UNSUBSCRIBE
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:15:52 -0500
From: photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: PHOTOFORUM digest 4660
To: photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PHOTOFORUM Digest 4660
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Creative Commons, not Digital/Film costs
by karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
2) Re: For balance at Christmas
by mlent@xxxxxxxxxxx
3) Re: Creative Commons, archiving digital
by lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--Pièce jointe du message transmise--
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:45:22 +0800
From: shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Creative Commons, not Digital/Film costs
To: 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
--Pièce jointe du message transmise--
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:00:29 +0000
From: mlent@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: For balance at Christmas
To: photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Agreed! I simply took it as your being generous! Merry Christmas!
-------------- Original message --------------
From: karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> : Don Roberts wrote:
> : > Yes, it may be more blessed to give than to receive but receiving
> : > takes something special. Both have their merits according to Steinbeck.
> : > Happy holidays no matter which end you are on.
> : > Don
> : Apologies for the triple post. I have no idea how it happened. But the
> : Happy Holidays part is okay.
> : Don
>
> ther triple post is totally appropriate, your computer seems to have respect for
> the subject matter and did well :)
>
>
> nice
>
> karl
>
--Pièce jointe du message transmise--
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:10:13 -0700
From: lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Creative Commons, archiving digital
To: photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
|
