[rollei_list] Re: Scanning
- From: Don Williams <dwilli10@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:58:32 -0500
At 02:41 PM 10/16/2011, Eric Goldstein wrote:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 3:35 PM, David Sadowski
<<mailto:dsadowski@xxxxxxxxx>dsadowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (snipped)
But as to the "war" between film and digital, film lost that battle
years ago. Digital has so many advantages that it was simply no contest.
Your reasoning is analogous to saying that video "taping" won the
war with motion picture film. Anyone in the TV or film business
knows this is nonsense. Both methods have their uses, advantages and
disadvantages. Both are in use today in two separate segments of the
market. The same is also true for still digital versus film.
Somehow I once came up with a file size it takes to fully make a
digital copy of a Kodachrome slide. The number was only 24 Mb. At
that time it was, to me, a big number. Now it's main line.
A few years back while I still lived in La Jolla, we had a power
outage so I drove up to the local shopping center where a cub
reporter was putting on her makeup to do a live shot. I decided to
look into the truck and talk to the operator. I wanted to appear
knowledgeable so I said something like "I understand that even though
VHS has the consumer market, TV stations use some advanced form of Betamax".
He said "Not at all, this is all digital recording". I failed to ask
whether there was digital tape in the hand-held camera or just memory
chips. Of course, even now, TV systems, even the high-def types
don't do what top-of-the line digital cameras do now. Also, I just
bought my wife a new computer to replace her 10-year-old HP that
started with Windows 98 and was gradually upgraded to XP- I just
couldn't handle XP in a timely manner. Her new monitor is
self-adjusting and comes in at 1900 X 900, just fantastic.
I would guess that Richard Knoppow can give us a quick summary of
what directions things are going now since he works in the industry.
Getting back to film vs digital for commercial motion pictures, it's
clear to me that digital will win in the end. It costs about $2,500
to make a film copy of a standard movie, and about $500 to ship,
return, and insure it and that cost is for every screen. Digital can
be sent by satellite or other means and is encrypted so that it can't
be copied in it's primary form. I took on a little project for Lucas
a few years back and saw the same movie and in digital form. I
walked up to a couple of feet from the screens in both cases and it
was clear that the film version wasn't any better than the digital
display. The only downside is that, at least at that time, the
startup cost was around $150,000 per screen, surely that's down a lot
by now. TI was making a bundle on it's DLP systems at the time.
DAW
Other related posts:
