See this article from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/11/technology/11FOVE.html

-- Bob (robljones@attbroadband.com), February 11, 2002

Answers

in leica fotografie 2/2001 ralf coenen states that they would probably rather use the r-system to go digital, mainly because the characteristics of the lenses to guide the light more perpendicular to the film. this is due to the more generous back-focus of slr lenses. when olympus brought out their e-10 they also stated the same reasons for not using their old lenses. i guess a leica M-D won't happen.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

Sounds like a 3.53megapix chip teased into thinking it's got 7, but that still falls way short of what a good scanner delivers from a 35mm frame. In short, more hype from developers trying to sell product. I wonder if news people ever research the stories they do, of if they always just repeat what they're fed?

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

Digital vs Analog

Slightly O/T

Seems to me we've already had this debate before. Remember vinyl vs CD? Proponents of CD said "perfect sound forever". What they failed to mention was that a 16 bit CD contained MUCH less information than a slab of the ol' shellac you can buy at the penny and dime. Recording companies were actually destroying their vinyl lathes at one point, to make way for the CD revolution. And who can blame them? From a profit margin standpoint they were looking at the cost of a 160 g puck of virgin vinyl vs 20 g of polycarbonate resin. Vinyl looked doomed.

Today, we see the industry finally fess up to the consumer about the deficiencies of digital sound and how they are going about making it more like vinyl.

History will repeat itself in the photo world. You can COUNT on it!!!!!

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

hopefully the bold type will have gone now.

-- (bubblegrass@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

stock up 1000 rolls of tri-x and film will not go away.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

I suspect there is a lot of truth in what John says. I don't think that ultimately digital will be inferior to film, but the so called advantages of digital photography will not be as apparent twenty years on when file formats, compression programs, CDs, digital cameras, printers have come and gone and changed. Then I suspect many people will wish they had kept a film camera - at least they would have the negatives! The way people talk about digital anyone would think the holy grail was within grasp! Photography year 0!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

However, if I want to pick up some music I don't have the choice of vinyl or CD. The record company has decided for me it's going to be CDs.

Hey Bubblegrass. Depends on what you listen to. Personally, I listen to alot of classical and jazz these days. That kinda stuff you can always find on vinyl. If you know how to grade the vinyl (that is who made the pressing and its groove condition) you can pick up some sweet deals at the local used record shop. Personally, I like this adventuresome approach to buying music. I pay on average $2 for a pristine example of jazz or classical that can trump any CD, XRCD, SDVD, or SACD (whew!) out there. Helps when you have a Wilson-Benesch to play it on too

OK, enough O/T (Really hope films around and cheap in 20 years!)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 12, 2002.

I am not sure if I can find software to load my jpg files in 10 years or read my CD's but I sure will find a slide projector.

Bernd

-- Bernd Kunze (bkunze@gmx.net), February 12, 2002.

The 80-20 rule applies. 80% of the people can't distinguish the quality of vinyl from CD; and these people form 80% of the market. Same for film vs. digital. Face it folks, digital is here to stay. 80% of camera buyers are probably the point and shoot variety, and to them digital does offer a measure of freedom from lousy labs and stupid lab operators.

Also remember that digital will eventually surpass the quality of film - maybe not in 10 years, maybe not in 20 but someday it will. In fact it already has in terms of scanning backs, but that is not what I meant. I mean sensor technology will advance to the point where using film will be a costly and hard-to-find proposition. You will be expected to know your photoshop better than your Leica.

Now, I don't particularly like the results of digital; I can always tell that an image was *shot* with a digital camera, regardless of its quality. Maybe because it is too perfect? Grainless, linear tonality? I don't exactly know. But I can make it out immediately. OTOH, I can't tell from a Fuji Frontier print that it was digitally printed, as ling as the source was film. Somehow having film in the imaging chain introduces information content (or noise content, maybe) that tells me that this is a *real* photo. Of course this is purely personal, and the next person may differ entirely.

It's like experienced listeners can immediately tell vinyl from CD, regardless of whether the rest of the audio chain is audiophile stuff or not. I design audio for pleasure, and I design silicon chips for a living (I could not care less what the end products are - digital cameras or routers, it means the same to me.) I hate digital. Sure, it is my bread and butter, but would I run out and buy a digital camera? Not a chance.

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

...remember that digital will eventually surpass the quality of film...

I wish I could believe that. Most manufactures will settle on 80% of the current highest standard, which is what 80% of the customers will be happy with. Prohibitive costs in R&D and production will make it more difficult than it already is to fill out the small niche markets.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), February 13, 2002.

>> I wish I could believe that.

A true RGB sensor with a 24-bit Analog to Digital convertor can fit in 10 microns. Today. That is about 100 lpmm in true resolution. As feature sizes decrease, it should be possible to fit the same in into lesser area, or conversely, increase the bit depth at the same resolution. I am quite certain that sensors will be able to provide at least 200 lpmm and even much more with maybe 32 bits/color in the future. The technology for that is not so far-fetched. The *only* problem that I foresee is this:

If the chip is made too large, there will be yield problems in the silicon.

If the chip is not made too large, there will be manufacturing issues with the lenses. (A lens will have to be made with *very* tight tolerances to be able to actually use the potential of the chip.)

Either way we are looking at big bucks. However, as semiconductor technology matures, it does get cheaper. So it is a question of time before it becomes affordable enough so the average photographer buys it without much consideration to its price. How long I can't tell, but someday, these problems *will* be licked.

Unfortunately that, right there will end the story of 35mm (sigh). As for MF/LF, it will be much longer before digital sensor chips start rivalling them.

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

Vijay,
I do not doubt that it is -or will- be technological possible.
In line with the LP/CD discussion; newer products like Sony's MiniDisc (or Philips digital cassette!) has not improved the quality of sound (even though it was technological possible), they choose to improve the convenience of handling.
HDTV died because 80% of the customers were satisfied with the current technology, and they prefered satelite bandwith to be used for more channels rather than higher image resolution.
I do not think that the photo industry differs much from the audio industry. Take the APS format; The industry choose to improve handling but decreased the negative area -because 80% of the consumers don't make enlargements anyway.
My concern is, that when a certain point is reached (where 80% is satisfied), the industry will focus their resources on other improvements which will satisfy the 80%.
Without a massmarket/massproduction demand, cost of the improved censor technology may be prohibitive -even for high-end consumer cameras like Leica.
BTW: I really hope I am wrong. I'd love to see the industry make improvements that match or exceeds the expectation of the most discriminating consumer.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), February 13, 2002.

Vijay is of course right, but the issue is always cost. The assumption is always that as production ramps up costs will decrease. This may still be exorbitant! Niels is also surely accurate in his assessment too. None of this techno speak really answers the formidable archiving issues raised by digital technology and what happens in a world of shifting algorithms and systematic replacement of software and hardware. Many pros don't care (once a job is done and paid for they barely need archiving), neither do most P&S who throw their negs away already, but I care (as do stock agencies and such like) as unimportant as I am. This is why I am sticking to film as of now and for the near future. I am happy to embrace color digital printing and possibly black and white (with reservations). But I am keeping my "source" film.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

There are digitals that exceed the quality of film. They also exceed most of our annual salaries ($100,000+)

So if you want incredible detail, your holy grail camera involves pixels.

The magic and alchemy of light penetrating the lens groups, striking and absorbing into the film, the images' latent energy stored on the film, the slow release and transformation of this energy during development, the clearing of the un-necessary material, making the desired images permanent, and the painstaking printing process cannot be matched. Photos (to myself) are all comprised of GRAIN. After accepting this fact, my work soared in quality. Digital holds none of this magic for me.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), February 13, 2002.

I can't compare CD's to records but Digital photography is going to replace film someday. That day will come when the professional photographer deems it to be better than film. Just because 80 percent of the market is satisfied with today's digital quality does not doom film cameras. It wasn't to many years ago that 80% of the people were shooting with Brownie Starmite cameras or Argus C-3's. The other 20% were shooting Nikon F's or Leica M3's. These 20% were the people who made a living with their cameras and demanded quality. Lets remember Digital photography is still in its infancy and wait to see where the Theckno's take us. Until then I'll hang on to my Leicaflex SL and M3 and enjoy the hobby for what it has to offer.

-- andy wagner (awagner@midwest-express.com), February 13, 2002.