Seems to me that film just for archiving digital images is already available. Fine grain black and white to do tricolor like Technicolor film process would be an easy solution. Solid-state digital storage in a holographic form is not that far off. The data would be locked in an inert matrix along with the play-back code. AZ Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround Book. Now an E-book. http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] Re: Creative Commons, not Digital/Film costs > From: karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, December 24, 2007 11:45 pm > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx > : A good read about film vs. digital > : > : > : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html?ref=business > that was a very interesting read. > so film burners are back in style again now? > The local government mapping mob digitized all their aerial photos and while I applauded the decision (much easier access to the images when needed) I shuddered when I discovered they were disposing of the film once the process was completed.. of course they were scanned at 1200 dpi, the pinnacle of technology at the time so they didn't capture *all* the data there was to grab. > gawd, I'd hate to see their staffing bill for all that scanning, over 70 years of photos covering almost 2500 kilometers tip to toe, some 2.5 million square kilometers. > a sheet of 10x10 film cost little to store, 200 of them takes up some space, 144Mp images - that's just short of 500Mb uncompressed. > mirror that and 200 images takes up 2 100gb drives :/ > then the management costs and .. > no going back though, the film has been disposed of :( > k
