Really Mafud!!
I think you are doing a good job of being Devil's advocate here.
> **Equivelent amount of "photorealistic" paper, ink cartridges and
> permanent (light tight) storage facilities?
I dont think anyone prints *all* their images and certainly don't store all
their archives in printed format - so this is a red herring. Indeed I would
say that for some digital image purposes printing is never a requirement.
And why would I need a light tight storage facility for ink jet paper?
> STORAGE?
> *If they store their images in or on cards, hard drives or tape, will the
> contemporary (circa 2001C.E.) playback devices be able to
> retrieve or even
> view their images?
> Remember, unless the owner is wealthy and can pay for off-(home) site
> storage, the storage problem alone becomes problematically
> exponential***.
> ***More storage, more retrieval equipment, more disc-card-drive
> investments,
> more cataloging and archiving costs, more room in absolute terms.
Valid points but I'll try to answer.
I've been in the IT industry since 1971 and if I were to have stored digital
images then (forget the lack of technology and storage capacity in those
days) I would have great difficulty reading the images now because all the
storage media from 1971 is obsolete. I can still use my negs and
transparencies from 1971.
First point to Mafud.
However, as the technology has changed I have always been able to transfer
digital data quickly and simply from one type of storage media to another.
For example, my data files stored on my first PC on 360kb 5.25 in floppy
disks in the early 80s were easily brought forward through the several
evolutions of PC upgrades and, were they still useful, would now be archived
on CDRom.
I currently archive scanned images on CDRom with ZIP disks as an
intermediary for editing and sorting. ( I still use film because the digital
cameras which offer me the same facilities as a 35mm film SLR are
ridiculously expensive ). CDRom offers the highest amount of storage per
penny at present, and is widely readable and compact and durable for
storage. I have no doubt that CDrom will eventually become obsolete but
this will not happen overnight. Whatever becomes the replacement preferred
method of digital storage will only do so because it offers better
facilities (bits per penny, etc.) than CDrom and I am confident that I will
at that stage be able to quickly and easily transfer my archives to that
media.
Validity of stored data. Yes I would have difficulty reading a Visicalc
file now. Digital images however are quite simple things and the formats
widely interchangeable between various imaging software.
Cost - well none of my PC equipment is bought exclusively for photographic
purposes (media and film scanner excepted)
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 27 February 2001 14:50
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: the cost of doing digital
>
>
> In a message dated 2/27/01 7:11:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << >If the digital version really takes off at $7000, I wonder:
> >Assuming the difference is the electronics making this so much more
> >expensive then the MZ-S, and realising how much electronics plummets in
> >price over time, I wonder if it would take something like 2
> years till it
> >reaches the price level of the MZ-S? >>
>
> I'm curious:
> *If the working lifetime of the new PENTAX digital CCD is 20 years:
> *Is the "average" small format owner willing to amortize the
> $7,000 @ $350
> year for 20 years?
> How much would the actual "savings" differential be for a person
> who shoots
> 20 rolls of film monthly?
> *For that same person, assuming they are *not* in business, thus *cannot*
> deduct the depreciation on their new digital body, what will it
> cost them**
> to produce the same amount of images as in 20 rolls of film?
> **Equivelent amount of "photorealistic" paper, ink cartridges and
> permanent
> (light tight) storage facilities?
>
> STORAGE?
> *If they store their images in or on cards, hard drives or tape, will the
> contemporary (circa 2001C.E.) playback devices be able to
> retrieve or even
> view their images?
> Remember, unless the owner is wealthy and can pay for off-(home) site
> storage, the storage problem alone becomes problematically
> exponential***.
> ***More storage, more retrieval equipment, more disc-card-drive
> investments,
> more cataloging and archiving costs, more room in absolute terms.
>
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
