Re: [Leica] Part 2: For those who think film will be dead in the near future... (extra long)

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

From: Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 17:48
Subject: [Leica] Part 2: For those who think film will be dead in the near
future... (extra long)


> Digital photography is "different" than film photography.
> The whole process, from front to back, is near the wall. It
> takes massive files to store digital images at full resolution.
> Lossless compression has been worked on, by wizards, for
> decades. Anything other than a little compression, will
> degrade the image. Moving, storing, and portability of
> digital images is a also a major headache. Requiring lots of CPU
> horsepower. The whole discipline requires lots of money.

You say all of this, but then you say...

> ... [film] can be digitized after the fact producing superior
> digitized results ...

Well, scanning film involves all of the same operations and requirements you
just cited above as problems with digital photography.  Why are these obstacles
when the initial capture of the image is on a CCD, but not obstacles when the
initial capture is on film which is then scanned?  The size of the files is the
same--if anything, the film scans produce even larger files.

> A digital file capable of producing equal clarity and
> resolution will have to be 125MB.

So a single DVD could store up to 128 shots--the equivalent of four rolls of
film.  Not bad.

> We're short about 100MB for a 30x40.

Just about anything photographed in 35mm will be "short," too.

> If you did have 36 125MB digital files, you need seven
> CD's to hold them.

Or half a DVD.

> You cannot lay them on a light table and look at them
> with a loupe.

You can look at them on your monitor.

> You have to have a high end computer and a reasonably
> sophisticated viewer, or Photoshop.

Any computer with a decent monitor will do.

> You have to swap CD's in and out ...

No, just the one DVD is sufficient.

> You have to look at a computer monitor which is usually
> a very poor display medium for photographs.

Even though it is vastly superior to prints.

> Think about the resolution of each frame of 35mm motion
> picture film.

Or just look at a still taken from a 35mm motion picture.  Sometimes the image
quality is so low that almost everything is a blur.  Motion-picture film does
not bear close examination very well.  It's a good thing that you only have 1/24
of a second to look at each image.

> Think of how many frames there are in a feature length motion
> picture. Think of the massive storage, the high speed compression
> algorithms, the computer power required, the distribution media,
> the technology necessary to "project" a digital image on to a
> LARGE WIDE SCREEN WITH CRISP RESOLUTION AND CLARITY, AND BRIGHT
> ENOUGH TO BE SEEN EASILY.

No need to think about it; I already have a DVD video player.

> Think about it... I think it's take a little more than a
> laserdisk or DVD system.

I think not.  The quality of some of my DVDs matches what I see in theaters.  In
fact, I don't go to theaters very often anymore, since my DVD player provides
the same image quality in my own home.

> But not even close for an auditorium full of people that want
> to be "blown away" with the dynamics of what they see.

I daresay that you could project a DVD in a theater and most people would never
know that it wasn't film.

> People forget that the reason projected slides and projected
> motion pictures look so good is that they are "transparent" media.

What looks better still is recreating the light from scratch, as in a monitor.

> A pure full spectrum white light shines "through" the media
> reproducing an astounding dynamic range, superior sharpness,
> clarity, color richness, and color subtleness. Completely
> unobtainable with reflex pixel projection.

It's entirely obtainable.

> It is going to be a very very long time from now before we
> see anything digital that will blow film out of the water.
> The amount of information, resolution, clarity, sheer power,
> that is in the slide box in my pocket, just cannot be beat.

The important thing to remember is that technology marches on; you can't stop it
just by denying it is there.

> Now about that box of slides in your pocket... Amazing technology!
> A massive amount of usable data.

Except for all the scratches, dust, and grain, of course.

  -- Anthony