Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: digital vs film
From: Andrew Nemeth <azn@nemeng.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 99 07:30:04 +1100

Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com> wrote:

>It will be a very long time before the amount of information, and quality
>of that information, as recorded on a high resolution 35mm transparency,
>can be beat by digital capture. And we still have MF and LF, which is 4, 8,
>12, 16 times the information in a 35mm slide. Whoa...

I agree entirely.

I will buy and start using digital cameras when:

o  they have the same CCD coverage size as 35mm film and 
   use 35mm format lenses without magnification factors
   (so a 35mm lens remains a 35mm wideangle & not a short 
   telephoto)
o  feature at least 48-bit capture (to cope with highs
   and lows) with at least 4000 x 3000 pixels
o  Are the same size/weight/cost as a F90x
o  Store images on $10 cards, each which can hold 40 
   full-res uncompressed shots.  These cards fit in your
   pocket can be swapped between cameras and work on 
   mac/pc/unix machines.

That is my 'must-have' list.  Still a few years off alas.

Until then, R6.2, C41 film (PJ100) and a Polaroid SprintScan 35.

Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com> wrote:

>why are some of us so defensive on the input side of things at
>shooting stage

Not so much defensive, but dismissive.  The image quality isn't
there for affordable cameras, and where the image quality *is*
adequate, the cameras cost so much that they can never pay
for themselves during their short, 5-year working lives (eg. 
the Kodak DCS560 which costs $AUS 50 0000).  And don't talk
to me about battery life (1 hour for the DCS560!)

Another thing which troubles me is the lack of permanence for
the capture medium.  I can always rescan a film 10-20 years
down the track, but will I be able to extract images from a
PC card or CD-ROM in 15 years time?...

>It is also largely good enough for web publication.

No offense to Mr Ball, but why do people assume that the www
is some crap, lowest-possible-common-denominator-will-do medium?

Do people shoot on super-8 because it is 'only' for TV?  Do
people shoot stills onto miniDisc because it is 'only' for 
advertising?

Garbage in/ garbage out.  If you want a high quality site then
you use high quality images.  And digital capture just doesn't 
cut it in a cost-effective way.  Not yet.  ;^)


Regards,


Andrew Nemeth

VR MEDIA  SOUND  PHOTO  JAVA
nemeng  Warrimoo   Australia
www.nemeng.com