My point is that a decades ago people were saying digital cameras would never replace film. I do not think most people feel this way today. Read this story about the first digital image recorded by Kodak R&D labs 30 years ago:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261340/ Quoting from the article: "The image took 23 seconds to record onto the cassette and another 23 seconds to read off a playback unit onto a television. Then it popped up on the screen." Based on your logic they should have given up because this was not practical. On 10/7/06, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think there was ever much progress made by letting the > technology do the leading, whatever that means. This particular > instance seems to encompass the worst of all worlds. Multiple (it > doesn't say how many but I get the impression of many) moveable mirrors, > one pixel and an exposure time of, at the moment, 15 minutes, that they > expect to get down to "a few seconds". > > What happens if your single pixel goes "hot"? > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
