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





Preben S. Kristensen wrote:

> 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?
>


Well, the options might be that you could keep them as film if they were
important (if the reversibility could be done at any time), or you could
save at different resolutions (on CD-R or whathaveyou) depending upon
the use the image might have.


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


Well, it would depend.  If it was just regular film that had the
potential to be reused due to some chemical process, then maybe.  If it
was a special film, sure it could be more costly.  Of course, the main
problem is that the film probably would get damaged over time from use.
  Scratches, dirt, etc.


> 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...
>


I think the main advantages to "reusable film would be the ability to
perhaps erase frames, even while traveling and reshoot (since this is
all conjecture anyway, I don't know what abilities it might have).  What
I most envy of people I know who have good digital cameras is that they
can experiment with a certain situation (assuming it is not going
anywhere itself) and shoot and look at the CCD result, and then erase
and do it again, until they get the exact exposure and image they want.
  A friend of mine has been shooting some great images of water drops
falling.  With film, it would be pretty much the luck of the draw
getting everything right and capturing the perfect image.  He's shot
hundreds of attempts, until he captured exactly what he was after.

The other thing I like about digital is the exposure range, which seems
to be so much wider than film.


> 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.
>


Same here, except I have several dealers I use and if I know I'm
traveling in their areas, I pre-order 100 roll blocks and pick them up
as I go, so I don't have to carry so much film from the start. I rarely
get processing done on the road anymore because it has been too risky,
and the weight and size of the mounted slides (which is how I have my
images processed) just gets unwieldy.


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


I just read Fuji has developed a new "nano-cubic" structure for magnetic
coatings which is supposed to once again drastically increase the
density of storage of magnetic media.  I suppose if it gets dense and
cheap enough, the need for 'reusable" film will be diminished.  The next
thing I'd like to see, if that is the case, is a digital camera that can
be updated with a higher res CCD/MOS or whatever, so the whole camera
doesn't become obsolete so quickly.

Art

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.