Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Lynn Allen wrote:

> Derek wrote:
> 
>> If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get
>> the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and
>> processing.
> 
> 
> Absolutely, and I think I've mentioned that before (to a hail of bullets 
> from dedicated film-users! ;-)). Also, Digital can give you an "instant 
> replay" of what you've been doing, like a Polaroid back only faster.
> 

Anyone who has been near a TV in the last month or two, at least in 
North America, has seen the Kodak camera ads which incorporate a digital 
image recorder AND normal 35mm or APS film.  The system allows you to 
review the last image (at least) taken by the camera (on film), and if 
it didn't work, you can shoot again.  This, to me is very innovative and 
smart use of technology, and not too costly either.  You don't need a 
lot of memory, as it probably only records the last shot taken.  The 
idea is not to keep the digital image, so it probably is not in high res 
either.  It does require a color LCD panel, but those small ones much 
cost a few bucks these days.  I wish my SLR had a device like that I 
could add to it, and if it were set up to mimic the basic 
characteristics of neg and or slide film, it would even reduce some of 
the need for bracketing.

Art