Re: [photo-3d] Re: Jurassic 3D

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marshall Rubin wrote:
> that will change. digitals get better exponentially, while
> conventional stuff stays the same.  some day you may lament the fact
> that film and processing are terrible on the environment that i'm
> sure you take such good care to photograph.  since many of the
> materials and chemicals used in photography are non-renewable, their
> cost can only rise, while the cost of digital plummets.
> 

There are a number of errors above.

First, digital imaging does not improve exponentially.  The main
method of reducing the cost of silicon chips is directly opposed to
the improvements needed for digital sensors.  You lower the cost of a
chip (and improve it's performance) by making it smaller.  Due to the
manufacturing techniques larger chips are more likely to have
manufacturing defects than smaller chips.  For digital imaging you
need to make the sensor site (the individual pixel) and the overall
chip size larger (not smaller) in order to improve the quality.  This
means a lower yield per wafer of good chips which in turn means a
higher price per chip.  If you make the sensor sites and the chips
smaller the image quality goes down because the noise in the final
image goes up.  Also as you make the sensors smaller you have to make
the optics higher resolution.  This costs more, and there is a
physical limit to the resolution you can get from the optics.

Second, film technology is not standing still.  Kodak and Fuji are
both producing new film types that are better and better.  Kodak E200
is a great film, and I've heard good things about the new Fuji 400
speed slide film.

Third, the photo chemical industry has done a lot to make itself
environmentally clean.  For example, commercial labs recover the
silver in film processing.  This makes sense both economically and
environmentally.  Kodak's newest developer (Xtol) is basically citric
acid.  It is certainly not a good idea to hold the silicon foundries
(where silicon chips are made) up as an example of a clean industry
(they are not).

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"

 

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