Henk W
Member
This must be a joke:
E-coli...genetic anipulation...a gene called lacZ
E-coli...genetic anipulation...a gene called lacZ
Film Made From Bacteria - 10 x Better Than Digital
- Thread starter bmattock
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 61
- Views 3K
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Here's the original news release from UCSF http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200511214/
ISO is just a bit on the low side tho... some of the test shots where exposed for 12-15hrs.
ISO is just a bit on the low side tho... some of the test shots where exposed for 12-15hrs.
Little Prince
Well-known
Don't see why it should look like a joke. Scientists do give that kind of names to the objects of their discoveries. And lots of previous discoveries have been met with incredulity when they first came into the light. The natural reaction of the majority is skepticism, but that doesn't decide fact. This may be a pipe dream or it may not, but I'm not sure anything is obvious at this point.
Heh heh... maybe you'll need to carry food along with film. Feed your canisters at regular intervals 😀.
By the way, it would have been equally interesting to know what the sensitivity (and dynamic range) of the E-coli-mulsion was. As someone pointed out, this could be even more important. Note: I'm not taking all this very seriously, just indulging in idle speculation.
Ywenz, do you remember how the first digital media output looked like? I don't, but I'm willing to bet it was nowhere near what it is now.
StuartR said:
Heh heh... maybe you'll need to carry food along with film. Feed your canisters at regular intervals 😀.
By the way, it would have been equally interesting to know what the sensitivity (and dynamic range) of the E-coli-mulsion was. As someone pointed out, this could be even more important. Note: I'm not taking all this very seriously, just indulging in idle speculation.
Ywenz, do you remember how the first digital media output looked like? I don't, but I'm willing to bet it was nowhere near what it is now.
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
Kin Lau said:
From the article Kin linked to:
That's not a photograph, that's a 1 bit image. What a bunch of hype!
R.J.
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200511214/
Yeah, let's play with E coli and see what happens.
More on genetics:
http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/deadlyecoli.html
http://www.foe.org/safefood/geplants.html
R.J.
ywenz
Veteran
I smell research cash.. cha ching! Yeah I know, I'm such a hater.
from the article:
"Like pixels on a computer screen switching between white and black, each bacterium either produced black pigment or didn’t, based on whether it was growing in a dark or light place in the dish..."
Intersting comparision.. except that the guy conviniently misrepresented how the computer monitor works. Each pixel can take on hundreds of hues and shades.. not simply black or white.
from the article:
"Like pixels on a computer screen switching between white and black, each bacterium either produced black pigment or didn’t, based on whether it was growing in a dark or light place in the dish..."
Intersting comparision.. except that the guy conviniently misrepresented how the computer monitor works. Each pixel can take on hundreds of hues and shades.. not simply black or white.
Last edited:
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
bmattock said:
Bill, you started the thread with the title, Film Made From Bacteria - 10 x Better Than Digital and Photogenic Bacteria May Spell Doom to Digicams - Click Here . We had a few good laughs.
I don't see any comments such as It won't work or It sucks except for yours.
Which two of us got it?
No, some of us are skeptical of scientific discoveries after they get spun by the media. The online scientific journals have better information. The purpose of the experiment was to create a sensor to start and stop more complex genetic engineering experiments not to make film.
BTW, if you're hoping to get some of this high rez, super slow gut bug film good for you!
Are you the Wal Mart wish genie or are you just trolling for flames? 😛 😕
R.J.
johne
Well-known
Perhaps it is just a "gut" feeling, but I suspect this.
Doubtful Johne
Doubtful Johne
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Yeah, but that's not to say someone else won't take up the challenge to develop it into a real photographic product. That's not to say there will be a real market for it, of course.RJBender said:
When the first cameras were developed, I'm sure there was a lot of pooh-poohing as well. And early on lots of people predicted digital capture would displace film to any significant degree.
My personal sense is that biofilm will not become a big product. But I was wrong about digital...
Earl
bmattock
Veteran
I'm not trolling for flames, honest. And I did initially post the piece just for laughs, as you said. And most had fun with it, which was certainly my original intent. But then I noticed something - maybe I'm imagining it - that struck me as something I see a lot.
Let me try to explain.
Where I work, I often have to replace old software applications with a new one. This new one is highly configurable, so we sit down with the clients and work out what the requirements are. And more often than not - they insist that the new application be just as crappy as the old one was, or it isn't acceptable. In some cases, they've even asked us to make it 'break' the same way. It's bee-zarr. If we suggest to them, even in the nicest way, that they don't 'need' the new app to be as flaky or badly designed as the old one, they get extremely protective of the piece of crap that they confessed previously to hating and wanted to get rid of.
What's that about?
I thought I detected that here. I've seen it before - Leica folk clamoring for a digital camera from Leica - and then excoriating them for building one - or licensing their name to another company to build one. They want a digital M built by Leica - but they won't buy it if Leica does build it, and they'll all cry about how awful it is. This is just an example, I'm not trying to pick on Leica folk.
It strikes me that it must be human nature. People say they want something, then when offered it, they criticize and reject it - then they complain that they didn't get it. It makes me laugh, in a way. Kinda funny.
Obviously, this bio-whatever is not a replacement for film. But as I read the responses, fewer of them seemed to me to be in jest, and more of them seemed to be criticizing that this would be no replacement for film. Well, film didn't get off to such a flying start, and the first photo ever recorded was pretty poor in terms of quality. But if those of us who love film decide to find a way to avoid the digital end, we have to start somewhere. Someone knocks on the door and offers a possibility, and oh no, that's no good. Yes, I realize that this is not actually being offered as such, but if it were, the response, I feel, would be the same. If it is not exactly the same in every way as film, then it ain't good enough. And in this way, we lose any chance to be able to keep using film in some fashion in times to come.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
pvdhaar
Peter
Bill, I think you've hit the nail on the head..
people resist change. Out of fear, uncertainty, doubt, whatever. One explanation is that this attitude has helped us survive a million years of evolutionary pressure, and that means it won't change for some time to come..
But it may also be because people have been cheated just too often. We're bombarded with ads that say 'better' or 'new' and most of it proves to be of the same substance as the emperors' clothes.
Either way, it would be a shame not to have an open eye for something that may -perhaps some decades from now- be a worthwhile addition to our arsenal of photographic tools, or that may replace the switch for that light that never works inside the fridge for that matter.. even if it all starts on a humoristic note
people resist change. Out of fear, uncertainty, doubt, whatever. One explanation is that this attitude has helped us survive a million years of evolutionary pressure, and that means it won't change for some time to come..
But it may also be because people have been cheated just too often. We're bombarded with ads that say 'better' or 'new' and most of it proves to be of the same substance as the emperors' clothes.
Either way, it would be a shame not to have an open eye for something that may -perhaps some decades from now- be a worthwhile addition to our arsenal of photographic tools, or that may replace the switch for that light that never works inside the fridge for that matter.. even if it all starts on a humoristic note
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
bmattock said:
E coli film has not been offered to the public. Thanks, but I don't want film made from genetically modified E coli bacteria. 🙄
As mentioned earlier, this research was for the purpose of creating a sensor to start and stop more complex genetic engineering experiments, not to make film. The bacteria produce one bit images... pigment or no pigment. Do you want to tell us how they can come up with a grayscale image? 😛 😕
We're not researchers but if you want to donate to that research lab, go right ahead. Ask them if they can cook up some film for you, too. 🙂 Someone didn't really knock on the door with the possibility. It's more like somone farted, left the room and then criticized others for saying it stunk. 😛 😕
If film is already "dying" why would a company want to invest in the R&D for E coli film ? 😕
R.J.
bmattock
Veteran
RJBender said:
That wasn't my point. But I suspect you know that.
Individual digital camera sensor sites can only sense 1 bit images, red or no red, green or no green, blue or no blue. How can they come up with a color image?
Processed B&W film consists only of silver metal, no shades of gray. It is the thickness of the silver deposit and thus, the degree of translucence, that determines what we see as shades of grey.
So my guess would be that e.coli film, if such a thing could actually be created, would work in the same way digital sensors (CCD and CMOS) do now - by converting photons into ons and offs.
My perspective is a bit more historical. Reading through old camera magazines, I saw the hue and cry raised when someone dared to suggest that 35mm (miniature, as they were called then) camera might eventually displace roll film. Same for SLRs.
Same for color film; before it existed, some cried out for the need for it. Then when it appeared, they complained about it.
When the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market on silver back in the 1970's, the price of film went up. Some said it spelled the death of film. Others tried to interest people in research in other ways to do film beyond chemical with silver halide - and were roundly criticized. Their primitive attempts were terrible, but few considered that over time and given research, they might have worked. Fortunately, the Hunt brothers went kerbang and that was that for high silver prices.
But what if it had not been? Silver had gone from a buck or so an ounce to over seventy five dollars an ounce by the time the Fed stepped in and put a stop to it. If film had become too expensive for people to buy, what then? Alternatives would have been found - and people would have complained and said how awful they were until they became entrenched. Then they'd have complained when it came time to move on to something else again.
I can't speak for any specific company, but I can guess that if a company thought they could find a niche in which they could produce film or a film-like substitute that did not require building a large coating plant, they might be interested in the R&D investment necessary to see if it had any potential. But that's just a guess.
Some see only what is put in front of them and reject it based on what it is currently. Others see an opportunity that might or might not work out. And frankly, I am just as likely to choose the former over the latter in any given circumstances myself. I find the humor of this situation by observing those who dislike digital, dispair the death of film, but refuse to consider any other alternatives.
I can see you think I am trying to wind you up - I'm not. I think you believe I am pointing fingers at people and accusing them of being luddites - I'm not. I'm noting what appears to me to be a common human activity - protecting the old ideas, complaining about the new ideas, and complaining about any alternatives that might preserve their old ideas. I'm as guilty of it as anyone.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
bmattock said:
I'll have to correct you on this Bill, each photosite is sensitive to light intensity, and usually will generate a 8-12 bit signal after conversion to digital.
The color sensitivity is generated by a color filter array put in front of the sensor.
But still each photosite has 8-12 bit and can discriminate between 256 and 4096 levels of light intensity.
See for more details
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=AD_Converter
If the bacteria can only have 1 bit you have the problem of dicriminating different light intensity levels, you may end up with a super high res film, but only good for microfilming documents.
bmattock
Veteran
fgianni said:
Live and learn, mea culpa. Ich habe mir gerade mein eigenes auge ausgestochen!
So, given silver in B&W film, how do they make grey levels? Silver halide either gets converted to silver metal or not converted. I believe that silver halide exposed to 'more' light (higher intensity or light level) has more sensitized particles, and more subsequently gets converted to silver metal by development.
Through the thickness of the silver metal deposit, I believe, levels of grey are represented. I can visualize a 'stack' of e.coli sensors, the thickness of which represent grey levels just like silver metal on film base. So I think this could be capable of high rez B&W film.
But if I am wrong, please correct me!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
PS - In any case; the viability of e.coli as film was never my point here, as I've said. I was using it to illustrate a point. If I said something was as different as 'night and day' a side argument about how different night and day are really has nothing to do with the 'something' I was talking about, it's just a distraction.
lonelyboy
Established
Just remember to wash your hand every time you taken a photo!!!
Michael I.
Well-known
would Mexican Tapwater be a developer?
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Michael I. said:
Will antibiotics work as a Stop-bath and fixer in one go?
Michael I.
Well-known
will you replenish it with sour milk?
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
Try finding a frame to hang it on the wall. It's agar in a petri dish... probably not archival. 😀
R.J.
