Re: Digital Cameras

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





Ed Oliver wrote:

> OK, Mike, Jim et.al,
>
> You have put forth interesting reasons why digital may replace film
> photography to the masses, however I still have some concerns that keep
> me from "seeing" how this will come about in the near future.

If you remember my inital response, I put no time on the conversion because
I have no idea how long it will take to get the digital print service
infrastructure in place and readily available to the masses. SO it may be
the near future. But it also may be the more distant future.

> Remember
> we are talking about "silver based" cameras that cost less than $100
> (much less in many instances) than can produce images that can be
> enlarged to at least 8x10 and at low cost and great convenience.

Currently, the cost issues is a real issue. But just look at last year this
time and examine what could be bought for $500 then vs. now. The Agfa 1280
was about $800 last summer. I have a friend who just got one a few months
ago for just over $300. Today's $1,000 3x zoom, multi-megapixel cameras
(i.e. Nikon 950, Oly 2000Z, Canon Pro70, Kodak DC265, etc.) will be
available for $500 or less late this year or early next year. Two-three
years from now, I'm hoping you'll be able to get a 2.5-3 MMP camera with
interchageable lenes for $1,000-$1,500. We'll see.

> #1  There needs to be a more than "its the latest thing" reason for the
> mass market to switch from the investment they have to some thing new.

Absolutely. But those reasons already exists for digital cameras. In my
opinion, the big benefits are no film and instant reviews.

> The example was cited of wax to vinyl to tape to CD but each of these
> had a very compelling pay back to the consumer in either better sound,
> lower cost, ease of use, etc.  Where is this benefit in changing from
> film to digital.

First off, you're not accurately portraying what happend with CDs and vinyl
records. CD players were hardly more cost effective than turn tables. In the
beginning, they were infact much more expensive than most turn tables.
Secondly, the actual cost of the CD was very high compared to albums. They
started at about $30, fell to $25, then $20, then they reated a $15 for a
long. That's the price people were willing to pay for the extra benefits. I
remember reading a music industry rag stating when the world would have
enough CD production capacity such that the actually cost of producing a CD
would drop below that of a vinyl record. That time frame was somewhere
around the fall of '87. But guess what, while albums stayed at about $8, CDs
never dipped below $12-$13 even they were cost less to make. The market
decided they were willing to pay a premium for what they considered to be
great benefits. Digital cameras offer that as well.

Like I stated above, no film and instant reviews. If a digital camera had
the same purchase price as a film camera, then the digital camera cost less
to operate because one needn't purchase film or purchase film development.
This is a benefit to the owner. On camera editing is a huge benefit that is
impossible with film.

> #2  What is going to be the base of the "prints" for this digital
> revolution.  Inkjet, Silver or something else?  If silver then you are
> only changing the method of image capture.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! The acquisition method benefits are where the huge
advantages are for the average camera owner. The average Joe can now check
on the spot whether he got the shot he wanted or not. If not, he can shoot
it again. He can take numerous shots of the same thing without having to
worry about the expense involved in processing and printing a bunch of
images he doesn't want. It's only space on his memory card that he can
delete before he'd turn his card in for prints of only the images he wants.

> #3  Where are the "the negatives" from this digital revolution.  Is the
> processor going to supply the consumer with a CD, or some other means of
> "keeping the negatives"

There's no reason that he couldn't. CDs can be purchased for less than $1
each. In addition, maybe there will be a memory card to CDR device produce
for $150-$200. One would simply stick the memory card into a slot on the CDR
device, press a button and the device would burn the files onto a CD. No
computer necessary. Who knows?

> To reuse the "film" you have to erase the
> previous images. If the negatives are retained on magnetic media then
> you have the problem of image stability over time and possibility of
> contamination by outside magnetic fields

YES. This is HUGE. People, if any of you are storing any kind of sensitive
data on magnetic media, STOPPPPPP!. I learned my lesson the hard way with
ZIP disks. CDs are the way to go.

> and to me the biggest problem
> of all -  how do you keep track of all this invisible information.

Why not index prints exactly like you get today with some film labs? The
service can return the prints, CD, and an index print in an attractive
package that could be almost the exact same size as what you currently get
back from the lab.

> I have some other concerns but they minor and I can see work arounds.
>
> I still believe that for the foreseeable future there will be silver
> based image capture.

Until the print service issue gets resolved, I believe you are right.

--
Mike Greer

Come visit my web site on digital photography and other
interesting topics at http://greer.simplenet.com .
I have been extremely lazy, so many of the topics are
not finished yet. But they will be, some day.


-
** Endura-LE Archival Cartridges for Epson 1520/3000 Printers. **
**New! Refill Kits for Stylus Color 900, Stylus Photo 750, 1200**
**Cartridges, bulk ink, & refill kits at http://www.WeInk.com/ **



[Index of Archives]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Scanners]     [Gimp]     [Gimp Users]
  Powered by Linux