[photo-3d] Yes, it WILL

[Gee <73157.2172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim writes:
>Oh, the dead horse can take it I guess.  The reason this issue is relevant
>is that it brings up an important point.  When you convert something
analog
>to something digital, whether it's an image or a sound, you are changing
it
>significantly.  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,  (is that what
"all
>things being equal refers to?)  but the fact is you're listening to a
sound
>that has been put through a brick wall filter, converted to numbers and
then
>converted back.  There is a reason why classical music fans haven't thrown
>out their turntables.  They're not all crazy.  In the coming years we'll
be
>asked to embrace "perfect" digital imaging technology.  I'm the Fuji 370's
>biggest fan, but I'll be using slide film in an old fashioned SLR for a
long
>time to come.  Jim Harp

The CD vs. LP argument is complex, and I simplified for
the sake of discussion.  Lots of professional audio engineers disagree on
this topic.
If I had been in charge of desiging the CD format, it would have had a
higher bitrate
right from the beginning.  The new enhanced CD and DVD-audio formats
correct this
slight deficiency.  However, I will maintain that unless you're under about
20 years of
age, your hearing is probably not capable of picking out the increased
frequency
response, as your hearings frequency response begins rolling off after that
age.

I'd be willing to be MOST classical music fans have purchased a CD player. 
I would
hope they were not foolish enough to throw away their turntable, as there
will always
be music available on LP that will not be re-released on CD.  Now that I
think about it,
I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find new releases on LP these days.

Also, if you don't follow the audiophile market, you may not be aware that
there is a large
group of people who feel you must spend mega bucks ($10,000+ USD) to get
anything decent.
They can be fairly extreme at times.  One audiophile writer went on a
promotional
tour for TDK tape around 1991 claiming that you should spend money taping
your CD's
because they were going to decompose.  This was shortly after some problems
were found
with one UK plant's ink, in that it would eat through the plastic layer
protecting your aluminum CD.
The writer brashly claimed on a local radio station that CD's would only
last ten years or so.
I phoned the station to challenge him, pointing out that Laserdiscs and CD
prototypes,
using the same technology were now 20 years old, and played fine according
to Phillips and
Sony.  Said writer immediately backed down from the claim, realizing that a
better reason to
tape your CD's would be as a backup against theft or damage, not
decomposition!

I agree with Jim's comment that were going to be asked to accept "perfect"
digital imaging
technology, and I think we're going to have to be on guard against wild
claims.  Make sure
you evaluate these things yourself thoroughly before you scrap your
existing film system.
I personally do not believe that digital cameras are ready yet.  I can
easily outperform them
with inexpensive film, and my only penalty is time.  Better to film and
scan for my uses I say.
Your uses may need digital.  Only YOU can decide!

                                                                           
Derek Gee