> Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 16:07:28 +0000
> From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OM] Fill Flash; the future
>
> At 11:43 5/2/99 , Tom wrote:
> >Just to start a new thread, when do people think digital cameras will
> >eclipse film cameras in picture quality at consumer/hobbyist prices? I
> >predict 2005.
>
> I think it will be much later than that unless there is an unbelievable,
> miraculous breakthrough in both technology and the cost of the technology.
> Think of the image content possessed by a 35mm format Kodachrome 64 (or
> 25) or Fuji Velvia slide. It is incredibly enormous both in resolution
> and color. The current limitations as I understand them are sensor size
> and resolution, the number of colors that can be represented in the
> digitized result, and the cost for the amount of storage capacity required
> for such an image, not to mention its physical size and weight.
We're getting closer tho. For 24mm x 36mm x 200**2 pixels (for 100 lines per mm
resolution) x 3 colours x 9 bits, it's only 116 megabytes raw. Because most
pixels are nearly the same as nearby pixels, this can be reduced by lossless
compression to about 10 MB. Compare the size of TIFs and BMPs for the same
picture.
My laptop's hard disk weighs 5 oz / 150g and holds 5.5 GB, so it could hold
~550 photos. An LS 120 disk could hold 12 photos and it weighs about 30g.
A bigger constraint might be the diffraction-limited resolution of the very
short focal-length lenses used with these tiny CCDs.
>
> For me to buy in to digital, it will have to be able to provide me with
> (note that digital numbering begins with 0): 0. a camera body that costs
> about $800 that is the same size and weight as my OM-4; 1. batteries that
> cost the same as a pair of 357's (about $5) and last about six months
I'd prefer AAs so I could replace them anywhere.
> under normal use; 2. the same information content as a 35mm Kodachrome 25
> slide; 3. storage for 36 of these images in an object no bigger or
> heavier than a 35mm film can (OK, I'll settle for box of 36 processed and
> mounted slides which isn't much bigger or heavier); and 4. a photograph
> storage device cost of no more than $10-$12 for 36 frames which would buy
> a roll of Kodachrome 25 and process it (including slide mounts).
Digital tape drives can store up to 50 GB for $50 media cost, about $.01 per
picture.
>
> Oops, forgot another demand! I also want to be able to display the end
> product, at home, on a 72" diagonal screen (so I can tell my relatives
> they've over stayed their welcome) for under $300 which could easily buy a
> decent projector, projection lens and 60" by 60" screen.
You could separate the picture taking technology from the picture viewing
technology! Why not just create slides if desired. In any case, the resolution
of your projection lens is likely way below that of your camera lens unless you
really dish out the bucks.
>
> The dollar figures are in current dollars which would have to be adjusted
> upwards to account for inflation between now and whenever you think these
> technologies will be available.
>
> IMHO digital capabilities in general have increased dramatically over the
> past five years, but extrapolating the current curve will not get us there
> for another 20 to 30 years and it will be perhaps another 5-10 years
> beyond that before it is within reach of the average consumer's budget.
>
> There is another issue yet to be addressed by the digital community:
> archival. How does one archive electronically digitized images for 100 to
> 200 years as can be done with dark storage of Kodachrome (even longer with
> B&W)? Not that we'll be around that long to give any more slide shows or
> have prints made, but it would be nice to know our progeny will be able to
> view what we were and how we lived with a rich supply of photography
> documenting our lives. The problem with digital information is that the
> archive format alone has a current half life of about 10 years. Translate
> that as sunrise to complete sunset in about 15-20 years. There is also
> the problem of degradation of magnetic media, both in the medium itself
> and its content. I think this also needs to be resolved before digital
> images, however convenient they might potentially be, can replace our
> "analog" silver halide technology.
That's a big problem, especially for any magnetic tapes since they're subject
to print-thru and need to be rewound each year.
CDs have a physical life of at least 100 years. But will there be a player?
Will the electronics be available to interpret any current formats?
And, since it's far easier to manipulate electronic images, how "real" will our
legacy be?
>
> Just some food for thought. In the mean time I'll keep using my OM-4 and
> Zuiko's (along with the Rollei and Zeiss gear), keep buying slide archive
> pages, and postpone indefinitely using the projector as a boat anchor.
But with a CCD, you don't need a shutter & you could sync at any speed!
>
> - -- John
Tom
------------------
From: Tom Trottier, President, ACT Productions Inc.
infoanim@xxxxxx http://www.act.ca
+1 613 594-4829 fax +1 613 594-8944
199 Holmwood Ave, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 2P3
"Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler" - Einstein
< 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 >
|