 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / January 2004Digital rants - got to end.
"35mm? HAH! It will never catch on! The quality is horrible!" I'm sure that was said when Oskar Barnack's tiny little camera finally got going ten years later. Hell, some of the guys were saying pretty much that until the Nikon F came out and nailed it - entrenched the little camera in the pro market. (Hey, laugh but I had a Nikon-S) But look to the 35mm group. It's become largely involved with digital. But they were right about the quality, for those who cared. Those very few. Mobility and speed of use were everything. That will prevail for the digital camera and it will become ubiquitous. So who cares? As the man says, "Live LARGE" or at least medium. :) As far as I can tell, there are no MF format cameras yet. So let's not go there anymore. > "35mm? HAH! It will never catch on! The quality is horrible!" > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > as I can tell, there are no MF format cameras yet. So let's not go there > anymore. Medium format is not about to go away and nor is large format. Film is not about to become obsolete, either. People still make films and use film for that. That is why they are called "films". And the bulk of all film made is for the movies market. And with cine film being there, there will be film available in various sizes, although the options may become more limited. But certainly 120 roll film will be around for the forseeable future to feed the Hasselblads and since 35mm film is a popular cine film then so will 35mm film be available for the forseeable future. If, sometime in the future, you hear that "films" are not being made using film any more then start to worry about your MF camera becoming obsolete. > > "35mm? HAH! It will never catch on! The quality is horrible!" > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > hear that "films" are not being made using film any more then start to worry > about your MF camera becoming obsolete. Digital cinematography and projection are rapidly becoming a reality. Bear in mind that cine frames are less than half the area of still 35mm, so even HDTV resolution (about 2 megapixel) is more than a match for normal cine film. This is especially true when you factor in the generational quality losses that happen when film prints are made for distribution. The cost and quality savings of lossless digital distribution are substantial. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com > "> Digital cinematography and projection are rapidly becoming a reality. > Bear in mind that cine frames are less than half the area of still > 35mm, > Brian > www.caldwellphotographic.com Even in a Mitchell Standard ? > > "> Digital cinematography and projection are rapidly becoming a reality. > > Bear in mind that cine frames are less than half the area of still [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Even in a Mitchell Standard ? You probably know more than I do, but don't Mitchell Standard cameras use the normal Academy format, where the long side of the frame goes between the sprocket holes? Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com > > > "> Digital cinematography and projection are rapidly becoming a reality. > > > Bear in mind that cine frames are less than half the area of still [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > use the normal Academy format, where the long side of the frame goes > between the sprocket holes? Judging from this page then they are 18x24mm frames like you suggest http://www.geh.org/fm/precin/htmlsrc5/mM681600001_ful.html and therefore half the area. > Brian > www.caldwellphotographic.com > > "Mike" <ned34@earthdink.net> wrote in message > news:<Jk6Ib.11268$lo3.9547@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Brian > > www.caldwellphotographic.com Looks smaller than the camera I was using.........like I said that was a long time ago.......... > > > "> Digital cinematography and projection are rapidly becoming a reality. > > > Bear in mind that cine frames are less than half the area of still [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Brian > www.caldwellphotographic.com I have forgotten a lot Brian, its been a long time since I used a Mitchell 35mm camera, 1968. I do know the frame from a 35mm mo pic camera is actual larger, area wise, than from a 35mm slr. I am sure that somewhere on the net the information of relative frame size is available. The term cine a diverse group of equipment. > > "Mike" <ned34@earthdink.net> wrote in message > news:<Jk6Ib.11268$lo3.9547@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the information of relative frame size is available. > The term cine a diverse group of equipment. I've never used a movie camera, so you're way ahead of me there, but I have designed a few 35mm cine lenses, and the specified image diagonal was always in the range of 27.2 to 30mm, which gives an area a bit less than half of the normal 35mm still format with a 43.2mm diagonal. I read that Mitchell cameras allowed for some lens shift, which would imply a larger lens coverage than strictly required for Academy format. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com > "> > I've never used a movie camera, so you're way ahead of me there, but I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Brian > www.caldwellphotographic.com Your right about the image size, I should never rely on a feeble memory....lol What I do remember about the standard was that it seemed to take two men and a boy to lift it onto the tripod or dolly. I worked at the Army Pictorial Center in Queens NY during the last nine months of my very brief Army career. The Pic Center as we called it was an old Paramount studio with one huge sound stage an several smaller ones. In the basement was a small pool that Tarzan swam or swung across. I spent a great deal of time traveling shooting bits and pieces for what we called "Nut and Bolt" films, most of which I filmed with a 16mm Arri BL, loved that camera. The best nine months of my Army career. > Your right about the image size, I should never rely on a feeble > memory....lol [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > which I filmed with a 16mm Arri BL, loved that camera. The best nine months > of my Army career. Sounds like you should write more about your Army career - sounds pretty fascinating! cheers, CC > > Your right about the image size, I should never rely on a feeble > > memory....lol [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cheers, > CC I should have said the best nine months of my three year career........lol The Pic Center as we loveling called it was an interesting place to work. > "> > I've never used a movie camera, so you're way ahead of me there, but I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Brian > www.caldwellphotographic.com What type or focal lenght lenses did you design? > > "> > > I've never used a movie camera, so you're way ahead of me there, but I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What type or focal lenght lenses did you design? Zoom lenses. NDA's prohibit me from getting into specifics - much as I might want to. Brian www.caldwellphotographic > I've never used a movie camera, so you're way ahead of me there, but I > have designed a few 35mm cine lenses, and the specified image diagonal > was always in the range of 27.2 to 30mm, which gives an area a bit > less than half of the normal 35mm still format with a 43.2mm diagonal. When optical sound tracks were used, they needed a strip of the film. Effective frame size was reduced to only 18x22 mm. -- Lassi > > "Mike" <ned34@earthdink.net> wrote in message > news:<Jk6Ib.11268$lo3.9547@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the information of relative frame size is available. > The term cine a diverse group of equipment. Mike, there are 35 mm cine cameras and 35 mm cine cameras, but the usual gate size is 18mm x 24mm. Says so in all of my copies of the American Cinematographer Handbook. The 35 mm still standard is double frame. 24 mm x 36 mm. > > > "Mike" <ned34@earthdink.net> wrote in message > > news:<Jk6Ib.11268$lo3.9547@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > American Cinematographer Handbook. The 35 mm still standard is double > frame. 24 mm x 36 mm. As I have found and stand corrected.. Like I said to Brian, I can't rely on old memory. > Medium format is not about to go away and nor is large format. Film is not > about to become obsolete, either. People still make films and use film for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hear that "films" are not being made using film any more then start to worry > about your MF camera becoming obsolete. It is not going away--the undeniable fact is that the mass consumer market is poised to shoot digitally. The ready availability of film is going to dwindle. The one-hour processing stations will begin to disappear, because film for the mass market is being supplanted by digital. I am not particularly happy about any of this--but the handwriting is on the wall and there is little point in denying it. > It is not going away--the undeniable fact is that the mass consumer market > is poised to shoot digitally. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am not particularly happy about any of this--but the handwriting is on the > wall and there is little point in denying it. Interesting that while all these changes are going on I am seeing an increase in Mamiya repair work as well as the Spotmatic series cameras. And while it may be true some "pros" are moving away from film based MF gear; I am also seeing an increase of serious armatures moving into the MF arena, at least in my shop. There is no doubt it will be interesting to see what happens over the next 12 to 24 months. > Interesting that while all these changes are going on I am seeing an > increase in Mamiya repair work as well as the Spotmatic series cameras. And > while it may be true some "pros" are moving away from film based MF gear; I > am also seeing an increase of serious armatures moving into the MF arena, at > least in my shop. There is no doubt it will be interesting to see what > happens over the next 12 to 24 months. I still believe that the number of film camera users will continue to spiral down. Here's why: THe pool of potential advanced amateurs that use film cameras will continue to drop, because many of the folks that might have gone on to better film cameras will have never had ANY film camera in their entire life. Think about it for a moment: didn't virtually all of us start out with some cheapie consumer camera--something like a Kodak Brownie Starmite? Some of us got hooked, and wanted to do more, and we honed our skills and moved on to better grades of equipment. But what if we had NEVER gotten our hands on that cheapie camera, in the first place? THe next generation of amateur photographers will have learned their skills and techniques, not on film cameras, but on digital cameras. Some of those folks WILL move on to better gear, but it will most likely be DIGITAL gear. Surely a few of them will explore film gear, but I do not see them coming over to film in significantly high numbers. Film isn't going to disappear, but it is going to become more of a specialty niche product. Joe Sixpack is going to take digital photos, and he'll be happy with them. >THe next generation of amateur photographers will have learned their skills >and techniques, not on film cameras, but on digital cameras. Some of those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >niche product. Joe Sixpack is going to take digital photos, and he'll be >happy with them. A lot depends on whether print media, and appreciation of fine art printing, continues to matter. To the extent that information transfer and entertainment move to the Web and CRTs, film is finished. But if people continue to go to museums or art shows to see fine art, or if they continue to buy fine books of photos from the masters, there's hope for film. It will take quite some time (if it ever happens) for digital to catch up with large format photography. The closest we've got right now are digital backs and scanning backs that barely reach the MF film area and still cost anywhere from $10K to $30K. If by chance these devices come down to, say, $2K then MF and LF film may be in danger also. I don't see that happening in the near future. Professional (commercial) photography still demands images on big hunks of film. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > > I still believe that the number of film camera users will continue to spiral > down. Here's why: > > THe pool of potential advanced amateurs that use film cameras will continue > to drop, because many of the folks that might have gone on to better film > cameras will have never had ANY film camera in their entire life. Actually I think the oppisite will happen. I think the advanced amature who could not afford MF in the past but is hungry for it will now buy because the price is affordable. > Think about it for a moment: didn't virtually all of us start out with some > cheapie consumer camera--something like a Kodak Brownie Starmite? Some of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > niche product. Joe Sixpack is going to take digital photos, and he'll be > happy with them. Joe Sixpack isn't buying MF equipment either. Joe Sixpack is purchasing disposable cameras because A. they are cheap and B. they are easy to use. Digital cameras have a ways to go to be either. Sorry for going off MF topic, however. Over a million disposable cameras were sold in 2002, assuming for a moment total sales hit only 500,000 in 2003, how many digitals were sold in 2003? It will be interesting to see. Don't forget every disposable camera is a roll of film. I want a survey taken in two years that asks, Did you receive a digital camera for Christmas 2003? How often do you use the camera, less than 5 times a year? more than 5 times a year? How many disposable cameras have you purchased a during the last 12 months? One thing more, when digital sales are tabulated, only cameras are to be counted, memory can't be counted. >> Film isn't going to disappear, but it is going to become more of a > specialty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > disposable cameras because A. they are cheap and B. they are easy to use. > Digital cameras have a ways to go to be either. The other thing is Joe sixpack goes to wally world and sees a digicam is $200+ and a film camera is under $100. Lots of joe sixpack's have no idea how to "use" a computer and the info we see on newsgroups are from people who are pretty techy. Remember less than 5% (maybe less than 1%?) of internet users have even hear of usenet or even know how to read them! I'd bet most digicam users take their memory card to the "lab" to have prints made, just like most digital video users just hook the camera to a VCR without ever using a computer.  SignatureStacey > The other thing is Joe sixpack goes to wally world and sees a digicam is > $200+ and a film camera is under $100. Lots of joe sixpack's have no idea > how to "use" a computer I used to believe that, too. Now all the Joe Sixpacks in my neighborhood have AOL! And they are emailing to friends and family, and they are big users of Instant Messenger. Joe Sixpack isn't living in the Dark Ages anymore because big companies are making technology easy and affordable. Just look at Kodak's Easy Share docking system. You bring the camera in, put it in the dock, and it uploads the photos into the computer without any human intervention. Probably even offers to send them to Ofoto for printing, too. I saw one Kodak dock that even has a 4x6 color printer built in. You don't even need a computer to get prints from your Kodak digicam! So what if the pictures aren't perfect--Joe Sixpack is not that critical. FOR THE MASSES digital will eclipse film. And those digital pictures aren't going to be any worse than the Instamatic cameras and their drug store photofinishing prints were--in fact they'll probably be better. And if Joe wants to sanp a few risque pix of his wife, he doesn't have to worry about the photofinisher seeing them. THis point is never discussed, but I'd bet that it was a major motivator in the sale of video camcorders. If one sets aside the quality issue, digital photos for the average home user represent a better deal--no film to buy, no running out to the lab, no worries about content being seen by anyone, instant images, ability to easily email them . . . Joe Sixpack will spend a couple of hundred dollars for that--and he probably already has a computer! >> The other thing is Joe sixpack goes to wally world and sees a digicam is >> $200+ and a film camera is under $100. Lots of joe sixpack's have no idea [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have AOL! And they are emailing to friends and family, and they are big > users of Instant Messenger. Doesn't mean they will learn how to use photoshop and unsharp masking etc that is needed to make most digital images even close to 35mm in quality. Maybe they will use the digicam for shots to send off in e-mails but I'm betting they aren't going to throw their film camera in the trash can. SignatureStacey > >> The other thing is Joe sixpack goes to wally world and sees a digicam is > >> $200+ and a film camera is under $100. Lots of joe sixpack's have no idea [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Maybe they will use the digicam for shots to send off in e-mails but I'm > betting they aren't going to throw their film camera in the trash can. Who said anything about them using PhotoShop? The typical consumer will not complain as long as the image is somewhat reasonably exposed. They are not interested in technical excellence. Today's digicams create images that are quite acceptable to them. And they probably will take more photos digitally than they would have taken on film. In that sense, they are probably better off with digital. Joe Sixpack is purchasing > > disposable cameras because A. they are cheap and B. they are easy to use. > > Digital cameras have a ways to go to be either. Actually digital cameras have already achieved the cheap part. Ritz and other places sell a disposable digital camera for $10.95. I have no idea how easy it is to use but it's certainly cheap. > >> Film isn't going to disappear, but it is going to become more of a > > specialty [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > prints made, just like most digital video users just hook the camera to a > VCR without ever using a computer. > Joe Sixpack is purchasing > > > disposable cameras because A. they are cheap and B. they are easy to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other places sell a disposable digital camera for $10.95. I have no idea how > easy it is to use but it's certainly cheap. I'll have to check that out there is a Ritz not far from me. In looking again at the Ritz catalog I see I was mistaken. The headline in the catalog says in small black letters "The single use camera that thinks" and then on the next line in big red letters there's a line that says "IT'S A DIGITAL CAMERA." I saw only the second line before, which was why I thought it was a digital camera but it isn't. However, they do have a digital camera for kids for $49. > > Joe Sixpack is purchasing > > > > disposable cameras because A. they are cheap and B. they are easy to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > I'll have to check that out there is a Ritz not far from me. > In looking again at the Ritz catalog I see I was mistaken. The headline in > the catalog says in small black letters "The single use camera that thinks" > and then on the next line in big red letters there's a line that says "IT'S > A DIGITAL CAMERA." I saw only the second line before, which was why I > thought it was a digital camera but it isn't. However, they do have a > digital camera for kids for $49. If I get to the mall this weekend I'll still check it out. Image the quality of the "kids" digital camera. It will indeed be interesting. Clearly digital is on the rise, film is on the decline, and I think both trends will continue (which isn't to say film will disappear any time soon). Still, some of the problems with digital seem to just now becoming clear to the average consumer and might have some effect on these trends. I have three friends who got digital cameras for Christmas. They all are very exasperated at the complexity of the manuals and the cameras and seem to have given up on them. A fourth needs a new camera but knows of the complexity and has no interest in digital. OTOH, these four people are all older, in their fifties or above. Younger people probably aren't as intimidated. > > Interesting that while all these changes are going on I am seeing an > > increase in Mamiya repair work as well as the Spotmatic series cameras. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > niche product. Joe Sixpack is going to take digital photos, and he'll be > happy with them. >> Medium format is not about to go away and nor is large >> format. Film is not about to become obsolete, either. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It is not going away--the undeniable fact is that the mass > consumer market is poised to shoot digitally. But, it will still be available. I suspect that after some of those who jumped into digital because it is the latest thing get tired of it (i.e., the novely wears off), they will return to 4 disposable film cameras a year. > The ready availability of film is going to dwindle. The > one-hour processing stations will begin to disappear, > because film for the mass market is being supplanted by > digital. You probably won't be able to find film in Wally-Fart or drug stores, but that is no loss to me, since I don't shoot drug store film anyway. And, I have seen very little Provia 100F in Wal-Mart. As for the one-hour labs, that would not be a loss. I gave them up years ago, since I didn't like what the pimply-faced little twerps who did the work, did to my film. > I am not particularly happy about any of this--but the > handwriting is on the wall and there is little point in > denying it. > The ready availability of film is going to dwindle. The one-hour > processing stations will begin to disappear, I thought about when the last time I bought film at a "readily avalible" place or used a "one-hour processing station" and realize I could give a damn if they dissappear! :-) SignatureStacey > I thought about when the last time I bought film at a "readily avalible" > place or used a "one-hour processing station" and realize I could give a > damn if they dissappear! :-) But Kodak and Fuji certainly DO give a damn! I was commenting on trends in the mass consumer marketplace, not the niche advanced amateur market. If there was no mass market for cameras, film and photofinishing, there probably wouldn't even BE an advanced amateur niche market at all. The mass consumer market is underrated by many of us--it is they that make this affordable for the rest of us. And we are going to lose them to digital. Film will be $10.00 per roll and photofinishing will be $25.00 for 24 4x6 prints, and new film cameras and lenses will all be priced like Leicas, and there will be fewer choices. And if anyone doesn't like that, they can just follow the crowd over to the digital side, where prices and availability will be much superior. If you don't believe that, have you gone out looking for a turntable at your local Wal-Mart lately? How many choices in new equipment were there? >> I thought about when the last time I bought film at a "readily avalible" >> place or used a "one-hour processing station" and realize I could give a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > this > affordable for the rest of us. And we are going to lose them to digital. What do you think they are printing digital pictures on in those labs? Hint they aren't using inkjet printers.. RA4 type printing isn't going anywhere, it's WAY too cheap to print even digital images that way. SignatureStacey Signaturex-no-archive: yes > > >> I thought about when the last time I bought film at a "readily avalible" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Hint they aren't using inkjet printers.. RA4 type printing isn't going > anywhere, it's WAY too cheap to print even digital images that way. I don't use one-hour labs, but I like knowing that they are there, just in case I need them. When film use drops off, retailers will have to decide if their floor space can be better used for something else, rather than a developing machine, with operator. > case I need them. > > When film use drops off, retailers will have to decide if their floor > space can be better used for something else, rather than a developing > machine, with operator. Again what do you think they are using to print digital images? Hint it's the same machine they are printing film with. I gotta laugh, the digiheads who think everyone is throwing out their film cameras! :-) SignatureStacey I gotta laugh, the digiheads > who think everyone is throwing out their film cameras! :-) Nobody thinks film cameras are being thrown out, they're just not being bought much any more. > > case I need them. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the same machine they are printing film with. I gotta laugh, the digiheads > who think everyone is throwing out their film cameras! :-) > I gotta laugh, the digiheads >> who think everyone is throwing out their film cameras! :-) > > Nobody thinks film cameras are being thrown out, they're just not being > bought much any more. LOL... SignatureStacey LOL only in your dreams I'm afraid. > > I gotta laugh, the digiheads > >> who think everyone is throwing out their film cameras! :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > LOL... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.