Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

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

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Dipping our Toe Into Digital (LONG)
From: julian_davies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:26:59 +0000 (GMT)
Mo(o)re comments interspersed below

>  from:    Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxx>
>  date:    Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:53:04
>  to:      olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  subject: Re: [OM] Re: Dipping our Toe Into Digital (LONG)
> 
> Comments interspersed below.
> This is exactly backwards.  The more capital intensive the industry, the 
> *slower* to switch to a new method: they have to wait until the old equipment 
> has paid for itself and worn out before they can afford to go out and buy new 
> stuff.  The classical exception has been where the new technology was 
> literally ten times better than what it replaced, such that the new stuff 
> could be purchased for a few years of the maintenance budget of the old.  It 
> is *very* rare that a new technology is this much better, and digital 
> photography does not qualify.

One of the largest post - production costs in movies is printing and 
transporting the many prints required. This currently limits the number 
produced and leads to the first - run, second - run etc. and country - by 
country release. The state of prints received in a second - tier country is on 
average diabolical, and is a limitation to income. Theatres will invest in 
digital technology if they can recover the costs through increased revenue 
because of a step - change in the distribution system, and a reduction in cost 
of transportation. The quality of the projected image is very, very secondary, 
provided it is clean.

> Lenses will be no cheaper, because optics is a very mature industry, and the 
> mecanics to hold and move the elements is already pretty well optimised.  
> Computer design of lenses does speed the design process, but has no effect on 
> the labor to actually make the lenses.  Current digital cameras get away with 
> low-grade and thus cheap lenses, but as the CCD reaches 35mm camera 
> resolution and coverage, the lenses will need to improve to match. 

I think lens technology is going into a new phase of development, now that the 
computer power exists to design such things as the diffractor lens that C*N*N 
now have. This will not generate savings in the Moore's law league, however.

> Camera body cases and their finger-operated controls won't be cheaper, 
> because they need to be dust-tight enough and robust enough to live in the 
> real world, and the size and dexterity of the human hand is not changing.  
> Viewfinder optics will also remain about the same, as the human eye isn't 
> getting any better.  In fact, it declines with age.

Actually, it has been noted that people of the younger generation in the UK are 
developing increased dexterity of thumb, due to all the text - messaging they 
do on their phones.

> Compared to Moore's Law, mechanics and optics do not improve at all.  These 
> are very mature technologies.  A skilled 16th century instrument maker could 
> duplicate a Leica III (except the lightmeter) albeit at great expense, as it 
> would all be done by hand, right down to the making of various optical 
> glasses from sand.  
 
He may have a problem getting the glass good enough, and tools which are hard 
enough to opeate at the reduced scale would be a problem also, but the skills 
are broadly similar.

I also expect to use my OM system for a very, very long time. The parts I 
expect to fail are all "new technology", so I may be down to the OM1 by the 
time film ceases to become GENERALLY available, and that will probably see me 
out using film from the minority supliers.

Julian

< 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