----- Original Message -----
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I remember seeing something similar before. It seems the film gets
> > destroyed (rendered unusable for printing or projecting) in the
> > process. I see little or no advantage in using this process, other
> > than reduced use of chemistry.
>
This sounds workable to me now. I originally couldn't comprehend how the
image data was to be read from the latent image but wasn't thinking that
they'd destroy the film to do it. That would permit the apparatus to
analyse the chemical state of the emulsion which would reveal the difference
between differently exposed areas.
> That, in itself, would make the process worthwhile. Even with the
> best modern reclamation equipment a photo lab is a major producer
> of rather nasty byproducts. And that reclamation effort isn't cheap.
>
Yes! If "traditional" photography is to survive at commercial volumes then
there must be a major reduction to the wastestream.
> There are also claims that the final yield from the film stock
> exceeds current chemical processing in both resolution and density
> range. I'll wait until I've seen more unbiased information before
> I wholeheartedly accept that. But if it *is* true I'll be quite
> happy to take delivery of my images on digital media. For those
> who want a physical hardcopy it should be easy enough to write out
> the data again to a frame of film which is conventionally processed.
>
I guess the resolution of the output is simply a matter of how fine the
sampling "resolution" is. Throw enough money at it and the resolution could
be at the molecular level. And processing does indeed degrade an emusion
(how ironic) due to the silver grains and the dye globules migrating during
the wet period.
As for me, digital files would be more than OK - I've just been reviewing my
trannie files and am amazed at the degredation of some 10 year old E6s. The
quality of processing appears to be the determinant as the distribution of
good and bad storage outcomes appears to be random and not tied to film
brands or types. FWIW I've always used pro labs with good reputations.
Any doubts about longevity of digital files is simply overcome by rewriting
them every few years, and I'd never depend upon magnetic storage mediums for
any "archival" files.
> As for the 'vapourware' suggestion - I don't think so. Applied
> Science Fiction have a pretty good track record (even if they
> do have a name that suggests a couple of geeks in a basement).
> These are the people that developed Digital Ice (the scratch
> reducing technology used in the Nikon and other scanners) and a
> couple of other image manipulation tools that Nikon incorporated
> into their latest 4000dpi units.
> Some pretty hard-nosed reviewers seem convinced that this is
> a genuine technology - I'd be prepared to give ASF the benefit
> of the doubt at present.
>
My skepticism came from the E-film experience - too much talk without
results for too long followed by a disappointingly obsolete product. I hope
the ASF product gets to market as a viable, competitive technology.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
