NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/photo/22473

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 4.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!gto400.asd.sgi.com!bongers
From: [e-mail] (Hans L. Bongers)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: What will it really take to replace FILM!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:33:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Lines: 76
Nntp-Posting-Host: gto400.asd.sgi.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stephen R Faust) writes:
|>
|>
|> Hearing all  the  talk  about how electronic imaging will replace film in the
|> next 10 years  of so, I starting thinking of what it will take technically to
|> do this.  This would give me a better idea of how long it will really take to
|> make the switch. So, anyone have any input on the following?
|>
|> We would need the technology at minimum to be able to;
|>
|>     Capture an image of approximately  150MB  in  1/1000 of a second, with 24
|>     bit color.  This would mean  that  we  would  need 150MB of memory in the
|>     camera.  (more depending on the  quality  level..what  would  it  take to
|>     capture a technically equivalent image to a 35mm image).  Currently, they
|>     are    getting  acceptable  results  with  140MB  images  for    magazine
|>     reproduction, which is poor compared to obtainable results on film/paper.
|>
|>     A pick up device, CCD, or equiv, that is  capable  of  capturing some odd
|>     million number of pixels, which is close to reasonable quality  (150M or
|>     more).
|>
|>     We would need a processor fast enough  to  write  150MB  of image data to
|>     some disk or media, so that the camera will be ready for the next shot in
|>     a reasonable amount of time.  Maybe not 5 times per second (as in a motor
|>     drive   of  5FSP),  but  something  less  than  a  second  to    satisify
|>     sports/action/nature photographers, etc.  What would it take in processor
|>     and speed to do this (much more than what we have today.)
|>
||>
|> I think film will be in wide use for the next 20-30 years, with the exception
|> of  the home market.  Any professional applications will use film, then  scan
|> to electronic forms for  photo-mechanical  printing,  manipulations,  etc.  I
|> believe that the two forms  will  coexist  rather nicely, and complement each
|> other.  Film will still be the capturing mechanism, and electronic means will
|> start taking over the darkroom tasks in  the professional field.  In the home
|> market, I can see film phasing out much  sooner  based  on  the lower quality
|> standards (ie, most people are happy with their family photos on 3.5x5 prints
|> from low quality P&S lenses), but still not for 10 years or more.
|>
|> So, what do  you feel is technically required to obtain this, and how far off
|> do you think it is.    Is 150MB enough to get a high quailty image capable of
|> 35mm quality (I think is not, but dont know for sure).  Can we have CCD units
|> or  similar  which  can  capture  what modern  leneses  can  deliver?    What
|> type/speed processor can  capture  and  write all the data to memory in less
|> than 1/1000 of a  second,  and  to disk in less than maybe a 1/2 second?  How
|> long to shrink all this down to a hand held and managable size?
|>
|> I dont want to start a rat hole over when  imaging  is  gong to replace film,
|> but feel that a technical discussion on the technology needed, and  when  the
|> technology  might  be  available would allow us to come up with a  reasonable
|> projection based on facts, no fiction or opinion.
|>
|>
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Stephen R Faust                                      [e-mail]
|> Digital Equipment Corp.                          Networks and Communications
|> Stow MA                                                        [phone]
|> ============================================================================

Figures you're from DEC...  Alpha ha.ha.ha.....

In February at ISSCC (San Fransisco) Fujitsu will present a paper detailing a 256Mbit DRAM.
If you know anything about DRAMs, they tend to get faster as they get bigger.  Typical 16Mbit
DRAMs today are in the 60-nano second range (that's 60/1,000,000,000 for non-techies).  Clearly
real processors TODAY have the ability to feed 400MBYTEs/second and better (aka MIPS R4400A).
Five years from now we will consider this speed SLOW.  Leave it to the Japanese to shrink it down.
Leave it to the americans to develop the compression algorithms to minimize the amount of data
required to store the image.


All that aside, I think that film will be around longer than you or I.  If one were to consider audio
technology, audiophiles STILL claim that CD cannot hold a candle to analog audio.  Since the ear
is about 1/1,000,000 as sensitive as the eye, extrapolating, mankind will be extinct before photographic
film.

--- hans