|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Dickbo, I would say that all of us are correct, and only coming from different perspectives.... Film is king for now. We regularly send extremely large files to magazine of our editorial portraits. Digital cameras, and backs are most suited to catalogue work, and relatively small reproductions, and are especially appropriate for still life imagery because of the way that the capture chips interpret tonalities and form. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phil.Lippincott" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: <email@example.com> > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:02 PM > Subject: Re: Digicam > > > Hi dickbo, > > > > If when using the 8000 dpi drum scan of a 35mm I can get a flawless > perfect > > 90 Mp scan how can you say that a 16Mp camera compares. > > Who wants a 90mb file? not a catalogue printer that's for sure and down > whose network are you sending this mighty file and how many will the Mac > handle and redistribute in a single working shift. > > Your talking big enlargements mon ami and I have delt with that one already. > > Film is is still King > > and the drum scanner simply lets the best of the film meet the best of the > > digital > > But not for ever squire let me assure you of that.. > > > > dickbo wrote: > > > > > 16Mp camera backs already exist and have done so for at least the last 5 > > > years. 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. > once > > > we can all afford a > > > 16Mp back it's goodbye to film.....mostly. > > > > I'm sure that Crossfield, Hell and others had a very important > contribution to > > make to the drum scanner industry. Yet other firms like Howtek and Screen > also > > have contributed a lot > > No not a lot really. Crosfield invented the enlarging/reducing drum scanner > and Hell were first out with a laser screening output. Howtek made them > smaller and cheaper and without an output device and Screen just copied > other manufacturers designs and remained solidly analogue for most of their > life, at the input end, which I might add enabled them to produce the most > "photographic" image of all the drum scanners available at that time and > they certainly were reliable. > > > and they have and do use Hamatsu Photo Multipliers. > > Hamatsu is an independent manufacturer and supplier of alive and well in > 2002 > > selling Photo Multipliers for laboratory, spectra sensing and yes scanner > > applications. > > Selling more and more each year are they, well they might be if their usable > life is reduced but that is about the only way > > > My firm Aztek announced a new model Premier drum > > scanner this year that is twice as fast and has 30% better density > response than > > any comparable CCD scanner. It also cost less than many of the > Professional > > flatbeds like Creo, Heidelberg, ScanView and Screen. You can review the > > Premier at www.aztek.com > > I'll wait for the reviews once it's in the market place thank you very much > > Methinks you are advertising my man which would suggest to me that you are > anything but unbiased in this matter. > > Having a scanner that scans "twice as fast" as you so nimbly put it, does > not necessarily result in twice the production because operator setup has to > be included and unless you are offering an off-line facility with your truly > wonderful product, the real increase in production is hardly likely to rise > above about 10%. > > Now that should really be telling you something, which is that the > development curve of the drum technology is well up on the shoulder point > which means that the economics of production are stabilising and nice > thought it is to think that people only buy drum scanners because of their > quality capability, the real reason is to make money, which means lowering > the cost of units of production. Making a scanner drum run faster really > means that one is in the diminishing returns area of productive capacity > because set-up time greatly exceeds scanning time anyway. > > I rest my case and stand by my pronouncements because in any production > based industry competition will demand that selling prices must fall across > an industry and quality demand will be variable, depending on market sector. > This would suggest that equipment prices will have to fall and their > specification improve - my money is on the digital flats where, as far as I > can see, these products are only at the begining of their development cycle > while the drum scanner is at the end of it's development cycle. > > TTFN as they say in the trade - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.