Pål Jensen writes:
> Frank wrote:
>
> > Audio CD's were supposed to be the death of vinyl, but vinyl is still
kicking around (yes, it can be hard to find, but it's
> > out there). In fact, there is more vinyl available now than there was 5
to 10 years ago. There are few if any budget
> > turntables around these days, but the high-end market is thriving. Linn
Sondek, Sota and Oracle (to name a few) are still
> > around, and despite their high prices, are selling lots of product.
> >
> > I suspect that digital will mean the death of popular consumption of
film, but I also suspect that their will always be a
> > "specialty niche" of film users. What I fear (if vinyl records are any
example) is that the diminished production of film
> > will mean a much smaller selection of film available, along with much
higher prices.
>
> The comparison with the introduction of the CD is relevant in this
discussion. By the end of the 80's the major record companies, like Polygram
and Columbia, stopped pressing vinyl records. This in spite that cd had only
around 50% of the market. This was done to force the consumer into the more
profitable CD medium. Considering the fact that all the major film companies
have interest in the digital field, the same can happen regarding film vs.
digital. When digital reaches a certain point the film companies may figure
out that they will make more money by discontinue film, or increase the
price significantly, thereby forcing the consumer into the more profitable
digital. I'm not saying this is bound to happen, but it is a likely
scenario.
I don't buy the CD comparison at all. First, CDs and vinyl are consumer
purchasing pre-recorded information (other's work). Even 20+ years after
CDs begin, consumers are still using analog cassettes for the recording of
their own works. Digital cameras are the same way and cassettes. Just in
the last few years have consumer digital recording devices become low cost
and useful enough for consumer to start switching from analog cassettes.
Digital image recording still has many drawbacks for the normal consumer,
and it may be years before these are overcome.
One thing to remember about CCDs: as the pixel density increases, so does
the cost, because the larger CCDs will have lower yields due to increased
silicon size. In addition, the optical demands on a small, high density CCD
become outrageous, as the optics are smaller, but must correct color
aberrations to something finer than 35mm currently needs.
We may see a lot of consumers buying cheap low-res digital cameras in the
coming years, but it may be just a fad, and like APS, may never take hold,
or take the lion's share of the market away from film. Film still produces
a high quality image for a rather low price in equipment. Once consumers
see the poor quality, and inconveniences of digital imaging in its current
incarnation, they may backlash against it until it becomes significantly
better and cheaper, which it may never do.
Cheers,
Gerald
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
