RE: [Leica] Big bucks

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Francesco - I agree with you that it's not a "big bucks" problem, but if one
is planning to print these files, rather than display them, you're probably
talking at least 5MB each, not 200KB...
B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Francesco
> Sanfilippo
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 11:16 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Big bucks
>
>
> That's still NOT big bucks.  65,000 images at 200KB each would fill
> exactly 20 CD-R discs, with 3,250 images fitting on each disc.  You
> can buy a blank CD-R (in quantity) for under $2.00.  This comes out
> to be a total expense of $40 every time you want to duplicate your
> entire set, and this fugure would increase by $2.00 every time you
> add another 3,250 images to your portfolio.
>
> Average the CD cost over 5 years and it costs you $8 per annum.
> Of course, you need a CD-R burner, which can be had nowadays for
> $200.  Average it over a 5 year period and it costs you $40 per year.
> This is a total cost of $48 annually to maintain your digital archive.
> If we can afford Leica, we can afford $4 a month to archive images,
> n'est-ce pas?
>
> Francesco Sanfilippo
> fls@san.rr.com
> Webmaster, System Administrator,
> http://www.photorealm.com/
> http://www.glossymedia.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 2:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Big bucks
>
>
> > Mike Johnston wrote:
> > > >>>Worried about the longevity of the CD? So copy it
> every couple of
> > > years.
> > > We're not talking big bucks here.<<<
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh yes we are. I've made over 65,000 negatives in my
> life, and I'm only
> > > 42. (And not even a terribly heavy shooter.)
> > >
> > > --Mike
> > >
> >     One of the great things about Leica equipment is that
> nothing becomes
> > obsolete. This is in stark distinction to digital
> electronic equipment
> which
> > is designed to become obsolete in "Internet time". In my
> mind, Leica is
> the
> > direct opposite to digital. Canon is where digital is at
> (and there are
> also
> > many great things about being digital). It is no big deal
> to change your
> > lens mount every few years because you plan to buy a
> completely new system
> > every few years regardless. So the two cameras which spend
> the most time
> > sitting on my shelf are my Canon F-1 and my Sony Mavica,
> the F-1 because
> it
> > is sooo much louder than the EOS and has no real benefit
> except that it
> does
> > work without batteries (but I already have my M6 for that
> purpose :-) And
> > the Mavica which serves its only purpose when I need to
> e-mail pictures to
> > someone, or if I am giving a talk and I need to digitize
> something onto my
> > laptop (so it is really the combo of a Polaroid and a
> compact scanner).
> >
> >     Even though CDs are somewhat cheap (say $1-2) for
> writeable, that's
> not
> > the point. Who wants to deal with figuring out what to
> rewrite? I just had
> a
> > terrific ciba print made of a 15 year old kodachrome
> discovered at the
> > bottom of a box! In the same box is a large computer tape I
> have no idea
> of
> > how to deal with. oh sure I *could* find a VAX somewhere
> and transfer it
> > onto a CD but who wants to deal with that. The chrome is
> usable in the
> same
> > format as on the day it was created. The Omega D2 enlarger I use is
> probably
> > 25 years old and still uses the same format lightbulbs.
> >
> > Jonathan Borden
> >
> >
> >
>
>