Only until digital becomes tenable from a cost standpoint (which will be
a few--very few--years).
I'll bet still "chemical" photography survives much longer than motion picture
film. As Bill Casselberry pointed out, the resolution needed for motion
pictures is lower than for stills. The material costs (film, processing,
etc.) are much higher. As soon as digital video equipment reaches the quality
of 35mm or 16mm film and equipment costs are similar (and independent filmmakers
can edit everything on their home PCs) the shift is going to happen fast.
-- Original Message --
>or stick with film! :-)
>
>
>>And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say
>that
>>video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture
>>and documentary industry.
>
>And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never *will* happen: the
>motion picture and documentary makers will skip right over videotape and
>go to digital when it's cost effective (a few more years).
>
--
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
-
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 .
