[photo-3d] Was Camera Coupling, Now Digital vs. Analog

[Rory Hinnen <Rory.Hinnen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Marshall Rubin wrote:
> 
> peter--
> a couple of years ago i would have agreed with you entirely on the
> quality of slides over digital, but  in that short amount of time,
> low-cost digital cameras have quadrupled their capability in terms of 
> resolution, overall picture quality, and features.

I think one of the things that people on this list are responding to
when comparing slide to digital viewing is the environment of
presentation.

When we look at slides, we hold that little dark box up to our eyes and
that becomes our visual environment. Distractions are removed, and all
we get is an image being blasted directly into the back of our head.

When we look at the digital presentation, we're typically stuck with a
monitor and glasses. The environment is still with us, the desk that is
cluttered with disks and tools (if I'm lucky), papers tacked to the
wall, and somewhere in the middle of this is just a picture that happens
to be in 3d, competing with everything around it for our attention.

The immersive qualities of slide presentation adds a lot of "charm".

Dr. T mentions showing some of his slides to a professional
photographer, and impressing him with the quality of the images. Part of
that response is based on the good Dr's skill, but I'm sure part of it
is based on that cool display technology, that early version of
immersive reality simulators, the Realist Red Button Viewer.

I agree with Lincoln, and have myself thought about building a "digital
slide viewer" as I described it to my wife. I suspect we are still
several years away from rivaling the quality of film in digital, and I
doubt we will really exceed it on a consumer level. Disney has publicly
stated that for thier own digital projection desires, they don't see a
need to exceed 2000 pixels across as a maximum resolution. Even for
movie film, this is far below the capacity of film to carry information.

What will be required for digital to meet or exceed film's capacity
either in contrast or resolution is for the prices to drop. They will,
but because of the mathematics involved in resolution (double the res,
square the volume), I doubt the prices will fall as quickly as computing
in general.

> film processing is lousy for the environment, and film continues to
> spiral upwards in price. the number of people who shoot slides is 
> dwindling, and will make slide film uneconomical to manufacture.

Agreed and agreed. When the cost/quality relationship associated with
film exceeds the same numbers in digital, we'll see the mass defection
to digital, and film will be delivered to hobbyists and artists. I don't
think film will ever disappear, just as theatre wasn't destroyed by the
movies, which was never really supplanted by radio or later tv. It will
be changed, just as those earlier mediums were changed by the later
ones.

> cameras. realists, kodaks, illocas belong in museums and not in the
> hands of active stereographers.

I disagree that cameras belong in museums. I think they belong in the
hands of artists and hobbyists, as I mentioned above. There are still
things that can be done with film that can't be done with other mediums
(holography comes to mind). That doesn't mean that someday there will be
a replacement for it.

One of the things you might deduce from my comments here is that I'm a
bit of a luddite. Let me assure you, that is far from the truth. Still,
I'd trade you a couple of modern digital cameras for an RBT.

.r.

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/