On 10/7/06, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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...."?
Because Kodak's digital profits are practically non-existent due to extreme company mismanagement. > > > > > 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. > Yes, the technology improved into a practical state. That was my point. Given time and innovative thinking technology leads to applications that we did not believe were possible. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
