Its been 5 years - Film dead yet?
Jason Ware
Well five years ago everybody told me film would be dead in 5 years. Now
they tell me film will be dead in 5 years ;-)
--
-Jason Ware
---------------------------------------------------------
VISIT MY ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY HOMEPAGE!!
ASTRO IMAGES FOR DOWN-LOAD, TIPS, REPRINTS
URL: http://www.galaxyphoto.com
---------------------------------------------------------
alb...@ezin.net
In article <33FDC8A9...@galaxyphoto.com>, jas...@galaxyphoto.com says...
>
>Well five years ago everybody told me film would be dead in 5 years. Now
>they tell me film will be dead in 5 years ;-)
>
>--
>-Jason Ware
-----------------------------------
And to think, I never even knew it was ALIVE
---or a "zombie" for that matter ;-)
-al
duncan munro
Jason, I think they meant 5 Martian Years...
Duncan
jas...@galaxyphoto.com (Jason Ware) wrote:
>Well five years ago everybody told me film would be dead in 5 years. Now
>they tell me film will be dead in 5 years ;-)
>--
>-Jason Ware
>---------------------------------------------------------
david...@vnet.ibm.com
Jason Ware wrote:
>
> Well five years ago everybody told me film would be dead in 5 years. Now
> they tell me film will be dead in 5 years ;-)
>
> --
> -Jason Ware
And I am still hearing "Film at 10!" on TV-news promos too!
See you at Texas Star Party (wherever that is!) next year!
Regards,
Dave Clark
Christopher Michael Jones
Jason Ware (jas...@galaxyphoto.com) wrote:
: Well five years ago everybody told me film would be dead in 5 years. Now
: they tell me film will be dead in 5 years ;-)
Film will never die. Just as portraits and black and white
photos live, so will film. That doesn't mean that it won't
face serious competition and be edged out of its dominant
position. But in terms of science (amateur as well as
professional) electronic imaging is king, and has been
in the amateur comunitee for several years now. In
terms of art, it wasn't really expected that ccd's
would be able to compete with film. But if you look
at some of the most "artistic" astro-photos, you
will see that many of them were taken with electronic
imaging systems. Nevertheless, film will always
retain its special characteristics that make its
continued use (even if only occasionally). Though
there is always the slim possibility that it might
go the way of the daguerotype. I wouldn't bet
on that happening though.
KASTRO
jas...@galaxyphoto.com (Jason Ware) wrote:
>Well five years ago everybody told me film would be dead in 5 years. Now
>they tell me film will be dead in 5 years ;-)
Oh sure! It depends on your sampling rate. Er, wait, it depends on
bashing a manufacturer, er, wait, it is ,.... what was the question?
Oh yeah, the postscript to the death of film.
Most likely film will only die when it is illegal to process it. Bit by
bit <g> film will die a horrible sick screaming death.. Wait, thats my
John Carpenter comming thru.
Who ever said film will die, in another life said film will never die!
These people who speak in absolute are all nuts!!! Oh wait.. Dang! Cant
say that now can we?
Long live weak photon attraction!
Long live silver halide electron transfer!
Bits is Bits!
There has to be more that we can attack!
BTW, oh sure you get 6 degree fields with your 12" schmidt but can you
process your film in a laptop? You can? Oh, never mind....
If life were only absolutes, we would be much better off, as no one would
need to be wrong ever again.
Keith
Tom Davis
Jason Ware wrote:
>
> Well five years ago everybody told me film would be dead in 5 years.
Now
> they tell me film will be dead in 5 years ;-)
CCD chip becomes large enough, at a reasonable cost for the camera, film
will continue to be a viable product for astrophotography. I have been
able to image objects with the CCD that film just can't do from my
light polluted suberb. No question there is an advantage here. As
long as color imaging produces more natural looking images than CCDs,
I am sure it will continue in use. Also, it is less expensive to use
a photographic camera than a CCD camera. No need for a computer, the
camera is much less expensive, and piggyback photography will be around
for quite some time.
I think that CCD cameras and film, although they are used for some
similar purposes, still have different missions that will not converge
on an affordable scale for some time.
Thanks, Tom Davis
Michael L. Cunningham
Paul Laughton wrote:
>
> People still ride horses. They still teach sword fighting at West Point.
> The USS Constitution remains a commissioned US Navy warship. Many
> classes of Amateur Radio licenses still require a demonstrated ability
> with morse code. People still star hop.
>
> Nostalgia...
>
> -Paul
Hey! I still star hop! What better way to see the "county-side"?!
Michael
Joseph O'Neil
Tom Davis wrote:
> CCDs are certainly easier to use than film. But until the size of the
> CCD chip becomes large enough, at a reasonable cost for the camera, film
> will continue to be a viable product for astrophotography. I have been
> able to image objects with the CCD that film just can't do from my
> light polluted suberb. No question there is an advantage here.
Are they really easier to use? I am a fan of film myself, but when I see the
CCDer's in our group work at thier images, I think int he long runt hey spend just as
much money and work just as hard at getting an image just right as the guys workign
with film do.
Maybe it is just me, but I think a lot of people live by a mistaken beleif
that comptuers make life easier. People work just as hard behind a computer as they
do behind any other peice of equipment - they just do more of it.
> I think that CCD cameras and film, although they are used for some
> similar purposes, still have different missions that will not converge
> on an affordable scale for some time.
Agree with you completely. You will never reproduce on CCD what you can with
film, just as you cannot reproduce the look of an original water colour or oil paint
picutre with film.
Just as a curious note to Jerry's original posting about the exaggerated
demise of film.
Film never replaced oil painting, water colour or hand drawn pictures.
Witness even today in aamature astronomy the number of people of still draw images
while sitting at the eyepiece - some of them are quite nice, other drawings are
excellent.
Although film has replaced oil painting as the standard method of illustration
(IE - portriats hung in homes), there are actually more people today oil painting and
water colour painting than 200 or 300 years ago. Larger population, more wealth,
greater access to materials, etc, have all contributed to this fact.
Cars did not eliminate bicycles, airplanes did not eleiminate hot air ballons,
and so on. Film is here to stay, in one form or another.
joe
--
jp.o...@obs.empath.on.ca
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
B&W photos - LF to 35mm, IR, Astro, and more
Chris Marriott
In article <340064...@multiboard.com>, Joseph O'Neil
<jon...@multiboard.com> writes
> Agree with you completely. You will never reproduce on CCD what you can
>with
>film
Don't you think it's true to say that CCDs are a lot more flexible when
it comes to actually getting "information" out of the image than film
is?
Modern CCD cameras typically offer 16 bit data readouts, giving 64k
potential "grey scales" per pixel. This is enormously more than is
available on film, and lets you bring out far more detail with image
processing than can be done with conventional darkroom techniques on
film.
I totally agree with your comment, however, about CCDs not *replacing*
film - you can do things with film (eg wide field shots) which are
totally impractical with a CCD.
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, Microsoft Certified Solution Developer.
SkyMap Software, U.K. e-mail: ch...@skymap.com
Visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Tim Gillespie
Chris Marriott wrote:
>
> In article <3401B3...@aa6g.org>, Chuck Vaughn <aa...@aa6g.org> writes
> >I'm not sure what you mean by "far more detail". CCDs do not give more
> >resolution
>
> What I mean is that if you have an object which contains a very wide
> range of light intensities - eg a galaxy with a bright nucleus but very
> faint spiral arms - a CCD will accurately capture both those "extremes"
> and, by digitally processing the image, you can quite easily produce a
> pleasing visual image which shows well both the nucleus and the spiral
> arms.
I believe Chris is referring to the fact that CCDs have far greater
*dynamic range* than film.
Tim
--
This message serves as written notice that solicitations and
advertisements to my e-mail address will not be tolerated.
By editing my e-mail adress you signify that you have read this
notice and understand that sending such solicitations and
advertisments is in violation of federal law.
dummy address belonging to a bonafide spammer: den...@nhcddental.com
real adres: tgillesp followed by -at- followed by mail*tds*net
Chris Marriott
In article <34020B...@mail.for.me>, Tim Gillespie
<noj...@mail.for.me> writes
>Chris Marriott wrote:
>>
>> In article <3401B3...@aa6g.org>, Chuck Vaughn <aa...@aa6g.org> writes
>> >I'm not sure what you mean by "far more detail". CCDs do not give more
>> >resolution
>>
>> What I mean is that if you have an object which contains a very wide
>> range of light intensities - eg a galaxy with a bright nucleus but very
>> faint spiral arms - a CCD will accurately capture both those "extremes"
>> and, by digitally processing the image, you can quite easily produce a
>> pleasing visual image which shows well both the nucleus and the spiral
>> arms.
>
>I believe Chris is referring to the fact that CCDs have far greater
>*dynamic range* than film.
Thanks, Tim - that's exactly the phrase I was looking for.
Jonathan Silverlight
In article <zvXVXMAe...@chrism.demon.co.uk>, Chris Marriott (ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk) writes:
>
>With film, an exposure sufficiently long to show the spiral arms will
>normally totally over-expose the nucleus, whilst if you time the
>exposure to show the nucleus, you won't see the spiral arms at all.
>
>That's the type of situation in which CCDs, with their ability to record
>a huge range of light levels, really "win out" over film.
Kodak IIIa photographic plates have a density range of 70,000 to 1,
corresponding to 16 bit resolution.
It's because prints only have a range of 50:1 that David Malin
applied the technique of "unsharp masking" to astrophotography.
Chuck Vaughn
Chris Marriott wrote:
>
> In article <3401B3...@aa6g.org>, Chuck Vaughn <aa...@aa6g.org> writes
> >I'm not sure what you mean by "far more detail". CCDs do not give more
> >resolution
>
> What I mean is that if you have an object which contains a very wide
> range of light intensities - eg a galaxy with a bright nucleus but very
> faint spiral arms - a CCD will accurately capture both those "extremes"
> and, by digitally processing the image, you can quite easily produce a
> pleasing visual image which shows well both the nucleus and the spiral
> arms.
>
> normally totally over-expose the nucleus, whilst if you time the
> exposure to show the nucleus, you won't see the spiral arms at all.
There's no doubt that CCDs have more dynamic range than film. But the reason
you see so many photos on Tech Pan with blocked up galaxy cores and bright
parts of nebulas is rarely the film but the extreme difficulty of transferring
the full range of the negative to print paper. Print paper's small dynamic
range is why such techniques as unsharp masking came into existence.
I've found a good slide scanner can maintain most of what's on a negative
but still not all - unless you have a drum scanner which is really expensive.
A typical slide scanner can reach a density of 3.0 and the best can reach
3.4 but a TP negative can go to 4.0, still beyond all but the most expensive
scanners.
As I mentioned before, the dynamic range of TP can be extended significantly
by developing it in lower contrast developers. Robert Provin has a photo of
M8 on TP developed in Technidol LC on his web page and even the brightest
parts are preserved. The trade-off for higher dynamic range is much longer
exposures though.
http://voltaire.csun.edu/m8bw.html
CCDs will allow you to get something from a light polluted location when film
will not and this is great for people who can't go to a dark site but the best
CCD work I've seen is still done from a dark site.
Chuck Vaughn <aa6gaa6g.org>
Chris Marriott
In article <340211...@aa6g.org>, Chuck Vaughn <aa...@aa6g.org> writes
>CCDs will allow you to get something from a light polluted location when film
>will not and this is great for people who can't go to a dark site but the best
>CCD work I've seen is still done from a dark site.
I think we're all agreed that dark skies are best for practically *any*
type of astronomy (except, perhaps, solar observing...), but at least
CCDs give those of use with mag 4 suburban skies *some* chance of seeing
those "faint fuzzies"!