Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Re:Digital PIC




Art wrote:

>>I'm still waiting for the reusable film that can be recharged after >the
>>
> images are taken off of it.


Preben wrote

> Art, do you mean almost like a digital camera? :-)

> Preben



Art wrote:

>snip<

>I haven't yet found a media card that stores the equivalent of  7400
>megabytes (36-38 exposures at about 200 megs each), costs under $5, and
>fits into a canister that weighs about 2 ounces, and requires no energy
>source to maintain the latent image for years, have you?


The medium/big format professional digital camera backs are now approaching
or even surpassing 35mm film quality. So we are definitely on the way... and
it seems to be a highway with no speed limits! :-)

I have a couple of  1GB IBM microdrives for my digital camera (which is not
in the league mentioned above) and I just bought several Maxtor 160GB
harddrives for 250 US each.

So for the sake of  the (amicable) argument:

If you consider the price of film and development to be US$ 12,- per roll
(you will have to develop if you want to see an image and latent images, I
belive, deteriorates faster that developed ones), then each "200MB" picture
stored will cost 33 cents. (This method even forces you to pay for storage
of failed pix).

On a Maxtor hard drive I can store 1130  200mb images compressed losslessly
to 133MB each. That is 22 cents each - and this does not take into account
that you can edit all failed shots out of your storage needs. The way I work
(sloppily), that is at least 20% on average.

Harddrives, like film, can be stored without the need for energy supply. And
considering that they contain at least the equivalent of 35 rolls of film,
the weight is more or less the same and they take up less space. Unlike
film, they will not degrade the quality of the image over time.

Furthermore, corrections, search facilities, cross referencing,
presentation, delivery, sales etc. are all much easier from a digital than
an analog archive.

Of course, you also have to pay for a computer system etc.... But I assume
that we already have that! :-)

Greetings  Preben


>Art wrote:

>snip<

>I haven't yet found a media card that stores the equivalent of  7400
>megabytes (36-38 exposures at about 200 megs each), costs under $5, and
>fits into a canister that weighs about 2 ounces, and requires no energy
>source to maintain the latent image for years, have you?

Art

Art wrote:

>>I'm still waiting for the reusable film that can be recharged after >the
>>
> images are taken off of it.

Preben wrote

> Art, do you mean almost like a digital camera? :-)
>
> Preben
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.