Bob, I think you are right on with regard to tossing out the old film-based think and starting over (let Steve Jobs' people do it) . The shape and controls of cameras can take on any form. Why not let the user set up their own workspace? The physical shape could be modified with a modular "Rubik's cube" - like core and clip on parts to customize the ergonomics. It's styling will need must-have sales appeal like the iPod. Making consumer goods that spend most of their life in a pocket is a real challenge. It will have to be accessorized. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 4Th ed. Now an E-book. http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: NYTimes take on the future. > From: Bob Maxey <written_by@xxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, February 02, 2006 3:11 pm > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > : to forget all the 35 mm format jargon and move on. Does anyone refer > : to a crop or multiplier when comparing MF to LF image sources? This > : 35mm comparison was started because there is no standard digital > : format. For years camera makers other than Eastman Kodak were > : restricted to formats based on available film size but now digital > : camera makers can manufacture any format they think can make a profit. > > > > I think I disagree with the quote above. I am not sure, I just think I disagree. As always, clarification is welcome. Feel free to tell me what I am trying to say because I do not know. > > > > I think we have a standard. It is expressed in megapixels. Not exactly a "format" but everyone knows that a 2MP camera is not as "good" as a 45 MP camera, if a 45 existed. Where it gets tricky, perhaps, is when we start discussing digital backs for established LF cameras or cameras with interchangeable optics. Perhaps sensor size, type and configuration. Bob does not know. > > > > Digital users do many things film users do/once did. They adjust for poor exposure (I dodge and burn) they adjust for color temperature (I use decamirid filters) they crop. > > > > Most digital cameras are point and shoot. No film to consider, just the camera's quality and resolution; 3MP or 24MP. It is either digital or film. > > > > Perhaps the fact that the camera is digital establishes a defacto format. A digital camera has no specific format that can be easily compared to film cameras, so why bother. > > > > In the good, old days, we had a vast number of formats and sizes. You could buy Minox, Minolta, 110, 126, 828, 35mm, 220, perhaps a dozen other roll formats; sheet film in all sorts of sizes and emulsions (like 11x14 Kodachrome) Cirkit, Banquet, on and on. > > > > Perhaps the best way to approach the issue is simply divide all cameras into either digital or film. Use old terminology to discuss film and new terminology to discuss digital. There is cross over in all technologies. For example, a Stanley Steamer "works" almost like any other automobile. Except for the engine and boiler. A Chrysler Turbine Car is about the same as a Escort when you get right down to basics. > > > > Back in the day, you knew that quality was largely related to size. If you wanted huge images, you might select 11 x 14 or perhaps 8 x 10. I shot aerials on 10 inch roll stock because 35mm would never do. Just like today; we would all purchase 150MP cameras (I think) rather than 5MP cameras because we want maximum quality. > > > > The customer never buys film for their digital cameras, just memory cards. The size of the card can be equated to the number of frames available on a roll of 35mm film. The camera simply exists and perhaps an endless number of images can be made without the consumer worrying about film sizes. > > > > Bob > > ... > > > > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com >
