Hi Jan,
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:47:04 -0800
> From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: So digital can do it all?
>
> >Another really bad thing is that some cameras store their pictures in
> > JPEG format.
>
> Yes. But it is generally a reasonable compression ratio. Once you get
> them off the camera, the FIRST thing to do (assuming you want to mess
> with them, rather than accept them as-is) is to convert them to a non
>-lossy format.
Fortunately, there's pro-bodies that allow saving as TIFF or some other
uncompressed format. And since this list is largely about OM-single digits,
we're all about pro stuff, right ? :-)
> > I think the actual sensor has only one way that it reacts to light.
> > What happens afterwards (in the camera or on PC), is like what happens
> > in the darkroom.
>
> Well, we're just playing with semantics here.
Yes, aren't we ? That's fun by itself.
But what I really meant, is that any medium can be turned into mostly anything
else using post-processing. If you use a film camera with Velvia, you don't
need any effort to get that result afterwards. Cool ! But if you want
something that's not available as film of-shelf, then both digital pictures as
well as scans from print will get you there with post-processing. Having that
post-processing in-camera would be cool, but I don't know if there are or will
be cameras available that allow you to download specific
"look-like-this-please" algorithms. And that would slow down saving the images
again, which is another thing I think current digicams should be improve upon.
> >I'm not entirely convinced Moore's Law holds for CCD. I've heard the
> > story of how we'll all be using digicams within months from now, for
> > far too many times. In the mean time, estimates are getting longer (2-
> > 3 years ?)
>
> I've been on-track with my digicam predictions since my Apple QuickTake
> in 1996. At the time, I wrote (possibly on this very list) that
> digicams would reach price-performance parity in about ten years. That's
> about 2-3 years from now.
Well, I don't know. Quite possibly about digicams I was talking to the wrong
people. I worked in IT, you know. Many techies are far too optimistic about
stuff. But then it's part of their job to be optimistic about technology :-D
> >Reminds me of the debate on how quickly computers will be able to think
> > just like human beings.
>
> You have to be careful who you listen to. The pundits on late-night talk
> shows will say anything to sell their latest book.
I've taken your point about digicams, but I know a little bit more about A.I.
and the workings of the brain than about digicams. I was comparing the
predictions "one hears" about when one will take over the other. A.I. is a
nice example because the whole media jumped on it. In the fifties, it was
years away. In the sixties it was quite some years away. Now it's decades
away. Somehow, the more we explore the brain, the more we learn that it's not
that easy.
But it's an entirely different matter from digital cameras :-)
> I believe Carl Sagan estimated the human brain's capacity at about 1
> terabyte in "Broca's Brain." Current computers max out at 2 gigabytes, a
> factor of 500, or about nine doublings. Applying Moore's law implies
> that matching capacity will take about 14 years.
<OT warning>
Yes, but I'm not a very big fan of Sagan's. I was *so* close to referring to
your late night shows, but I shouldn't probably. Foremost, I don't have a TV
to compare Sagan with :-)
As you say, it's not because a machine can *store* what the brain can, that it
can *process* what the PC can. We're talking about billions of parallel
neurons that can execute really complicated integral and differential equations
in microseconds here.
Having tried to work my way through "Zen and the Brain" from John H. Austin, I
can advise anybody with a very thorough interest in A.I. or the workings of the
brain to buy that 1kg book and at least have a go at it. It's revealing !
</OT warning>
> >I'd hate to have to take a pile of memory cards, or a PC.
>
> One hardly needs a "pile of memory cards, or a PC" to take a digicam on
> even an extended trip. I can get over 2,000 snapshot quality images
> without changing cards!
> And if I want something other than "snapshot quality," I can change it
> on a per-image basis, rather than toting around an extra body or two,
> loaded with different film.
I find this a very difficult topic. I'm planning to take a very compact P&S
(Minolta TC-1) loaded with Portra 400VC, and an OM-4Ti with Sensia or Provia.
Every picture will be very good quality, and I can choose later which ones I
like.
With the per-image idea, I should define which shot I like when I take it.
I've found many images I've taken either turn out far better, or far worse than
I liked. It's a process of learning. But with film, I can still enlarge those
shots I thought bad to 8x10 in case they turn out alright.
For the last years, I've been trying to be simple. All the same resolution (as
you get by using the same film) is definitely my way to go. Reducing to 2
prime lenses is another thing.
Probably the main reasons why I'm not shooting digital now are the following:
1) Too many options ! The less options I have, the more I concentrate on the
picture. I'm still learning, and will be for a long time to come.
2) PCs ! I've worked with them for far too long. Maybe because of that, I
feel quite comfortable living a far too old-fashioned life sometimes.
3) It's been a hype, and I've gotten pretty anti-hype in the last several
years. I've seen more products destroyed by too much hype than products grow
because of the hype. The result is that I wasn't able to have a decent
argument with most pro-digital people I've talked to, because they didn't know
the basics of photography. Big difference with this list, clearly :-)
Indeed, none of these arguments have anything to do with digital technology or
quality, and when the time's there, I won't be reluctant to change. The world
changes, we change with it, and that's just the way it goes.
Peter.
< 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 >
|