One reason for the probable survival of film

[bmattock]

Another poster commented that eventually all Point and Shoots would be full frame. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.

I agree.

Through marketing, manufacturers are doing a wonderful job of convincing consumers that the IQ of tiny inexpensive sensors equals that of large sensor camera's. Have any of you looked a the image out of a Canon G11, compared to any of the APS-C sensor cameras, and some full frame cameras, either on screen or printed at 4X6.

I'm inclined to think that the broad mass of "consumers" will be side tracked by discussions of full frame, mid frame and tiny sensors, since those discussions only take place on forums like these. These forums constitute a tiny fraction of the camera buying market and I doubt have any sway with what camera manufacturers ultimately decide to bring to market.

Also, regarding those Mass Consumers and what they know (or don't), I thoroughly enjoy walking up to anyone with a Point and Shoot digital and asking them how they like the bokeh on their camera?

I agree with this as well. Read the consumer-oriented magazines such as PC Magazine or Consumer Reports and they will say nothing about DoF, sensor size, etc. They'll talk about pocket-ability, battery life, optical zoom, speed of start up and shot-to-shot, speed of auto-focus, face-recognition and other whiz-bang features that typical consumers either want or have been told they should want. Values that enthusiasts would consider important, like a fast lens, large sensor, good ISO performance, dynamic range, and so on, won't be considered in terms of what makes a 'good' camera for the typical consumer, let alone influence a reviewer to urge consumers to buy film cameras instead.

Yes, film is superior in lots of important ways. Joe Sixpack doesn't care, and he is the market. Are 'we' enough of a market to ensure the survival of film in some manner? I don't know. But the fact that it is superior doesn't matter to its survival - it either will or will not survive because enthusiasts will buy it, not because it is superior to digital.

I would not want to lean on the argument that film should survive because it is superior to small digital sensors, for the simple reason that that statement may not remain true much longer. Full-frame sensors in point-n-shoots? Doubtful. But more and more large sensor/small cameras created to serve the small enthusiast market that currently loves film.

 

[filmfan]

Forgot DOF crap... film is all about the grain and texture

 

[bmattock]

Forgot DOF crap... film is all about the grain and texture

Again, not a valid reason to argue that film will survive. Yes, the grain is a lovely thing and digital noise is not anywhere near as pretty. Average consumer (which is the market) does not know or care - they probably would prefer to have no grain at all.

You can list dozens of reasons why film is better than digital, each of them true. It does not matter to the long-term survival of film. Period.

 

[rodinal]

Now c'mon mr. writer, 4x5 isn't 4 times bigger than 35mm. We can do better than that.

In fact, it is...
A 35mm frame has a size of 24x36 mm, times four equals 96x144 mm, in inches 3.8x5.7, pretty close to 4x5 format.

Possibly you are thinking about the area. Likewise 4x5 format has about 16 times the area of 35mm format, but depth of field calculations relate to linear ratios, not area.

It's probably dead simple calculating these ratios, but I'm such a dumbass when it comes to calculations like these...

Indeed... 🙂

 

[btgc]

People don't have an awareness of DOF

Come on...first thing what proud owner of XYmpix digicam realizes that he can't make "cool shot with background out of focus" (well, they can mimic the look shooting at long end of zoom). This is one of most discussed questions in amateur photosites, discussing how to select background and apply Gaussian blur to it.

I've told this, school guy I know, recently got complete SLR kit just to have direct control over DOF, no matter what one could think about rise or decline of film manufacturers.

 

[antiquark]

Indeed... 🙂

Could be a units confusion. It should be noted that:

24x36 = millimeters
4x5, 8x10 = inches
6x6, 6x7 = centimeters
2 1/4 x 2 1/4 = inches

 

[degruyl]

It already exists: http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

It's a scan-back style digital camera, not a single monster chip, but, if your subject is reasonably still (1 second for the whole scan, which is pretty fast ), it'll do the trick, and for less than the cost of some cars!

For even more MP in a slower scanning back, there's the better light: http://www.betterlight.com/

A 4x5" or 6x17cm film camera and a good scanner is still a whole lot cheaper than the Seitz or Betterlight options.

Drew

Scanning backs are the devils creation. (although some panoramic cameras use scanning lenses: also created by the same devil).

My problem is with the LF ones (I don't do pano, and have no interest in it). But the same holds true: You are not taking a picture, but a series of pictures.

Granted, for what they are designed for (typically architecture) they work wonders for multi-cars. Or even "less than the price of a high end BMW". Film for me, and a decent scanner. Send out the ones that make it for pro drum scans, and you can still save money.

 

[bmattock]

Come on...first thing what proud owner of XYmpix digicam realizes that he can't make "cool shot with background out of focus" (well, they can mimic the look shooting at long end of zoom). This is one of most discussed questions in amateur photosites, discussing how to select background and apply Gaussian blur to it.

I've told this, school guy I know, recently got complete SLR kit just to have direct control over DOF, no matter what one could think about rise or decline of film manufacturers.

You are describing enthusiasts, even if they shoot digital point-n-shoots. The average camera user does not go near a discussion forum and would not know depth-of-field from a load of coal.

 

[bmattock]

What a load of crap and please don't include me in your campaign to denegrate film users. I shoot MPs exclusively for a living and every single shot I take has been created with DoF in mind. It' an element of composition.

Before you dismiss me as some luddite fetishist, the only reason I still use film cameras is because no digital camera can work for more than a couple of days without access to mains power. In my work that's useless.

Don't bother replying. I've added you to my ignore list.

I don't want to speak for Pickett, but I believe he said that "Actually, outside the hallowed halls of photo enthusiast web sites." Meaning he was NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU since you're on a photo enthusiast website right now. He was referring, I believe, to the Great Unwashed. You not being one of them.

 

[bmattock]

Lots of pictures:
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=sony plant

You can buy betamax tapes here:
http://www.high-techproductions.com/betamax.asp

Sony stopped manufacturing Betamax machines in 2002. No one currently manufactures Betamax tapes. The fact that you can buy them is completely analogous to those who argue that AgfaPhoto still exists because you can buy film labeled 'Agfa' that comes from cold storage. Show me the existing betamax manufacturing plant.

 

[Fujitsu]

Betamax was better than VHS. VHS won the battle. In the end, both lost to DVD, but Beta died first. There were lots of reasons Betamax did not become the dominant format, but the fact that it was better wasn't a factor in consumer demand. It never is.

Not true. Betamax soon became a niche "pro" product but remained available all the time. If thats the fate of film, fine.

 

[Stravinsky]

I am not completely disagreeing with your point BUT just because technology B becomes the consumer favorite does not mean technology A will disappear. As a silly example, just because ballpoint pens were invented didn't mean that pencils disappeared. Volumes, market share, etc. may be impacted but one doesn't have to preclude the other.

Or fountain pens... or oil paints... or sticks of charcoal...

If something can become an artistic medium, it will last forever.

That's a good example. In the battle for competition technologies and products adapt themselves to find new market niches.

Look at this: A scientific approach to managing competition

I'd be interested in seeing the growth curve of the films against that of the digital devices to verify if the film already reached the bottom of the fall.

 

[Jamie123]

Another poster commented that eventually all Point and Shoots would be full frame. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.

Yeah, that was me. Ok, maybe not all P&Ss will be FF but a lot of them will. Sure, marketing has convinced consumers that the tiny sensors with lots of MPs can be just as good as big sensors but sooner or later they will need a new marketing angle and "bigger is better" is always a good angle. Marketing will tell consumers that their old P&S with a tiny sensor is junk compared to the new shiny P&S with a bigger sensor. And as sensors get cheaper to manufacture it will also get more viable to put them in compacts. A Canon 1000D with an APS-C sensor is not more expensive than a decent P&S was a few years ago.

Is this going to happen this year? Most likely not. Will it happen eventually? Probably yes. Micro 4/3 is a start and so is the X1. More will surely follow.

And remember, we're talking about this as an argument whether or not film will survive. The OP's point was that those people who want shallow DoF will still go for a film camera instead of a digital compact. I say this point is moot because sooner or later there will be the option to get a FF compact so this won't be a reason to stick with film.

 

[Gid]

I think he was referring to professionals, as shown by his next sentence; "I rarely shoot to get a specific DOF."

Therefore, he's including me.

And, by suggesting that pros don't consider Dof while forum members do, he's trying to insult the latter.

What you think he was referring to and what he said are clearly not the same. I fail to see how you can get "professionals" from that. More like a CYA operation on your part.

 

[Incitatus]

Will film ever control the market again? no - but for the time being there is a large enough market to support it - maybe there will be much fewer options -
If kodak or fuji go away then someone else will fill that void- at least for another 10 years

 

[pawel glogowski]

To be precise DoF does not depend on crop factor / size of the frame.
But nevermind - most of You probably know that, and say otherwise just to make that specific mental leap to actually describe something else (that's not always fully convenient).

 

[Roger Hicks]

This is a moot point regarding the survival of film as sooner or later most P&S digital cameras will have full frame sensors.

Why?

Cheers,

R.

 

[antiquark]

Look at this: A scientific approach to managing competition

Thanks, interesting graph in that article:

It's possible that the digital vs film battle could follow the same arc as the ballpoint vs fountain pen did.

The fountain pen underwent what Darwin would have described as a character displacement to the luxury niche of the executive pen market. In the early 1970s, the strategy of fountain pens became a retreat into noncompetition. By 1988, the price of some fountain pens in the United States had climbed to $400. The Volterra-Lotka model indicates that today the two species no longer interact but each follows a simple S-shaped growth pattern. As a consequence, fountain pens have secured a healthy and profitable market niche. Had they persisted in their competition with ballpoint pens, they would have perished.

Imagine the ridicule you would have faced back in the 70's if you stated that "some day people will willingly pay $400 for a fountain pen."

 

[bmattock]

Imagine the ridicule you would have faced back in the 70's if you stated that "some day people will willingly pay $400 for a fountain pen."

Or a roll of film.

 

[batterytypehah!]

To be precise DoF does not depend on crop factor / size of the frame.
But nevermind - most of You probably know that, and say otherwise just to make that specific mental leap to actually describe something else (that's not always fully convenient).

Sorry, can't follow you.

DoF does depend on the size of the negative / sensor. That's the whole point here. The OP argued that this effect was going to help keep film alive -- which I find hard to believe. It seems indeed more likely that larger sensors will become more common, not in snapshot cameras but say in the segment that's now populated by the EP-1, etc.