Re: [photo-3d] Digital

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Davis" <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Digital


> The point is not whether digital is or will be "better" than film.  The
> point is that film will disappear.  Slide film is already difficult to
> find, and film in general will become scarcer, more expensive, and harder
> to find processing for.  The demise of Kodachrome 25 is just the first
step
> in this chain.

Very true.  And, the next step will be the disappearance of all slide films
in general.  Black & white films have been reduced to a very small niche
market for quite some time, and would have completely disappeared long ago
if they were not so cheap to manufacture.  Color negative film will exist as
long as it is used in the motion picture industry (there is still some cost
effectiveness appeal for the small independent production companies, but
that too is rapidly eroding).

However, in spite of the industry conversion on the acquisition end, film
will find a place in exhibition for quite a while.  Digital projection
equipment is just too expensive, like ten times the cost of film projection
equipment.  It will be a matter of economics.  Right now most theater chains
are near or in bankruptcy, and are not in a position to be buying several
million dollars worth of digital equipment for each theater.

Rather than buying new digital projection equipment, most theaters will
close first.  Digital will eventually win out, not because it is superior,
but by default.  The family theater, like the family farm, is rapidly
disappearing.  The end result will be a small number of digital theaters
owned by a few megaconglomerates.

When this happens, there will not be enough market to support the
continuance of film in any form, including consumer products.  After all,
the motion picture industry is the only reason that you have product for
your Realists, RBTs, et al, today.  Film will disappear, and, like it or not
, you will shoot digital or not shoot at all.

> However, we devotees will have
> to push for high-end solutions as well as the consumer-targetted
> middle-of-the-road stuff, or will end up in the same position as Betamax
users.

A very good example of what I have been trying to get across for quite a
while.  Consumer Beta was superior to VHS from the beginning.  With each VHS
improvement, Beta was improved so as to keep its quality lead.  And, the
pricing was usually competitive (feature-for-feature) with similar VHS
models.  Yet, Beta is for all practical purposes gone as a consumer item.
Interestingly, it is still the major format (Beta SP), by far, for
acquisition in the professional market.  Also interesting, is the lack of
further meaningful improvements to VHS (previously, almost annually) after
the competition (Beta) disappeared.

The point is, that the public does not look for real quality when making
buying decisions.  Most people buy on hype, not facts.  If garbage is
slickly advertised, people will buy it.  If you do have a good product,
forget trying to promote it on its true merits.  A truly good product can
only be widely sold if it is hyped.

Look at the Apple Mac.  It was a great product, but nearly went the way of
Beta.  Then, they repackaged it in rainbow colors and hyped the eye appeal
(yes, there were some technical differences, but it was still basically the
same product inside). They hyped it royally, and it took off.

The Stereo Realist (let alone the superb RBT) is light years ahead of any
digital product currently offered, in terms of the image quality it can
deliver.  Yet, digi-squash is what is hyped.  Look what the public buys.  Go
figure.

JR




 

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