Re: Stereo's Future

[P3D John Ohrt <johrt@xxxxxxx>]

P3D Michael Kersenbrock wrote:

> The digital camera to take over the world that I was commented on
> was to be better than film is now.  640x480 is nowhere close.  The
> memory to store a 40 mega-pixel image is likely be a bit more than
> a hundred times larger which means with the same amount of
> (flash?) memory as the Agfa, it'd store only about a third of ONE image.  :-)
>
> Intel's new "di-bit" flash will reduce costs, but not by a hundred fold.

We just have a different impression about what is good enough.

If lots of snapshot takers  consider the quality of their images as good enough,
the lets look at the digital equivalent of good enough.

An APS image taken in HDTV format and scanned by an APS standard processing, is
about 1.3 Mpix.  That is best case.  All other formats, square, 3:2 (classic),
and 3:1 (panoramic) are significantly lower.  So I think comparison with the
current pricing of 1+ Mpix digital cameras under $1000 US is a valid comparison.

Consider that about 1 year ago, a 640x480 (about 0.3 Mpix) cost just under $1000
and currently sells for $300.  Maybe next year, we have 1+ Mpix for under $300.
To me that is good enough for some purposes and soon.

Lets look at it another way.  Holmes cards are still popular.  The resolution of
a typical low cost print is 300 ppi, if that So the resolution of a typical
Holmes card is about 1 Mpix.

40 Mpix - drool, love, etc.

That is about 5000 ppi for a 35 mm image.  To us scitech phreaks that may be
adequate for mundane  tasks, but 10,000 ppi would be better and justifyable :-)

However, I can tell you right now that 2000 ppi is considered adequate for most
purposes by advanced amateurs and many categories of professional photographers.
That is only a puny 6 Mpix requirement.

If the current pace continues, that will be available for under $300 in 4 years.

Reality is that most computer systems out there can only display 640x480 in 16M
colours.  That's why I think a $300 - 640x480 is the best trade off for those of
limited funds but experimentally inclined.

Also, digital has one big selling point over film.  The cost per image is
essentially $0.00 as the only consumable is the batteries.  I have also heard
rumours of solar/office light rechageable power sources being integrated into
cameras real soon now!

Most people tend to be cost conscious even when it is not in their best
interests.  I am.  And that means I don't shoot nearly enough film to be learning
much.  I am not that inhibited with digital cameras.

My digital camera that I have been using for over 8 years has finally died and I
am trying to figure out how to scrape together the cash to get an AGFA e307.
Just a bit biased eh!

Regards,

--

John Ohrt * Toronto * ON * Canada






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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2353
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************