Are Serious Digital Still Photography's days numbered?
Bob Monaghan
How about a different approach to the film is dead debate? ;-) I'm going
to show you why the days of "serious" digital photography are numbered ;-)
First, nearly everybody making digital cameras is losing money doing so.
They have lost money, year after year (cf. Kodak, where film profits
support losses in digital camera divisions ;-). Some major players like
AGFA have already dropped out of making digital cameras and scanners at
a loss to focus on profitable film mfgering.
Second, nearly everybody in the USA who wants a decent digital camera
already has one (i.e., 3 MP are now $150 New in Box). Who is left to buy?
Given 89% never make prints, just email photos on web, why do they need to
"upgrade" to newer and higher megapixel cameras when they never do prints?
Third, sales of older used digital cameras highlights the huge
depreciation losses, often 75% to 90% in just 2-3 years. This realization
is going to make it harder for second time buyers to be as enthusiastic
about upgrading to a higher $$ new digital camera, knowing they'll likely
lose another 75-90% of their investment again in a few years. Once burned,
twice shy...
Fourth, an industry shakeout is pending. Corp. are losing $$, cutting
costs, including loss leading divisions like digital photography (Cf.
agfa). As the losers become more apparent, we are going to see a lot of
"orphaned" digital cameras too. No support, no service, no driver upgrades
Fifth, cell phone cameras will meet the needs of those 89% of current
digital camera users who never make a print (per PMAI statistics), which
is to say, 90%+ of current digicam buyers/owners. They're going to send
photos via their webpages or email anyway, so don't need prints. Nor do
they need huge megapixel counts and interchangeable lenses and all that.
The above is a critical point; 90% of the digicam users today - and more
in the cellphone camera future - don't need or want prints. These folks
will NOT be in the market for a "serious" digital still camera.
Sixth, Foveon's 16MP chip should shortly hit the volumes needed to drive
prices under $100, and eventually under $10/chip. So disposable or
recycleable 16 megapixel digital cameras will be available for $100 US$ or
so. Why bother with today's 6MP cameras in the future, when for $100 you
can have a handy and compact cell phone with 16 MP camera built-in? (per
National Semiconductor's CEO, makers of Foveon's 16MP chips, on prices)
Seventh, today's DSLR are transitional cameras, designed to help the OEM
mfgers (nikon, canon..) make $$ and develop digital camera technologies
while retaining their market share and user base. Some of these OEMs are
not going to survive the digital camera industry shakeout (i.e., those
$100 16 MP disposables). Will Nikon, or Canon, or Ricoh.. still be around?
Eight, the digital sensors are limited by physics (noise, capture area..)
in size, probably won't get much smaller per Carver Mead of Foveon fame
(Foveon's 16 MP is 22x22mm size). This means we don't need big lenses of
high resolution, but smaller lenses (22x22mm coverage) with less glass and
lower cost, capable of matching the 50 lpmm resolution of the current
digital sensor technology. You don't need zeiss glass or $$ to do that!
In other words, future 16MP cameras are likely to NOT use today's 35mm
lenses, let alone medium format ;-) Expect a small zoom perhaps, fixed
lens mount etc. with digital zoom
Ninth, today's MF and 35mm DSLR with full size chips will lose out to the
much lower price high volume 16 MP chip cameras. Who wants to carry MF
camera with 16MP back or 35mm DSLR (6 or 11 MP) bagful when a shirt pocket
camera will deliver same resolution 16MP images? When Foveon's 22x22mm
chip is $10 for 16 MP, how many will want to spend thousands of $ for a
larger area chip with the same resolution? It will be much cheaper to
switch to the smaller, more convenient digicam. 35mm gear to the closet..
Tenth, 16 MP will be the "sweet spot" for digicams. Most folks will get a
good enough 11x14" print, and only 1% of current minilab prints are 8x10"
in size or larger anyway. So the benefits of a 64 MP or larger sensor will
be a hard sell to this volume market. If anything, the larger file sizes
will mean longer uploads for no increase in on-screen quality, fewer
images per memory stick or drive etc. So larger sensors will be much more
costly for those serious digital camera users wanting higher image
quality.
=====
On the other hand, improvements in abysmal scanner technology of today
will make it possible to capture the high frequency (high
contrast/resolution) data captured on film with today's lenses. The gap
between digital and film images, which today is only really obvious with
very good drum/laser scanners, will become obvious to even the digi-ratti
Improved digital printers and scanners may make the superiority of film
and film based image prints obvious over limited resolution 16 MP
digicams, just as a good enlarger makes the difference between an 800 ISO
film 35mm image from a disposable camera versus a medium format shot
obvious...
Films will improve, become more sensitive and linear (cf AGFA's 10X faster
formic film technology), and open a new range of high quality low light
capabilities with today's lenses (e.g., 1000 ISO/ASA speed with 100 ISO
grain). see http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/emulsionsphoto.html
====
The bigger threat to serious digital photography is serious video digital
photography. People are buying digital video cameras, and using them to
create those photos they need for prints, email to family, and so on. Many
new mini-DV cameras have both digital tape and memory stick media options
to make all this easier. While the mini-DV camera pixel equiv. is modest,
it is more than enough for most web and email images. Again, keep in mind
89% of digicam users today NEVER make a print, per PMAI statistics.
the second point is that if 89% never make a print, only 11% have ever
made a digital print from their digital photos. In other words, very few
of these users of digital cameras needs anything more than a webcam
quality for email photos and web use. So how will you sell them kilobuck
serious digital still cameras in the future, when they don't need 'em and
aren't pushing the quality of the cameras they have now?
=====
So here's what I think is going to happen in the mid-future.
There is going to be a shakeout of the digital (still) camera making
industry. Corp. HQ is going to insist on seeing some profits after a
decade+ of investments in losing money to buy market share. The flip side
is that most of today's DSLRs and digicams are going to be orphans as
their makers drop out when only a few "winners" emerge after shakeout.
Low cost 16 MP digital cameras, of recycled/disposable $100-ish prices,
will displace today's high end digital cameras in most user hands (those
89% of current digicam buyers, for example, and most of us wanting only
11x14" or even 20x24" prints max.). These cameras will be small, with
optics matched to the sensor size and (low 50 lpmm) resolution limits.
In other words, our old DSLRs and 35mm/MF lenses will be behemoth sized in
comparison, and folks will not want to lug them around. Full format
(24x36mm or 56x56mm) sensors will be very pricey, due to low volumes, and
yield results only marginally better than the low cost 16MP cameras at
typical print sizes.
Similarly, 64MP will be better than 16MP, but not as evident at typical
print sizes and viewing distances, while size of camera and lenses and
weight will be much larger.
Most digital users will want both a video and still image camera, for
graduation and all that. Since most images are not printed but posted or
emailed, the resolution can be modest and still displace much more costly
and better quality DSLRs, even full format ones ;-)
Where does this leave digital still photography? The vast majority will
be using cell phone and/or $100 16 MP disposable cameras to capture images
as good as today's MF backs or best Kodak/Canon DSLRs. That's the good
news.
The bad news is that there won't be enough of a demand to develop 64MP and
produce in millions needed to get volumes up and costs down to make larger
sensors (beyond 64 MP?) as cheap as 16MP. At the 16 MP "sweet spot",
digicams will still be inferior to the quality of film cameras. This will
be more obvious as scanner technology evolves to capture the full range of
data in film, unlike today (unless you are using a drum scanner).
In short, I see digital video with still frame capabilities displacing
much of today's still digital DSLR and digicam use for most consumers. For
those wanting still images, 90% of us for web and email use only (no
prints), the future disposable $100 16 MP digicams with small matched
lenses will fit the bill.
This doesn't leave enough market potential from serious digital still
photography users to justify the cost of developing ($100+ millions for
cameras, similarly for chips) larger sensors. Instead, larger areas of
film in MF and LF cameras will be used in place of larger (low sales
volume) digital sensors, along with low cost scanner technology, to
produce higher quality "digital" images and digital prints at an
affordable cost ;-)
So the future of serious digital still photography is, er, film ;-)
grins bobm
--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Tony Spadaro
reality checks.
Every arguement you made should have insured the survival of the
Daguerrotype and the quick death of the wet plate. It ended up taking 30
years for the wet plate to fade away, and (surprize surprize) it was not
replaced with a faster, easier to scan version of the daguerrotype, but the
dry plate.
Evolution does occasionally go retro - the whales are living proof of
that, but evolution does not go STRAIGHT backwards (ie the wales are NOT
fish)
If current digital tech is replaced it will not be by film.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote in message
news:b9jsaq$535$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu...
Mark M
> to show you why the days of "serious" digital photography are numbered ;-)
Good Gravy!
I hope--for your sake--that you are joking here...
...because I have never seen such a collection of poorly conceived arguments
on this NG.
I'm inclined to think you are joking...so I'll leave with that hope.
stan
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> How about a different approach to the film is dead debate? ;-) I'm going
> to show you why the days of "serious" digital photography are numbered ;-)
You funny guy!! A spin on Tony's thread? I couldn't even read it all! Good
Grief!
I/m going back to glass plates. This digital vs film stuff is boring
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Skip Middleton
me another one, Kodak and Fuji made money from me by selling film, and the
camera store (theoretically) made money doing my processing. But once I
have the digital camera that does what I want it to, and the prerequisite
memory cards, there's not much else for me to buy. Nobody is going to sell
me film, I'm going to do my own "processing," Hmmmm...
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote in message
news:b9jsaq$535$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu...
>
Lisa Horton
backup media, CD, DVD, whatever. Lots of backup media...
Lisa
Mark M
"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:3EBD93E8...@lisahorton.net...
> Ah, but you'll still need to keep buying ever larger hard drives, and
> backup media, CD, DVD, whatever. Lots of backup media...
>
> Lisa
This part is true.
I just spent about $600 adding various storage media--after buying my
10D...and discovering just how quickly the GBs add up.
Annika1980
>How about a different approach to the film is dead debate? ;-) I'm going
>to show you why the days of "serious" digital photography are numbered ;-)
Your whole argument presupposes that there will soon be a 16MP chip for $10.
Call me when that happens cause until then, it's all bogus.
Mark Roberts
>I'm going to show you why the days of "serious" digital photography
>are numbered ;-)
Well of course they're NUMBERED!
What do you think "digital" means, anyway?!
11101101011000101000011
:-P
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Scott Schuckert
Jeremy <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote:
> Will this result in film-based photography becoming so expensive as to be
> prohibitive for most people?
Gee, thanks. You've given me something else to worry about. Somehow I
don't see a digital adapter for my Leica IIIg.
-- Scott Schuckert
Scott Elliot
and that todays markets and technology may not be much of an indication of
what state of the art or costs will be be in another 20 years.
I doubt very much though that film will have a big part in the future.
How long will it be before various sized thin screen displays replace
printed magazines, snap-shot albums from our latest vacation and framed
prints on the wall? Will fine art photos be replaced by truly three
dimensional holoscopic images?
The only thing we can be certain of is that today's technology is going to
change.
Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot/
Tony Spadaro
for ink. Kodak cannot stop the flow of digital products, so they must either
join in or dedicate themselves to shoring up a market that will prolly fade
faster than a SX70 print on a sunny porch.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Skip Middleton" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Fngva.5025$Pc5.2464@fed1read01...
Tony Spadaro
those cameras that are still fairly common, and a bunch of guys who adapt
those adaptors to cameras that are not common.
With a Leica it should be quite simple, since the entire back comes off
anyway.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Scott Schuckert" <scot...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:100520032320395142%scot...@comcast.net...
Jim Hutchison
today are the biggest tree killers, so I wouldn't be quick to forecast
a world devoid of analog medium.
Things WILL evolve, and I like Bob's point that the current slew of
DLSRs may very well be a transitional technology. I don't think there
are enough pros out there willing to trade up every couple years at
the cost of 3 to 8 grand to support the current trend.
But then again, I upgrade my PC every 3 years for about that price...
hmmm.
Maybe photography will get swallowed up into the world's latest caste
system: the technocratic society. Keep up or become an ignoramus.
This 'll be an interesting ride...
Jim Hutchison
http://www.jamesphotography.ca
On Sun, 11 May 2003 04:55:13 GMT, "Scott Elliot" <sel...@telus.net>
wrote:
Tony Spadaro
using it (Unless you count the half dozen prints I've sold in the past 2
years). For someone making reasonable money off a digital camera it would be
a tax deductable trade to boot.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Jim Hutchison" <ja...@jamesphotography.ca> wrote in message
news:aevrbvoi18rn8e7gv...@4ax.com...
lamebert
there are sizeable amounts of people using both.
I have just bought a camera an analouge slr and am a complete novice but
surely there are pro's and con's of using either system and as such there
will allways be a market for both technologies ?
what do you guys think? or does it have to be film or digital?
daz
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 06/05/03
dslr
>
> Does anyone here think film can and may live alongside digital as long as
> there are sizeable amounts of people using both.
Of course it can, and should, irrespective of the number of users of
either medium.
> I have just bought a camera an analouge slr and am a complete novice but
> surely there are pro's and con's of using either system and as such there
> will allways be a market for both technologies ?
>
> what do you guys think? or does it have to be film or digital?
Not in the least, the choice is there for everyone to use their
preference depending on their need.
--
regards,
dslr
Rodeo Clown
news:b9lcth$k9g45$1...@ID-156449.news.dfncis.de...
> Does anyone here think film can and may live alongside digital as long as
> there are sizeable amounts of people using both.
>
> I have just bought a camera an analouge slr and am a complete novice but
> surely there are pro's and con's of using either system and as such there
> will allways be a market for both technologies ?
>
> what do you guys think? or does it have to be film or digital?
>
Skip Middleton
least at this point...
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:3EBD93E8...@lisahorton.net...
Skip Middleton
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oJkva.21729$Lm2.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
jriegle
and those that don't : )
Mark Roberts <ma...@robertstech.com> wrote in message
news:TBhva.13394$rV2....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
Don Stauffer
still have a digital camera that works, and that I can use indefinitely.
With a film camera, if the film format becomes obsolete, you are in a
real bind. As long as batteries do not become obsolete, my digicam will
keep working. Since my printers are used for other things than
photography, I don't see them becoming obsolete.
I fear the obsolescence of my digicam more than I do my 120 or 4 x 5
cameras. Already hard to find, and expensive, 120 processing.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
jriegle
> to show you why the days of "serious" digital photography are numbered ;-)
>
> First, nearly everybody making digital cameras is losing money doing so.
> They have lost money, year after year (cf. Kodak, where film profits
> support losses in digital camera divisions ;-). Some major players like
> AGFA have already dropped out of making digital cameras and scanners at
> a loss to focus on profitable film mfgering.
>
> Second, nearly everybody in the USA who wants a decent digital camera
> already has one (i.e., 3 MP are now $150 New in Box). Who is left to buy?
> Given 89% never make prints, just email photos on web, why do they need to
> "upgrade" to newer and higher megapixel cameras when they never do prints?
>
> Third, sales of older used digital cameras highlights the huge
> depreciation losses, often 75% to 90% in just 2-3 years. This realization
> is going to make it harder for second time buyers to be as enthusiastic
> about upgrading to a higher $$ new digital camera, knowing they'll likely
> lose another 75-90% of their investment again in a few years. Once burned,
> twice shy...
Cars depreciate fast too, but people come back after new ones. My 3MP
digital is almost 2 years old. In 1 or two years, I plan to get a better one
and so on.
> Fourth, an industry shakeout is pending. Corp. are losing $$, cutting
> costs, including loss leading divisions like digital photography (Cf.
> agfa). As the losers become more apparent, we are going to see a lot of
> "orphaned" digital cameras too. No support, no service, no driver upgrades
There may be a shakeout. As in the past, the market will seek its own level.
> Fifth, cell phone cameras will meet the needs of those 89% of current
> digital camera users who never make a print (per PMAI statistics), which
> is to say, 90%+ of current digicam buyers/owners. They're going to send
> photos via their webpages or email anyway, so don't need prints. Nor do
> they need huge megapixel counts and interchangeable lenses and all that.
>
> The above is a critical point; 90% of the digicam users today - and more
> in the cellphone camera future - don't need or want prints. These folks
> will NOT be in the market for a "serious" digital still camera.
I think a higher percentage of people will want a camera that can deliver a
good quality image suitable for at least 6x4 prints and maybe the odd
enlargment.
> Sixth, Foveon's 16MP chip should shortly hit the volumes needed to drive
> prices under $100, and eventually under $10/chip. So disposable or
> recycleable 16 megapixel digital cameras will be available for $100 US$ or
> so. Why bother with today's 6MP cameras in the future, when for $100 you
> can have a handy and compact cell phone with 16 MP camera built-in? (per
> National Semiconductor's CEO, makers of Foveon's 16MP chips, on prices)
Realistically, a 16mp chip will probably never go into a cell phone do to
the size needed. Sending a quality 16mp file with any speed is going to
require some intense bandwidth. Don't look for this anytime soon.
It takes a lot more than just a sensor to make a camera. I think the camera
makers would be delighted to get chips for $10 a pop. They could put it into
a package and sell a decent camera for $300-$400 and make a nice profit.
> Seventh, today's DSLR are transitional cameras, designed to help the OEM
> mfgers (nikon, canon..) make $$ and develop digital camera technologies
> while retaining their market share and user base. Some of these OEMs are
> not going to survive the digital camera industry shakeout (i.e., those
> $100 16 MP disposables). Will Nikon, or Canon, or Ricoh.. still be around?
>
> Eight, the digital sensors are limited by physics (noise, capture area..)
> in size, probably won't get much smaller per Carver Mead of Foveon fame
> (Foveon's 16 MP is 22x22mm size). This means we don't need big lenses of
> high resolution, but smaller lenses (22x22mm coverage) with less glass and
> lower cost, capable of matching the 50 lpmm resolution of the current
> digital sensor technology. You don't need zeiss glass or $$ to do that!
15 years ago they said they were running out of room to make chips smaller
due to physical limitations. Now there talking sub micron technology. I
don't know if the chip size can be smaller for Foveon or the others, but I
they'll figure it out.
> In other words, future 16MP cameras are likely to NOT use today's 35mm
> lenses, let alone medium format ;-) Expect a small zoom perhaps, fixed
> lens mount etc. with digital zoom
>
> Ninth, today's MF and 35mm DSLR with full size chips will lose out to the
> much lower price high volume 16 MP chip cameras. Who wants to carry MF
> camera with 16MP back or 35mm DSLR (6 or 11 MP) bagful when a shirt pocket
> camera will deliver same resolution 16MP images? When Foveon's 22x22mm
> chip is $10 for 16 MP, how many will want to spend thousands of $ for a
> larger area chip with the same resolution? It will be much cheaper to
> switch to the smaller, more convenient digicam. 35mm gear to the closet..
>
> Tenth, 16 MP will be the "sweet spot" for digicams. Most folks will get a
> good enough 11x14" print, and only 1% of current minilab prints are 8x10"
> in size or larger anyway. So the benefits of a 64 MP or larger sensor will
> be a hard sell to this volume market. If anything, the larger file sizes
> will mean longer uploads for no increase in on-screen quality, fewer
> images per memory stick or drive etc. So larger sensors will be much more
> costly for those serious digital camera users wanting higher image
> quality.
Just like sheet film and MF, higher resolution will find a home in the pro
markets who need outright resolution in large prints. It will take a hell of
a lot of MP to out resolve 8x10 sheet film!
John
Bob Fowler
news:b9lfta$l0g$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Exactly. Just as video didn't kill film for the production of television,
digital won't kill film for still images.
--
Bob Fowler
fowlerph...@verizon.net
http://mysite.verizon.net/fowler/index.htm
pioe[rmv]
> Second, nearly everybody in the USA who wants a decent digital camera
> already has one (i.e., 3 MP are now $150 New in Box). Who is left to buy?
> Given 89% never make prints, just email photos on web, why do they need to
> "upgrade" to newer and higher megapixel cameras when they never do prints?
1. Because many will want prints in the future even if they have not
discovered the possibility at this moment. Remember, it is now digital
has become affordable to the masses. Nobody should expect the majority
to jump on prints at once when they get a digital between their hands.
2. Because the difference in quality is easily seen whether the images
are displayed on web or printed out.
> Fifth, cell phone cameras will meet the needs of those 89% of current
> digital camera users who never make a print (per PMAI statistics), which
> is to say, 90%+ of current digicam buyers/owners. They're going to send
> photos via their webpages or email anyway, so don't need prints. Nor do
> they need huge megapixel counts and interchangeable lenses and all that.
Without large sensors, interchangeable lenses and optical SLR
viewfinders one can neither work seriously nor obtain top notch
results. I would never buy any of today's digital compact cameras, and
even when they improve they cannot measure up to the SLR's of the future.
> The above is a critical point; 90% of the digicam users today - and more
> in the cellphone camera future - don't need or want prints. These folks
> will NOT be in the market for a "serious" digital still camera.
Yes, they will, because serious cameras are going to yield brilliant
results. High quality is as recognizable on the web as in prints.
> Sixth, Foveon's 16MP chip should shortly hit the volumes needed to drive
> prices under $100, and eventually under $10/chip. So disposable or
> recycleable 16 megapixel digital cameras will be available for $100 US$ or
> so. Why bother with today's 6MP cameras in the future, when for $100 you
> can have a handy and compact cell phone with 16 MP camera built-in? (per
> National Semiconductor's CEO, makers of Foveon's 16MP chips, on prices)
A cell phone camera can never be a serious photographic tool for high
quality imagery. As digital quality increases, more people will want
and demand the kind of performance obtainable by SLR's.
> Seventh, today's DSLR are transitional cameras, designed to help the OEM
> mfgers (nikon, canon..) make $$ and develop digital camera technologies
> while retaining their market share and user base. Some of these OEMs are
> not going to survive the digital camera industry shakeout (i.e., those
> $100 16 MP disposables). Will Nikon, or Canon, or Ricoh.. still be around?
There is no reason why present DSLR cameras cannot be the pattern of
the future. There is no substitute for a large sensor, interchangeable
lenses and the possibiity of using a wide range of accessories. There
is no substiture for the compatibility with film bodies either.
> Eight, the digital sensors are limited by physics (noise, capture area..)
> in size, probably won't get much smaller per Carver Mead of Foveon fame
> (Foveon's 16 MP is 22x22mm size). This means we don't need big lenses of
> high resolution, but smaller lenses (22x22mm coverage) with less glass and
> lower cost, capable of matching the 50 lpmm resolution of the current
> digital sensor technology. You don't need zeiss glass or $$ to do that!
> In other words, future 16MP cameras are likely to NOT use today's 35mm
> lenses, let alone medium format ;-) Expect a small zoom perhaps, fixed
> lens mount etc. with digital zoom
This reasoning is flawed. First; for the highest quality, zoom lenses
are not up to the task. Second, current sensors will be superseded by
new ones that can resolve much more lp/mm. And we are going to see the
difference.
> Ninth, today's MF and 35mm DSLR with full size chips will lose out to the
> much lower price high volume 16 MP chip cameras. Who wants to carry MF
> camera with 16MP back or 35mm DSLR (6 or 11 MP) bagful when a shirt pocket
> camera will deliver same resolution 16MP images? When Foveon's 22x22mm
> chip is $10 for 16 MP, how many will want to spend thousands of $ for a
> larger area chip with the same resolution? It will be much cheaper to
> switch to the smaller, more convenient digicam. 35mm gear to the closet..
It is of little importance if a camera can go into a pocket, if its
performance is appreciably less than that of the SLR. Which it will
remain. One of the unambiguous effects of technology is that people,
when they become more knowledgable about what quality can be obtained,
will choose the better products, which give higher performance.
> Tenth, 16 MP will be the "sweet spot" for digicams.
Perhaps, but there is much more to an image than its number of pixels.
The quality of these pixels will be improved more and more in the
future. Within a single MP range, the room for improvement is nearly
infinite.
> very good drum/laser scanners, will become obvious to even the digi-ratti
> Improved digital printers and scanners may make the superiority of film
> and film based image prints obvious over limited resolution 16 MP
> digicams, just as a good enlarger makes the difference between an 800 ISO
> film 35mm image from a disposable camera versus a medium format shot
> obvious...
This is what is interesting: What is the ultimate future of film?
> Most digital users will want both a video and still image camera, for
> graduation and all that. Since most images are not printed but posted or
> emailed, the resolution can be modest and still displace much more costly
> and better quality DSLRs, even full format ones ;-)
No, it won't. High quality will be discernible regardless of what
medium we are talking about. A 800x600 file from a digital SLR, and
properly post processed and sharpened, will be far superior to the
output of any present and future digital contact. This is what people
will recognize more and more, and a significant number will always
choose the SLR construction over other alternatives when they want to
create images of high quality.
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
Alan Browne
Very good posting. Saving it. I don't agree with all of it; I think
there will be a few digital giants (Canon in front) for the serious
photographer; and I believe that the technology will continue to improve
at perhaps a slower pace as pixel counts and densities go up.
I'm not convinced that lens resolution of today's best film cameras is
needed 'cause the capture resolution won't be needed to get the same end
result. There is less "noise" of all kinds in the digital image process
through to the end print, and as such less lp/mm at capture is needed
and so less high end glass is needed. And increasingly sophisticated
software will "fill in" the gaps. (Whether you like this or not).
20-30 MP for a "35 mm" format will give results that will put Provia
100F to shame.
MO
Cheers,
Alan
Lewis Lang
> What do you think "digital" means, anyway?!
>
> :-P
Now, now, n**d f*r f**l l*ng**g* ;-)
(Now, now, no need for foul language) ...**PS!!! :-)
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
NickC
lamebert wrote:
> Does anyone here think film can and may live alongside digital as long as
> there are sizeable amounts of people using both.
>
> I have just bought a camera an analouge slr and am a complete novice but
> surely there are pro's and con's of using either system and as such there
> will allways be a market for both technologies ?
>
> what do you guys think? or does it have to be film or digital?
>
> daz
We have all seen advancements made in technology displacing many
existing marketed products, especially in the field of electronics.
With respect to photographic equipment, There are user advantages
gained with digicams as well as there are advantages gained when using
film. It would be a simple matter to conclude that there is a place
for both.
As of now, I think that camera manufacturers have a tough sell effort
to convince the masses to circle file or sell their conventional
cameras and buy digcams. As long as we are dealing in speculation, we
may as well continue considering what may become common place in the
future. With that thought in mind, lets categorize potential camera users.
1- There are those who have an every day interest in photography:
a. The pro (which includes self and corporate employment).
b. The hobbyist.
Let's face the fact that there is division within the ranks of these
groups and neither the pro or the hobbyist spends the necessary money
to keep the photography industry generally in the black; regardless of
which photo system is used. Therefore, for practical purposes neither
one of these will be influential in determining the direction camera
manufactures will take.
2- There are those who are somewhat interested in photography.
a. There is the gadget interested type.
b. The traveler/occasional picture taker.
These groups encompass those who may find themselves being temporarily
interest in digicams primarily because it is new and interesting. Some
actually believing that once having a digicam, henceforth, all
pictures taken will be free of additional cost. After a while, the
newness wears off and the once new gadget is assigned a place among
the other gadgets collected.
Also in this category is a group who are interested in picture taking
but not to the extent of spending large sums of money just to take
pictures. These are collectively people who are well satisfied with
taking snapshots and having small prints made. Ample use of one hour
labs is satisfactory for their endeavors.
Regardless of which group may be interested in picture taking, those
in this category are also divided and neither are avowed endorsers of
either photographic system to the extent necessary to support large
expenditures.
Within this categorical grouping, the majority of equipment users may
well be satisfied with 3 to 5 megapixel digicams of the point and
shoot type as well as those who would buy inexpensive film cameras,
such as the point and shoot type or the Canon Rebel or a Nikon N75
interchangeable lens type.
3- Now we come to the final category of picture takers; all falling
under the heading of those exhibiting photographic indifference, yet
having a camera laying around somewhere for that eventual time when
they may opt to take special occasion pictures. It's this category of
people who keep film in production. Considering the millions perhaps
hundreds of millions of film cameras existing and, when necessary,
being replaced by inexpensive like kind cameras, film will remain very
much in demand.
This category of picture takers are not big spenders in photographic
equipment and expensive digicams will not be at the top of the list
for camera replacement.
So in conclusion, we can make a guesstimation that if the makers of
digicams continually lose money in attempts to get an indifferent
public to acquire digicams, digicam design and production may reach a
plateau where further large technical investments may not be made,
except for specialized areas, and costs will be adjusted accordingly.
For the foreseeable future, long after we who are discussing the
situation now are long gone, film will be where the cash flow exists
for the photographic industry.
Nick
Tony Spadaro
fade to obscurity. There will still be film users but they will be few and
the emulsions available will be few also.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"lamebert" <darren...@bluecarrots.com> wrote in message
news:b9lcth$k9g45$1...@ID-156449.news.dfncis.de...
pioe[rmv]
> I'm not convinced that lens resolution of today's best film cameras is
> needed 'cause the capture resolution won't be needed to get the same end
> result. There is less "noise" of all kinds in the digital image process
> through to the end print, and as such less lp/mm at capture is needed
> and so less high end glass is needed. And increasingly sophisticated
> software will "fill in" the gaps. (Whether you like this or not). 20-30
> MP for a "35 mm" format will give results that will put Provia 100F to
> shame.
The flaw in this reasoning is the implicit mistaken belief that our
eyes cannot easily see the superior rendering of detail in high grade
glass constructions. All things being equal, lenses with higher
resolution are going to provide visibly better results irrespective of
pixel counts. As sensors continue to improve, the output will of
course improve too.
Then, even with the most sophisticated CCD/CMOS or whatever imaging
chip if any will eventually prevail, further improvement is still
possible and worthwhile through glass of fine quality. Software cannot
ever create detail that was never there, and the most advanced
interpolation algorithms are no substitute for detail. So megapixels
and sensors are but part of the picture - the optics will continue to
be as significant as ever. This is a major reason why many future
photographers will start out with simple cameras and move up to better
imaging tools as they learn the subtle and not so subtle differences
in visible performance. Just as they do today.
drsmith
Mark M <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
>news:3EBD93E8...@lisahorton.net...
>> Ah, but you'll still need to keep buying ever larger hard drives, and
>> backup media, CD, DVD, whatever. Lots of backup media...
>>
>> Lisa
>
>This part is true.
>I just spent about $600 adding various storage media--after buying my
>10D...and discovering just how quickly the GBs add up.
>
First - let me politely point out that a trimmed post is beautiful thing,
indeed. Makes it much easier for those of us using shell accounts.
Second - I'd like to point out that cost/mb of storage is going down and
very quickly at that. In 10 years, we'll be talking about buying a
40 terrabyte drive for $50 if things keep going the way they have - and
the RIAA will still be saying that the only reason we need that storage
is so that we can pirate the crappy music we can hear for free on every
other radio station. Er - that's really another subject/newsgroup - sorry.
Point is - I don't see space as a problem and I don't think the storage
companies are going to really make very much money off us photogs - at
least not nearly as much as the photofinisher and film companies do.
--drsmith
Mark M
"drsmith" <drsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9m7qr$sia$1...@pyrite.mv.net...
> In article <6ygva.28289$eJ2.23506@fed1read07>,
> Mark M <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
> >news:3EBD93E8...@lisahorton.net...
> >> Ah, but you'll still need to keep buying ever larger hard drives, and
> >> backup media, CD, DVD, whatever. Lots of backup media...
> >>
> >> Lisa
> >
> >This part is true.
> >I just spent about $600 adding various storage media--after buying my
> >10D...and discovering just how quickly the GBs add up.
> >
>
> First - let me politely point out that a trimmed post is beautiful thing,
> indeed. Makes it much easier for those of us using shell accounts.
Your point is well-taken, but it's hard to please everybody...
...Some people actually complain in the reverse--that they don't know the
context of the comments because of too much snipping. I think that would
only apply to people using readers that don't sort by conversation (?).
> Second - I'd like to point out that cost/mb of storage is going down and
> very quickly at that.
We are in total agreement here.
I just paid half the $$ for three times the storage I bought a year ago.
>In 10 years, we'll be talking about buying a
> 40 terrabyte drive for $50 if things keep going the way they have - and
> the RIAA will still be saying that the only reason we need that storage
> is so that we can pirate the crappy music we can hear for free on every
> other radio station. Er - that's really another subject/newsgroup -
sorry.
1 10 RAW file = about 3 songs...unless you convert it to .tif, which makes
it about 8-10 songs. :)
>
> Point is - I don't see space as a problem and I don't think the storage
> companies are going to really make very much money off us photogs - at
> least not nearly as much as the photofinisher and film companies do.
I wasn't posting my comment as a knock against digital, rather simply a
recognition that as the MPs go up, so do issues surrounding storage.
Bruce Murphy
> > First - let me politely point out that a trimmed post is beautiful thing,
> > indeed. Makes it much easier for those of us using shell accounts.
>
> Your point is well-taken, but it's hard to please everybody...
> ...Some people actually complain in the reverse--that they don't know the
> context of the comments because of too much snipping. I think that would
> only apply to people using readers that don't sort by conversation (?).
Or who don't particularly want to fetch back all of yesterday's
articles to figure out what it was you are talking about. Sure,
sensible newsreaders make that easier, but it's still a pain. ASsuming
the article is still /on/ a local server.
A trimmed post is one in which all /irrelevant/ quoted text has been
removed. When this is done properly, people don't complain about the
trimming.
B>
Lisa Horton
drsmith wrote:
>
> In article <6ygva.28289$eJ2.23506@fed1read07>,
> Mark M <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
> >news:3EBD93E8...@lisahorton.net...
> >> Ah, but you'll still need to keep buying ever larger hard drives, and
> >> backup media, CD, DVD, whatever. Lots of backup media...
> >>
> >> Lisa
> >
> >This part is true.
> >I just spent about $600 adding various storage media--after buying my
> >10D...and discovering just how quickly the GBs add up.
> >
>
> Second - I'd like to point out that cost/mb of storage is going down and
> very quickly at that. In 10 years, we'll be talking about buying a
> 40 terrabyte drive for $50 if things keep going the way they have - and
> the RIAA will still be saying that the only reason we need that storage
> is so that we can pirate the crappy music we can hear for free on every
> other radio station. Er - that's really another subject/newsgroup - sorry.
Ah, Mr Smith, you entirely miss the point! The RIAA merely wants to
preserve for us the joyful honor of contributing to big media
profits. You wouldn't want all those file sharers to cause us to lose
that freedom would you? Everyone knows that the concept of "fair use"
rights for the public is an evil effort to impinge on the RIGHTS of
corporations!
>
> Point is - I don't see space as a problem and I don't think the storage
> companies are going to really make very much money off us photogs - at
> least not nearly as much as the photofinisher and film companies do.
I believe that you are correct, the trend of larger cheaper storage is
clear and persistent. Even though it's cheaper and bigger, you'll
still need to keep buying more though:)
Lisa
Jim Waggener
> The two will live side by side for a while. But film is eventually going
to
> fade to obscurity. There will still be film users but they will be few and
> the emulsions available will be few also.
kinda like "acrylic" paint and "oil" paint. Which do you think has the most
appeal?
One's really fast the other slow. Same image can be created by both. But
there is something about "oil on canvas" that is just richer, more saturated
and natural in color. See any comparison?
Tony Spadaro
tempura, or oil and any other type of paint. All are paint. No one in the
world does digital oil paintings -- unless you count Kincade's inkjet
prints.
Now take a look at the LP -- you do have some don't you? No? Well I still
have about 300 of them, and my summer project this year will be to turn the
most important 50 or so into CDs so I can hear them again after about 15
years of having them sit about unplayed.
How about typewriters? Got one? I haven't had one since 1985. IBM model
B. Gave it to the thrift shop.
I've still got a VHS VCR but my next purchase for recording off tv will
be a hard disc recorder. I'm just waiting for one of my VCRs to die. I'll
probably still keep and use one for another 5 to 10 years - until my VHS
collection is either replaced with DVDs or I can convert VHS to DVD
relatively easily.
People make dumb comparisons about there still being acoustic musical
instruments -- no good. Look at the method by which acoustic and electric
instruments are recorded. Tape is on the way out. Even the three little
studios in this area are digital all the way.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Jim Waggener" <ji...@visi.net> wrote in message
news:Y6zva.582$fb....@sydney.visi.net...
Bob Monaghan
yes, my argument does assume CMOS sensor prices will come down rapidly
with volume production (e.g., for cell phone cameras), just as with memory
chips (which use a similar CMOS process, and have followed the same curve)
it is a good assumption; Nat'l Semiconductor believes it too and is
betting on being able to get prices down to throwaway 16MP digicam levels:
from the New York Times article on the Foveon Chips archived at DPreview
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp
quoting (1):
Industry analysts say that the new technologies could affect much more
than still cameras. High-resolution images, if produced in quantities that
made the new generation of image-sensing chips cost only several dollars
apiece, could become a staple of cellular telephones and other hand- held
devices and might bring the cost of a consumer video camera below $100.
and (2):
Both companies' achievements have startled industry experts because the
new devices move far beyond the current industry standards for CMOS and
for C.C.D. cameras, which until now have been able to achieve resolutions
of 6 million pixels a square inch. The Foveon and Kodak sensors can pack
16.8 million pixels into a square inch.
and (3):
National Semiconductor executives said the company was planning to take
the technology that Foveon had developed for the priciest reaches of the
professional photography market and make it economical enough for some new
consumer electronics.
"National's interest is not in thousands of cameras a year but in hundreds
of millions of cameras a year," said Brian L. Halla, the company's
president and chief executive. "We could make the world's
highest-resolution throwaway digital camera and sell it for the price of a
similar Kodak system."
but (4):
Mr. Mead said that because of fundamental size limits in the wavelengths
of light, it is unlikely that future digital sensors will gain much
additional resolution.
end-quotes:
again, these statements by Carver Mead (noted IC fab designer etc.) and
National Semiconductor's CEO support some of the other points in my
posting,
viz.
first quote supports idea of 16MP CMOS chips at a few dollars apiece, and
wide use in cell phones (when published, no cell phones had cameras; now..)
second quote dooms need for 35mm sized lenses, as a 22x22mm sensor (approx
1" square) doesn't need big lenses, esp. if it going to be on a cellphone
third quote supports idea of disposable 16MP digital camera for price
similar to today's one-use film cameras (i.e., under $10? ;-)
fourth quote indicates we won't see smaller sensors because of
light/physics issues, so higher density (i.e., 64MP) sensors will have to
be bigger (e.g., ~2" square), meaning more costly and bigger lenses and
all that, as I noted...
again, you guys don't have to believe me, this is the published views (in
New York Times) of the leaders of the digital CMOS sensor revolution and a
major CMOS chip maker's CEO ;-)
Jim Waggener
> Yes I do. There is no difference between oil and acrylic paint, or oil and
> tempura, or oil and any other type of paint. All are paint. No one in the
> world does digital oil paintings -- unless you count Kincade's inkjet
> prints.
Com'on Tony..you really believe that..oil and acrylic are the same?
I think you are more informed than such a statement.
Bob Monaghan
late at night, I'd bet ;-) Also lots of their investors ;-)
Given that the digital users are NOT making prints (again, per PMAI stats,
89% of digital camera users/owners NEVER make ANY prints), doesn't that
mean that photo industry revenues will collapse? You can buy paper from
anybody, not just Kodak. Ditto printer inks. Where does that leave Kodak?
Maybe that's why its stock is down? ;-) and Polaroid in bankruptcy etc.?
How about those minilabs. If you can print out 4x6" or 5x7" prints faster
and cheaper at home, when you want them (rarely, it seems, for most of us)
then what does the minilab at the mall do for you? Will they survive too?
Let's try to be optimistic here ;-). Serious amateur photography, as with
many hobbies, has been on the decline since the late 1970s, as reflected
in lower sales of SLRs and so on. It will take some time for current
hobbyists to die off ;-) But will the market support our hobby needs?
What if those millions of 16MP digital cameras in cell phones and so
on opens up people to the joys of taking photos and sharing them? What if
1% of U.S. cell phone users get into photography in a more serious way? or
2%? or 5%?
Even with 1%, you'd have about five times the number of serious amateur
photographers you do today in the USA. If only 20% of that number take up
traditional film based photography, then you have doubled the number of
active amateur photographers using film, and so the market for film
products...
the real explanation for the "digital frenzy" is that digital still
cameras represent 4% of the camera sales, but 40% of the cashflow. Wow!
the real problem here, IMHO for camera stores, is that the markups are
tiny (10% or so typical?). Moreover, the accessories sales are not in
things like extra lenses and enlargers but color printers and memory chips
- not things the traditional camera store knows how to sell in competition
with the big discounters, right? That's one reason the old style camera
stores are in big trouble - the digital "frenzy" doesn't leave mind-share
for pushing traditional camera gear like medium format to upgraders etc.
Kodak expects their film sales to peak in the next year or so (see 10Ks)
and then decline, due to digital competitors. The good news is that film
technology is "mature", meaning it is a cash cow, and they (kodak, Fuji..)
have already made the investment in production facilities. Film will
likely continue to be available for decades, since the sunk costs are
already there in the factory and technology. There are also millions of
users in the third world and millions of amateur photographers worldwide
which will keep consumer films available.
The issue may be more problematic if you are using any unpopular or
specialty emulsions - which is to say, anything but color print films
which are 96% of the consumer market ;-) And as a poster has noted, you
can anticipate a large sensor digital insert (silicon vaporware? ;-) which
might replace film in today's cameras, at a lot higher cost than the
standard (16MP?) cellphone camera?
But my belief is that digital still photography's biggest competitor won't
be film, it will be digital video with frame grabbing capabilities. Check
out any graduation ceremony at a local college or school, and you will see
what I mean ;-) If 90%+ of the users don't need prints, just email photos
for webuse, they will be happy with this solution, over a standalone still
digital camera. Again, that's why I think still digital cameras of high
resolution will become a niche market relative to millions of cellphone
cameras and digital video cameras in use...
Bob Monaghan
again, thanks for some good points and ideas...
"disposable" 35mm film cameras (the $7.95 kind) are actually recycled for
many times use in a new plastic case; the film is consumed and replaced.
Now imagine a digital camera using a CMOS chip (16MP per Nat'l Semicond.'s
CEO) that is in the same price range. No film to replace, a battery to
recharge, dump the data and pass back to the consumer while doing the
prints in the local lab. That model might work out, if they can wean the
infrequent users and not tie up big $$ in cameras in closets rarely used;-)
I do think we are going to see an industry shakeout, both in digital and
film, if things don't pick up in the general economy. For example,
hasselblad was recently sold to one of its japanese distributors (not
kidding). There are a number of name brands which are slowing or
reconsidering digital cameras, and film cameras as well (e.g., ricoh,
contax, minolta etc.). Other film camera OEMs have rebadged digital
cameras (e.g., leica, hasselblad's H1/digital back..) to raise cashflow.
the latest shutterbug had one (1) brief two column inch blurb on recent
medium format film camera/lenses offerings at PMA as part of their PMA
review. If there was any LF stuff, I missed it. Even the 35mm film
camera/lenses stuff was quite sparse. Everything was digital, digital ;-)
I think things have gone too far, with the pendulum swinging towards
digital and away from film. The current market is still based on profits
made on film, since there are few if any profits from digital still
camera production (isn't Kodak losing over $100 US$ for every digital
camera it sells, per some postings?).
I do expect some players to survive the shakeout. We might have Chinese
Lucky film, Ekfe film from Europe, maybe Fuji-dak (after Fuji buys Kodak
;-). Maybe Canon will still make 35mm film cameras, while Nikon makes
stepper systems for IC makers? ;-) Similar things have happened in the
past, and will happen now too ;-) I don't think film will disappear in any
of our lifetimes, though it might have to be mail ordered as you note,
instead of local minilab pickups. But we'll manage...
Tony Spadaro
an art here, but a capture and storage medium.
LP -- gone
Video Tape -- going
Carbon paper -- yeah, right
Audio tape???? Not at the record stores in my town.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Jim Waggener" <ji...@visi.net> wrote in message
news:9PBva.583$fb....@sydney.visi.net...
Bob Monaghan
Hi Don,
yes, 120 film processing is harder to find, and more costly as you usually
end up in a pro lab. But most of the other stuff is sent out to regional
labs, and you can often get things done there mail order rather cheaply
(see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/processing.html for tips)
you raise a big point of future problems, the issue of repairs and
service. The Magnuson-Moss Consumer Protection Act of 1976 (as amended)
gives only about 7 years support after dropping a product. The reality is
that even if I wanted to get my original Kodak digital camera fixed, it
would cost more (at Kodak) than the camera is worth (4+ years later), much
more than a working model could be bought on EBAY, and the same money
would buy today double the resolution etc.
so if digital cameras are repairable, they are often not economic to
repair. Disposable 16MP cameras in the future will make this worse, yes?
;-)
Many film cameras are also unrepairable; I have several donor bodies for
both my Nikon FEs and bronicas because I want to have parts to keep my
favorites running into the future. On the Nikon FE, you can't buy the
often bad flex-circuit board, as Nikon no longer has parts. Similarly,
some older LCDs have problems that are becoming an issue there too ;-(
On the other hand, mechanical parts for many older cameras can be
salvaged from donor bodies, or even fabricated if needed. And LF cameras
are usually supportable or repairable for many reasons, with hundred year
old cameras carrying on today as when new ;-)
so I think the repair issue is going to doom many modest priced and better
digital SLRs in the future, further reducing the value of those
"investments". Then again, as a certified electronics technician too, I
have seen the collapse of the consumer electronics business too, so this
could be deja vu all over again ;-)
Bob Monaghan
see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp article from
New York Times quoting Carver Mead and Natl Semi's CEO on disposable 16MP
cameras and cellphone versions in the hundreds of millions quotes etc.
;-O)
I have a number of electronics items which I have not replaced, simply
because they are sufficient for my needs (e.g., DVMs, CD player etc.).
The vast majority of folks will stick with what works for the least $$,
and I agree with you that for most, a mid-range 3+MP camera of today does
all 90%+ of the users (who never do digital prints anyway) needs.
the sensors and so chips aren't likely to get smaller, per quotes above
URL of carver mead of CMOS fame...
we will probably see a generation of $1k 16MP cameras soon, then $300-400
as you suggest, then $100 P&S killers, and then $10-20 disposable
digitals as Natl' Semi's CEO suggests ;-)
I think standalone cameras will lose out to integrated ones in a cellphone
that also does pictures and sound (IPOD?) and so on, yes?
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote:
>
> yes, my argument does assume CMOS sensor prices will come down rapidly
> with volume production (e.g., for cell phone cameras), just as with memory
> chips (which use a similar CMOS process, and have followed the same curve)
>
> it is a good assumption; Nat'l Semiconductor believes it too and is
> betting on being able to get prices down to throwaway 16MP digicam levels:
>
> from the New York Times article on the Foveon Chips archived at DPreview
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp
I'm surprised you are so taken with this idea.
To make it reasonable to mfr a 16MP cell phone camera, you
need a lens capable of resolving well above 70% of the Nyquist frequency
(the post-antialiasing resolution of digital imaging systems), i.e. you need
roughly 4000 lines per picture height (2000 line pairs), and you need the
camera to be held steady enough that camera shake is within that limit as
well. Since neither condition is going to be met, putting a 16MP camera in a
cell phone is quite ridiculous.
Since the sensor is going to be under 5mm x 5mm, you need over 400 lp/mm,
and that's seriously unlikely in a camera that size (not only is the sensor
tiny, but the front-to-back distance has to be under 5mm as well. High-res
optical systems just don't fit in that kind of space. And I doubt cell phone
users are going to be amused by having to use their cell phones on a tripod.
> quoting (1):
> Industry analysts say that the new technologies could affect much more
> than still cameras. High-resolution images, if produced in quantities that
> made the new generation of image-sensing chips cost only several dollars
> apiece, could become a staple of cellular telephones and other hand- held
> devices and might bring the cost of a consumer video camera below $100.
One doesn't need high res. VGA is far more than enough for cell phone
cameras, still or video. The display size on these devices is not a whole
lot more than 2.5 x 2.5 cm. Actually, VGA is overkill for video.
<lots snipped>
> Mr. Mead said that because of fundamental size limits in the wavelengths
> of light, it is unlikely that future digital sensors will gain much
> additional resolution.
Wow! He sometimes makes sense when he's not selling snake oil.
> fourth quote indicates we won't see smaller sensors because of
> light/physics issues, so higher density (i.e., 64MP) sensors will have to
> be bigger (e.g., ~2" square), meaning more costly and bigger lenses and
> all that, as I noted...
You need to do your math again: as above, cell phones are too small to make
16MP even possible due to lens diffraction limits. Even worse, given a
choice between 16MP and .25 MP that's 64x more sensitive, cell phone users
would be much more interested in the higher sensitivity given by the larger
pixels, since a 500x500 pixel image would actually be far more than enough.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Bob Monaghan
yes, I agree that the high end lenses are NOT needed, because digital
CMOS/CCD sensor chips are limited by Nyquist etc. to about 50 lpmm equiv.
with anti-aliasing filters etc. That's relatively poor, on a small 22x22mm
sized sensor, for even a low end third party no-name lens. You don't need
zeiss lenses, or even Nikon/Canon OEM optics, for future digital cameras
again, this kills a major market for 35mm lens makers, since the stretched
chips (24x36mm) are likely to be lower volume, more cost, and then require
more costly lenses. Why not just use the low cost, smaller and lighter
16MP disposable pocket camera? ;-)
Bob Monaghan
Ah, I wish it were so, but it isn't. See Schneider's website on digital
lenses etc. white paper. The problem is that digital sensors sizes are now
close to as small as can get and still get enough light to work with low
noise levels (at room temps anyway). So you have a sensor based limit of
40 to 50 lpmm equiv (i.e., 80-100 pixel lines per mm). You can put a great
lens in front of this sensor, and it won't see any better than 40 or 50
lpmm. In fact, the lens resolution is a PROBLEM requiring a low pass
filter to remove the excess high resolution/contrast info. This is why
film cameras are likely to out perform consumer digital sensors (maybe not
spy satellite sensors at megabucks, though? ;-) - a possible niche for
film?
so, small 22x22mm sensor, resolution maximum utilized at about 50 lpmm or
so, and no need for big or costly high performance lenses is my prediction
my $.02
Lisa Horton
Tony Spadaro wrote:
>
> I've done both and a bit of watercolour to boot. We are not talking about
> an art here, but a capture and storage medium.
> LP -- gone
> Video Tape -- going
> Carbon paper -- yeah, right
> Audio tape???? Not at the record stores in my town.
>
I use carbon paper on a regular basis...
Then again, my computer has a 5.25" drive that uses disks that are
actually floppy.
Lisa
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote:
>
> yes, I agree that the high end lenses are NOT needed, because digital
> CMOS/CCD sensor chips are limited by Nyquist etc. to about 50 lpmm equiv.
> with anti-aliasing filters etc. That's relatively poor, on a small 22x22mm
> sized sensor, for even a low end third party no-name lens. You don't need
> zeiss lenses, or even Nikon/Canon OEM optics, for future digital cameras
I suspect you're wrong here. As I understand it, MTFs combine in one of the
following ways.
(1) 1/MTFt = 1/MTFa + 1/MTFb
(2) 1/MTFt^2 = 1/MTFa^2 + 1/MTFb^2
(MTFt is the total system resolution, MTFa is the lens res, MTFb the sensor
res.)
Whichever it is, it implies that you need resolution at the sensor that is
significantly higher than the limiting resolution of the sensor to actually
achieve the resolution of the sensor. So a better lens almost always will
perform better in a digital camera. (I first noticed this in a review of the
Canon 16-35/2.8 comparing it to the older 17-35/2.8. Even on the fairly
low-res D30, the difference was quite clear. And the 17-35/2.8 isn't a bad
lens.)
I'd appreciate someone who knows commenting on this.
I hope I'm wrong, since I'd like to use the Sigma 20/1.8 and/or 24/1.8 if
the rumored EOS 3D has the 9 MP sensor and spot meter I want<g>.
> again, this kills a major market for 35mm lens makers, since the stretched
> chips (24x36mm) are likely to be lower volume, more cost, and then require
> more costly lenses. Why not just use the low cost, smaller and lighter
> 16MP disposable pocket camera? ;-)
Because the full-frame sensor will have much lower noise at high ISOs than
the smaller sensor. Right now even the best consumer cameras are acceptable
at ISO 100 and quite noisy at ISO 400, whereas the 10D is effectively noise
free up to ISO 400, and acceptable at ISO 800 or 1600. It's only at ISO 3200
that the 10D begins to look as grody as the consumer cameras at ISO 400.
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote:
<A reply to some unknown message>
Bob, could you please include at least the name of the person you're
replying to? Even the slightest bit of context would be helpful. I don't
know if this is a response to my last message, ignores my last message, or
is simply unrelated to my last message. In that, I pointed out that
experience with even the D30 is that better lenses provide sharper images.
> Ah, I wish it were so, but it isn't. See Schneider's website on digital
> lenses etc. white paper. The problem is that digital sensors sizes are now
> close to as small as can get and still get enough light to work with low
> noise levels (at room temps anyway). So you have a sensor based limit of
> 40 to 50 lpmm equiv (i.e., 80-100 pixel lines per mm). You can put a great
> lens in front of this sensor, and it won't see any better than 40 or 50
> lpmm. In fact, the lens resolution is a PROBLEM requiring a low pass
> filter to remove the excess high resolution/contrast info.
Yes, but the whay optical systems combine means that differences at one
level in the system appear as differences at the next level, albeit smaller
differences.
> This is why
> film cameras are likely to out perform consumer digital sensors (maybe not
> spy satellite sensors at megabucks, though? ;-) - a possible niche for
> film?
At ISO 100, consumer digital noise is pretty reasonable, so it's only the
best slide film that _significantly_ outperforms consumer digital. And noise
levels go down a few dB every couple of years.
> so, small 22x22mm sensor, resolution maximum utilized at about 50 lpmm or
> so, and no need for big or costly high performance lenses is my prediction
As before, I expect that at 9MP and higher 24x36mm sensors, the difference
between Canon primes and Sigma zooms is going to remain large.
William Graham
Rodeo Clown <nospamne...@photoshot.com> wrote in message
news:b9lfta$l0g$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > what do you guys think? or does it have to be film or digital?
> >
>
>
I think there will always be both, but I am afraid that the vast selection
of film types we enjoy today will gradually shrink, so the choices we get in
twenty years will be much smaller than we have now. Also, because of the
smaller market, the prices must necessarily rise......
William Graham
Bob Monaghan <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote in message
news:b9mpsj$7da$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu...
maybe Fuji-dak (after Fuji buys Kodak
> ;-).
How about, "Kofu".........
William Graham
> I use carbon paper on a regular basis...
>
> Then again, my computer has a 5.25" drive that uses disks that are
> actually floppy.
>
> Lisa
Gee, Lisa.....I wasn't aware that you were over 80 years old.........
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:3EBEF288...@lisahorton.net...
>
>
Mark M
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:b9ms1s$suf$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
I won't comment on your math, because that's not what I've spend much time
with at this point... BUT...I can tell you that there is a VERY significant
difference in resolution (not pixel resolution, of course) that is quite
visible when going from my 28-135 IS and my 70-200 IS 2.8. Whatever the
math does or does not indicate, the images speak for themselves.
brian
The MTF at a particular spatial frequency cascades by simple
multiplication: MTFsystem = MTFlens x MTFsensor. The key of course
is what happens below the Nyquist frequency.
brian
>
> What if those millions of 16MP digital cameras in cell phones and so
> on opens up people to the joys of taking photos and sharing them? What if
> 1% of U.S. cell phone users get into photography in a more serious way? or
> 2%? or 5%?
>
I doubt you will ever see a 16MP camera in a cell phone unless there
is a reversal of the trend toward smaller and smaller size. Even if
you were to use a 2/3" sensor, which is *far* too large for cell phone
use, 16mp would require 1.9 micron pixels, which is just won't work
well with the simple low cost lenses needed. A far more likely
endpoint is 1 to 3 megapixels in the cell phone market, and the
sensors will be *tiny*.
Don Stauffer
than film cams. Typo!
Don Stauffer wrote:
>
> Even if the camera manufacturers all went out of business tomorrow, I'd
> still have a digital camera that works, and that I can use indefinitely.
>
> With a film camera, if the film format becomes obsolete, you are in a
> real bind. As long as batteries do not become obsolete, my digicam will
> keep working. Since my printers are used for other things than
> photography, I don't see them becoming obsolete.
>
> I fear the obsolescence of my digicam more than I do my 120 or 4 x 5
> cameras. Already hard to find, and expensive, 120 processing.
>
> Bob Monaghan wrote:
> >
> > How about a different approach to the film is dead debate? ;-) I'm going
> > to show you why the days of "serious" digital photography are numbered ;-)
> >
> > First, nearly everybody making digital cameras is losing money doing so.
> > They have lost money, year after year (cf. Kodak, where film profits
> > support losses in digital camera divisions ;-). Some major players like
> > AGFA have already dropped out of making digital cameras and scanners at
> > a loss to focus on profitable film mfgering.
> >
> > Second, nearly everybody in the USA who wants a decent digital camera
> > already has one (i.e., 3 MP are now $150 New in Box). Who is left to buy?
> > Given 89% never make prints, just email photos on web, why do they need to
> > "upgrade" to newer and higher megapixel cameras when they never do prints?
> >
> > Third, sales of older used digital cameras highlights the huge
> > depreciation losses, often 75% to 90% in just 2-3 years. This realization
> > is going to make it harder for second time buyers to be as enthusiastic
> > about upgrading to a higher $$ new digital camera, knowing they'll likely
> > lose another 75-90% of their investment again in a few years. Once burned,
> > twice shy...
> >
> > Fourth, an industry shakeout is pending. Corp. are losing $$, cutting
> > costs, including loss leading divisions like digital photography (Cf.
> > agfa). As the losers become more apparent, we are going to see a lot of
> > "orphaned" digital cameras too. No support, no service, no driver upgrades
> >
> > Fifth, cell phone cameras will meet the needs of those 89% of current
> > digital camera users who never make a print (per PMAI statistics), which
> > is to say, 90%+ of current digicam buyers/owners. They're going to send
> > photos via their webpages or email anyway, so don't need prints. Nor do
> > they need huge megapixel counts and interchangeable lenses and all that.
> >
> > The above is a critical point; 90% of the digicam users today - and more
> > in the cellphone camera future - don't need or want prints. These folks
> > will NOT be in the market for a "serious" digital still camera.
> >
> > Sixth, Foveon's 16MP chip should shortly hit the volumes needed to drive
> > prices under $100, and eventually under $10/chip. So disposable or
> > recycleable 16 megapixel digital cameras will be available for $100 US$ or
> > so. Why bother with today's 6MP cameras in the future, when for $100 you
> > can have a handy and compact cell phone with 16 MP camera built-in? (per
> > National Semiconductor's CEO, makers of Foveon's 16MP chips, on prices)
> >
> > Seventh, today's DSLR are transitional cameras, designed to help the OEM
> > mfgers (nikon, canon..) make $$ and develop digital camera technologies
> > while retaining their market share and user base. Some of these OEMs are
> > not going to survive the digital camera industry shakeout (i.e., those
> > $100 16 MP disposables). Will Nikon, or Canon, or Ricoh.. still be around?
> >
> > Eight, the digital sensors are limited by physics (noise, capture area..)
> > in size, probably won't get much smaller per Carver Mead of Foveon fame
> > (Foveon's 16 MP is 22x22mm size). This means we don't need big lenses of
> > high resolution, but smaller lenses (22x22mm coverage) with less glass and
> > lower cost, capable of matching the 50 lpmm resolution of the current
> > digital sensor technology. You don't need zeiss glass or $$ to do that!
> >
> > In other words, future 16MP cameras are likely to NOT use today's 35mm
> > lenses, let alone medium format ;-) Expect a small zoom perhaps, fixed
> > lens mount etc. with digital zoom
> >
> > Ninth, today's MF and 35mm DSLR with full size chips will lose out to the
> > much lower price high volume 16 MP chip cameras. Who wants to carry MF
> > camera with 16MP back or 35mm DSLR (6 or 11 MP) bagful when a shirt pocket
> > camera will deliver same resolution 16MP images? When Foveon's 22x22mm
> > chip is $10 for 16 MP, how many will want to spend thousands of $ for a
> > larger area chip with the same resolution? It will be much cheaper to
> > switch to the smaller, more convenient digicam. 35mm gear to the closet..
> >
> > Tenth, 16 MP will be the "sweet spot" for digicams. Most folks will get a
> > good enough 11x14" print, and only 1% of current minilab prints are 8x10"
> > in size or larger anyway. So the benefits of a 64 MP or larger sensor will
> > be a hard sell to this volume market. If anything, the larger file sizes
> > will mean longer uploads for no increase in on-screen quality, fewer
> > images per memory stick or drive etc. So larger sensors will be much more
> > costly for those serious digital camera users wanting higher image
> > quality.
> >
> > =====
> >
> > On the other hand, improvements in abysmal scanner technology of today
> > will make it possible to capture the high frequency (high
> > contrast/resolution) data captured on film with today's lenses. The gap
> > between digital and film images, which today is only really obvious with
> > very good drum/laser scanners, will become obvious to even the digi-ratti
> > Improved digital printers and scanners may make the superiority of film
> > and film based image prints obvious over limited resolution 16 MP
> > digicams, just as a good enlarger makes the difference between an 800 ISO
> > film 35mm image from a disposable camera versus a medium format shot
> > obvious...
> >
> > Films will improve, become more sensitive and linear (cf AGFA's 10X faster
> > formic film technology), and open a new range of high quality low light
> > capabilities with today's lenses (e.g., 1000 ISO/ASA speed with 100 ISO
> > grain). see http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/emulsionsphoto.html
> >
> > ====
> >
> > The bigger threat to serious digital photography is serious video digital
> > photography. People are buying digital video cameras, and using them to
> > create those photos they need for prints, email to family, and so on. Many
> > new mini-DV cameras have both digital tape and memory stick media options
> > to make all this easier. While the mini-DV camera pixel equiv. is modest,
> > it is more than enough for most web and email images. Again, keep in mind
> > 89% of digicam users today NEVER make a print, per PMAI statistics.
> >
> > the second point is that if 89% never make a print, only 11% have ever
> > made a digital print from their digital photos. In other words, very few
> > of these users of digital cameras needs anything more than a webcam
> > quality for email photos and web use. So how will you sell them kilobuck
> > serious digital still cameras in the future, when they don't need 'em and
> > aren't pushing the quality of the cameras they have now?
> >
> > =====
> >
> > So here's what I think is going to happen in the mid-future.
> >
> > There is going to be a shakeout of the digital (still) camera making
> > industry. Corp. HQ is going to insist on seeing some profits after a
> > decade+ of investments in losing money to buy market share. The flip side
> > is that most of today's DSLRs and digicams are going to be orphans as
> > their makers drop out when only a few "winners" emerge after shakeout.
> >
> > Low cost 16 MP digital cameras, of recycled/disposable $100-ish prices,
> > will displace today's high end digital cameras in most user hands (those
> > 89% of current digicam buyers, for example, and most of us wanting only
> > 11x14" or even 20x24" prints max.). These cameras will be small, with
> > optics matched to the sensor size and (low 50 lpmm) resolution limits.
> >
> > In other words, our old DSLRs and 35mm/MF lenses will be behemoth sized in
> > comparison, and folks will not want to lug them around. Full format
> > (24x36mm or 56x56mm) sensors will be very pricey, due to low volumes, and
> > yield results only marginally better than the low cost 16MP cameras at
> > typical print sizes.
> >
> > Similarly, 64MP will be better than 16MP, but not as evident at typical
> > print sizes and viewing distances, while size of camera and lenses and
> > weight will be much larger.
> >
> > Most digital users will want both a video and still image camera, for
> > graduation and all that. Since most images are not printed but posted or
> > emailed, the resolution can be modest and still displace much more costly
> > and better quality DSLRs, even full format ones ;-)
> >
> > Where does this leave digital still photography? The vast majority will
> > be using cell phone and/or $100 16 MP disposable cameras to capture images
> > as good as today's MF backs or best Kodak/Canon DSLRs. That's the good
> > news.
> >
> > The bad news is that there won't be enough of a demand to develop 64MP and
> > produce in millions needed to get volumes up and costs down to make larger
> > sensors (beyond 64 MP?) as cheap as 16MP. At the 16 MP "sweet spot",
> > digicams will still be inferior to the quality of film cameras. This will
> > be more obvious as scanner technology evolves to capture the full range of
> > data in film, unlike today (unless you are using a drum scanner).
> >
> > In short, I see digital video with still frame capabilities displacing
> > much of today's still digital DSLR and digicam use for most consumers. For
> > those wanting still images, 90% of us for web and email use only (no
> > prints), the future disposable $100 16 MP digicams with small matched
> > lenses will fit the bill.
> >
> > This doesn't leave enough market potential from serious digital still
> > photography users to justify the cost of developing ($100+ millions for
> > cameras, similarly for chips) larger sensors. Instead, larger areas of
> > film in MF and LF cameras will be used in place of larger (low sales
> > volume) digital sensors, along with low cost scanner technology, to
> > produce higher quality "digital" images and digital prints at an
> > affordable cost ;-)
> >
> > So the future of serious digital still photography is, er, film ;-)
> >
> > grins bobm
> > --
> > ***********************************************************************
> > * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
> > ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
>
> --
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota
> stau...@usfamily.net
> webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Frank Pittel
I have a different take on the digital/film debate. To me it's clear that digital
cameras will take over the consumer market in the near future. The pro market will
continue to shift towards digital. The bottom line is that after the initial
investment digital is much cheaper and more importantly faster then film.
Believe what you want but a portrat studio that can provide proofs instantly
and finished prints within minutes of a shot will have aleg up on a studio that
needs a week to produce proofs and another week to provide prints.
All that's likely to survive is B&W and large format photography. The survival
of B&W is due to it's being an art form and large format photography because of
the perspective control it provides.
Bob Monaghan <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote:
: =====
: ====
: =====
: grins bobm
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Lewis Lang
>From: Frank Pittel f...@warlock.deepthought.com
>Date: Wed, May 14, 2003 5:40 PM
>Message-id: <q1adnYOHRrM...@giganews.com>
>
>
>I have a different take on the digital/film debate. To me it's clear that
>digital
>cameras will take over the consumer market in the near future. The pro market
>will
>continue to shift towards digital. The bottom line is that after the initial
>investment digital is much cheaper and more importantly faster then film.
>
>Believe what you want but a portrat studio that can provide proofs instantly
>and finished prints within minutes of a shot will have aleg up on a studio
>that
>needs a week to produce proofs and another week to provide prints.
>
The Olan Mills (gasp, blech) that took an extended family picture of me/others
in my family already had instant previews in 2001. If I am not mistaken,
orders were taken on the spot. Having to wait a week or so for prints is not a
big deal (most people have to wait more for their wedding albums to be put
together). Plus they have the quality of film (hue discrimination, resolution
and tonal value that digi is just starting to match for smaller (8x10" and
smaller) sizes as welll as having the option of going up in size should they
(rarely, I know) need or want larger sizes w/ a film original.
>All that's likely to survive is B&W and large format photography.
This is rather an extreme view. Film (color negative) disposables will most
likely out last both digital cameras and the cockaroach, if todays ;-)
The survival of film and digital are not at odds w/ one another, they are
complementary, but time will tell which markets go for which and why. There
will always be room for the quality and look that film provides. Real
photographers (I'm not talking about the masses but those who are either
serious amatures or pros) will continue to shoot film for the look, quality and
archival longevity film gives them - though the point and shoot world may
continue to shoot both (film and digital) for some time. There are plenty of
people (amatures) who already own film cameras and are more than satisfied w/
the quality of film and quickness of one hour labs and who don't have the
desire to get into techno/digital photography merely because "its the latest
thing".
>The survival of B&W is due to it's being an art form and large format
photography because
>of
>the perspective control it provides.
"There is more to heaven and Earth (and film and digital) than is dreamt of in
your philosophy, Horatio"... ;-) :-)
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
pioe[rmv]
> yes, I agree that the high end lenses are NOT needed, because digital
> CMOS/CCD sensor chips are limited by Nyquist etc. to about 50 lpmm equiv.
> with anti-aliasing filters etc. That's relatively poor, on a small 22x22mm
> sized sensor, for even a low end third party no-name lens. You don't need
> zeiss lenses, or even Nikon/Canon OEM optics, for future digital cameras
This is plain wrong.
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
pioe[rmv]
> Sorry for writing such a long epistle, but I'd like to offer food for
> thought. Just like VHS eclipsed Beta, even though Beta was technically
> superior, and just like 33 RPM eclipsed 45 RPM for LP records, even though
> 45 RPM was technically superior, will film have much of a chance against the
> digital tide, even though film is superior?
That will become a moot point when digital finally catches up with
film quality-wise. Which is what is going to happen. Then we will have
full frame sensors as well as 2 mp cell phone cameras.
Film is superior today, but that does not mean it will remain so.
Per Inge Oestmoen
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
Pierre L
decades ago. Ever been to a bookstore lately. Still got lots of books in
there.
Pierre
"Scott Elliot" <sel...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:RIkva.1501$Xr6.2...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> I think Bob is correct in that formats and technology are certain to
change
> and that todays markets and technology may not be much of an indication of
> what state of the art or costs will be be in another 20 years.
>
> I doubt very much though that film will have a big part in the future.
>
> How long will it be before various sized thin screen displays replace
> printed magazines, snap-shot albums from our latest vacation and framed
> prints on the wall? Will fine art photos be replaced by truly three
> dimensional holoscopic images?
>
> The only thing we can be certain of is that today's technology is going to
> change.
>
> Scott Elliot
> http://www3.telus.net/selliot/
>
>
Pierre L
high-tech intensive.
"Jim Hutchison" <ja...@jamesphotography.ca> wrote in message
news:aevrbvoi18rn8e7gv...@4ax.com...
>
> But then again, I upgrade my PC every 3 years for about that price...
> hmmm.
>
Bob Monaghan
Hi David,
where did you come up with the 5x5mm limitation? The actual 16MP foveon
chip size is 22x22mm, not 5x5mm, as I stated/noted. That's equivalent to
about 86 lpmm, IIRC - not 400+ lpmm - and that's lens aerial resolution,
not lens/film resolution. And for a smaller lens, higher resolution is
easier/cheaper, as the coverage is less. Getting 86 lpmm lens aerial
resolution from smaller cheapy optics to cover 22x22mm is no problem.
The Foveon 16MP chip exists, it is 22x22mm for the 16MP camera, and the
size lens needed to cover it doesn't have the problems you inferred for
5x5mm. The camera shake issues will be similar to APS cameras of similar
format size, again, easily handled (possibly digitally with stabilization
options?). National Semi has prototyped these "disposable" phones etc.
I do agree with you that a simple solution to the density issue is to
setup the chip to do either lower density images, perhaps as video(?) as
one option too, and then use the full 16MP only for highest quality images
(sort of like JPEG quality levels today...). My current digital cameras
offer the option of highest resolution or more lower res. images to
storage too. No biggie, just that the higher quality is there if you need
it. Similarly, our mini-DV video camera does 1.3 MP images, as well as
very high quality NTSC video etc.
Bob Monaghan
yes, Brian, you may be right; 1-3 MP may be fine for most cellphone uses
with a tiny sensor. But National Semiconductor sees disposable 16MP
digicameras and cellphone (maybe videophones?) in the future as a "sweet
spot".
My point focuses on the 16 MP as a sweet spot, with high volumes, and good
enough results to handle 99% of current photo users needs. That puts a
limit on higher density chips due to physics (per Carver Mead), and larger
chips (due to low volume and high costs). So I suspect that film will
continue to be the higher density and higher resolution (beyond 50 lpmm)
medium for some time to come in prosumer DSLRs and the like.
in short, film at the high end, digital for majority of users at low
end...
regards bobm
Lisa Horton
Frank Pittel wrote:
>
> I have a different take on the digital/film debate. To me it's clear that digital
> cameras will take over the consumer market in the near future. The pro market will
> continue to shift towards digital. The bottom line is that after the initial
> investment digital is much cheaper and more importantly faster then film.
>
> Believe what you want but a portrat studio that can provide proofs instantly
> and finished prints within minutes of a shot will have aleg up on a studio that
> needs a week to produce proofs and another week to provide prints.
>
> All that's likely to survive is B&W and large format photography. The survival
> of B&W is due to it's being an art form and large format photography because of
> the perspective control it provides.
Even the LF advantage of perspective control can be largely duplicated
in post processing, albeit at a sacrifice of quality. Of course there
are other tricks that can be done with movements that aren't so easy
or even possible to duplicate digitally. Right now digital is
allowing me to do things in architecture that previously could only be
done in 35mm with PC lenses, or not at all.
Lisa
David J. Littleboy
>
> yes, Brian, you may be right; 1-3 MP may be fine for most cellphone uses
> with a tiny sensor. But National Semiconductor sees disposable 16MP
> digicameras and cellphone (maybe videophones?) in the future as a "sweet
> spot".
There is no use, and there is never going to be a use, for 16MP low end
cameras. You can't afford optics that can provide 16MP of image quality at
throwaway prices, and users can't hold them still enough. And of course,
there's no way to fit a 16MP sensor into a cell phone. This whole idea fails
at every single reality check.
> My point focuses on the 16 MP as a sweet spot, with high volumes, and good
> enough results to handle 99% of current photo users needs. That puts a
> limit on higher density chips due to physics (per Carver Mead), and larger
> chips (due to low volume and high costs). So I suspect that film will
> continue to be the higher density and higher resolution (beyond 50 lpmm)
> medium for some time to come in prosumer DSLRs and the like.
>
> in short, film at the high end, digital for majority of users at low
> end...
Well, 6x9 and larger film for the high end, anyway.
As before, your estimates of the recording density of film are much too
high.
Film represents tonality by a random distribution of randomly sized opaque
particles. You need a fairly large area of film to represent the 12 or 14
bits of tone information digital cameras record. That same area of film will
"resolve" quite a few lines at 1.3:1 contrast. You don't get both resolution
and tonality with film. This is the fundamental error of people who
overestimate film megapixel equivalents: the grain noise at magnifications
large enough to use the limiting resolution of the medium make that
resolution unusable.
Digital, on the other hand, records the tonality with the same resolution it
records line pairs, so as soon as you are only slightly below the limiting
resolution, you are recording full tonality.
The 35mm frame simply doesn't record anywhere near 16MP of useful
information. Anything above 50 lp/mm either isn't there (the target was too
low contrast) or is at noise levels that would be unacceptable in a print.
By the way, you are right to harp on 16MP as a "sweet spot", though. The 10D
is 1/(1.6x1.6) the area of a 35mm frame. That's 15.4MP, and 16MP of 10D
quality image would put 35mm out of business.
So now do an interesting comparison. Drum scan your sharpest 35mm slide at
whatever you can afford, and print the center 40% at 13x19. That's a 21x
magnification from the film. Now print a 10D image at 13x19 and tell me
which you like better. (Hint: the only films that might perform anywhere
near acceptably at 21x have been discontinued.)
Bob Monaghan
well, glad we agree on 16MP as a "sweet spot" - that's why I think it will
be non-economic to develop, at $100 Mil+ (and maybe a $5 Bil fab), the
higher density chips and then get volumes to where the 64 MP and 256 MP
chips will drop in price similar to the 16 MP variants. Moreover, I
suspect it will be software like digital stitching that is used to get
higher density and panoramic imaging rather than larger sensors for many
application areas, yes? ;-)
You haven't explained why I should disbelieve Kodak's own scientific
analysis that 35mm film is more like 20+ Megapixel equivalent sensor - and
that's with so-so fast film. The slower color film does several times
better, and tech pan's thin emulsion rather more (but in B&W only ;-)
Nor have you explained why we should ignore Pop Photo's own real world
tests, noting ""As we've reported in the past and have deduced from our
own tests, a tripod mounted, high end SLR with a superb lens and ISO 100
color print film can capture the equivelent of a 40 megapixel sensor.
That's an order of magnitude more than a 3.3 or even 4MP sensor..." -
Popular Photography, March 2001, page 55. "
I also think you underestimate tonality. Most 35mm film grains are
sub-micron (i.e., smaller than one micron) in size. A five micron
(bayer..) sensor site would represent 25 or more film grains. Even if they
are treated as binary, 2^25 is circa 32 million, yes? That's a lot more
than 12 or 14 bits as you seem to infer.
The latest Pop Photo's SLR column reviews some under $250 film cameras,
noting that no current digital camera can produce quality images that
match such low cost cameras (at 1/10th to 1/100th the price) with a tripod
and slower films. Given the huge coverage of digital imaging in Pop Photo
and Imaging magazine, it is hard to see why they would say that if what
you say were really true about film being less quality than digital.
your claims that 35mm cameras are not delivering more than 50 lpmm, well,
they don't represent my real world tests of images, nor that of many lens
users in 35mm film. Otherwise, we would not be spending the big $$ on high
end OEM lenses when any junkbox lens could deliver 40 or 50 lpmm for far
less $$. The fact is lots of 35mm lenses and films routinely deliver far
more than 50 lpmm, used with good technique (tripod etc.). Roger Hicks has
a rule of thumb, for 50% contrast, most 35mm lenses deliver lens
resolutions ~= 1,000/f#, again hugely different from your statements (see
The Lens Book by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz).
In short, I think your statements may represent your own experience, esp.
assuming you are using a prosumer film scanner. But the scientific (Kodak)
and real world tests (Pop Photo) by unbiased (selling to both camps)
organizations clearly supports my contention that film is currently much
higher in resolution and contrast than digital cameras.
It can hardly be otherwise, since current digicams and DSLRs have a low
pass anti-aliasing filter limiting their response to 40-50 lpmm equiv in
resolution and contrast. There is no such filter on film cameras, so they
are able, with good lenses and films and tripod etc., to do up to double
or more than that level of resolution and contrast. By their basic design,
prosumer digital cameras can not compete with film cameras for highest
resolution and high contrast imagery.
That again is one reason why I believe film will continue to be a tool of
choice for serious amateur photography, where high contrast and high
resolution images have long been a goal...
my $.02
Bob Monaghan
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/4004.html for photo and grins. I have a
garage full of "hysterical computer collection" (see link at top of URL).
I have seen a whole lot of industry "standards" come and go, believe me!
re: digicams
Chances are good you won't be able to get replacement parts for needed
repairs soon. Even worse, you will be able to buy better vidcams for lower
$$, ditto still digital SLRs etc. So I don't work on my original mac 1mb
box anymore ;-) Even if you could get parts, you wouldn't be able to get
drivers for newer gear, or download into the hardware, and so on. Magnetic
media will begin decaying immediately, but it gets unreadable at 10+ years
in many cases, even faster for thinner, higher density stuff. and so it
goes...
film will continue to be around for at least 20 years, because the new
Kodak factories are paid for, and there is a worldwide demand for film.
I also think digital photography is not the answer to every photo problem,
though it has its strengths (speed of image delivery..). Digital has
killed polaroids, but polaroids didn't kill off traditional photography,
and neither will digital photography kill off film.
For technical reasons, cited by Carver Mead, the designer of CMOS sensor
chips, we are told sensors won't get much denser. If so, film will
continue to have the advantage with sub-micron "sensors" or film grains.
i agree with y'all that digital disposable cameras will probably displace
the majority of disposable camera style imaging, though some will still
buy film disposables as they (58%) don't have computers, or don't have the
skills to do all that is needed to get images made (at least, today in
USA).
I think many serious amateur photographers will do both digital and film,
using film for its qualities of image and strengths. How many digicams
have perspective control movements? exposures that can go for 10 hours?
177 million film cameras already exist, and are a large base to sell too.
However, technically, in terms of image quality, film still beats digital
sensors by a large margin (e.g., in MF, 600 Megapixel equiv. for 6x9cm
etc.). Film cameras have sub-micron sensors (film grains), offering better
tonality (more sensors/area) than digital, better acutance, and stronger
edge definition and resolution etc.
Finally, the claims that digital photography is "nearly free" is
laughable,given the rapid depreciation of gear, software, and the large
amounts of time in front of computer and scanners and learning new
software tricks it takes to do digital well. For the vast majority of
users, it is well worth paying a few $$ for film and processing rather
than have to make those kinds of investments in time and effort and gear
to do digital photography well.
again, my $.02 ;-)
Bob Monaghan
works on threads so I forget not everybody has this option enabled...
see for example kodak on anti-aliasing filters
http://wwwca.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsTech/antiAliasingFilter/antiAliasing.jhtml
here is what Mr. Jim Brick, noted photobook author and hasselblad
university lecturer, Leica user etc., and also senior design engineer
developing AF and digital camera systems has to say:
quoting:
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick j...@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: digital M redoux
Jay Burleson wrote:
>So if I can get an M style body that has a good quality chip in it and
uses
>the lenses that I have bought and paid for long ago, I am not bothered
that
>they won't use the full capability of those lenses.
>Because they will use the full capability of the chip, which is what I'm
>buying.
>How many of us use the full capability of our lenses with film anyway?
As I wrote earlier, you have to "dumb down" Leica lenses in order to use
them on a digital sensor. You cannot collect data that is running at a
higher frequency than the collector. The Nyquist limit. Look it up. A
resolution killing filter (a blur filter) must be used in the camera
between the lens and the sensor. See the white paper on lenses for digital
cameras on the Schneider web site. An inexpensive Asian 10-150mm zoom will
produce pictures every bit as good as a Leica M lens when used with a CCD
or CMOS sensor. And you won't have to keep switching lenses for different
focal lengths. It is a simple fact of the state of digital. And it won't
change for a long time yet.
Jim
end-quote:
and quoting again:
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick j...@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: digital M
>>According to Erwin Puts' very excellent _Leica Compendium_, which I just
got
>>today, lenses like the Apo-Summicron-M 1:2/90 ASPH can easily resolve
100
>>lp/mm
>>with high contrast even wide open. That would require a CCD with a
>>minimum of
>>7200x4800 pixels to resolve. Is such a CCD in the works? There's no
>>point in
>>having lenses like this if they cannot be fully used.
I have written, ad nauseam, about this before and explained the fact that
the minimum size for a pixel is 3 microns. It takes four pixels to
represent one color pixel. That's 36 square microns per real pixel. The
reason it cannot get any smaller is that there is not enough space to
contain a large enough capacitor to capture enough electrons to represent
how much light hit the pixel. As the pixel size gets smaller, the noise
level goes up. And the yield goes way down and the price goes way up. And
the image quality sucks. Semiconductor geometry is at the point where the
atomic structure of the traces and junctions are interfering with the
circuitry. When atoms are getting in the way, you simply cannot go any
farther with the current technology.
I work as a senior scientist for Agilent Technologies Imaging Electronics
Division. We design and manufacture imaging devices. This includes CCD and
CMOS sensors and imaging chips and subsystems of all sorts. I deal with
this stuff every day. In a sensor, the bigger the pixel the better. Five
microns is a good size for good signal to noise ratio. This is 100 sq.
microns for one color pixel.
You folks out there can believe anything you want. But the technology will
not support your pipe dreams.
If there is a digital M, it certainly will not be the M you know and love.
It will be plastic and probably AF. And a Japanese zoom as a lens. And
made in Japan (or Korea, or China.) Just like the Leica P&S cameras.
Actually you can buy this today. Most any consumer digital is the same.
Just squish it into the shape of an M camera.
Jim
endquote:
again, I'm not asking you to believe me (though I've got 3 advanced
engineering degrees, so why not? ;-) - but here are quotes from the guys
who build this stuff.
Again, it completely contradicts your statement that lens quality will be
noticeable between Sigma and OEMs etc. My point on anti-aliasing sensor
limiting us to 40-50 lpmm explains (and reiterates above statements) that
you don't need great lenses for current digital sensor densities.
This is why today's "investment" in high $$ 35mm lenses for some future
digital SLR is totally wasted; the sensors may get bigger (read medium
format, as in Fuji's 20+ Megapixel 37x52mm sensor IIRC) but not much
smaller due to physics issues Mr. Brick cited above etc. Conversely, film
will and can deliver high resolution and high contrast without a built-in
blur filter (a.k.a. low pass filter) as with digital cameras.
again, my $.02
Bob Monaghan
hi again David,
well, you can go either way, though the Gaussian version seems to match
real world experience better, lots of notes and discussion on which
formula to use at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html
I just posted a related note, but I'll repeat it here (in case your
newsreader misses it), viz.:
Jay Burleson wrote:
Jim
end-quote
in other words, the PROBLEM for regular arrays like digital sensors is
aliasing, and the solution (other than a random pattern like film grains)
is software plus a low pass filter to remove high frequency (meaining the
high contrast and high resolution info) before it ever gets to the digital
sensor. Combine this with Nyquist theorem limits (2x..) and you get the
sad reality that digital cameras sensors are unable to break 40 to 50 lpmm
equiv. on most DSLRs due to low pass filter effects etc. by basic designs.
the other issue is that film is improving, with a 10 times faster for same
grain (iso 1,000 speed in today's iso 100 grain sizes) in the wings (3
yrs? from agfa using their patented formic film technology)....
Bob Monaghan
Why do you say it is wrong? The anti-aliasing filter in most digital
DSLRs limit lens data getting to sensor to about 40-50 lpmm per Nyquist
etc. and sensor size limits (25 to36 micron sq. sensors (bayer..) etc.).
again, I don't design these systems, but here is what someone who does
says:
Jay Burleson wrote:
Jim
end-quote:
I understand this contradicts the glowing sales promotional literature you
are reading in the popular press, but that's physics for you ;-) The
reality is that lower frequency response lenses are being specially
designed to match digital sensor requirements - lower freq. meaning lower
resolution and lower contrast response here. So more $$ for high end
digital systems means less contrast and resolution than film. that's why
noted CCD/CMOS sensor system designer (and photographer) Mr. Brick notes
that you don't need great lenses with digital cameras above - the quality
is wasted due to the anti-aliasing filter and other system design issues.
if this doesn't seem obvious, then some review of anti-aliasing filters in
digital cameras and Nyquist limits is recommended reading...
hth bobm
Bob Monaghan
I have noted in other postings here with quotes from the designers of such
systems, plus kodak, plus tests of pop photo, that digital cameras don't
and can't (due to design, esp. low pass filters to prevent aliasing) beat
the 40 to 50 lpmm or so limit for current prosumer DSLRs. Nor are they
likely to get better in future, as physics limits sensor size, and bigger
sensors are now preferred for cleaner imagery with less noise etc., yes?
So the future is not for smaller sensors (as Carver Mead quote supports,
as does Mr. Brick's postings cited in thread above).
Anyway, once you understand that digital camera sensors can't use more
than 40-50 lpmm equiv. lens quality, and high quality lenses don't get you
more quality imagery due to the low pass filter, then you can see why I
make the statements i've made, I hope ;-)
given that you are limited to the same 40-50 lpmm quality due to sensor
issues, a small lens of cheap zoom construction will produce the same
quality (40-50 lpmm limits) as the higher end lenses. So why pay big $$
for quality you won't see?
see more info at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwinsp.html
grins bobm
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote:
> ah, sorry David, I was replying to Per's posting; my newsreader (trn)
> works on threads so I forget not everybody has this option enabled...
Mine does too, but there are enough threads in this newsgroup that I just
look at recent notes, or search for all notes with the same title.
> again, I'm not asking you to believe me (though I've got 3 advanced
> engineering degrees, so why not? ;-) - but here are quotes from the guys
> who build this stuff.
Me too. SB, MS, Mphil. I've also got an MA in East Asian Studies. (And I
even dropped out of Materials Science graduate school once (oops)) I'm far
more dilettantish than you<g>.
> Again, it completely contradicts your statement that lens quality will be
> noticeable between Sigma and OEMs etc. My point on anti-aliasing sensor
> limiting us to 40-50 lpmm explains (and reiterates above statements) that
> you don't need great lenses for current digital sensor densities.
The current dSLRs test at about 55 lp/mm.
But those aren't my statements. Those are actual user reports, and lens
tests that are on the net. Cheap lenses just aren't adequate on 6MP dSLRs.
This isn't an arguable point: it's what everyone finds out quite quickly. As
I've mentioned before, you can tell the difference between the respected
Canon 17-35/2.8 and the better Canon 16-35/2.8 on the D30.
Again, the reason for this is that to achieve a combined MTF that's close to
the lower MTF, the higher MTF has to be much higher: a 55 lp/mm lens on a 55
lp/mm sensor will be closer to 30 lp/mm than 50 lp/mm.
> This is why today's "investment" in high $$ 35mm lenses for some future
> digital SLR is totally wasted; the sensors may get bigger (read medium
> format, as in Fuji's 20+ Megapixel 37x52mm sensor IIRC) but not much
> smaller due to physics issues Mr. Brick cited above etc.
Agreed that we're at a good point in pixel densities. But if you actually
look at the images, you'll see that a 55 lp/mm in a full-frame digital
sensor (about 15MP) would be worth a lot more than ISO 100 print film. Most
people find the 11MP 1Ds better than even Provia, and the 1Ds is a mere 40
lp/mm.
This is why I find Kodak's claim that print film "resolves 24MP" seriously
silly. The only way to rescue that from the heights of ridiculousity, is to
see it as "resolves 24MP assuming 1-bit pixels"
Mark M
> hi Per,
>
> I have noted in other postings here with quotes from the designers of such
> systems, plus kodak, plus tests of pop photo, that digital cameras don't
> and can't (due to design, esp. low pass filters to prevent aliasing) beat
> the 40 to 50 lpmm or so limit for current prosumer DSLRs. Nor are they
> likely to get better in future, as physics limits sensor size, and bigger
> sensors are now preferred for cleaner imagery with less noise etc., yes?
> So the future is not for smaller sensors (as Carver Mead quote supports,
> as does Mr. Brick's postings cited in thread above).
>
> Anyway, once you understand that digital camera sensors can't use more
> than 40-50 lpmm equiv. lens quality, and high quality lenses don't get you
> more quality imagery due to the low pass filter, then you can see why I
> make the statements i've made, I hope ;-)
>
> given that you are limited to the same 40-50 lpmm quality due to sensor
> issues, a small lens of cheap zoom construction will produce the same
> quality (40-50 lpmm limits) as the higher end lenses. So why pay big $$
> for quality you won't see?
You are speaking with the confidence of a mathematician who has not yet
discovered that formulas don't always lead to ultimate truth in practice...
:)
I suggest you get ahold of someone who can show you the differences with
your own eyes--on a quality monitor, using quality glass on a high quality
DSLR like the 1Ds, or even the 10D. It appears that you are in for a shock.
pioe[rmv]
> An inexpensive Asian 10-150mm zoom will
> produce pictures every bit as good as a Leica M lens when used with a CCD
> or CMOS sensor. And you won't have to keep switching lenses for different
> focal lengths. It is a simple fact of the state of digital. And it won't
> change for a long time yet.
It is incredible what mistaken ideas emerge around a new technology.
> I work as a senior scientist for Agilent Technologies Imaging Electronics
> Division. We design and manufacture imaging devices. This includes CCD and
> CMOS sensors and imaging chips and subsystems of all sorts. I deal with
> this stuff every day. In a sensor, the bigger the pixel the better. Five
> microns is a good size for good signal to noise ratio. This is 100 sq.
> microns for one color pixel.
By all means. This is absolutely true. And it is the reason why we
need full-frame sensors, and also why we will not see 16 mp cellphone
cameras.
> Again, it completely contradicts your statement that lens quality will be
> noticeable between Sigma and OEMs etc. My point on anti-aliasing sensor
> limiting us to 40-50 lpmm explains (and reiterates above statements) that
> you don't need great lenses for current digital sensor densities.
Pardon me from saying so: Do you not see yourself that this argument
is non sequitur? There is, for instance, absolutely no difficulty in
distinguishing an image created through a consumer grade zoom lens
from one created by a prime lens.
Per Inge Oestmoen
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
pioe[rmv]
> Anyway, once you understand that digital camera sensors can't use more
> than 40-50 lpmm equiv. lens quality, and high quality lenses don't get you
> more quality imagery due to the low pass filter, then you can see why I
> make the statements i've made, I hope ;-)
So, you conclude that because I can see a very clear difference
between images taken through consumer grade zooms and primes with my
D60 I do not understand? Then I am afraid I will have to rest my case.
> given that you are limited to the same 40-50 lpmm quality due to sensor
> issues, a small lens of cheap zoom construction will produce the same
> quality (40-50 lpmm limits) as the higher end lenses. So why pay big $$
> for quality you won't see?
Why do you keep telling me and others that we don't see quality that
are easily seen?
Admittedly I only have my own "modest" D60 and have not tested the
1Ds, but those who have tried it with different lenses are completely
unanimous in their opinion: Lens quality makes a VERY big difference.
Mind you, this is definitely not a theory/practice question. It is
misunderstood theory to believe that digital does not need high quality.
inge strand
"pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message
news:SLywa.6705$KF1.132001@amstwist00...
Just as many audiophiles consider Vinyl records superior to any digitial
format many photographers will
consider film superior to any digital camera, and will never change.
For me, photography is only on film and i will never use a digital camera.
Inge Strand
pioe[rmv]
> Just as many audiophiles consider Vinyl records superior to any digitial
> format many photographers will
> consider film superior to any digital camera, and will never change.
> For me, photography is only on film and i will never use a digital camera.
Vinyl is vastly superior to CD both with respect to dynamic range and
detail, not because of any inherent limitations of digital, but
because of built-in limitations in the unfortunate choices made by the
distribution monopolies. The music industry was never interested in
ultimate quality.
With digital photography it is the same situation, but the reasons
behind are somewhat different. There we have presently high
development and production costs that lead to very real
cost/performance dilemmas. Still, a similar situation exists where the
best digital cameras (SLR's, since there is no serious digital cameras
on the market that is not a SLR with interchangeable lenses) cannot
cope with film's ability to render detail.
Digital gives you deceptively good color in many instances. However,
if you examine a very large print from an image captured by a 6
megapixel digital you will see the lack of detail.
The reason why some believe that digital is better or at least equal
to film is that they do not look for detail, but for the overall
feeling and impression they get from the image. If they look at the
picture of their loved ones, they do not care if the image is soft and
lacks detail. Not until they have finally seen a high-quality image.
The discerning person looks for both composition, originality,
impression, and detail.
Here are my own photographic tests where I have made an interesting
comparison. I made some D60 shots through the Canon 35mm 2.0 (CRW_)
and also film shots with a Nikon FM2 with 50mm 2.0, Superia 200.
(Untitled*) The film was scanned with a film scanner. I used print
film because print film has greater resolution than slide film
although it is more difficult to scan.
See for yourself in this directory:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/
More tests will follow later, but there is no doubt that the Superia
200 film has superior detail.
With the D60 I can make images like these, so it is not bad either:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_2003_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_1832_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_1064_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_0283_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public2/CRW_2354_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public2/CRW_2358_RT16_800.jpg
But for detail in a landscape there is no beating film (Superia 200,
prime lens, film scanner):
http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland/tvaerdalen1_no_usm_800_al.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland/tvaerdalen2_no_usm_ice_800_al.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland/aarjaeng1_no_USM_in_scanner_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland/aarjaeng2_800.jpg
The truth must be spoken: Film is superior. Slide film excels when
used for projections, but I have never been able to get ultra sharp
results when scanning from slides. Print film is much better in this
regard.
Steve Hoffman's very good and recommendable tests of Canon 10D against
slide film show less detail in the slides than I have been come to
expect from negative film. It is therefore very probable that slide
film would have been little if any better in direct comparison with
the D60.
I will do more tests, with Provia100, Superia 100, and the D60 later.
But believe me or not, the reason why I do seldom use slide film for
scanning is that it is less sharp than negative film.
pioe[rmv]
> Just as many audiophiles consider Vinyl records superior
> to any digitial format many photographers will
> consider film superior to any digital camera, and will
> never change. For me, photography is only on film and
> i will never use a digital camera.
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/
slide film show less detail in the slides than I have come to expect
pioe[rmv]
> Hi again Per!
> Why do you say it is wrong? The anti-aliasing filter in most digital
> DSLRs limit lens data getting to sensor to about 40-50 lpmm per Nyquist
> etc. and sensor size limits (25 to36 micron sq. sensors (bayer..) etc.).
For example, because high-end lenses/primes give significantly sharper
results than low-to-middle class zooms on any digital camera. You are
effectively saying that it does not matter whether people buy consumer
zooms or high quality lenses. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
> again, I don't design these systems, but here is what someone who does
> says:
There is a name for that particular and well-known fallacy: Argumentum
ad verecundiam.
Others have given the technical reason why the "low-end lenses are
good enough" claims are essentially fallacious, so I just encourage
everyone who doubts this to just try with their digital SLR's. Compare
a consumer-grade zoom to a high-grade prime lens at all apertures and
see for yourself.
Lastly, I am glad that we seem to have at least reached an agreement
that 16-mp cellphone cameras of anything close to useful quality are
not very realistic.
--
Thomas Wicklund
> The Olan Mills (gasp, blech) that took an extended family picture of me/others
> in my family already had instant previews in 2001.
Olan Mills was doing instant images (displayed on a monitor) in 1995.
Don't know if they were digital or single frame analog video. Either
way it makes a lot of sense and got them a lot more business -- this was
a church picture directory (so no requirement to buy extra prints) and
they probably get 2-3 times more orders taking them on the spot than
requiring that people come back in to look at proofs.
Thomas Wicklund
brian
> yes, Brian, you may be right; 1-3 MP may be fine for most cellphone uses
> with a tiny sensor. But National Semiconductor sees disposable 16MP
> digicameras and cellphone (maybe videophones?) in the future as a "sweet
> spot".
>
> My point focuses on the 16 MP as a sweet spot, with high volumes, and good
> enough results to handle 99% of current photo users needs. That puts a
> limit on higher density chips due to physics (per Carver Mead), and larger
> chips (due to low volume and high costs). So I suspect that film will
> continue to be the higher density and higher resolution (beyond 50 lpmm)
> medium for some time to come in prosumer DSLRs and the like.
>
> in short, film at the high end, digital for majority of users at low
> end...
>
> regards bobm
Hi Bob:
Throughout my career I've heard corporate executives making
outrageously over-optimisic statements in an attempt to lure
investors, increase the value of their stock options, justify their
inflated salaries, and so on. This statement about disposable 16mp
sensors in cell phones is definitely of this genre.
The fact is, it just doesn't make any sense at all to make a 16mp
sensor in a format smaller than about 4/3", and a chip that size will
never be used in a mass-market cell phone. In the cell phone world
there is an unrelenting pressure to make things as small as possible,
and I'll bet money that trend won't ever reverse.
A 16mp *camera* is a completely different matter, of course!
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, May 15, 2003 7:46 PM
>Message-id: <3EC3EEAE...@eskimo.com>
>
>Lewis Lang wrote:
>> The Olan Mills (gasp, blech) that took an extended family picture of
me/others
>> in my family already had instant previews in 2001.
>
>Olan Mills was doing instant images (displayed on a monitor) in 1995.
Not surprising to me...
>Don't know if they were digital or single frame analog video. Either
>way it makes a lot of sense and got them a lot more business --
Yep.
this was
>
>a church picture directory (so no requirement to buy extra prints) and
>they probably get 2-3 times more orders taking them on the spot than
>requiring that people come back in to look at proofs.
>
>Thomas Wicklund
And instant proofs do make sense, but once the orders are taken, they're taken,
and printed from film where there are no limits to quality/blow up size issues.
Instant proofs makes perfect business sense, I'm not convinced that digital
makes sense for this type of photography, especially for larger group shots
where you need detail/tonality. But since photography is rapidly becoming
"McPhotography", it wouldn't surprise me if profits one day soon are put a head
of quality. But even if they (Olan/others) were to go completely digital I
don't know if anything less than a D1h/x would be able to take the work load
like a film camera would. Some film cameras go up to around 450,000 exposures
before they need servicing. Some to the more "average" ;-) professional amount
of about 150,000 exposures. A lab in my area that also does studio work has had
problems, I believe w/ their Fuji FinePix 2 camera not being able to handle the
work load (masses of headshots/etc.). Though I guess at some point, if business
warrants it, a $500-1,000? DSLR would become disposable for this kind of work -
the D10's price is a step in the right direction but even that is too pricey at
$1,500 to be "disposable"/replacable unless you have alot of work flow coming
in. For this kind of portrait/headshots/etc. work, more durable, less expensive
and higher quality (resolution/tonality) film bodies makes more dollars and
cents/sense...
David J. Littleboy
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>
> Instant proofs makes perfect business sense, I'm not convinced that
digital
> makes sense for this type of photography, especially for larger group
shots
> where you need detail/tonality.
Really. I took a group shot with 645 the other day, and thought that since I
was macho MF I had resolution to spare, so I backed off a bit to show a bit
of context. Wrong. Even with 645 you need to crop tightly with a group of as
few as 6. Group shots push the limits, whatever camera you use.
Hmm. If pro film + processing is US$5.00 per roll (120 is US$8.00 in Tokyo,
dunno what the actual costs are in the US), the 10D (not D10<g>) pays for
itself at 300 rolls. That's a mere 11,000 shots.
The N80/EOS 7 are consumer bodies, and (if memory serves) the shutter only
lasts 100,000 or 150,000 cycles. Still, that's plenty to clear the 11,000
shot breakeven point.
So I'd think that for some pros at least, US$1,500 is very much in the
disposable range. (Yes, I realize that pros can often charge their customers
for the film, so may pros think film is free. And with digital, find that
they are doing more Photoshopping than they were with film. But I think you
are talking about pros who have to pay for their film.)
I'd think that the limited cycle counts of the N80/EOS 7 shutters would be a
much nastier limit for amateurs than pros. I rarely fire my film cameras
without film, but I pop of test shots left and right with my (consumer)
digitals.
Gordon Moat
> And instant proofs do make sense, but once the orders are taken, they're taken,
> and printed from film where there are no limits to quality/blow up size issues.
However, instant proofs are also as easy and inexpensive as Polaroids. This is a
good solution for large format, 6x7, and even some smaller medium format. It is
not very good for 35 mm.
>
>
> Instant proofs makes perfect business sense, I'm not convinced that digital
> makes sense for this type of photography, especially for larger group shots
> where you need detail/tonality. But since photography is rapidly becoming
> "McPhotography", it wouldn't surprise me if profits one day soon are put a head
> of quality. But even if they (Olan/others) were to go completely digital I
> don't know if anything less than a D1h/x would be able to take the work load
> like a film camera would.
I noticed when I was at the mall about a month ago that a competitor to Olan Mills
uses Mamiya RZ67 bodies. They had a digital back for the proof, though that was
changed to a film back for the final images. They sold portraits based upon
quality better than what someone could get with 35 mm. Quality here is a relative
term, since the camera operators had minimal skills, the lighting was abundant and
simplistic, and the portraits were mostly from a seated location. In fact, each
portrait was at exactly the same seated location, and exactly the same lighting,
negating any need to focus more than once a day. The only additions to the images
were some props on hand . . . more cheese than Wisconsin . . . .
> Some film cameras go up to around 450,000 exposures
> before they need servicing. Some to the more "average" ;-) professional amount
> of about 150,000 exposures. A lab in my area that also does studio work has had
> problems, I believe w/ their Fuji FinePix 2 camera not being able to handle the
> work load (masses of headshots/etc.). Though I guess at some point, if business
> warrants it, a $500-1,000? DSLR would become disposable for this kind of work -
One huge advantage for a commercial portrait studio would be leasing a digital
back for medium format. Most lease plans include service and replacement. Some
lease plans allow for technology upgrades.
>
> the D10's price is a step in the right direction but even that is too pricey at
> $1,500 to be "disposable"/replacable unless you have alot of work flow coming
> in. For this kind of portrait/headshots/etc. work, more durable, less expensive
> and higher quality (resolution/tonality) film bodies makes more dollars and
> cents/sense...
I still think that medium format digital backs are way beyond 35 mm digital
bodies. Any higher volume studios would be wise to consider digital backs as a
move into direct digital, substituting Polaroid proofing, or as a compliment to
film. Smaller digital choices are better for those on the move, like sports and
photojournalists.
After seeing some examples of medium format digital backs in use, and checking the
Histograms of the files, I really think that is the ultimate direction to pursue.
I feel that for professionals considering direct digital, these digital backs are
much better than throwing money at 35 mm sized digital bodies that will be
outclassed in a year. However, the profits at lower volumes are still with
scanning film, and are more likely to keep an individual competitive for many more
years.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
William Graham
David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:ba1huc$mku$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
> > But since photography is rapidly becoming
> > "McPhotography", it wouldn't surprise me if profits one day soon are put
a
> head
> > of quality.
"I'd like that D-100, please..." - "Do you want that with cheese?"
Tony Spadaro
coming back strong now that DVD has failed. Can't wait for my new home
pinball and arcade machines to arrive.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Pierre L" <pier...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZJywa.2712$nT5.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Geez. Electronic books were supposed to obsolete and replace paper books 2
> decades ago. Ever been to a bookstore lately. Still got lots of books in
> there.
> Pierre
>
>
> "Scott Elliot" <sel...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:RIkva.1501$Xr6.2...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> > I think Bob is correct in that formats and technology are certain to
> change
> > and that todays markets and technology may not be much of an indication
of
> > what state of the art or costs will be be in another 20 years.
> >
> > I doubt very much though that film will have a big part in the future.
> >
> > How long will it be before various sized thin screen displays replace
> > printed magazines, snap-shot albums from our latest vacation and framed
> > prints on the wall? Will fine art photos be replaced by truly three
> > dimensional holoscopic images?
> >
> > The only thing we can be certain of is that today's technology is going
to
> > change.
> >
> > Scott Elliot
> > http://www3.telus.net/selliot/
> >
> >
>
>
Tony Spadaro
most people shoot (400 CN) is pretty damn grainy, and superfine grain films
tend to be for specialty markets, or simply fail (like Ektar 25).
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote in message
news:b9v1bt$g7k$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu...
Tony Spadaro
those fuzzy third party lenses you are always extoling. If digital has no
resolution and no potential for resolution, then your Cosina made favs
should be selling like hotcakes soon.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote in message
Tony Spadaro
backs and they are much smaller than 4x5 inches, but the full movements of a
monorail can be used. Right now this is a pretty standard set-up for catalog
photography, but as size and price comes down I expect to see specialty
medium format size monorails and even field cameras made.
Eventually I'm sure there will even be full 4x5 dgitals but they aren't
going to be "affordable" for a long time.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:3EC2EBB6...@lisahorton.net...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, May 16, 2003 5:54 AM
>Message-id: <Q2%wa.604235$OV.569999@rwcrnsc54>
Don't be making fun of the D100, I hear Mayor McCheese is a Nikon fan w/ a
chemical imbalance and swings a mean F4s as his w**p*n *f m*ss d*str*ct***n ;-)
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:>
:> I have a different take on the digital/film debate. To me it's clear that digital
:> cameras will take over the consumer market in the near future. The pro market will
:> continue to shift towards digital. The bottom line is that after the initial
:> investment digital is much cheaper and more importantly faster then film.
:>
:> Believe what you want but a portrat studio that can provide proofs instantly
:> and finished prints within minutes of a shot will have aleg up on a studio that
:> needs a week to produce proofs and another week to provide prints.
:>
:> All that's likely to survive is B&W and large format photography. The survival
:> of B&W is due to it's being an art form and large format photography because of
:> the perspective control it provides.
: Even the LF advantage of perspective control can be largely duplicated
: in post processing, albeit at a sacrifice of quality. Of course there
: are other tricks that can be done with movements that aren't so easy
: or even possible to duplicate digitally. Right now digital is
: allowing me to do things in architecture that previously could only be
: done in 35mm with PC lenses, or not at all.
Very true although adjusting the ability to change the plane of focus is
going to be hard to once the image is taken. You are correct that a lot
of the perspective controls available from a LF camera can be done
digitally.
Digital photography and it's potential cannot be ignored nor should it
be dismissed..
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Frank Pittel
the process is slow. While it isn't practical yet that will change soon!
Tony Spadaro <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
: There are digital backs that fit on large format cameras - most are scanning
--
McLeod
after the data is captured.
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:neidnc01eLf...@giganews.com...
Lisa Horton
Eh? You're saying that through digital manipulations you can restore
in focus sharpness to an area of a digital capture that is blurred
from being out of focus?
Lisa
Bruce Murphy
> McLeod wrote:
> >
> > Changing the plane of focus is one of the easiest things to do digitally
> > after the data is captured.
>
> Eh? You're saying that through digital manipulations you can restore
> in focus sharpness to an area of a digital capture that is blurred
> from being out of focus?
And all digital cameras come with the built-in ability to make walnut
milkshakes, too.
:)
B>
Lisa Horton
Some of the P&S models make a simulated "camera" sound when taking a
picture. I think they should be able to instead play an arbitrary
sample downloaded from the user's computer. So, instead of going
"click", your camera could kiss, whistle, make rude noises, whatever
you wanted. Surely that would be a desirable feature!
Lisa
Mark M
"McLeod" <wmcle...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:xfixa.165682$M81.1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Changing the plane of focus is one of the easiest things to do digitally
> after the data is captured.
You may be able to "correct" for distortion digitally, but you cannot
replicate a plane of focus that emulates the advantages of a tilt-shift lens
with regard to DOF.
Bruce Murphy
> Some of the P&S models make a simulated "camera" sound when taking a
> picture. I think they should be able to instead play an arbitrary
> sample downloaded from the user's computer. So, instead of going
> "click", your camera could kiss, whistle, make rude noises, whatever
> you wanted. Surely that would be a desirable feature!
Polyphonic cameras, it's an idea that's doubtless already in the planning
and implementation stage.
I find it amusing that a friend's G2 has the ability ot turn the silly
'click' off, but you can't seem to do anything about the windows-like
startup noise.
briddleBRIDDDLEFluwunggggGGG!
lovely.
B>