Doris Fang wrote:
> I welcome digital imaging, think it is a revolution, but the death of
> film is a long way off, due to real temporal and economic factors. When
> a person can buy a digital camera that gives film quality at $150 (in
> constant 1998 dollars) or so, is not obsolete for 5 years, and they can
> get double prints that last 70 years at a cost of .38 per frame at their
> local drugstore, then the days of film are over, assuming everyone
> embraces the technology.
Those are the conditions _I_ would like to see met before digital
replaces film, but my worry is that the public might not wait for all
of them. Consider the case of home movies: consumer movie film was
(and is) superior to consumer videotape in both image quality and
durability(*), but it was driven out of the market anyway.
Convenience matters a lot. My hope, on the other hand, is that
film-based snapshots are convenient enough already that the advantages
of digital will not be enough to prompt a premature switch.
(*) I have home movies that date from the 1930s -- I somehow doubt that
anyone will be viewing the videotapes of my children that I take today
in the 2050s.
Steve Schaffner
sschaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|