[Leica] RE: WOW..in 50 years.. thanks BD (long)

[Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>]

Many thanks BD... What you said, about my thoughts, is absolutely correct.
The 50 year thing was simply the date in the original post. We simply "do
not know" how long it will take for a portable, affordable, 35mm size,
digital sensor to be able to capture as much, and as fine, detail as a
Leica and Kodachrome 25. One problem is that in film, physical chemistry is
recording at the atom/molecule level. Pretty tough to do this in
electronics. The "value" or "amount" of light for any particular point is
an analog value. Silver halide has a unique way of recording this analog
amount "without" a physical "light bucket" to do the collecting. Digital
pixels "require" a physical "light bucket" to record/store the light value.
The smaller the light bucket, the smaller the resulting electrical signal.
The smaller the signal, the more difficult it is to get meaningful data out
of the system. Each pixel bucket can hold a light value between 0 and 255.
0 = black (no light), 255 = specular highlights (too white). And it takes
four pixels to equal one "real" color pixel. We are sitting at 5 microns
now for a pixel and associated light bucket. The signal is extremely small
and difficult to "read-out" without noise. As I said, to go smaller will
require a quantum leap in technology. Perhaps combining physics/chemistry
and an electronic signal. The concept of "light collection bucket" will
have to disappear. For pure electronics, like today's sensors, technology
is against the wall.

The reason large sensors (eg; Phillips 6 megapixel sensor) cost so much is
that in order to make a "semiconductor" of that complexity, that large, is
extremely difficult. The yield is horrible. So the price is stratospheric.
This is why the Canon/Kodak or Nikon/Kodak cameras are between $10,000 and
$20,000. You also have to understand that companies like Kodak, Canon,
Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, etc... are "buying" their position in the "digital
revolution." They all know that digital will be a "major" force in the
photographic future. In order to be at the right place at the right time,
they MUST have a position staked out. The portable digital cameras (under
$20,000) that you buy today are sold at a loss to the company. You really
do not see the difficulty and complexity that goes into today's digital
cameras.

Do any of you remember 6, 8, 10 years ago when Kodak jumped into the
digital field with all kinds of equipment, major software releases, huge
trade show presentations? Everyone, including those Kodak people, thought
film was dead. It took awhile before the program managers to finally listen
to the engineers. The engineers said "you better continue with "real
photography" and back-off of this "end of film digital attitude." The
logistics of pixels, huge files, storage dilemmas, transfer rate
bottlenecks, non archival output, and on and on and on... is going to take
a very long time to solve.

We are sort of in the Wilbur and Orvile Wright, or Henry Ford stage right
now. To fly across the country will take weeks and 50 repair stops. To
drive across the country will require months and 100 repair stops. 90 years
later we have 777's, space shuttle's, fast safe cars that go 100,000 miles
without even raising the hood. We were against the wall with the
reciprocating propeller engine. The technological breakthrough was the
"jet" engine. Convenient, hi-resolution, digital photography will happen.
The steps will be baby steps. Meanwhile, enjoy your Leica and film.

I expect people like Kodak and IBM to be the innovators in the next
"generation" of digital sensor technology. It will require multiple
disciplines. Physical, chemical (molecular), and electrical.

Beam me up Scotty, the resolution of my Tri-Leica-Corder needs an update.

Jim



At 12:31 PM 2/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> With all the discussion of digital vs. film I thought the LUGs would be
>> interested to see what was thought of by others in the heart of
>> their field
>> 10-50+ years ago.  It may give us an idea of what we may sound
>> like 50 years
>> from now.
>>
>> "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously
>> considered as a
>> means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
>> 		--Western Union internal memo, 1876.
>    JIM IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY IS OF NO VALUE AND HAS NO
>FUTURE.
>> "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
>> 		--Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
>JIM IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY IS IMPOSSIBLE
>>
>> "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
>> 		--Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole
>> Superieure de Guerre 1911.
>JIM IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY IS ONLY A TOY.
>> "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
>> 		--Thomas Watson,  Chairman of IBM, 1943
>JIM IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT MARKET FOR DIGITAL.
>> "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
>> 		--Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of
>> science, 1949
>JIM IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT TODAY'S BULKY DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT BE
>MINIATURIZED.
>> "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and
>> talked with the
>> best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't
>> last out the year."
>> 		--The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall,
>> 1957
>JIM IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT DIGITAL IS A FAD.
>> "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
>> 		--Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
>JIM IS NOT SAYING THAT HE DOESN'T LIKE DIGITAL AND THAT IT WON'T SUCCEED.
>> "But what ... is it good for?"
>> 	--Engineer at IBM's Advanced Computing Systems Division (1968)
>> 	  commenting on the microchip.
>JIM IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT DIGITAL IS GOOD FOR NOTHING.
>> "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
>> 		--Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital
>> Equipment Corp., 1977
>
>JIM IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE WON'T ALL WANT DIGITAL - EVENTUALLY.
>> "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
>> 		-- Bill Gates, 1981
>JIM IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT WHAT IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE DIGITAL TODAY IS
>THE LIMIT OF THE TECHNOLOGY.
>> "Sometimes when you're too close to something, you can't see past it."
>>              -- Peter K., member LUG group 1999
>
>No, sometimes when one of us has no technical knowledge of a subject but
>enormous prejudice against it and belief in a competing technology, we tend
>to make silly statements that add nothing to an otherwise serious and
>interesting discussion.
>		B. D. Colen, LUG member, 1999
>