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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
On Dec 23, 9:07*am, Alan Browne
wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...l.html?_r=1&re... I read about some film that was shoot digitally using a 4Kx2K camera and was surprised to find out that they did no compression at all. The storage for the film was in the range of 15TB or so but all the shooting was more like 50TB, as I recall. They could reduce the storage cost to a fraction of the numbers they give if they did even a small bit of compression. Scott |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin
"According to Mr. Shefter, a universal standard for storage technology would go far toward reducing a problem that would otherwise grow every time the geniuses who create digital hardware come up with something a little better than their last bit of wizardry" "If we allow technological obsolescence to repeat itself, we are tied either to continuously increasing costs - or worse - the failure to save important assets." It isn't rocket science, obviously without a standard for archival storage of digital images the majority of today's will not be available in coming decades, this is one of the main reasons why 'shooting digital' is a waste of time and hardware money if you're interested in longevity as I am, if you need it now and don't care about it being readable in future, shoot digital. It is what it's designed to be, immediate and disposable. "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
this is one of the main reasons why 'shooting digital' is a waste
of time . . . and, presumably, why no one is doing it. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
"Eric Miller" wrote
this is one of the main reasons why 'shooting digital' is a waste of time . . . and, presumably, why no one is doing it. Damn straight! -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
. . . and, presumably, why no one is doing it.
People do things for different reasons. I doubt longevity is high the agenda of average consumers. It is average consumers that have driven digital capture to dominate the market. Their priorities are usually more immediate, cost motivated and less demanding. "Eric Miller" wrote in message .. . this is one of the main reasons why 'shooting digital' is a waste of time . . . and, presumably, why no one is doing it. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
Scott W wrote:
They could reduce the storage cost to a fraction of the numbers they give if they did even a small bit of compression. Yes - but compressing video as you capture it on the fly takes a lot of processing power. Perhaps suitable chipsets or software encoders are not available for less run of the mill applications - therefore easier to capture raw. Pete -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
On Dec 24, 9:18*am, Peter Chant
wrote: Scott W wrote: They could reduce the storage cost to a fraction of the numbers they give if they did even a small bit of compression. Yes - but compressing video as you capture it on the fly takes a lot of processing power. *Perhaps suitable chipsets or software encoders are not available for less run of the mill applications - therefore easier to capture raw. But for archiving you could compress. Scott |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin -- I don't see it; for what they pay Tom Cruise to make a movie they could probably buy Kodak from the Chinese, and problem solved. Bob Hickey |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin ************************************************** ************************** **** I talked about this with my family this weekend as we got together for an early Christmas. My family has a lot of teenaged girls that are snapping digital pictures all the time. When I asked them what they do with them to preserve them, one told me she doesn't do anything other than copy them to her harddrive. Most she deletes after a few weeks right in the camera. This is sort of sad in a way because memories are being destroyed. I told them that I have pictures of their mothers (mainly slides) from 40 years ago but they don't have digital pictures from 6 months ago. I look for people to return to film in a few years when they discover they don't have much of anything past a few years. Ric in Wisconsin. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"rec.photo.digital.txt" and "rec.photo.digital.dat" Filter Data Updatedand Posted | SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 | Digital Photography | 3 | December 8th 07 12:37 AM |
"rec.photo.digital.txt" and "rec.photo.digital.dat" Filter Data Updatedand Posted | SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 | Digital Photography | 0 | December 3rd 07 07:47 AM |
Anyone know who makes "Ultrafine" films? | Lew | In The Darkroom | 9 | June 12th 06 01:30 AM |
"classic" black and white films | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 11 | April 16th 06 03:54 AM |
Help... Sony "Picture Package" does not copy movies without finalizing | smilesdl | Digital Photography | 6 | January 23rd 06 06:37 PM |