P3D Re: Digital quality

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

>        - When going on a trip it would take either a very large
>          number of memory cards, or a laptop with a good size
>          hard drive to store all the pictures I typically take.
>          Film is a pretty dense storage media and is fairly
>          robust.  The biggest advantage of digital in this 
>          area is the ability to delete pictures from the 
>          storage media while out in the field, thus recouping
>          space for more pictures.  But still don't think you'd
>          come out ahead yet.

In terms of physical density, the digital camera's media can
be VERY dense.  My camera uses 'smart cards'.  They are a bit
larger than one inch square and are paper-thin.  The volume of
one yellow kodak film box could hold an unbelievable number
of those cards (which can hold quite a few megabytes per card).

Of course, such a cache would be spendy and inefficient for
use of things that are reuseable.  So for mass image taking
w/o access to a laptop or the like, current digital cameras
aren't really well suited for economic reasons much in the way
nicad batteries aren't well suited for trips where a charging
unit isn't available.

One thing coming along are hard disks that can be in digital
cameras.  IBM just came out with the first models of this
new technology.  The first hard disks of this line that I've
seen are about an inch square and a quarter inch thick (to
memory). They weigh hardly anything.  And it holds 340 MB.
I haven't seen pricing on them, but they supposedly are 
targetted at mass market applications, so I'd expect them
to be thrifty, and even more thrifty in time.  :-)


Mike K.


> 
> 


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