[filmscanners] Re: Re:Digital PIC

["Preben S. Kristensen" <krille@tin.it>]

Art,

My previous answer crossed your message below, sorry about that.

Ok, lets suppose that we got re-usable film tomorrow: How would you store
the images after you have taken them "off" the film.... at 200MB each - in
order to re-use it?

Also, at what price do you think a re-useable film would sell? Still 5
dollars?

Lastly, unless you want to run to the lab on an hourly basis, you would
still have to carry dozens of (expensive?) rolls with you...and possibly
computers, memory cards, chargers etc...

When I travel, I often carry 75-150 rolls, depending on the length of the
job and I am not always happy to develop locally.

However, its a very nice thought with great potential for some market
segments.

greetings    Preben



----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>
To: <krille@tin.it>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 2:11 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:Digital PIC


Digital Cameras certainly have their place, and you'll get no argument
about it.  It is just that an erasable reusable film would have many
advantages digital cameras do not.  It is still the cheapest method to
temporarily (assuming it could be reused) storage method.  When I go on
a shoot, or a long travel, I bring dozens of rolls of film.  To have
that kind of storage with a digital, I have to buy and bring a bunch of
flash mem cards, or a hard drive or a laptop, and a lot of batteries,
and chargers, etc.

Further you can update your image capture technology just by buying a
new roll of film... try to update the MOS or CCD sensor in your digital
camera!

So, if the technology of film could be made reusable, it would bridge
the two worlds.

Art

Ezio wrote:

> You missed to mention that DIGITAL FILM is re-usable.
> Try to multiply 5$ of a cheap film (cost without dev. and contact sheet
> etc. ) by 200 ... or more ... the result will be leading to a good reason
to
> go digital.
> Also , digital means post-processing capabilities : color , contrast,
> framing etc. etc. easy and fast and OVERALL under my personal control and
> decision ... while films are expensive and almost impossible to
post-process
> properly unless you have a lab at your disposal ... I don't have that and
I
> guess the amateurs and some pro do not have also.
>
> In my opinion digital doesn't substitute ordinary films , but it is a
great
> integration either for amateurs either for pros .
>
> Sincerely
>
> Ezio
>
> Ezio's e-photography site :  www.lucenti.com
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body