I'm not too sure about the pixel and array size statement. The CCD's in
current 3.3Mpixel CCD cameras like the Olympus 3030 have a diagonal
dimension about a third that of the Canon D30 SLR digicam's sensor. As
signal processing and memory get faster and lower power (which happens at a
steady factor of 2 about every 18-24months) it will be reasonable to have a
30megapixel device in a camera like the D30 with pixels the same size as the
current Olympus 3030. Given Moore's Law (see:
) this could happen
within the next 6 to 10 years.
--Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clark Guy [SMTP:guy.clark@sbt.siemens.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:11 AM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)
>
> HI, everyone!
>
> I guess I'll weigh in with my opinion on the future of photography...
>
> In ten years....
>
> I believe that digital cameras will continue to get better and better, but
> the rate of improvement will be less and less as time goes by. Unless
> there
> is a dramatic change in the methods of manufacturing the sensor elements,
> resolution will not get much better than what is available now. WHY?
> because we are already approaching the limit of how small a single pixel
> can
> be. It can't be smaller than a wavelength of light, and we are
> approaching
> this limit even now. On top of that, the smaller they are the more noisy
> they become, so that creates a limit on size as well.
>
> Better we should be making the sensor arrays bigger, but there is the
> manufacturing yield issue there. The larger the chip, the more likely a
> defect will be present in it, rendering it useless. This is why I
> prefaced
> my comments with the proviso that there be no dramatic change in the
> manufacturing process. Possibly there will be some non-silicon method of
> manufacture that will not have so much chance for defects, and that will
> cause another rapid improvement of image quality.
>
> Therefore, I see amateurs going to digital photography much as we see now,
> but the amateurs will have something like 5Megapixel cameras. For
> professional photography, there will be specialized digital camera backs
> that can do perhaps as much as 25Mpixels or better using scanning
> technologies. The other pros will be using silver chemistry much as we
> are
> today. 35mm film will become a professional gauge, much as 16mm movies
> are
> pretty much the domain of professional cinematographers these days (I used
> to use old amateur 16mm equipment for vacation and sports movies while in
> High School, but I was a photo geek! ;-) ). Medium format will still be
> used for the highest quality wedding and other location photography, and
> Large format will be used for posters and other large final image uses.
>
> Scanners will phase out much of the darkroom work, however, with the
> exception of certain specialized applications, and resolutions will
> increase
> much as the camera CCD resolutions, but will continue to increase beyond
> what is done in cameras because of the possiblities offered by not needing
> to make the image in an instant. Multiple CCD linear arrays can be made
> much more easily than multiple two dimensional arrays, and the scanner
> hardware/firmware can compensate for offset arrays. In fact, with optics,
> one could actually ENLARGE the image of the film on to a very large linear
> array to get tremendous optical resolutions that will require gigabytes of
> RAM to deal with. I see this coming too!
>
> I guess I'd better take my turban off and put my crystal ball away before
> my
> boss sees me!!
>
> Feel free to disagree with me!!!
>
> Guy Clark -- photo geek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurie Solomon [mailto:laurie@advancenet.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:30 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: real value?
>
>
> And, of course, we will have a paperless society, advanced artificial
> intelligence, and Dot Coms will rule the world replacing the traditional
> principles of economics and finance with new principles of finance and
> economics where producing a profitable product is unnecessary as long as
> you
> believe in vaporware. :-) Color photography was suppose to completely
> eliminate black & white photography except as a anachronistic specialty,
> which accounts for the recent resurgence in black & white photography in
> advertising as well as the fine arts photography to mention a few
> applications that not only refused to die but actually came to life
> despite
> color photography and all the predictions of death and doom for B&W. :-)
> In short, I think you are being much to optimistic about the futuristic
> predictions. However, I do think that any sort of ten year projections or
> forecasts into the future are very risky and daring.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Berry Ives
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:15 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value?
>
>
> on 1/29/01 2:21 PM, Michael Wilkinson at michael@infocus-photography.co.uk
> wrote:
> > If you really want good value for money allied to something which will
> > last a decade you have to look at what you want from the product.
> > ....buy it at the right price and you are set for
> > the next Decade
> > Make no mistake about it.
> > if a scanner is doing a good job now the chances are that only a real
> > expert will be able to see a difference in your final output in 10 years
> > time.
> Very daring of you to make a 10-yr forecast about anything digital.
>
> Here's my forecast: 35mm film will be rarely used, except for very
> specialized applications, since digital will take over that market.
> Digital
> SLRs will be as affordable as the Pentax XZ-5n. The scanners will still
> be
> around, though, since there are so many old images on film. But the ones
> we
> are buying today will definitely be in the landfill.
>
> --Berry
>
>
