[rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers
- From: "austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx" <austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:16:17 -0500
Hi Jon,
I'm curious what's included in that $400 "film and processing" costs for
digital (and the $20k for film for that matter). It can't contain much
digital media, or storage, or computer to store them on or much of
anything. The cost of digital "film and processing" is largely masked by
claming you need those other things...but you *really* wouldn't need
terabytes of storage unless it were for the digital images.
Film is say $3/roll, and processing is $7/roll, including prints. If you
get rid of the print costs (which would be fair if you wanted to compare
apples to apples), it is $2/roll, so a total of $5/roll. At $20,000/year
divided by $5/roll that is 4000 rolls. Shooting 200 days of the year,
that's 20 rolls/day or 720 frames/day. For a total of 144,000 images/year.
Not impossible...but that's a lot of work.
144,000 images shot digitally (say with a 16M sensor) saying that the
images compressed are ~7M bytes each, that is near 1T byte of data. It can
be less though, depending on how much loss you want. If you want to save
16 bit raw, each image is 16M x 2 bytes/color x 3 colors or 96M
bytes/image. About 14T bytes of storage. To store 14T of images, you'd
need 28 500G drives at $150 each or $4200. You'd need a controller/SAN
(add another couple of thousand $$) and you still don't have any back-up,
but RAID would be a good idea. Then, you've got all the time you'd need to
spend dealing with all these files...and drives...
So, for raw-ish costs, OK, I buy that digital can appear to be cheaper, but
I don't believe that is an apples for apples comparison...if you factor in
the time needed to administrate the digital images/storage equipment, I
think it's closer to a wash.
Regards,
Austin
Original Message:
-----------------
From: jon.stanton@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:16:17 +0000
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE:
OT Ancient Computers
I have a friend/tax client whose tax returns I have prepared for years that
"converted" from film to digital. His film and processing costs dropped
from just over $20k to $400...he wondered why he owed taxes! (He refuses
to pay quarterly estimates) This is a guy that swore with his right hand on
the NYT (Holy Scripture in his mind) that he would NEVER -EVER go
digital...Then his clients required it...
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Austin,
> For the Motor racing Pros I know who send loads of files back to their
> magazines it is much cheaper, but more work. One told me he could save
> the cost of 5 new cameras per year in film costs alone. OTOH it is
> more work for them. In the old days at the end of practice they were
> the first to the beach, film stashed in a bag. Now they are straight
> to the pressroom to download.
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
