Bullshit? You're the one dispensing it. there is one major flaw with your argument, this is NOW not the future and you cannot get affordable digital that equals or exceeds large format film that is available NOW. To say the *istD is "clearly better than film" is silly. Film goes beyond 35mm format. Way, way, way, beyond and the istD cant approch what my $125 4x5 speed graphic can do with film, color or BW, NOW.
JCO -----Original Message----- From: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital P&S camera easily exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at Walgreen's... The high-end APS systems, such as the istD, are better than color film period. My father has been an amateur for many years and when he saw the first istD images he said it was clearly better than film, and it is as long you play to its strengths, but, in the future you won't even have to do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. It's theoretically possible... Science has already said a single electron transistor is possible... That kind of fine detail is beyond what chemistry could ever hope for and is infinite to the human eye... Heck, sensors could be made to resolve so finely that you need a microscope to see the resolution limit... Eventually sensors will resolve beyond the power of the lenses, and new lenses will be designed. The point is, technology is unstoppable right now, it's progression is inexorable, film stopped progressing a long time ago on the other hand... The chemicals are still toxic, still clumsy, still the same as always. When was the last true "revolution" in film quality?? A hundred years ago?? When did the resolution limit of 35mm last get bumped up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... -el gringo -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Gringo, So film is limited by chemistry and digital sensors are limited by physics. So what? At the end of the day they are just capture mediums, and I have yet to see a digital sensor captures something that film cannot. Plus, as the market currently stands you have to use a hell of a LOT of film to equal the cost of even an APS sized digital sensor that is not its equal in terms of image quality. As to environmental concerns I doubt digital sensor production and disposal/recycling is a cost free exercise either. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 17:35, George Sinos wrote: > Earlier "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by >> chemistry, digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, >> which is ever advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film in >> a digital camera will >> be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of >> powerful hardware. >> >> -el gringo > > > Chemicals are something most companies would rather not mess with. An > individual photographer may get by with dumping his spent chemicals > down the drain, but any commercial facility will be regulated in some > way or another. > > Proper disposal of waste water and spent chemicals is an expense that > most companies would rather eliminate. > > I'm not arguing that digital is overall environmentally better or > worse. It just gets rid of an expensive problem for a lot of people. > > The chemical problem is just one more side issue that will eventually > hasten the demise of film. > > See you later, gs > >
