|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
This discussion reminds me of when CCD's becan to replace tube sensors in professional video cameras. Plumbicon tubes had reached a very high level of quality in studio video cameras. I spent a National Association of Broadcasters convention showing the latest of this type of camera being recorded into the first digital video recorder. It was a still recorder and recorded the full video quality at 3 times subcarrier sampling for NTSC. People were amazed at the quality of the recordings and I actually saw some view our high resolution monitor screen using a magnifying glass. Then came the CCD cameras. Much smaller and much lower power consumption. The picture was significantly inferior. But, the important thing, the reduced size, much lower power consumption and lower cost drove CCD cameras to where they are today. It took years before the initial disadvantages of picture quality could improve to what we had experienced with good tube cameras. The same is happening today. I am sure some of you will argue with me but I can tell an 8x10 print from a digital camera immediately. Look at the dynamic range and digital processing. The blacks will give away a digital camera's picture immediately. Sure this will diminish in the next few years, but today with 6 and less megapixels it is not there yet. For the pictures I want to turn into art work I always use a film camera. A properly scanned 35mm image will always look better than one taken by a digital camera today. Of course I use my digital camera but it serves its purpose of being much smaller than my 35mm SLR and gives me immediate feedback of the photo. I am waiting for when a digital camera in the sub $5,000 range can compare with film. Ed - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.