[Leica] Re: RE: digital vs film ...help

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

Almost everything you have said here is true. We (Photo Access) are working
hard to get rid of the film P&S cameras. This will happen within a few
years. Commercial photography niches (catalog, fashion, studio still life,
etc) can go from digital camera to press (AD, catalog, flyer...) without
film. It's too late for me to continue on this now. There are some physical
(atomic) road blocks that will keep the current breed of sensor from
improving enough to compete with film for resolution and information
content. We are at .18 micron for chip circuitry and 5 micron for pixels.
Chips may go to .1 micron but we will soon start competing with electrons
and atoms. Pixels need the space to store a charge and hold a filter. 5
microns ain't much room. I'll try to continue tomorrow.

good post Alan,

Jim

At 06:49 AM 2/2/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Jim,
>
>I know you wrote this a few hours ago and it all might seem cold now: we
>live in very different time zones.
>
>I followed your argument with interest and agree with a lot of your
>comments regarding the shortcomings of digital today compared to film
>for shooting images. 
>
>Nevertheless, I find you widely exagerate the gap. The different sensor
>technologies have evolved extremely fast in the last 10 years, both in
>quality and in granularity. If it is not possible today to bring the
>imaging qualities of digital up to those of film in all areas of
>photography, we are already today at a stage where digital does compete
>and win for quite a few strategic imaging applications. 
>
>In real life, as you know, object and catalogue photographers
>intensively use digital at the shooting stage, for publication in
>printed media that range from supermaket promotion ads to art catalogues
>for museums or art vendors. That is the field of digital backs for MF
>studio outfits (Leaf and the others) and the field of the Leica S1.
>
>Also, in real life today, digital is often used to cover hot news items
>for printed publication in daily newspapers and probably in low end
>sports magazines. That is the field of the modified 35mm SLRs.
>
>Still in real life today, digital is widely used by a large number of
>people in various documentary applications related to diverse
>professional needs (insurance companies, real estate agents, etc). It is
>also largely good enough for web publication.
>
>There are still quite a few issues that have to be solved, on the sensor
>side but also on the storage side and on the energy management side, not
>mentionning the price/quality ratio, before I will even think to make
>the jump. This is probably the case as well for most dedicated photo
>amateurs and for those professionals who are not submitted to too much
>pressure for instant delivery of images.
>
>But it will certainly not take 50 years to get there. 
>
>I have made two multibrand reviews and tests within 12 months, in 1997
>then in 1998, and found tremendous evolutions in quality, useability and
>prices for products actually being sold. I had concluded the 1st review
>by stating that digital is far from being an alternative to film. And
>concluded my 2nd review in a much more careful way...
>
>My crystal ball says sometime between 2005 and 2010, 90 pct of the
>market covered today by 35mm SLRs (and RFs) will be digital and will be
>using high quality glass and hardware as competitive arguments. 
>
>What I cannot foresee yet, is the victory of digital at the lowest end
>of the market, where people will not want to invest in a good digital
>processing chain at home and will not want to pay more to get the same 1
>hour service at the local 'lab' as they get today....
>
>A provocative question as a conclusion (not aimed at you specifically,
>Jim): why are some of us so defensive on the input side of things at
>shooting stage and, at the same time, so relaxed on the usage of crummy
>scanners and consumer grade inkjet printers to produce the output from
>our precious Leica APO-ASPH-f1 whatevers ? 

>
>I find that the proponents of inkjet printing of Leica images before
>2049 should be submitted to the same instantaneous flaming as the
>proponents of digital as an alternative to film !  ;-)
>
>Alan
>Brussels-Belgium
>
>Jim Brick wrote:
>> 
>> I give up!  Just read the following and it says it all!
>> 
>> >Yes, you can get better resolution with film and a drum
>> >scanner, but hey, isn't that digital technology too!!??  Why are you
>> >comparing digital to digital?  I was comparing film to digital.
>> >
>> >Peter K.
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> PS... I hope the most of you enjoy my comments, from the inside, on digital
>> imaging. I try to explain it without getting bogged down in details. Most
>> numbers are approximations, but close. The digital system equivalent of
>> film systems is indeed a long way off. Digital totes a lot of baggage. It
>> takes a hellova lot of 1's and 0's to equal film. And then you have to put
>> it somewhere. It will require a breakthrough (we are working as hard as we
>> can) in technology to close the film/digital gap. I work deep in the bowels
>> of digital photo electronics. But I photograph with Leica M and R, and 4x5
>> Linhof. I own a Nikon CP900 digital. I think the batteries died from
non-use.
>> 
>> Jim again
>