Perry Pellechia wrote: > 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:
Most people think whatever the promotional departments of large corporations tell them to think. If most people today feel that digital has replaced film how come, from the same article, "....film, which still accounts for the bulk of its profits...."? > > 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. It wasn't and they did. Modern digital picture technology bears little resemblance to that. > > > 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
