Are we there yet? (Post your dream camea specs) or when is enough, "enough"?

[_larky]

Which most people don't do, because they have better things to do when they're alive, and after they're dead, their hard drives are either wiped or end up in land-fill. Proponents of 'digital images last forever' tend to ignore human nature. Or reality, as we call it.

Cheers,

R.

This is a major problem, one I am working heavily on, but it's going to take me a while. However, the algorithm is written and tested for long term preservation. I just need to work out the more complex tasks of raising funding and writing a user friendly implementation.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I see the evolution of consumer cameras (including "professional" models) as a kind of punctuated equilibrium. We get revolutionary cameras that make capabilities common that were once only dreamed of, and then we get incremental development until the next explosion. For me the Nikon D3 was such an innovation, as it let me do (for me) high-ISO photography without giving too much thought to the grain/noise issue. The D3S or X? Not so much. I would also consider in this class the current mirrorless cameras that free photographers somewhat from the nutty-ness of camera-lens brand lockstep. But the follow-on models have been . . . well, underwhelming in their imagination of what should come next. It is almost as if the designers were forced to come up with ideas for this year's models.

I don't deny that refinements in the incremental stages of this process occur, I just don't know how much difference they make to how folks are actually working with these machines. Let's take Roger's example of an additional memory card slot for the M9 (a great idea). This could increase time between having to empty the cards, provide (as the D3 does) the option for instant backup on card #2 of the images on card #1 and so on. This is all very convenient. But I am not sure, other than incrementally changing how Roger works that the kind or pictures he takes or the quality of those pictures would be enhanced. If you could double or triple the M9 chip's resolution that would be something, but what would you do with all that extra data? Crop more, I suppose.

Part of the question, now that I think about it, is whether and how often your expectations about output (that have been set by technology that has gone before) are exceeded by technological advances that enable you to do work that you never could before. The shift to digital has been seismic (with huge pros and huge cons as discussed elsewhere); but now what? Do we all take for granted that an image-making device will be recognizable in 10 years? 20 years?

 

[Spyro]

This is a major problem, one I am working heavily on, but it's going to take me a while. However, the algorithm is written and tested for long term preservation. I just need to work out the more complex tasks of raising funding and writing a user friendly implementation.

Ι dont get it (due to pure technical ignorance), what is the problem exactly?
Are digital files meant to implode at some stage 😕
what are the users required to do?

 

[Neare]

When we no longer need cameras to take photos, we'll be there.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

"Where we're going, we won't need "roads"? Is that it?

 

[jsrockit]

I'll leave this to the camera manufactuers... while I enjoy my M9 and X100... to me, the closest to what I want in digital.

 

[LKeithR]

Which most people don't do, because they have better things to do when they're alive, and after they're dead, their hard drives are either wiped or end up in land-fill. Proponents of 'digital images last forever' tend to ignore human nature. Or reality, as we call it.

Cheers,

R.

I do think the notion of maintaining archives (or not) has a lot to do with human nature but I also think that it applies equally to film and digital. If you have the discipline to keep your archives up to date you're going to do it regardless of what medium you use. And I don't think that film users on the whole are any better at it than those of us who shoot digital. One can only wonder how many millions of prints, slides and negatives there are languishing in disarray in boxes all around the world? If anything, digital is easier to work with because most software packages now come with decent cataloguing ability built in.

 

[_larky]

Ι dont get it (due to pure technical ignorance), what is the problem exactly?
Are digital files meant to implode at some stage 😕
what are the users required to do?

As systems (hardware and software) change to meet new demands, gradually file types become redundant. There are more file types which are non-functional after the last 10 years than currently capable of being used.

The problem is exacerbated by corporate buyout, wheeler dealing, licensing of technologies to companies who then incorporate them poorly etc. It's a very serious problem, and nobody is really trying to do anything about it. Everyone is talking about it, but nothing concrete is taking place.

My method will never require users to keep creating new copies of files into new types, as it is pure math and therefore not a filetype per se.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

As long as a file type is documented, someone can write code to convert it. If it is not documented, a little bit more of a challenge. Most raw format data is not compressed, but the option does exist in the specs. HEX dumps of uncompressed raw data is fairly easy to unpack without knowing the file format. Data compressed using Huffman code is more challenging. You get about 3:1 size reduction using using lossless compression. SO: if an M9 used Huffman code, the buffers would flush 3 times faster. Just make sure to keep a copy of the format.

 

[arpinum]

We are not there yet. I still need
-quick load medium format film
-rangefinder with viewfinder on top for tlr style shooting, as well as regular viewfinder.
-maskless color negative
-adjustable contrast lenses
-switchblade style lens hood
- dof levers could be much better
- brightlines that are infinitely variable
- viewfinders with auto adjusting magnification
- rf meters adjust angle based on lens or selection

many many more. We have a long way to go

 

[arpinum]

As long as a file type is documented, someone can write code to convert it. If it is not documented, a little bit more of a challenge. Most raw format data is not compressed, but the option does exist in the specs. HEX dumps of uncompressed raw data is fairly easy to unpack without knowing the file format. Data compressed using Huffman code is more challenging. You get about 3:1 size reduction using using lossless compression. SO: if an M9 used Huffman code, the buffers would flush 3 times faster. Just make sure to keep a copy of the format.

And yet none of the big makers document the standards. even the dng wrapper doesn't allow you to easily view an image. Makers also obfuscate the files on purpose.
Your best hope is to keep around software that can convert it.

Or use film.

 

[Vilk]

When we no longer need cameras to take photos, we'll be there.

very well said

 

[pixelatedscraps]

As much as I like the form factor of the m4/3 / NEX cameras - from an aesthetic point of view - they are too restricted in terms of performance (autofocus, high iso, speed and what the hell to do about that damned current external viewfinder / LCD focus p.o.s.) for me to buy one yet.

I love the D700, though not being a professional photographer meant I had no real use for it (seeing as I still absolutely am in love with film, metering with your eyes, tactile feedback of chrome dials and levers and developing my own B&W).

I absolutely love the performance of the D700 and if I could have that in a m4/3 / NEX body it would be a no brainer for me.

In fact, let's push it and say I want:

-18mp FF sensor
-D700 high ISO performance
-D700 autofocus and metering system; speed
-D700 build quality
-NEX-5 body

No doubt it'll come - in 5 years

 

[Roger Hicks]

I do think the notion of maintaining archives (or not) has a lot to do with human nature but I also think that it applies equally to film and digital. If you have the discipline to keep your archives up to date you're going to do it regardless of what medium you use. And I don't think that film users on the whole are any better at it than those of us who shoot digital. One can only wonder how many millions of prints, slides and negatives there are languishing in disarray in boxes all around the world? If anything, digital is easier to work with because most software packages now come with decent cataloguing ability built in.

Dear Keith,

This is my argument, really. Believers in archives talk about 'discipline', but history doesn't work that way. Survival of most things from the past is pretty aleatory, and with digital imaging, it's not so much loaded dice as exploding dice. Maybe you don't care what happens to your pictures after you die, but historians do.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

And yet none of the big makers document the standards. even the dng wrapper doesn't allow you to easily view an image. Makers also obfuscate the files on purpose.
Your best hope is to keep around software that can convert it.

Or use film.

If the format is documented, such as DNG, then it is not too hard to do. Uncompressed RAW format data is usually straight forward.

My "Personal Experience" has been software to unpack Multi-Image TIFF files used to store digital microscope images- about 15 years ago. The Kodak .KC2 format was undocumented, took about 100 lines of code to convert to ".BMP".

My personal best was almost 20 years ago. HEX dumped the files used by "Wolfenstein 3D", unpacked the multiple images used in the scenes, read out the Video Lookup Table, and replaced all of the framed pictures and jail cells with pictures of my cats. Wrote a mask to retain the jail cell bars. Converted the 24-bit color images of the cats to the 256 location VLT used by the software.

After all, It's just a bunch of numbers.

 

[arpinum]

If the format is documented, such as DNG, then it is not too hard to do. Uncompressed RAW format data is usually straight forward.

My "Personal Experience" has been software to unpack Multi-Image TIFF files used to store digital microscope images- about 15 years ago. The Kodak .KC2 format was undocumented, took about 100 lines of code to convert to ".BMP".
...
After all, It's just a bunch of numbers.

DNG is an open format, but it can store data in proprietary formats, this is built into the spec. And camera makers utilize this. The d200 even used encryption for certain properties. The data is not open. TIFF is a whole lot easier to deal with than what cameras are spitting out these days.
dcraw is an open source converter, yet takes 8.000 lines and is very unintuitive.
My hard drive is AES-256 encrypted; not all bunches of numbers are created equal.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

with digital imaging, it's not so much loaded dice as exploding dice.

Truer words were never writ. Electrons: much allure, much danger.

 

[Brian Puccio]

I'd like my Provia to develop itself and give me both a scanned, adjusted 20 MP 16-bit TIFF (most times, there isn't even that much there, but it's a nice round number) and a nice 11x17 cibachrome.

Taking the picture is all I want to do, everything else is annoying work, not fun. I take photos for fun.

Brian: I take it that you don't find digital appealing and that Provia in a film body fits your needs. Are you at all susceptible to the argument any current digital SLR would give you what you want (relief from processing drudgery)? Or do you mean that we are "there" in terms of the image quality that Provia and a good scanner can get you, but you want the process to be more automatic?

Ben

Actually, I'm one of the younger people on the forums and started digital (Canon Digital Rebel 300D, then 5D, then 5D Mark II briefly) and then discovered rangefinders (Bessa R2A) and with that, slide film, where I got the color I had been looking for all these years. My girlfriend on the other hand, took photo courses in college, has developed countless rolls of black and white, etc., she's started moving digital. Me? I'm happy with Provia, nothing makes me happier than getting the film back and holding the slides up to the light. It's just all the work after between Vuescan and a Coolscan that I find so annoying. If it could be automated, I'd be all for it. Before I got my M6, before I discovered film, I was always unhappy with my tools. Now, a small camera to fit in my pocket with a second lens in the other along with a roll or two of film and I'm happy as can be. I don't want anything else from what I work with.

It's just sort of sad I arrived to this party so late, as everyone else is leaving 🙁

 

[gnashings]

We were "there" 50 years ago. At least as far as what photographers want from cameras. What pixelographers want from photo computers might be a different story all together - I wouldn't know.

 

[ianglean]

Leica M9 is almost my dream, I'd like it to have a wind on lever like the R-D1 though. 🙂

I Agree...