Re: Digicam

["dickbo" <dickbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

16Mp camera backs already exist and have done so for at least the last 5
years. I well remember the Dicomed back selling at £30,000 sterling and
hearing professional photographers going on about it not being commercially
viable.

Today you can obtain that pixel rate for around £10,000 sterling

If a professional photographer cannot fund 10k over three years, and bearing
in mind capital allowances before tax mean it ends up costing nothing, then
one wonders just what kind of a business income that person is earning.

The drum scanner industry is no longer growth which means eventually that as
spares and service know-how diminish there will be fewer and fewer in
commercial use and the role of image production from film will also
diminish, as direct digital imaging becomes better and better and more to
the point very much cheaper.

Fot the amateur this could be good news because second hand drum scanners
will fall in price and for a while at least service - at a cost - will be
available.
Bearing in mind that drum scanners are anything but intuitive in use, some
training costs will be incured but eventually the availability of spares, or
lack of such items, will drive the drum out of existence except for a few
very specialist organisations. I'll give it ten years at the most before it
become museum time for that technology.

It might interest students of scanner history to be aware that my old
company, Crosfield Electronics, in their time a world leader in technical
drum scanning inovation, had to go out and buy a photomultiplier
manufacturer in order to ensure a regular supply of said devices because
world demand had fallen to such a low level that an independent manufacturer
could no longer justify production. That was in the 80's when the drum ruled
supreme and sales growth was big, big, big.

What today's demand is like....God only knows, but it must be a tiny
fraction of what it was in the heyday of the drum scanner.

The old King is nearly dead, so long live the new King and a jolly good
thing too if you ask me because the digital scanner has enabled the
photographer to control his own repro quality and once we can all afford a
16Mp back it's goodbye to film.....mostly.




----- Original Message -----
From: "SKID Photography" <skid@bway.net>
To: <scan@leben.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: Digicam


> Ken,
> The whole 'deal' with the ability of the current crop of 6 or so megapixel
> cameras is extremely dependent on the 'proper' subject matter.  If you try
to
> shoot a scene with too much detail in it, they will fail miserably
(compared to
> film), but if you shoot a scene with broad forms and large fields of color
the
> will perform miraculously.
>
> And *that* is why film will be around for a while.
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
>
> > I'm very happy with 11x14 and 13x19's from my 5megapixel Nikon 5000 and
I
> > hear many are printing 20x25 and getting good results. I suspect better
than
> > a 35mm slide enlargement to a comparable size. The point is digital is a
> > different medium as polaroid was and you have to judge it as such, after
all
> > it IS  the eye of the beholder that counts not the line pairs or
pixels(no
> > loupes allowed!)
> > Ken
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@rrv.net>
> > To: <scan@leben.com>
> > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: Digicam
> >
> > > Ah, but you're comparing a Lexus to a Beetle. For us ordinary
> > > not-particulary-fabulously wealthy individuals, we'll have to make do
> > > with 6 megapixels or so for awhile. And the 12x18 prints are stunning
> > > from this resolution.
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > allbayphotodigital@shaw.ca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jerry
> > > > I like D1x for same work, but I love Phase One H20 for all work. For
me
> > > > prints 16x20 from Phase One and D1x CAN NOT sit on the same wall.
> > > > Regards
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Trust me when I say the Nikon D1x and the Canon D60 can make Pro
images
> > > > > EASILY up to 18 inches!
> > > > >
> > > > > Jerry
> > > > >
> > > > > byard pidgeon wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Supposedly, 6 megapixels is the threshold point for making "real"
> > photos
> > > > >> with a digicam...but, making a "real" photo quality neg or slide
with
> > a film
> > > > >> recorder requires just under 12 megapixels (and a good FR, like a
PCR
> > II at
> > > > >> least).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So, it seems to me that what we really need are 12 megapixel
> > digicams, and
> > > > >> we're only halfway there.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm defining the quality factor as being sufficient to make a neg
> > that
> > > > >> produces a photo print of at least 11X and preferably 16X that's
> > > > >> indistinguishable from a camera neg.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Along the same lines, my film scanner yields about 14
> > megapixels...doesn't
> > > > >> it make sense that 12-14 megapixels is what we need in a pro
quality
> > > > >> digicam?
>
> -
> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
>


-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.