Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Dipping our Toe Into Digital (LONG)

Subject: [OM] Re: Dipping our Toe Into Digital (LONG)
From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:04:02 -0800
>From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> >From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >My research indicates that an optimal 35mm frame may contain as much as 
> >18Mpx.
>
>Hmm.  I see.  The 18 Mpix appears to assume the typical compromise 
>red-green-green-blue pattern...

It was from actual measurements, primarily RN Clark's and Norman Koren's. Most 
folks who are serious about this point out that there is no simple equation -- 
film has one equivalence if you measure one way, or a different one if you 
measure some other way.

> >In 1997, I predicted that price/performance parity between digital and 35mm 
> >was 8 years off. I stand by that: it's now 3 years off.
>
>I assume that you used Moore's Law, that holds that semiconductor technology 
>doubles in performance (halves in cost for the same performance) every 18 
>months.  Confirmed below.

Thanks for demo'ing the math I was too lazy to type in! As I mentioned, I first 
went through this exercise five years ago, and it looks like it's holding true.

>What will take the longest is movies...

Perhaps not... Movies don't require the maximum amount of information that the 
format can supply, and movie films are accordingly NOT even close to Velvia, in 
terms of resolution. (Don't believe me, shoot some of that crap that Seattle 
Filmworks -- or whatever they're called since the re-org -- or Dale Labs, or 
any of those movie film repacking houses sells.)

It may be true that if you were using each frame to its utmost, but the human 
eye cannot discern all that detail at 24 frames per second. It would appear 
that MPEG formats do a pretty darn good job of containing as much "useful" 
information as is needed.

> >Then kiss film goodbye in ~2013.
>
>No; nothing is ever that clean.  There will be a very gradual transition, 
>because people will wait for their current equipment to wear out.

I'd be more inclined to accept this if digitals didn't offer typical typical 
consumers so much more. Digital cameras are supposed to be "the" gift this 
Christmas. These will be "sold forward," to people who already have computers 
and printers. The infrastructure for digital is in place. The "gradual 
transition" has been going on since 1984, when the first graphics-based 
computer (Apple Macintosh) was mass-produced.

>And the movie industry will still need vast quantities of film.

Again, I dissent. Figure the angular area of a movie screen for the average 
viewer. (Not the front row seats that are always empty!) It isn't much 
different from viewing an 8x10 at 12".

The movie business is capital intensive and very price conscious. Given that 
the 8x10 print is most people's idea of "a nice picture," I see the movie 
industry's movement into digital as an indication that the format has achieved 
price-performance parity for the masses, and I think it will happen in three 
years.

The larger problem is theaters. They have considerable investment film, and 
don't turn over investments as fast as movie production companies do. But I 
expect the large chains, which are more capital intensive, will switch to 
digital in three years.

>Look at us -- we happily use mechanical cameras from thirty years ago...

Then there's the Society for Creative Anachronism, who joust and traipse around 
in three-hundred-year-old designer clothes... there's always room for outliers!

>electronics are only a part of the total cost of a camera, and the optical and 
>mechanical components do not follow Moore's Law, except that much of the 
>mechanical complexity of cameras has been eliminated: a camera today has 
>simple mechanicals controlled by a little computer chip.

There you go! And they're injection molded of plastic, rather than milled from 
metal. And the lenses are computer-generated, rather than designed with a 
slide-rule. And the lenses in the eventual price-parity product will be much 
smaller.

I agree that mechanics and optics don't follow the identical 18 month curve 
that electronics do, but they do have a curve of their own.

And to the extent that many parts of digital and film cameras are identical in 
function, that forms the basis for a price-parity point. When the sensor costs 
the same as the various motors, soleniods, and mechanical parts that are unique 
to film cameras, price-parity will be achieved.

> >(Of course, there will always be a niche market for fine art photochemistry, 
> >just as some brush-media artists still mix their own egg temupra.)
>
>Or develop their own photos?

Please don't take what I write about marketplace and technology trends 
involving hundreds of millions of people as a personal affront. There will 
always be an artistic niche for film, just as one can still buy a horse-drawn 
carriage and buggy whip today. Simply by preferring Olympus gear, this group 
can be defined as an outlier in the larger scheme of things.

However, I expect a gradual return to sheet film. It will require far less 
infrastructure to produce than sprocket-punched roll film. Roll film is a 
convenience, and convenenience is digital's middle name! The fanatics will be 
willing to take the time to mess with sheet film.

There may even be a niche market for sprocket hole punches, for those of us who 
want to keep or OM's alive long after 35mm roll film is no longer commercially 
available. (Requisite on-topic content. :-)

-- 
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
: Buy My Step Van! <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/van>

< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz