> 5. The assertion that 'filmscanning is it' will deter many
> potential converts to quasi-digital photography. Many people
> will never get stuck into filmscanning as we enthusiasts
> have done, because of the cost and the blood, sweat & tears
> involved. They could revolutionise their photography quite
> easily by using a cheap flatbed scanner on their prints.
> Some of them *just might* become converts to filmscanning.
> I did this for 9 months, with great satisfaction, before
> buying my first filmscanner.) These folk need *gentle*
> encouragement to join us, and develop & preserve the
> filmscanner market. If we're not careful, mass market
> filmscanning will wither in parallel to silver photography
> as all-digital systems develop.
> Digital cameras have much further to go than we have. We
> know that, but the marketeers don't.
I am not so sure digital cameras are that far behind.
See this :
and in particular this : (be warned it's 1.4M)
There may only be just over a 30% of the pixels in a 4000dpi scan from 35mm,
but the "cleaner" digital image largely makes up for the lack of pixels.
Ok it will be approx US $7000 but hopefully the consumer stuff will
eventually follow on.
Consumer versions are not a foregone conclusion, as we know, the film
industry brought us 110 and APS. Supposedly no worse for general use and
much more convenient. Most of the convenience and feature advantages have
been added to 35mm cameras and processing now anyway. I wouldn't be
surprised to find the arguement that 3Mp is good enough for A4 so we won't
bother with consumer cameras beyond 3Mp. It has already been 14/15 months
since I bought my 3Mp camera and I don't know of anything significantly
better on the horizon.