|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
In article <EJEOLELCCEAANGEOAANNOEJJCAAA.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ed Engberg <email@example.com> writes >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. > This is the way things always go when one technology replaces another (as opposed to providing a new capability) Ed - and it has been that way for centuries. An oft cited example is the sudden replacement of the longbow by the firearm during the 14th century. The accuracy and power of the longbow was tremendous and undisputed. In one documented 13th century incident, 3 English archers cut the anchor ropes of several French ships in harbour at dusk - dim targets of less than 2inch diameter - at a range of over 1000yards, with only one shot each! It was another 600years before firearms could even approach this level of accuracy, yet they had completely replaced the longbow within a century of their introduction to the European battlefield! Why? Fashion certainly plays its part, but another statistic reveals a more significant part of the reason. Since the end of WWII in 1945, over 99.98% of all small arms engagements by Western armies in war have occurred at ranges of less than 150yards - and this when these armies are equipped with more lethal, accurate firearms than at any time since their introduction. In short, it is the dominant application which determines the dominant technology - not the specialist requirements. For a long time after the transition to a new technology specialist requirements cannot be achieved because the new technology is incapable and the old technology is no longer available. Trained English archers are pretty thin on the ground these days, and have been for a very long time - despite it still being a legal requirement for every able bodied Englishman to practice longbow skills on Sundays! Although the new technology will eventually achieve the capabilities of the old, it can take a very long time to do so if the only pull through is the specialist requirement. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.