P3D Re: The future (digital vs. film)

[Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Regarding the digital vs. film thread, at least for me, digital is
here in a big way! I get very good results printing 2-D images at 8x10.
Unless you go very close to it (a few inches) it's hard to tell they're
not a photograph (I also do anaglyphs like this also but albeit only of
still subjects).

I find myself taking less prints and more digital images and instead
of getting prints that get hidden in an album, I only print some of
the best ones (8x10) and hang them up on the wall. As for the costs of
printing, that is for sure, a detrimental factor, but I much prefer to
view them on the monitor (even a 14" or larger monitor, is nicer than
4x6). Run a slide-viewing program and presto, instant slide-show that
everyone can enjoy! 

Reprints (not in the traditional sense)? Easy! You can put 2000+
high quality 1280x960 jpg images on CD-R for a buck. That comes out
to 20 images per penny! Other advantages is it takes much less space
than five heavy 400 image albums.

I can go on and on, but you get the point. After all this, I do admit
it will be awhile before digital catches on with the general public.

P.S. Although it's been mentioned that digital cameras would have to
get up to the 6 Mega-pixel count, to compare to film, isn't the current
technology good enough for prints? The reason I ask is because I've
read that 4x6 prints are only 200 dpi (thus scanning at higher
resolution doesn't make sense). This translates well to the current
1.3M and up cameras. 

Gabriel