Digital film: was:filmscanners: real value?

["Alan Tyson" <AlanTyson@bknowl.freeserve.co.uk>]

Roman said...

>Unless we can get a decent copy directly onto
> a photographic paper.....

I think he's hit the nail on the head there. The output
stage is the key.

All of us on this list know the hassles to be suffered
plugging gadgets into our computers and getting satisfactory
photographic output on paper. We're the sort of enthusiastic
hobbyists or professionals who put up with that and won't
mind the equivalent hassles when good enough digital cameras
are cheap enough.

However, the great bulk of the public isn't like that, hates
computer hassles even more than we do, and wants the sort of
hassle-free photography offered by compact 35mm & APS
cameras plus minilab processing. They also like photo
albums.

The breakthrough still to come for digital to replace silver
in the mass market (and then drive prices down for serious
photographers) is in a cheap *universal* digital storage
medium, i.e., digital film.

You'd use a $100-200 1200x800 pixel camera, leave the
'memory stick' or whatever with the minilab at your local
supermarket, and get a set of 6x4 200dpi prints in say, 15
min. Sony (or others) could do it now, but they'd have to
kill off the competition, invest billions in the
infrastructure, and then probably suffer a Betamax v
VHS-style disaster.

So I agree that silver will be around for a long time, and
digital will remain not good enough or not cheap enough for
some time yet. Film scanners  and 'filmscanners' will remain
good value and Tony's mailing list phone bill will remain
large.

However, I've got a birthday soon, and if anyone wants to
buy me a  Sony DSC-S70, yes please, I'll have it.

Regards
Alan T

----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Kielich® <panromek@bigpond.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value?