My theory on the SLOW death of digital

John Robertson said:
3MP+ camera phones will kill the compact digital,e. Kyocera is dropping cameras to concentrate on producing parts for these things!
Could be interesting!!
John,
the latest news of CEBIT in Hannover say the 5MP IS there and the plan is to go up to 10MP. What I believe is that the future high end phones will be half a (Navigation built in) PDA and half a camera and of course you will be able to call somebody with this thingy. Digital P&S will be up to 600 Euro will be obsolete. There are such models to be seen a prototypes at the CEBIT fair.
So the "revolution" itself has eaten a part of it's own market, we live in a highly accelerated world today., one or two years is the lifespan of a new market, not more. Kyocera understood first what's going on. Smart boyz 🙂)
Best,
Bertram
 
It seems that much of the debate is about the 'market'. Bringing the next best thing is a great ploy to sell things and make money. Digital is the NBT at the moment. It may mean that film becomes the tool of the die-hard or quality is everything photogrpher, but I don't think it will die as producers of film will soon realise there is a niche market - especialy when you think how many film cameras are out there - and how many older cameras are still being used
 
the oldest CD-R I have is from August 1995 and still readable. It is one of the golden Kodak CD-Rs and contains zipped archives. The next oldest is from September 1997 and holds the thesis of my then girlfriend as MS Office 95 and PDF document. The Office 95 version looks real bad in Office XP but the PDF is fine in Acrobat Reader 7 🙂.

So I think the claimed shelf life of 15 years can be reached with these media, probably more.

I have a 128MB QIC Tape from 1998 which holds a 80MB Tiff showing my hometown from a weather sattelite. I transfered the data once written on a Wangtec Streamer in a Sun workstation under SunOS4 to a PC running SuSE 9.2 with a current Tandberg Tape changer. The gimp displays the file just fine.

The next generation optical drives shown at the CeBit are designed to be downward compatible to CD and DVD media.

So with this out of the way, I don't think film is dead or will die any time soon. It will become scarce and more expensive and there will be less choice.

And to the third world argument, the cubans I've seen in Cuba with cameras had digitals. In the third world the class fortunate enough to buy cameras go digital, the others try to get enough money for food :-(
And I don't think that anybody in, say, Haiti can afford an Ilford XP2 with development but not a digital P&S.
 
Jorge Torralba said:
You read correctly I am starting a film vs digital war! . I may be the only one out here to say this. But, I think DIGITAL cameras will not necessarily die but eventually the demand will demish and film will prevail. I see this happening in about 10 years!Here is why.

[SNIP]

Thus I say to you. The masses who want their pictures to pass on to the next geneartion will one day realize the consequences of digitizing their memories and say to themselves, I better print on RC and pass on down.

Nonsense!

NOTE: The following rant is firmly tongue-in-cheek and the insults are not intended in anything but good fun. You who know me know I love film, ok?

Film is dead, it just hasn't fallen over yet. I say this as a man who loves film and will be very sad when I can't buy a roll of Tri-X even from an enthusiast's fridge somewhere. That day may not arrive until my own life has been lived - but it will arrive.

Some in this thread compared film to jazz - to infer that both will always be around. Not so. Jazz requires no factories to process chemicals and produce product necessary to the making of jazz. One can simply pick up an instrument and play, or bang two rocks together, or sing scat. Film requires an industry devoted to making the tools necessary to production - ie, film stock.

One *can* of course, sensitize their own materials and process them with coffee and caffeine and so on - this is possible and some whackjobs will even do it. Good on them, but it doesn't make film any less dead. (By the way, I love all you whackjobs - I hope to become one in good time - but y'all ARE crazy, ya know)

Likewise has the time for LP records come and gone. Yes, you can still buy them. Yes, they have some advantages over CD's and DVD's in terms of sound. And there are even some new releases on LP records. But face it, vinyl is just as dead as the dodo. The fact that you can buy an LP does not make it any less dead.

The parallels are scary. Lots of 'nattering nabobs of negativity' who claim that music on CD's is a fad and will pass, and soon we'll all be spinning 45's again. Yeah. And horses are due for a come-back real soon now too. Elvis, preserve me.

The factory that made Ampex magnetic tape closed down a few months ago in the USA (US Impex). That left NO ONE in the US to make magnetic tape. When stockpiles are gone, that's it for tape made here. Some smaller factories are soldiering on with mag tape, but the writing is on the wall. Film WILL go the same way. Game over, boys and girls.

As I said, I love film, and prefer it over digital. But I am willing to face reality. Some seem to live in this dream world where if they complain loudly enough about digital it will go away - ain't happening. If they compare film to digital and point out the flaws in digital, everyone will wake up and recognize that digital is a bad idea - not happening. If they jump up and down and dare anyone to compare a 6mp file from a digital camera to one of their treasured Ansel prints in 11 x 14, that everyone will chuck their digicam on the trashbin and buy a large-format and tramp around on the sides of El Capitan - no way, Jose.

Is film better than digital? Yes. Today. Not tomorrow. Digital just keeps getting better, and the prices keep dropping. And more importantly - the public has chosen. Say what you want about the weekend snapshotters and the hoi polloi with their nasty little digital Vivitars that they bought at Walmart - they spend WAY more than we do in aggregate, and that's what the manufacturers hear - in spades. They get the vote, we don't. It has ever been thus, brothers and sisters in obsolescence. Get this through your thick heads - the PUBLIC HAS CHOSEN. The game is over. We can argue until forever - nothing matters, the decisions have been made. Film is a dead man walking.

As to storing digital files. Well, hate to disagree with anyone with a degree in library sciences, but the stated facts are wrong. You can make any number of digital copies of a digital file without loss of any kind. A bit is a bit - on or off, and it can be checked by checksums and more sophisticated methods to ensure that no errors crept in. Now, if you are talking about moving from one format to another by reading the file in and saving it in another format altogether, that may indeed be the case - just as moving a file from TIF to JPG involves loss. And any further 'save' on the JPG file will lose more data. However, copying it from an aging CD-ROM to a newer format, such as a DVD or whatever comes next, will not incur any loss.

On the contrary - the glass plates Jorge spoke of? I have some too, from the early 1900's. Mine are a bit scratched up and dusty and whatnot, but they look pretty OK for their age. Not as good as they were when they were new, though. They HAVE lost data. And some types of film has a lot less longevity than the old plates - color slides and color negs gone all wonky. Original 'non-Safety' films have turned to mush, and explosive mush at that, in some cases.

Look at Hollywood. The film industry has struggled to save all their old films, rotting inside the cans in film studio vaults. But even the best restoration and transfer job LOSES DATA. However, how much effort will it take to keep their exising DIGITAL films stored safely? Not that much, and it won't decay.

Do CD-ROMS and other digital media have a 'lifespan'? Certainly - what doesn't? And they don't live as long as was once touted, that's for sure. But they do live a long time, and moving them to a newer media as new medias come to pass won't be that difficult - nor will it involve loss of data - as long as 'transcription' to another format does not need to be done. Even then - if the data is important, a software engineer somewhere like me will make darned sure that it reads one bit, and writes one bit - no loss. TIF->JPG transcriptions only lose data because they are designed to do that on purpose - it doesn't have to be that way in the future.

No, folks. I come to praise film AND to bury it. I can smell the coffee, boys and girls, and it smells all digital and shiny and stuff.

I will keep using film as long as I can reasonably buy a roll of B&W from some former soviet-blok nation that will churn it out for Luddites like me. But when that day comes, I will quietly mourn a good friend gone, put batteries in my new (then) digital SLR, screw on an ancient M42 lens, and go forth boldly into that new digital dawn.

Now, Doctor Bill says take two rolls of Tri-X and call me in the morning.

With Malice Towards None (Even All Y'All Dinosaurs),

Bill Mattocks, CIIU
 
Film will not go away. As long as there is a market (however small) there will be someone producing a product to fill the niche. There are companies now selling materials for ancient processes like platinum, etc. Digital though, is here to stay, at least until the next thing comes along. And I bet when that time comes, there will be a bunch of people bemoaning the loss of their beloved process just like the film lovers now.

Personally, I don't really care how this goes, because I don't care how a photo was made. There have been great pictures made with all of the past and current technologies from mamoth wet plate to 35mm film to polaroid SX-70.

Some will complain about changes and others will embrace them and figure out how to make great things out of them. Isn't this what keeps things interesting?
 
I think we are living again with digital what had happen with polaroid films : a great : "Wow, cool, I can get immediatly a picture !"
And times go by and the photographers says : "to get immediatly a picture or not has nothing to do about its quality and longevity..."
 
As long as there is a market (however small) there will be someone producing a product to fill the niche.

Only if that niche can be filled at a profit. That would really depend upon what the production costs for setting up a factory to churn out film are, and what price/volume film-lovers are willing to pay for it. Same goes for the chemicals. Development labs will likely become a thing of the past (leaving behind only a small handful whose clients refuse to let them go), and because of the more involved development process required for color films, black and white films will surpass color films in popularity. Assuming film lovers are still willing to (a) buy enough film, and (b) at a high enough price to keep the factories afloat, of course.

So will film survive? Depends on how much you are willing to spend to subsidize it and for how long, plain and simple.

Should the demise of film happen though, I personally don't expect it to come for many decades. Digital or not, 35mm film has a lot of inertia going for it, and digital cameras still have a ways to go in terms of total global market penetration.
 
Realistically, I think there's only ever been _one_ P&S market. Film or digital, it's been the same market, and that market churns thru cameras and formats. It brought you the 110, disc, aps, 35mm, polariod, even 120/620 (look at the old Kodak Autographic series or the Diana's) and now digital in it's various forms. That market constantly cannabalizes itself, and thrives on throwaway technology. It has left behind some useful legacies like 35mm film, but they're accidental. Digital is just the current morph.

There are still a few big problems with camera or pda phones, that may be unsolvable, battery life, and flash. Put in flash, and battery life goes down the toilet, so it's either extra batteries or an external flash (I see that Sony/Ericsson has done this). P&S and available light just don't go in the same sentence. So start carrying extra batteries, flash, memory etc, and what was the advantage of having an cameraphone again... That's just my take on it.

One likely direction for digital p&s, is ultra-zooms. This is where they can excel. Just look at the Panasonic FZ20 and brethern with a 35-432mm equiv f2.8 IS lense (yes, f2.8 at the 432mm end) that fits in your pocket, and is surprisingly good. This is not possible with film. This direction of course has very little interest for most RFF'ers, but most RFF'ers never cared for P&S's of any medium anyhow.

One direction I would like see with compact digitals, although highly unlikely, would be a 5mp'ish model with a very fast, good quality lense, preferably a f1.0 50mm FL equiv, even better if it was interchangable. F1.0 in 35mm is hard to use (DOF of 3 inchs @ 6ft) and horribly big and heavy, but on a small sensor, the size would be reasonable, and the extra DOF would make it easier to use, DOF of 26 inchs @ 6ft. This also means you can use iso 100 indoors with f1.0. I think it's doable, since the sensor size is smaller than 16 or 8mm film, and we already have faster than f1.0 lenses in those formats.

Of course... what do I know anyhow 🙂.
 
supermarcel23 said:
I think we are living again with digital what had happen with polaroid films : a great : "Wow, cool, I can get immediatly a picture !"
And times go by and the photographers says : "to get immediatly a picture or not has nothing to do about its quality and longevity..."

I don't think the photographers have EVER stopped thinking like that. However, the photographers
are not the typical consumer, either. The needs of the photographer and the needs of the average
consumer are so far different that I highly doubt that film will die anytime soon, because of
limitations in semiconductor manufacturing. Everyone else making semiconductors is obsessed
with making their chips as small as possible so that they can keep manufacturing costs down, and
that's entirely antithetical to the needs of a photographer.

Eventually, I figure the various R&D efforts in the digital arenas will find a solution to that conundrum,
but that's not going to be easy, and I think that until then, film's going to outshine digital.
 
The Slow Death of Digital

The Slow Death of Digital

I'm not sure if Digital will die, because there are simply too many consumers worldwide easily influenced by marketing promises. Due to this, the average new beginner in digital photography will continue to feed the machine by continuous upgrade, until finallly.......after a long drain on their time and financial resources.....they will try "for fun" a roll of film on a neighbor's old Canon AE-1 Program.....

Then, the Light will be seen. A new Glory shall rise, brothers and sisters, and film shall become loved by the consumer once again! :angel:

Aside, I recently bought some discs allegedly coated with Gold for archivalness. I hope they work. I think a good solution for archivalness is to make a 4x6 of everything, plus any enlargements, right off the bat. Then, if the discs degrade, scan the prints and start all over. Personally, I sincerely hope film will stay around and be available for the rest of my days and for those of everyone's children.

I encounter a lot of students over at my camera store who say they prefer film. And, if the digital industry continues to price film-quality (6-8MP) digital items to only middle-to-upper-class America, then disposable and manual SLR film cameras will still sell like crazy.

Chris
Canonetc
 
Kin Lau - I agree that an ultrafast fixed-lens digicam would be very very tempting. For me, and for you. Maybe for 50% of this forum, but that's the problem - if "it does not zoom", it's not appealing to a large market.
In fact, there were a few digital P&S-s made with very very good fixed-focal lenses (35/2 i think by canon, few years ago), 3 megapixels, good in that time. A colleague of mine bought one foir his son a while ago, i've seen some prints of the digital files. The results from the lens are stunning color-and distortion-wise, and its resolution is more than enough for the sensor it has.
Maybe once Somebody will listen and make a Yashica Digilynx with an even faster lens? 🙂
 
Affordabilty has been the interesting part in the transition to digital. To get a digital camera that has the simplicty of one of our nice rangefinders one has to pay over 2k US.

As usual students can recognize a good thing especially if it is driven by their pockets.

Still, I think we will see lots of film shooters using digital media. Just as we are reading these posts. The combination of film and digital may be the best thing yet.
 
Kin Lau said:
One likely direction for digital p&s, is ultra-zooms. This is where they can excel. Just look at the Panasonic FZ20 and brethern with a 35-432mm equiv f2.8 IS lense (yes, f2.8 at the 432mm end) that fits in your pocket, and is surprisingly good. This is not possible with film. This direction of course has very little interest for most RFF'ers, but most RFF'ers never cared for P&S's of any medium anyhow.
I picked up a Panasonic FZ20 this year, mainly for my nature/outdoors photography, and am constantly amazed at how decent it is. No, I don't think you'll see the death of digital. You'll see an evolution, but not a death. I'm hopeful that film, especially B&W film, will continue to be available for many years to come so I can continue to use my classic cameras alongside digital.

Gene
 
I am new to the Forum but was interested to see that Sawdust is 85! I just wanted to wish him good health and good shooting.


Rockford

P.S. I would like some advice re a light leak in my Leica M2 which I finally bought after 30 years of wanting an M. I use it with Canon lenses are adapters. How does one post in the gallery? I could not find it in the FAQ, but it may be my ADD.
 
RML said:
You kinda forget that countries like China, India and Indonesia are rapidly catching up. These three countries alone count for 20-25% of the world's population. True, large sections of their populations are very poor (still) and can't afford a digital camera + PC, but they usually can't afford a film camera either. The majority of digital sales will soon (already?) come from those countries. Added benefit will IMO be that among 2-2.5 billion people there must be a few film geeks; at least enough for a few film producers to remain profitable.


I am from India, so I didn't forget. 😎 I still don't think the per capita income of the large middle classes in India and China is high enough to purchase expensive digital cameras...especially considering that they cost 2-3 times what they cost in the States or Europe....in India mainly because of duties and taxes. At least for India, I honestly don't see digital catching on the way it has caught on in the USA and Europe/Orient because of the lack of computers in those countries. First has to come the larger penetration of computers in the middle class homes and then come the digital cameras. Film will still reign there for the next 10-15 years I'd say, and they will be the ones to keep film alive for the near future.
 
GeneW said:
I picked up a Panasonic FZ20 this year, mainly for my nature/outdoors photography, and am constantly amazed at how decent it is. No, I don't think you'll see the death of digital. You'll see an evolution, but not a death. I'm hopeful that film, especially B&W film, will continue to be available for many years to come so I can continue to use my classic cameras alongside digital.

Gene

I'm tempted by the FZ20 also, and would be a lot more tempted if it wasn't for the fact that the new 350D is instant-on, and 3fps. Right now, my "normal" lense on the 300D is a 170-500mm and that combo can be a little heavy after while, and I don't have a pocket near that large 🙂.
 
And Sawdust thanks you! After 2 hours at the gym he's busy trying to take a 6x6 of the beautiful snow-capped mountains. Thanks Phil for a beautiful Mami 6. 🙂

Dusty


Rockford said:
I am new to the Forum but was interested to see that Sawdust is 85! I just wanted to wish him good health and good shooting.


Rockford

P.S. I would like some advice re a light leak in my Leica M2 which I finally bought after 30 years of wanting an M. I use it with Canon lenses are adapters. How does one post in the gallery? I could not find it in the FAQ, but it may be my ADD.
 
pradeep1 said:
I am from India, so I didn't forget. 😎 I still don't think the per capita income of the large middle classes in India and China is high enough to purchase expensive digital cameras...especially considering that they cost 2-3 times what they cost in the States or Europe....in India mainly because of duties and taxes. At least for India, I honestly don't see digital catching on the way it has caught on in the USA and Europe/Orient because of the lack of computers in those countries. First has to come the larger penetration of computers in the middle class homes and then come the digital cameras. Film will still reign there for the next 10-15 years I'd say, and they will be the ones to keep film alive for the near future.

Pradeep,

Namaste! Natum Jana Na Hum, first of all (grin). Second, India is where the action is! All film production has ceased there, and all new cameras are to be digital. Third - the local Walgreen's has $20 P&S digicams now. The market does not care about quality - only convenience.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Gene, I think you touched on something when you specifically said "B&W film." B&W is one thing that is not done well with digital at the present time. It's tough and expensive to produce inkjet prints without a color cast, and converting a color image to B&W is an extra step, not difficult, but an extra step nonetheless.

Interesting... I was reading a review/article at Luminous Landscape just the other night about the one and only true monochrome digital camera ever, from Kodak. Imagine the enlargements you could get (and he was able to) from a camera where each and every photosite equaled one pixel or resolution. I'd love to see another camera in this vein be produced.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom