On 31 Dec 2000, at 0:42, sayeth Richard Schaetzl <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> "Tom A. Trottier" wrote:
>
> > Also fashion, news etc. where time is important.
>
> Fashion?
Fashion shows.
...
> He use Tri X, 40 year old technology.
> Grain is been used as an creative tool.
So is digital stuff.
...
> Speaking of slides is there an economic way to produce wall size
large
> images with digital?
Sure, digital projector. Use it for TV too. Amazing sharpness -
better than any slide projector I've seen. (of course, you did say
"economic"...)
>
> > So far, digital is pretty fiddly
>
> 1 hour lab is fast, one is not able to produce 36 prints within a half
> hour with an home computer.
True, a tradeoff. But instant viewing & quick printing of what you
want, in a variety of sizes. And always open.
>
> Prints from digital sources are expensive.
>
> Speaking about developing at home: Inkjet prints are soooo
> inexpensive and soooo long lasting.
Comparable to most colour printing, and the pigment inkjets (e.g.
Epson 2000p) are better than any chemical print.
>
> B&W printing might be cheaper and the results are longer lasting.
True.
...
> In the photographic field I dare to predict, that consumer and pro
> products will diverge even more than today. The split between
> affordable but "dumb" and low quality results products and high end
> will grow bigger. Professionals and quality conscious amateurs, like
> the OM users of today, will have to pay more for decent stuff, because
> no subvention through "me too want the newest technical gadget"
> amateur is going to happen.
Disagree. There will always be a split, but better quality will
migrate downwards, and better convenience will migrate upwards. Look
at how fast the entry level computers are today.
...
> > Digital *will* be more convenient - you won't have wait 6 months
> > for a print.
>
> No I only have to wait half an hour to an hour for hard copy results.
I meant the amateur you mentioned earlier who takes 6 months to take
24 photos.
>
> > Quality? No better, but the price will keep decreasing for the same
> > level.
> > Features? How about built-in infrared film. Pix in the dark.
>
> How many IR films do people normaly expose,
More, if you could switch frame to frame and it costs nothing more.
Use it to detect hot spots in your exhaust system or house. Make
funny pictures. See in the dark.
> is this really what Johnny
> Consumer wants or just an marketing gadget? One looks awful on that
> digital IR images.
>
> > Sequences: check your golf swing in .05 second increments.
>
> LOL, would be nice if it would not take several seconds until one can
> take the next picture with an digital camera.
Patience. Digital Video works. Some still cameras do take fast
sequences already.
>
> > Who needs
> > tripods with image stabilisation?
>
> Do we talk about C*n*n IS lenses? They work with 35mm silver based
> film.
And their cost? Digital stabilisation is much, much cheaper.
>
> > Nikon's 990 allows taking 10 shots
> > in a row,
>
> An OM allows either 36 or 250 shots in a rows at 6fps, sustained. Just
> in case someone needs this, I have the impression not many people.
>
> > keeping the sharpest.
>
> And if non of them is sharp?
Try again. You can see it right away. BTW, the 990 by itself chooses
the sharpest picture. Every shot is essentially free. Pay only for
the shots you keep.
...
> > So, in short, digital is probably the photography of the future
>
> Maybe then, but in the mean time I stay with 35mm film.
Agreed.
>
> I'll wait for an digital system with smaller (Olympus Pen sized?)
> cameras and lenses. I haven't saved any money for it yet, simply because
> it will take a long time until this is available in a decent quality.
Not too long. I give it 5 years til it's comparable in quality to
35mm images now (tech pan excepted). Will film/chemicals improve
faster? Wait & see. Maybe we'll have a hybrid system.
Amateur and professional astronomers prefer CCDs: c.f.:
Of all the advances available to amateurs, none has changed the art
of astrophotography more than the affordable charge-coupled device
(CCD). It uses a silicon chip made up of thousands of light-sensitive
areas called pixels that convert the light they receive into
electrons during an exposure. At the end of the exposure, each pixel
converts its stored electrons into a number, then downloads that
result to a computer. The computer paints an image -- by the numbers.
The devices are so efficient that a 30-second CCD exposure is
equivalent to a 30-minute film exposure.
Computer processing of CCD images can nearly eliminate the effects of
light pollution, making it possible to make great deep-sky images
from within cities. And to make them even more enticing, many modern
CCD cameras include a built-in autoguider. "The CCD revolution has
allowed me to convert the darkroom into a much needed kitty litter
storage facility and has permitted me to perform image processing
techniques in seconds on my computer rather than hours in the
darkroom," says Parker. "And for a fraction of the cost."
Once, only professional astronomers at the world's largest
observatories used CCD imagers. Today you not only can buy one, you
can buy one that will outperform the finest professional CCD
available only a few years ago. In fact, some amateurs conduct world-
class astronomical research from their backyards with their CCD
equipment. "For me, CCDs have completely revolutionized what can be
done in astrophotography," says George Viscome of Lake Placid, New
York. "They have made it possible for amateurs to take an immense
step from simply taking aesthetically pleasing pictures to gathering
useful scientific data." Viscome himself has discovered 40 new
asteroids with his CCD equipment.
( from
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1031/n8_v26/20936452/p3/article.jhtm
l?term= )
I do predict that the size of these cameras will be limited by our
ability to control it with our hands. Some are already the size of
credit cards (except thickness), and 190 grams, with lens, is less
than an OM body alone (460+ grams).
Of course, once we reach quantum limits, we shall have to use our
imagination. <g>
>
> Hope my comments sounded not to harsh Tom.
It's a good debate! I hope *I'm* not too harsh.
My regards, Tom
-----------------------------------(no spam please)
Tom Trottier <TomATrottier@xxxxxxxx> ICQ: 57647974
Abacurial Information Technology Consulting
400 Slater St. Suite 415, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7S7
__o +1 613 291-1168 fax:594-5412 (877)247-8796
_ \ < Vote for your favourite Olympus camera at
(+)/'(+) http://www.freevote.com/booth/fav_camera
Mensa Ottawa: http://www.egroups.com/MensaOttawa
< 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 >
|