At 09:44 17/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Roman,
>I am reading this and laughing; but not at you. I am laughing because for
>the life of me I cannot figure out what we are really arguing about in that
>we are in agreement on most of the points. I agree that currently digital
>photography at its present stage of development leaves much to be desired
> especially the low and medium ends) and that it is in most cases inferior
>at present to AgX systems. I am not a fortune teller so I do not know if it
>will remain this way in the near, intermediate or long range future.
>Obviously much of this will depend on economics as well as technical
>engineering. I also have agreed with you in our earlier posts and agree
>with you now that it is not out of necessity for technical reasons that a
>dedicated exclusive scanning film has not been developed and marketed but
>mainly for practical economic reasons. While this tends to be the case
>historically that things will not be produced and marketed if the market is
>to small and specialized to make it profitable as a mass production item, it
>has not always in every case been such. Your infrared example illustrates
>that specialty films are produced and marketed even if their is a relatively
>small market as long as that market is found to be willing to pay the
>premium price or the company is trying to get a leg up on the competition in
>PR terms.
Laurie,
I love to agree with you. As for IR films, they are off-shots of military
applications, so the market is much larger that you expected.
>With all due respect, I am not protesting the situation or the actions of
>the manufacturers at all; nor am I blaming you for anything substantive.
>What I am taking you to task for are three things. First, I am taking you
>to task for responding as if I were engaging in making demands for a
>dedicated scanner film and in protesting the lack of such a film, which I am
>not nor have I. Second, I am taking you to task for portraying and reacting
>to my posts as if I were blaming you for anything - especially for the fact
>that a dedicated scanner film is not being actually produced and distributed
>now. And thirdly, I am taking you to task for what I often see as an
>unwillingness on your part to assume and understand the viewpoint of those
>who are seeking the production and distribution of a dedicated scanner film
>for use in the immediate to near future when responding to them.
I must be the most misunderstood person. I accept your desire to own a
special, scanner dedicated film. It is your right. I am not that demanding,
I can cope with the current crop of films. As Ed already said, the mask is
not a problem for the scanners. I bought LS30 to restore images on my old
films that deteriorate quickly in sunny and smoggy Sydney. I will continue
to print them, I do not envisage myself as an owner of digital camera.
unless I start a real estate business. Scanners supplement my photo hobby
sufficiently. The new films last longer, have enormous information
capacity, why would I like to change? What benefit for me would be to use
scanner dedicated film? If you feel otherwise, go ahead, make your day.
>Namely, rather than discussing the feasibility from a technical perspective
>of producing a dedicated scanner film ( you have pointed out the viability
>of doing so from an economic perspective) you seem to want to beg the
>question by telling them that they need to get the scanner manufacturers to
>produce scanners that comply with the requirements of the existing film. I
>would respectfully submit that this is less than a satisfactory answer to
>their complaints, demands, or questions.
to get your film you need to talk to technical people, but the companies
are run by managers listening to the marketing dept. only. How you solve
it, I don't know.
However, I have something for you. talk to Kodak and ask them for say, one
million rolls of dedicated film. you'll distribute them and make a lot of
money. The technology is here, just specify, what you want. If they can
make films designed to record images from the screen (various phosphors),
why not the scanner film? Send me 10% for that good idea. :-{)
>However, returning to the beginning, I still think that we are not
>fundamentally in disagreement on the points that you have made as much as in
>your approach to the questions.
>
>Having said this, I think that we probably have pushed this bear as far as
>it will go and probably should either drop the topic or take it off list.
