>>>It is also funny to watch because it is just history repeating itself again. Same exact story occurred with when CDs came out. Remember all the cries about how they werenât as good as albums, they sound too harsh, albums will never die. They sounded harsh because when the recording studios first started making CDs they used the equalization curve for LPs which boosted the highs to make up for the losses on the album. CDs didnât have those losses so the highs were recorded too high and they sounded terrible. It was eventually worked out. Do your kids know what an album is? Well their kids wonât know what film is. This story repeated again in audio. Solid state amps were never supposed to replace tube amplifiers. They didnât sound as good. Seen any tube amps at Best Buy or Circuit City? Same thing happened many years ago in telecom. The telephone system was analog. Now it is digital except for the last mile or two to your house.>>> The problem with most CD players on the market is they are inferior to many high end tube systems. Most players are not bought because the customer wants the best player to obtain the best sound. They want a decent player for a fair amount of money, and specs matter little. My brother just bought a cheap CD player from a local Wal-Mart type store. The player was bubble packed and it hung on a rack along side the cheap cordless phones and Walkman rip-offs. The system is digital and one would suppose this makes the player better than analog. This is, in fact, what we are told by the manufacturer. Digital is better. Fact it, it is a so-so player with so-so sound. Many of the specs of the typical CD audio system are merely average. The electronic circuitry, the laser diode system, the drive, wiring, assembly . . all affect the sound. As do the speaker system, which for the majority of users is not system specifically designed for the room; it is a "put the speakers where they look the best" design. I have a friend with a room full of Marantz and Carver analog audio equipment. His pre-amps are custom designed and hand built. He tossed the fake reproduction Leslie digital stuff and restored a true Leslie speaker because digital did not sound as good. His music is recorded on Struder-Revox tape recorders and he has a high-end turntable. He is a professional musician and he does not like CD sound because it does not cut it. He is into audio far more than I am, because what I hear on my inexpensive CD player is fine by me. The audio quality he obtains is far superior to most solid state systems. We really cannot argue this digital Vs. analog issue because it all boils down to money. Pure and simple. Well, money and how convenient it is to the typical image maker also enters into the discussion. I suspect part of the appeal of digital is rapid access and the ability to create endless variations of the original image. No digital print will likely equal a well made Dye Transfer image, but the latter is too costly and difficult for the vast majority of professional photographers, so few use the process. Few current digital cameras will equal my Bessa Rangefinder, as side by site comparisons will attest. Not a 35mm camera, but that does not matter. It handles like a 35MM point and shoot. Also, we do not know what the future holds for film. Kodak or some other manufacturer could have a breakthrough and release a film that blows all digital systems out of the water. Or developers could be created to make any film perform far better. I will give you one thing: solid state amps are getting better, but tube amps can be better for many reasons I have a solid state amp and when cranked up, it hums. My friend's amp is tube and it is dead silent if pushed up. Granted, my amp is not high end. I play the guitar and the Banjo. My ear is not perfect, but it is good enough to tell the difference between a tube amp and most solid state amps. Most SS amps simply cannot compare to a higher end tube amp. Again, it is a money issue. It will always be a money issue no matter what we are talking about -film/digital or analog/solid state audio. We are taking an OT topic further OT, so perhaps we can agree to disagree before the list moderator gets mad (smiley). If you want to spend enough money, regardless of how good digital is, you can probably out perform it using film, and the other way around. For example, I can use a Linhof Master Technika 2000 as I would use a 35mm camera. 4x5 format and rangefinder focusing. Or perhaps a Technorama for that matter. Few customers compared to the whole would shell out six grand for a camera and lens because a three hundred dollar digital camera is "better." Faster image access and if you do not like Aunt Mary's blue dress, PS it until it is mauve. >>>You can say digital does not have the resolution of film. It will have 10 times that tomorrow, and it already has 80% less noise, which is why you can get, better prints from a good 8M than you can from 35mm. You can say it doesnât have the same latitude but, tomorrow it will have more latitude than you eye. You can say it doesnât have the color gamutâagain, tomorrow it will have a better gamut than your eye. Imagine settings on your camera for infared or ultraviolet. The D30 was a good infrared camera but they added filters on the D60. >>> It is easy to make predictions. But, before you start making them, you must consider all available options. Consider this: I occasionally use Illfochrome Color Micrographics film. It is an ultra high resolution material and is based on silver-dye bleach technology and a simple three step process. I have seen 32 x 40 inch prints made from this material and it holds up far better than images from most digital systems. The images are sharp, the grain is absent, and these materials are truly archival. The most recent prints I saw were photographs of Illuminated pages held by the State Historical Society. They are amazing. Now, to be fair, this film is very special and I understand it will be (or was recently) discontinued. It is extremely slow, with an ISO of 0.02 - 0.04. This speed eliminates its use for most general applications. It is, after all, a microfilm and not designed for pictorial applications. It is/was available in 4x5 as well, and I can well imagine what a mural print would look like from a 4x5. It would be amazing. Another thing to consider is the printing system. The typical customer does not care or fully understand the technology. They fall for the makers DPI/resolution claims they do not fully understand. What they want is the print. So regardless of the digital camera, you are to some extent limited by the printer and its quality. If you have a high end camera and you want the best print, you need a higher end printer. As cheap printers get better, so do the high end printers, so the inequality will likely always exist. For many, a two hundred dollar printer that makes a nice print is good enough. To be fair, long before digital, many amateur photographers would accept "bad" prints. The amateur was as technically illiterate about film and negatives as the typical user is about digital these days. Few amateurs are likely to drop ten grand on a color printer. Some will perhaps. So they are stuck. They own a high end camera but their printer will not give them the best possible results. With negatives, you will "always" get the best possible quality. Regardless of how much technology changes, my 4x5 negatives will print as good today as they will in a dozen years. Perhaps better, as paper improves. Most ink jet prints the amateur makes are still more expensive than having prints from digital files made on photographic paper. Then again, I am finding that some microfilm stocks are being used for pictorial work. There are special developers that make this possible and the results are amazing. One example of this is the use of Kodak's "Imagelink" stock. This film is a microfilm material similar to Technical Pan. What I miss is Panatomic-X developed in Microdol X, dilution 3. >>>You can debate this stuff all day long but in the end none of it matters because economics is what will kill film. The price of digital will continue to fall as its volume increases. As film volumes decline, you will see prices go up, and you will see more and more film discontinued. Sure a few may stay around for a long time. DJs can still buy albums but not at Walmart. In a few years you wont be able to get film at Walmart either. >>> Perhaps you are correct. Or not I have seen the new Kodak drop items that do not sell in large quantities. In the past, Kodak would keep film in their catalogs decades after the last camera that used the film was long gone or usage was limited; Verichrome Pan in 126 cartridges, for example. I have seen other manufacturers start offering film, however. There are more film and camera manufacturers today than existed five years ago. It is not always about money, so be careful with the predictions. For example, a film with virtually no users is EFKE's Matrix Film. One prediction I will make is how the Internet has changed things. In Utah, matrix film would likely not sell. However, the net makes it possible to gather large numbers of customers in one place, so the economics change. I am planning to have a special material made and due to the net, I will find plenty of customers. You would be amazed at what we have lost in the way of film and paper. For example, some of you probably use AZO papers. At one time, you could buy it in grades 0-5 and perhaps a dozen different types in single and double weight. I could sell very little AZO in the past, but I would have no problems finding customers on the net It all boils down to money and effort. Bob ... Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com |
