RE: [Leica] Part 2: For those who think film will be dead in the near future... (extra long)

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

Oh my goodness.  Someone has seen through the smoke........

> ----------
> From: 	Anthony Atkielski[SMTP:anthony@atkielski.com]
> Reply To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Sent: 	Tuesday, October 12, 1999 10:35 AM
> To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: 	Re: [Leica] Part 2: For those who think film will be dead in
> the near future... (extra long)
> 
> From: Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 17:48
> Subject: [Leica] Part 2: For those who think film will be dead in the near
> future... (extra long)
> 
> 
> > Digital photography is "different" than film photography.
> > The whole process, from front to back, is near the wall. It
> > takes massive files to store digital images at full resolution.
> > Lossless compression has been worked on, by wizards, for
> > decades. Anything other than a little compression, will
> > degrade the image. Moving, storing, and portability of
> > digital images is a also a major headache. Requiring lots of CPU
> > horsepower. The whole discipline requires lots of money.
> 
> You say all of this, but then you say...
> 
> > ... [film] can be digitized after the fact producing superior
> > digitized results ...
> 
> Well, scanning film involves all of the same operations and requirements
> you
> just cited above as problems with digital photography.  Why are these
> obstacles
> when the initial capture of the image is on a CCD, but not obstacles when
> the
> initial capture is on film which is then scanned?  The size of the files
> is the
> same--if anything, the film scans produce even larger files.
> 
> > A digital file capable of producing equal clarity and
> > resolution will have to be 125MB.
> 
> So a single DVD could store up to 128 shots--the equivalent of four rolls
> of
> film.  Not bad.
> 
> > We're short about 100MB for a 30x40.
> 
> Just about anything photographed in 35mm will be "short," too.
> 
> > If you did have 36 125MB digital files, you need seven
> > CD's to hold them.
> 
> Or half a DVD.
> 
> > You cannot lay them on a light table and look at them
> > with a loupe.
> 
> You can look at them on your monitor.
> 
> > You have to have a high end computer and a reasonably
> > sophisticated viewer, or Photoshop.
> 
> Any computer with a decent monitor will do.
> 
> > You have to swap CD's in and out ...
> 
> No, just the one DVD is sufficient.
> 
> > You have to look at a computer monitor which is usually
> > a very poor display medium for photographs.
> 
> Even though it is vastly superior to prints.
> 
> > Think about the resolution of each frame of 35mm motion
> > picture film.
> 
> Or just look at a still taken from a 35mm motion picture.  Sometimes the
> image
> quality is so low that almost everything is a blur.  Motion-picture film
> does
> not bear close examination very well.  It's a good thing that you only
> have 1/24
> of a second to look at each image.
> 
> > Think of how many frames there are in a feature length motion
> > picture. Think of the massive storage, the high speed compression
> > algorithms, the computer power required, the distribution media,
> > the technology necessary to "project" a digital image on to a
> > LARGE WIDE SCREEN WITH CRISP RESOLUTION AND CLARITY, AND BRIGHT
> > ENOUGH TO BE SEEN EASILY.
> 
> No need to think about it; I already have a DVD video player.
> 
> > Think about it... I think it's take a little more than a
> > laserdisk or DVD system.
> 
> I think not.  The quality of some of my DVDs matches what I see in
> theaters.  In
> fact, I don't go to theaters very often anymore, since my DVD player
> provides
> the same image quality in my own home.
> 
> > But not even close for an auditorium full of people that want
> > to be "blown away" with the dynamics of what they see.
> 
> I daresay that you could project a DVD in a theater and most people would
> never
> know that it wasn't film.
> 
> > People forget that the reason projected slides and projected
> > motion pictures look so good is that they are "transparent" media.
> 
> What looks better still is recreating the light from scratch, as in a
> monitor.
> 
> > A pure full spectrum white light shines "through" the media
> > reproducing an astounding dynamic range, superior sharpness,
> > clarity, color richness, and color subtleness. Completely
> > unobtainable with reflex pixel projection.
> 
> It's entirely obtainable.
> 
> > It is going to be a very very long time from now before we
> > see anything digital that will blow film out of the water.
> > The amount of information, resolution, clarity, sheer power,
> > that is in the slide box in my pocket, just cannot be beat.
> 
> The important thing to remember is that technology marches on; you can't
> stop it
> just by denying it is there.
> 
> > Now about that box of slides in your pocket... Amazing technology!
> > A massive amount of usable data.
> 
> Except for all the scratches, dust, and grain, of course.
> 
>   -- Anthony
>