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

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Nathan,

The book/CD analogy is not functional here IMHO. I think the Super8/VCR
analogy is more instructive for us. Or the CD/vinyl analogy. Or the
horse/motor analogy. Or the snail mail/e-mail analogy, etc, etc. 

The paperless home and office is not here (yet) because, for various
reasons, it is not (yet) as practical to study large amounts of
information on screen as it is to read them on paper. Nevertheless, in
loads of fields, digital storage devices have already replaced paper and
micro-film. Depends on the function. The 2 media (paper and digital) do
not always cover the same functional needs. Digital generates millions
of tons of paper. Even digital photo cameras generate paper...

Inversely, the digital photo camera and the film photo camera aim to
cover exactly the same functional needs.

Regarding the MF v. 35mm analogy, it replicates in the digital world
between the super dense high res digital back CCD and the compact
digital photocamera. 

Alan


Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> 
> This whole discussion reminds me of the debate about the future of books back
> when CD Rom drives first became commonplace. I remember reading articles 10
> years ago predicting that by now, the book in its paper form would be dead,
> since you can pack all of Encyclopedia Britannica on one CD etc. etc. Well,
> obviously this has not happened. In fact, book sales in many countries are the
> highest they have ever been, and the two technologies co-exist nicely. I
> believe the same will happen with digital photography--it will take over some
> applications (e.g. newspaper photography) but I certainly do not see the
> disappearance of film in the lifetime of even the youngest LUG member.
> 
> Look at medium format: an obsolete technology, no longer necessary because 35mm
> film and modern 35mm cameras are so good--right?. And yet I see Fuji and Pentax
> and others come out with amazing new MF models, and I also see a huge film
> choice available to the MF photographer. These companies are not stupid and
> would not be wasting money on developing, say, an autofocus MF camera if they
> thought that film is dead.
> 
> Nathan
> 
> Michael D. Turner wrote:
> 
> >  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.
> 
> --
> Nathan Wajsman
> Overijse, Belgium
> 
> Photography page:  http://members.tripod.com/~belgiangator/index.html
> Motorcycle page:  http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/downs/1704/index.html