloaded a program (Nero CDspeed) to check the error rate of my CD-Rs. Result? Scanning my older audio CD-Rs (1997-1999), so far I'm finding about a 50% serious error rate (and, yes, media type does make a difference, though not absolutely - "green dyes" are almost all bad and "Mitsui Gold"s are "only" about 15% bad...). What speed are you testing at? With a 5-year-old disc, I get no errors when I crank CDSpeed down to as slow as it will go (10x) but do get errors when I let it test at the max speed (of my DVD+R drive). Those old CDRs weren't rated as fast as current discs. Mark |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Chris Loffredo wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: Chris Loffredo wrote: Partly inspired by this thread, I downloaded a program (Nero CDspeed) to check the error rate of my CD-Rs. Result? Scanning my older audio CD-Rs (1997-1999), so far I'm finding about a 50% serious error rate (and, yes, media type does make a difference, though not absolutely - "green dyes" are almost all bad and "Mitsui Gold"s are "only" about 15% bad...). So now I'm copying the bad CD-Rs, and to my joy have discovered that the first 2 have errors to the extent that I'll have to do extensive manual editing. Try burning a new CD and then checking the error rate. I would not be surprised if there were recoverable errors right off the start. Question is, how much v. the 5 yr. old CD's. First thing I did: New CD-Rs (5 out of 5) had zero errors. Relatively new CD-Rs (about 1 year old) - spot checks, maybe 4 samples - were 100% ok. But the older ones, whether through age or outdated(?) media seem pretty unreliable. Not a nice prospect... Hmm, so many backups to redo... Time to look at a DVD writer I guess. -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Nick Zentena wrote:
Mark Weaver wrote: I wrote a program years ago and saved it on a paper punch tape the machine used. If I hadn't made an analog copy of the code on the printer, it would be gone. Right. Media that was only used by computer professionals was in not common enough usage to remain generally readable. So you're saying a media that was used by highly paid professionals in a controlled enviroment. Often containing highly valued data. Data that was looked after far better then almost any home user would dream of. That sort of media is no longer readable? But you're trying to say that stuff looked after by home users will last? Nick Yes, because there are many more home users than business users, and the business users migrated their data from the older formats, then discarded the old machines and media. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Mark Weaver wrote:
You miss the point. It's not that punch cards are no longer 'readable' in the sense that they have deteriorated (they're just thin bits of cardboard with rectangular holes--I assume they'd hold up for decades if not centuries). The point is that the market for the equipment was never broad enough and it didn't have a wide enough variety of uses, so when 'highly paid professionals' stopped using punch cards for data, the equipment became rare. But CDs/DVDs are not used just for data by a relatively small number of 'highly paid professionals', they're used for music, movies, and data by literally hundreds of millions of people. Completely different situation. you can get punchcards read easily enough, and setting up something to do it on your own (assuming you don't need hundreds of thopusands read) is easy enough. The trick is called flatbed scanner. Mark -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Alan Browne wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote: Alan Browne wrote: Chris Loffredo wrote: Partly inspired by this thread, I downloaded a program (Nero CDspeed) to check the error rate of my CD-Rs. Result? Scanning my older audio CD-Rs (1997-1999), so far I'm finding about a 50% serious error rate (and, yes, media type does make a difference, though not absolutely - "green dyes" are almost all bad and "Mitsui Gold"s are "only" about 15% bad...). So now I'm copying the bad CD-Rs, and to my joy have discovered that the first 2 have errors to the extent that I'll have to do extensive manual editing. Try burning a new CD and then checking the error rate. I would not be surprised if there were recoverable errors right off the start. Question is, how much v. the 5 yr. old CD's. First thing I did: New CD-Rs (5 out of 5) had zero errors. Relatively new CD-Rs (about 1 year old) - spot checks, maybe 4 samples - were 100% ok. But the older ones, whether through age or outdated(?) media seem pretty unreliable. Not a nice prospect... Hmm, so many backups to redo... Time to look at a DVD writer I guess. you mean - get more damage more easily? If anything, recordable DVD (lets not even talk aboutteh dual layer ones) are going to be less relaible than CD-s. Even those making the media admit it. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
MikeWhy wrote:
"Stacey" wrote in message ... Why can't people compare a good optical print to a digitally printed digital shot? Why do they always scan the film and use that to compare them? I haven't seen any advantage to a straight optical print compared to digital, and certainly not one that would justify the price difference. I'd like to hear your experience in detail. Notice we're no longer talking about deli counter prints. Looks less grainy and still as sharp from what I've had done. To get the scanned images as sharp as optical seems to exagerate the grain as the same time. I've seen some software like neatimage that seems to work good but haven't tried it in print yet. And I'm not talking about what costs what at this point, yet haven't seen much difference in price between the two. Maybe if someone was doing it for a living they would be looking at which is cheapest? I don't have that many shots I need blown up and do most myself anyway. Custom lab optical prints from 35mm are decidedly a waste of hopes, time, and money. It's the worst of all possible worlds. DSLRs match it in image quality, and edge it decisively in convenience and consumables cost. I rarely use 35mm anymore, only for something like sports shooting where MF isn't feasable. IMHO 8X10's from 35mm aren't that great. MF kills it in film area. Which is what -I- said! :-) -- Stacey |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Mark Weaver wrote:
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... Partly inspired by this thread, I downloaded a program (Nero CDspeed) to check the error rate of my CD-Rs. Result? Scanning my older audio CD-Rs (1997-1999), so far I'm finding about a 50% serious error rate (and, yes, media type does make a difference, though not absolutely - "green dyes" are almost all bad and "Mitsui Gold"s are "only" about 15% bad...). What speed are you testing at? With a 5-year-old disc, I get no errors when I crank CDSpeed down to as slow as it will go (10x) but do get errors when I let it test at the max speed (of my DVD+R drive). How do you tell a CD drive to read the data at a slower speed? Not "test" but acutally read it? Just curious, never seen this option. -- Stacey |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Mark Weaver wrote:
"Stacey" wrote in message ... And I'm not so sure jpegs will still be a software standard in 20 years Whether or not the current JPG format is still *the* standard in 20 years, it will still be readable/displayable/printable. Why? Because doing so is not complicated, This just a guess on your part that it won't be complicated to do so. Time will tell if it's a reality. nor will the file systems be the same, you obviously think they will. FAT is already a past tense file system and with longhorn, it probably won't even be recognized. Irrelevant -- nobody's proposing you back up your photos by taking a current hard disk, unplugging it, and storing it in the closet for 20 years. Many people are storing their images on a HD, they don't know any better and you never answered the below question... How long will the curent CD filesystem be used? -- Stacey |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
At the time they were right. Have you ever printed any med format
negatives from back then? I have and they aren't that great, nothing like medformat film today. The film technology wasn't good enough for medformat at that time and it needed the film area of 4X5 or 8X10 (it was best contact printed) to not be massively grainy and to have any sharpness in 8X10 or larger prints. "Back then" was 1888 and no, I haven't printed any negatives from that period, most negatives from that period have long since been lost or destroyed, but I've seen plenty of prints made from smaller format negatives from that time forward and the prints are excellent even by today's standards. Since contact printing was the norm for many photographers well into the 1950s the film didn't have to be as good as today's to produce excellent results. The equipment and the photographers using it were, nevertheless, disparaged by "serious photograhers" in much the same way you disparage digital today. Digital is at that same place. It's gaining ground but even the -best- digital normal people can afford isn't equal to medformat or even 35mm IMHO. Well of course "digital" encompasses a pretty broad range of equipment even for "normal people." However, for several years it has certainly been possible to make a print in the 8x10 to 10x13 range from digital cameras that cost about $700 and up that were better than a same size print from a 35mm negative. That's not to say that all digital prints in that size range are better than all 35mm prints but the possibilty certainly exists, whether it's realized in practice depends on the skill of the person making the photograph and the print but the digital print isn't automatically inferior just because it was made with a $700 or so digital camera as you seem to think. I consider myself one of the "normal people, " I own a Nikon D100 camera and two Nikon lenses. Based in part on observation of my own prints from an F4 camera and from the D100 camera, I know for a fact that it's possible to make better prints with the D100 than were made with the F4 using the same lenses.. I don't know about medium format, you may be right there. I don't make the same kind of prints from my D100 as I do from my Pentax 67 so I have no way of personally making a direct comparison. Most of the digital prints I see are color prints and I print only in black and white with my mediium and large format film cameras so I can't really compare the two. I've seen spectacular color prints made with a digital back on a Mamiya camera but I think we'd both agree that "normal people" don't buy digital backs. : - ). "Stacey" wrote in message ... Vladamir30 wrote: I find it amusing that Stacey is so enamored of roll film and her medium format camera. She probably doesn't realize that when George Eastman popularized roll film the "serious photographers" ridiculed it, saying that it was something only for the unknowing masses, that its only advantage was speed and ease of use, and that its quality was no good compared to sheet film in large format cameras. Sound familiar? At the time they were right. Have you ever printed any med format negatives from back then? I have and they aren't that great, nothing like medformat film today. The film technology wasn't good enough for medformat at that time and it needed the film area of 4X5 or 8X10 (it was best contact printed) to not be massively grainy and to have any sharpness in 8X10 or larger prints. Digital is at that same place. It's gaining ground but even the -best- digital normal people can afford isn't equal to medformat or even 35mm IMHO. At some point, like with film development, it will be. For some people the speed and ease of use is more important than haveing the best quality? This also explains why most people are happy with an autofocus 35mm film camera. There are alwasy the people who jump on new technology and assume it's better just because they are told it is. I'm waiting to see something with my eyes that is better before I jump. -- Stacey |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Stacey" wrote in message
... And I'm not talking about what costs what at this point, yet haven't seen much difference in price between the two. Maybe if someone was doing it for a living they would be looking at which is cheapest? I don't have that many shots I need blown up and do most myself anyway. The smallest I print is 8x10. If I need something smaller, I guess I could pick up some cold cuts when I drop off the negs. MF kills it in film area. Which is what -I- said! :-) :-) At least we can agree on that much. Film area is like pixels: more is better. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
below $1000 film vs digital | Sabineellen | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | June 15th 04 07:13 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |