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

["Michael D. Turner" <mike@lcl-imaging.com>]

At 08:22 AM 2/4/1999 +0100, Alan Ball, you wrote...
>Jim,
>
>The issue here is not really "to capture as much, and as fine, detail as
>a
>Leica and Kodachrome 25" IMHO. The issue is to ponder at which stage the
>molecular level recording ability of film will not be recognized by the
>market as enough of a reason to maintain a chemical process in an
>otherwise totally digital workflow.
>
>I could make the analogy with Super8 against VCR. Up till the most
>recent video recording generations, the Super8 film remained largely
>superior to tape regarding pure imaging qualities. And only now are some
>TV screens capable of competing with a projection screen. Nevertheless,
>Super8 died extremely fast as a mainstream medium as soon as VCR reached
>a certain ratio of performance/convenience/price. Only a very small
>niche of die hard fanatics keep (or kept) on using Super8. Things are of
>course different in the very high end of the moving picture market (35mm
>and 70mm).

This is a point that has been frequently made by people who believe that
digital imaging technology will "stick" at the "good enough" level--a
price/performance level that maximizes market revenue and profitability.
There's good reason to believe that. Kodak's history has always
demonstrated a bias toward the consumer market over the professional
market. Rightly so. "Big Yellow" has often directed technological advances
toward the consumer mass market using high profits to  subsidize excellent,
but much less profitable products for professionals. It's been tough for
them to justify that behavior in recent years. Digital technology is so
much more volatile, and therefore risky. While the potential for digital
technology to provide Leica/K25 quality in _much_ less than 50 years
certainly exists (IMHO), there may never be a mass market demand for it.
The high end will remain a niche market for some time to come.

>So, I do agree with you that digital is a long way from providing what
>you call the Leica/K25 level of quality. But that does not mean you and
>I will necessarily still be shooting mainly film in 10 (?) years time.

Digital's not a long way from providing that level of quality.
Affordability is quite another matter. I hope we will still have the option
of shooting film for at least ten years to come. But, it is the mass
consumer market that drives Kodak, Fuji profitability. There will be a time
when film is too expensive to produce. Film may then be produced by small
manufacturers for a high price, and variable quality, for so long as a
niche market exists. Remember dye-transfer? That's what's happening now.
That has always been a niche market.

>Maybe we will use it for nostalgy or for giant enlargements. But, if we
>satisfy ourselves already today with inkjet prints and Photoshop
>tweaking, and enjoy web pages, we will ALL be very tempted to forget
>about film when a certain number of conditions, not yet there for our
>applications but already there for many other applications, are met on
>the digital front.
>
>BTW, I'm sure there will be a Leica/digital level of quality that will
>be sold as visibly superior to others. High quality digital capture will
>need high quality glass.
>
Quite right.


Mike

"Sing whatever is well made..."
- -W. B. Yeats