Re: New 3D business opportunity -- let's get rick quick!!

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike K. replies:

>I'm willing to take you up on that bet if you talk in terms of equivalent
>yields.  What I mean is that digital photographers *will* take more time
>as you say, but it's because they may be able to "save" exposures that
>a film photographer would have tossed as unusable.  I betcha a quarter!

It's a sucker bet!  That's almost a given if the imager captures, and
the format allows for storing, a sufficiently wide dynamic range per
pixel, so that data isn't lost (truncated) by over/underexposure.

>I think the two camps will get equivalent yields -- if not higher in
>the digital camp due to instant pre-view with instant redo.

Yup.  I sure would have liked to have known at the time of taking
about that (head/branch/finger/whatever) that snuck into frame,
ruining an otherwise wonderful picture that I only took one of, so
I could've taken another.

>What's your yield (per roll) of great shots using film?
>That wouldn't  be a problem with previewed digital camera 
>work.

I probably throw out somewhere between one and three pairs per 18, on
average.  It depends on how much time I have to set up shots, whether
the subject is relatively static or fast-moving, and whether I remember
to switch from "auto" to 1/60th and back when switching between available-
light and strobe.  Most of the latter failures I'm aware of at the time,
costing me only film, not "lost images".  I can remember numerous shots,
though, where I wasn't certain that I "got it".  Preview'd be immensely
useful in those cases when I "didn't get it".

>But then, I'm also pretty free with my finger on the film-camera's shutter
>button, so I can't imagine my getting any "worse" in that regard.  :-)

I would.  I'd use it like a motor drive. :-)

>Storage is not free, but it's quite cheap now and cost is going down further 
>in a *hurry*. Gigabyte hard disks are under a hundred dollars and continuing 
>to drop very rapidly per Gigabyte.

For this to be meaningful, we'd need to know the size in bytes of the
final images being saved, and the cost-per-byte for storing them on the
medium of choice.  Adam's original post said something to the effect of
"imagine not having to spend any more money on mounts".  OK, instead you
have to spend it on CD-ROMs.

Now, though, you're also adding the task of transferring the images to
some long-term storage medium (and hopefully some standard that would
work in Adam's "Electronic Red Button" viewer).  :-)

So, now in addition to taking scads of images (hey, they're free, right?),
we have to sit by the computer and download all those flash-RAM cards.
Then we've got to preview the images, and throw away the losers; crop
and window the keepers; and maybe retouch a few marginal ones.  When
that's done, we have to write the whole shmear back out to CD-ROM or
whatever, or risk losing them.  Hmm, this sounds like a lot more than
what Joe-point-n-shoot (who NEVER backs up his hard drive) is likely
to tolerate.  Sure it's what *we'd* do, but we've already proven we're
crazy about this 3D stuff. :-)

>In terms of LONG term storage, digital images should theoretically 
>last forever as long as the data is periodically copied onto new media.
>This isn't true with film, even Kodachrome that's NEVER looked at (kept
>in the dark) at optimal temperature and humidity.

Well, let me put it this way.  I can play an LP record with a pin and
a paper cone.  Can you do this with a CD?  Will anyone remember how
to play back an audio CD in 100 years?  (I'd add "Will anyone care",
but that's getting off-topic).  I can look at that Kodachrome and
see an image with my naked eye.  Can you do that with a PhotoCD?  Will
you be able to retrieve those proprietary PhotoCD images in 100 years,
80 years after Kodak's demise?  The simpler technologies have one
advantage: you don't need complicated equipment to use them.  When
you need a silicon foundry to homebrew a playback unit, homebrewing
will likely go the way of the LP.

>Digital photography *will* dominate, it's only time.  I'll bet another
>quarter on that too. :-)

I have no doubt of it.  But it sure will be a lot harder to hack.  Will
you be able to fix your digital stereo camera when it breaks like you can
your FED?  We'll sure be a lot more dependent on big companies to supply
us with the equipment we want.  If 3D doesn't catch on big before then,
THIS will have been the "golden age of stereo". :-(

	-Greg W.


------------------------------