[photo-3d] I still say it won't

["Jim Harp" <matmail2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>...  Sure, the CD won't have as much noise as the LP and you'll
>> get pretty nice playback in a $70 portable disk player...

> Last $70 record player I heard wasn't so hot...  one can get a new portable
> CD player for $20~30 occasionally at Fry's.  Not a great one, but imagine
> a $20 record player (with a headphone).  Ick.

My point exactly.  To appreciate the fine qualities of an analog recording
you need an expensive turntable and audio system and lots of care with your
records and stylus.  The CD is ideal for the general consumer.  As long as
you don't scratch it badly you can put your fingers all over it, leave it
lying around and it will sound decent in your $20 portable.  And a $250
digital camera will be just fine for Aunt Edna's snapshots and produce nice
images even if the dear lady doesn't know a thing about photography.  When
you want to move beyond "decent" and "nice", I don't think you should trust
mass market digital technology to take you there.


 P.S. - Sound converted to mechanical squiggies in soft plastic is a pretty
>        significant change too.  :-)

So is putting light through a lens onto a bunch of silver halide particals,
but both are continous reproductions, whereas digitization is inherently
non-continous.  I've run into folks who insist that 78 RPM records reproduce
harmonics that no 33RPM can. (Kind of like audio view cameras...) Jim Harp