>If I am not mistaken 36 high information film transparencies or negatives
>would then be equivalent to about 1.5 gigabytes that need to be stored.
>Perhaps someone wants an OM5 with a built in specially built shock
>resistant JAZ drive or a 1 meter cable going to a drive/battery pack to be
>worn in a backpack. Surely no one will argue for 1 good image or 36
>horrible ones? You do not have to make that choice with film.
>
This would be for Uncompressed images. Lets pick the 3000x2000
CCD because it is "in the balpark" of a 2400 dpi slide scanner.
It would have an uncompessed image size of around 24MB and
after JPG compression would be about 2 to 3 MB, depending on
JPG compression factor. I believe the latest flash cards are up
around 64MB at the moment and soon to be 96MB or even 128MB.
That should give the equivalent of 36 high-res pictures per card.
>I don't think it matters much where in the chain of events that digitizing
>of the image occurs as far as being able to manipulate it easily for use in
>publication. At this state of technology it does seem to be important that
>digitization occurs later in the process with powerful, non-portable
>equipment in order not to throw out so much of the information in the
>original optical image.
You may be right here. I am by NO means knocking scanners --
in fact that may be the next thing on my shopping list! But IF you
wanted to end up with a digital image, it would be nice to bypass
film altoghether as an intermediate step and cost -- that is the
reason for wanting a digital OM ( Hey lets call it an OM-D ::
OM "digital" -- get it?)
By the way, I also admit that I don't think film is going away for a
long, long time. And if an OM-D were to come out I would still
keep my OM-1, OM-2n and OM-4Ti.
>Is there another issue with speed of transfer? I have not used a digital
>camera. Is there a time lag for information transfer between shots. How
>long will it take to transfer a 40 MB image to storage so that you can take
>the next picture? My Mac has a 5MB/sec transfer rate on its SCSI bus which
>is not especially fast for SCSI, but is very fast compared to a serial
>connnector on a camera. Will this mean 8 seconds between high quality
>shots? Does this negate the use of sequenced high speed images equivalent
>to film's motor drive?
Most P&S digital cameras use somewhat inefficient serial
cables and granted that they take a while to download their
images. But there are alternatives. The latest is something
developed by Apple Computer called "Firewire" (IEEE 1394).
It is a serial transfer mechanism that has several different
speeds, the lowest of which is 100MB/second. This is according
to a friend of mine who is a Systems Engineer at Texas
Instruments and is developing Firewire chips. I would say
an OM-D should have Firewire.
Mark Hammons
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|