NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/photo/22517

Text File | 1992-12-24 | 5.5 KB | 105 lines

Newsgroups: rec.photo
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!adcmail!briang
From: [e-mail] (Brian Godfrey)
Subject: Re: What will it really take to replace FILM!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:24:45 GMT
Lines: 95

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?

   Sure.

>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.

   This would not enable digital to replace film.  If 1/1000 sec. was fast
   enough, there wouldn't be cameras with 1/2000, 1/4000, and 1/8000 sec
   shutters on the market right now.   Also, there is a fairly large group
   of photographers who feel that 35mm levels of grain (pixels) and
   resolution are inadequate for quality enlargement.  This group is
   certainly not as large as the 35mm users, but is large enough to support
   a fairly strong and competitive medium and large format camera industry.

>    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.)

   Again, there seems to be a market for fast motor drives (though I,
   personally don't understand this mode of photography) and it is not
   likely to go away.

>    This would have to  be able to be hand held, less than a few pounds, or a
>    2 pound camera, with an  additional  3  pounds or so on a seperate module
>    that someone can wear on a belt, etc.

   No way is a 2 pound camera with a 3 pound belt pack going to replace P&S
   cameras weighing ounces.  Remember the video cameras that people keep
   touting in these film -vs- digital discussions.  They did not enter
   widespread use until the camcorder came along with the tape drive built
   right into the camera and totaling a lightweight unit.

>I think film will be in wide use for the next 20-30 years, with the exception
>of  the home market.

   I hesitate to predict when film will become obsolete.  It certainly will,
   as did bronze weaponry and horse powered transportation.  Who knows,
   maybe tomorrow (well, Monday) some bio-engineer will figure out how to
   grow eyeballs in a beaker and will market an eyeball camera.  May sound
   crazy (how do you spell cock-a-maimee?) but the fact is that ten years
   ago I attended a seminar by a prominent scientist who had developed
   protein-based logic elements which were capable of 1000s of times the
   gate density of silicon.  He had also developed, and was in the
   experimental stages with, a method of connecting his logic elements to
   nerves.  He had blind human subjects who were able to "see" simple 16X16
   pixel images transmitted directly into their brains.  This was ten years
   ago.  I assume he has made progress.

   Now I am not predicting such a thing, but am merely using that as an
   example as to why we cannot really predict when film photography will
   go away.

>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.

   Actually, I think professional use is much harder to define and
   stereotype than is amateur use.  Some professional photographers are
   using digital cameras right now.  Others may not ever.  I think they
   tend to be (*have* to be) more results oriented than amateurs.

>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.

   Actually, there already is a rat hole about imaging and we're in it! :-)
Also, I don't know what facts you can gather here which will help you
predict the demise of film.  Things like what maximum shutter speed are
required, and how heavy the camera/storage will have to be are subjective
in nature, not factual.  Personally, I think the best thing to do is keep
taking pictures and not worry too much about it.

--
--Brian M. Godfrey
  atlastele.com